By Request: Why the Catholic is NOT the Great Whore of Babylon.

[Gustave]

Okay. So, it sounds like you're basically bypassing the majority of those to focus on two points:

1. "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Revelation 11:8)

[Light Fox]

Wow, I come home from work and there's twenty new replies. Lot of sifting to do here.

Anyway, Gus, here's what I'm seeing in your most recent reply.

You spent the first portion posting verses showing that Jerusalem killed Christians and also Jesus Himself. I'm not entirely sure why, because I didn't disagree with that. What I disagreed with was that Revelation 11, even if you do insist (as it seems you do) is speaking about the whore, is not a literal passage to identify the city, but a passage describing, as it says, the spiritual qualities of it.

In order to make this "fit", you must harmonize two contradictory verses. One says that the whore rules over the kings of the earth, and gives this as a way to identify her. The other describes a spiritual estate, and while speaking of this says that the Lord was crucified there also.

Christ was not crucified in Rome, but Rome did quite extensively rule over the kings of the earth.

Christ was quite obviously crucified in Jerusalem, but Jerusalem did not rule over the kings of the earth at the time (or any time at all since that of David, if even then).

In order to make both verses fit the same city, you must spiritualize the meaning of one of them. You are choosing to spiritualize the one given in plain language to identify her (ruling over the kings of the earth), and take as literal the one that explicitly begins the description with the word "spiritually" (where our Lord was crucified). I do not consider that to be an honest or rational approach.

As far as Jerusalem being called Sodom, Gomorrah, and Egypt... not quite. Sodom and Gomorrah, yes. To say that telling her she committed fornication with Egypt is tantamount to being Egypt is absurd. Yes, you can stretch it and make it fit via the "one flesh" concept regarding fornication; by that logic, Jerusalem was also Assyria. But a stretch is what that is nonetheless, and frankly, it's one I'm disappointed to see you make. I really was hoping for something more solid from you, given some of what you opened with.

In either event, even if that is granted, you're still just making a case for Jerusalem as a contender, not Rome as a non contender. To do so, you're choosing (somewhat arbitrarily) to stop the spiritual descriptions after Egypt but before "where our Lord was crucified."

Regarding the whore and the beast, it seems we're still hitting a problem here. Yes, Jerusalem did indeed have a confederacy with pagan Rome; one that very quickly backfired, and ended in her being subjugated entirely by that same power before the New Testament narrative begins. All of this, I should mention, before Christ was even conceived, much less John's authorship of Revelation.

But the Scripture does not say that the beast got tired of the whore and did something about it. The Scripture says that ten kings who received power in one hour with the beast got tired of the whore, and did something about it. Where are those ten kings? Further, the Judeo-Roman alliance was a blip in the historical radar of Judaism; if anything, the Judeo-Assyrian alliance was a larger landmark, as it ended in the dispersion of ten out of twelve tribes.

The former is hardly mentioned outside of a background to why Rome was suddenly dominating Jerusalem in the New Testament accounts, with that factor of the relationship being the much more prominent. For Rome, however, the woman riding the state was so prominent of a factor that it went from the "Catholic Church" to the "Roman Catholic Church" as a result. There's really just no comparison here as to which one would illicit the imagery of a great whore riding the pagan Roman beast, and which one John's readership would understand him to mean.

It appears that your reply (correct me if I misunderstood your closing comments) to much of these specifics of the prophecy is essentially to say "Those parts aren't any of our business." I consider that a very weak defense for parts of a prophecy you can't harmonize with a viewpoint you are attempting to advance, especially when you are advancing it in opposition to one that can account for those parts.

At best, what I've seen from you in this presentation are attempts to show that Jerusalem could be the Whore, and perhaps fulfill some sort of dual application for John's time vs. the future. I have conceded that several of the passages could indeed be applied to both Rome or Jerusalem. I've yet to see you show why Jerusalem *must* be the whore of the two, or why Rome *cannot* be the whore of the two, as the title of the thread indicated.

The only possible exception to this is Revelation 11:8; a verse whose only link to the much-later introduced Babylon is it speaking of a "great city," and that explicitly states it is a spiritual description being given.

The only real ground I think we've gained so far is that we agree that Pagan Rome was the beast; that agreement was new information to me. That would raise some interesting questions indeed regarding the ten horns rising from it, because this could only be the Gothic divisions, and these only made war with the Papacy, not Jerusalem.

In any event, I'm not seeing anything really solid in your thesis here; the Scriptures you've listed can at best be applied to both, and the ones I've listed that Jerusalem cannot fulfill you've called "turning it into a rubik's cube" and declined to comment on.

As I said when I asked you to open this thread, I'm not really looking to publicly "bash" you, or "win a debate" as such. I was curious about what else you had to support this idea, as it was a new one to me, and whether or not there was any substantial merit to it.

I believe, from what I've seen so far, that my question has been answered to my satisfaction. Unless you have something new to show that would change the face of the discussion (and I'm interested if you do), I think I'm ready to conclude my side of the discussion with where we are at. Of course, if you want to make a closing summary of your views to rebut what I made above for the sake of our readers, that would be entirely in the interest of fairness.

I do appreciate you taking the time to open the thread and field my questions and objections - especially with almost two pages of off-topic comments in between (and at least one attempt at presenting a competing study). Thank you for that.

[Gustave]

Qineal, I'm going to post a video for you that might help you see where I'm coming from....

...It's fine to speculate on prophecy but when that speculation leads to the sort of hype Millerism produced.

...It has crossed the line.

I firmly believe when Jesus comes few will even be expecting it....

...For what it's worth feel free to watch the video - it's from an Eastern Orthodox Priest.

...So it's not Catholic - but it's fairly close to what I think is going to take place.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5932925362367103900#

[Pastor_Chick]

Gus and Q,

I just wanted to commend the both of you for your style of debate. I have not come away feeling mangled. While you hold to your points and beliefs tenaciously (which is to be expected), I sense no "spirit of abuse" on either side. Thank you for a refreshing discussion.

[Gustave]

There is no question that the way the Jewish nation ended in the first century (as you have documented) is a parallel to the even greater actions and "deadly wound received" of the RCC in later centuries.

The same principles as found in Matt 23 "upon you may come all of the guilt" that applied to the Jewish nation when it ended in the first century A.D -- ALSO applied to the RCC at the end of her dark ages period of extermination of the saints.

PS - Rome is called "The city of seven hills" to this very day.

A) Jerusalem, formally Rusalimum was initially built and controlled by the ancient Eqyptians in 3500 -5400 BC.

According to history within Scripture, Israelite history with Jerusalem begins approx 1000 BC.

These facts were well known by the Writers of Scripture.

Again, I rest my case with the words of Christ.

John 5,42

But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive

Jesus was addressing the "Jewish Religious Authority" and flat out tells them that they rejected Him....

...However another will come in his own name ( Antichrist ) and they ( Jewish Religious Authority ) would receive THAT GUY.

...Does it sound even logical that what's left of the Jewish religious authority.

...Would "receive" someone other than a Jew?

Those guys didn't think Jesus "obeyed the sabbath good enough".....

...So you think the same folks will accept someone pushing "Sunday".

...When that day is universally understood to be The Lord's Day ( as in Jesus' Day )?

...Come on!

[Overaged]

I firmly believe when Jesus comes few will even be expecting it....

This is quite true. I would be happy to agree with you on this point, because it is scriptural:

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

[Overaged]

Gustave; I would be curious to know if you gleaned the info in your first post here from the Roman Catholic Church? It seems that with most Catholics, when I try to discuss prophecy, they do not want to. Is that first post exactly how your Church would teach it? If so; where?

[Gustave]

Gustave; I would be curious to know if you gleaned the info in your first post here from the Roman Catholic Church? It seems that with most Catholics, when I try to discuss prophecy, they do not want to. Is that first post exactly how your Church would teach it? If so; where?

There were Fathers of the Catholic Church who taught the anti-Christ would be 'Jewish'.....

...And that apostate Judaism was the Great Whore of the Apocalypse.

...This view has not be granted De-fide status.

...It's simply private interpretation that I agree with.

Generally the Catholic Church does not spend much of it's time dwelling on Prophecy related to the end of days scenarios...

...For specific geographic locations or the world in general

....As it's something Christ Himself said was NONE-OF-OUR - BUSINESS.

There are several "ideas" of what the Apocalypse is within the Catholic Church...

...From my understanding all "can be believed" until something is De fide.

...After that a teaching on this subject can be believed provided it does not violate the De fide.

[BobRyan]

There is no question that the way the Jewish nation ended in the first century (as you have documented) is a parallel to the even greater actions and "deadly wound received" of the RCC in later centuries.

The same principles as found in Matt 23 "upon you may come all of the guilt" that applied to the Jewish nation when it ended in the first century A.D -- ALSO applied to the RCC at the end of her dark ages period of extermination of the saints.

PS - Rome is called "The city of seven hills" to this very day.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Gustave; I would be curious to know if you gleaned the info in your first post here from the Roman Catholic Church? It seems that with most Catholics, when I try to discuss prophecy, they do not want to. Is that first post exactly how your Church would teach it? If so; where?

There were Fathers of the Catholic Church who taught the anti-Christ would be 'Jewish'.....

...And that apostate Judaism was the Great Whore of the Apocalypse.

...This view has not be granted De-fide status.

...It's simply private interpretation that I agree with.

Generally the Catholic Church does not spend much of it's time dwelling on Prophecy related to the end of days scenarios...

...For specific geographic locations or the world in general

....As it's something Christ Himself said was NONE-OF-OUR - BUSINESS.

There are several "ideas" of what the Apocalypse is within the Catholic Church...

...From my understanding all "can be believed" until something is De fide.

...After that a teaching on this subject can be believed provided it does not violate the De fide.

You are stating exactly what I have noticed; that The Roman Catholic Church - atleast on an official/public basis, sees almost all prophecies as "private interpretations." When I have time to come back to the forum; maybe we could first discuss what the Bible definition of "private interpretation" is; and then see what the Bible actually says about prophecy? I would be very interested to do that with you. I don't want to use Ellen White or Church Father stuff; mostly to avoid the turmoil over whether our ideas are "scriptural" or not. How does this sound to you?

[Overaged]

3. The RCC is promoting a "brother alien" idea recently that connects with a whole host of spiritualist themes including those coming from the "Galactic Federation of Light".

in Christ,

Bob

Bob; may I ask where your source for this would be from?

[BobRyan]

My information comes from watching them do it on video.

1995

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MYCfq4uA7k&feature=player_embedded#at=29

That one example above from 1995 with Monsignor Corrado Balducci, a theologian member of the Vatican Curia, the governing body, and highly placed Vatican official who is close to the Pope has been on Italian Television five times stating that etraterrestrial contact is a real phenomena.

The RCC is notoriously slow on matters of science and religion preferring the old standby position rather than spearheading some new movement (like accepting Aliens).

But now they insist that the UFO alien phenomina is real, that they are certainly not demons, that they "evolve" as we supposedly did etc etc. Many observers are sitting up and asking why the Vatican is getting out in the front of this one. "What does the Vatican know that we don't know".

2009 Vatican on issues in theology with Alien life

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/v...ing_alien_life/

2008 Alien my Brother

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/b...stronomer_says/

Rome has now started its second and final step promoting spiritualism.

1. The first step was the "Communion of Saints" - prayers to the dead idea arguing that when we speak to them and when they appear to us - they are not demons.

2. The second step is with the "Brother Alien" agenda - also urging that these are not demons. That is going to be the "final agenda" for spiritualism in modern form.

Ellen White said "there will be lord's many and gods many" at the end of time as heathen deities display themselves "before the cities of the world".

And now we are seeing "fleets" of UFOs doing things like shutting down major airports world wide over the past two years and it has gotten to the point that even Mexico delivered an air force gun camera video to the US showing a fleet of UFOs on "display" in their skies in broad daylight and asking the US to disclose what we know about these events.

In most cases UFO sightings are in "display format". They are something hovering over populated areas with flashy lights as if they want not just to be seen but to be video taped!

Hint: That does not fit the profile of a black project carried on in as much secrecy as possible. It is either some incredibly advanced group here "false flaggng" or it is UFO. There is a former Canadian Ministry Of Defense all exited about this and telling as many people as will listen to wake up.

A great many sources from different contexts are all proclaiming that "disclosure" is right upon us.

Meanwhile - we "sleep".

in Christ,

Bob

[Overaged]

My information comes from watching them do it on video.

1995

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MYCfq4uA7k&feature=player_embedded#at=29

That one example above from 1995 with Monsignor Corrado Balducci, a theologian member of the Vatican Curia, the governing body, and highly placed Vatican official who is close to the Pope has been on Italian Television five times stating that etraterrestrial contact is a real phenomena.

The RCC is notoriously slow on matters of science and religion preferring the old standby position rather than spearheading some new movement (like accepting Aliens).

But now they insist that the UFO alien phenomina is real, that they are certainly not demons, that they "evolve" as we supposedly did etc etc. Many observers are sitting up and asking why the Vatican is getting out in the front of this one. "What does the Vatican know that we don't know".

2009 Vatican on issues in theology with Alien life

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/v...ing_alien_life/

2008 Alien my Brother

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/b...stronomer_says/

Rome has now started its second and final step promoting spiritualism.

1. The first step was the "Communion of Saints" - prayers to the dead idea arguing that when we speak to them and when they appear to us - they are not demons.

2. The second step is with the "Brother Alien" agenda - also urging that these are not demons. That is going to be the "final agenda" for spiritualism in modern form.

OK, thanks. I see what you are talking about now. I do know that whenever I press a catholic about this matter; their preferred line is that it is not "official teaching;" but, rather, "private doctrine."

[BobRyan]

A number of RC observers keep reminding us that at a certain level (like the Curia) you can get canned for saying something that is at odds with the official position of the church.

Quote:

Father Roy Bourgeois, a renown American Catholic priest, may soon be dismissed from the priesthood because he refuses to recant his personal view that women could be validly ordained as priests.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Catholi...-119759744.html

The idea that Priests can say whatever they want because it is not official doctrine does not go very far.

Even more so if they are Curia members going on TV about it - or if they are the official Vatican astronomer going to the press with doctrinal ideas about alien UFO phenomina not being demonic etc.

The impression I get is that when the RCC wants the world to know something or to know what the RCC is thinking - they say it through one of their top underlings.

When they want the world of Catholics to feel like it is "Catholic" to think something and "not Catholic" to oppose it - they have the Pope say it.

in Christ,

Bob

[Gustave]

Bob, "private doctrine" means exactly that - it's not De fide.....

...And provided the "private interpretation" does not violate something De fide.

...An individual is perfectly within their Christian freedom to believe it.

Perhaps prior to trying to harvest a truckload of straw on the video you posted....

...You would be better served to admit that your prophet Ellen also affirmed that E.T.'s exist.

...And said she communicated with them and they with her.

Ellen White was also explicit that her "Star Trek" revealed that the alien humanoids she contacted....

...Had the possibility of sinning and falling from God's favor.

...According to Ellen this alien species had not fallen when she communicated with them.

...But if they ate of their "tree" they would.

It does not take a rocket scientist to conclude an alien species which has lived "without sin" for who knows how long....

....Would be far more advanced in science and miliarty than planet earth.

....Perhaps these E.T.'s Ellen visited with could have fallen subsequent to Ellen's inspection of them.

....And the encounters people on earth have been reporting are in fact these E.T.'s Ellen talked with?

All this difficulty with the SDA rejection of the Creed can be boiled down to a simple fact...

...And that's SDA's don't view Christ as Diety in and of Himself.

several posts back ( in the creed thread )I quoted your prophet Ellen White - where she explicitly said....

...That God risked loosing His Son ETERNALLY and that this risk was realized PRIOR to Christ coming to earth ( Incarnation ).

...If Christ - PRIOR to Incarnation - risked His "FUTURE" eternal existence by accepting the 'assignment' to try and save humanity.

...That means had Christ failed "HE" ( Christ ) would CEASE TO EXIST from the point of failure into ETERNITY.

I've already demonstrated,according to SDA theology, Christ's Divinity was 100% The Father's "ON LOAN" to Christ....

...And you ( along with others here ) have the audacity to boldly affirm that Christ's Divinity was not subject to death.

...Thinking that somehow your affirmation is going to give you a "pass" for Orthodoxy in this area.

...It's too late for that because I know what you folks really mean by your statements.

...Is that Divinity CAN'T die because only The Father is Divine in the ultimate sense.

...So if Christ FAILED the Divinity "in Him" would simply go back to the Father.

...No More Christ but God's still around! ( somone give me a vomit bag )!

I hate to be the one to break it to you that Ellen's MULTIPLE affirmations that Christ was putting His FUTURE ETERNAL EXISTENCE at steak....

....PRIOR to leaving heaven to be born of the Blessed Virgin.

....Is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile with her statement that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Divinity to sink and die!!!

...Unless you pour-in the completely alien concepts of what and WHO The Son is.

Catholics immediately recognize that as "the teachings of Antichrist".

1 John 2,22

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son

If you accept that Jesus IS the Christ you must accept the following.

Ephesians 1,4

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children BY JESUS CHRIST to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will

This fundamental truth is repeated so many times in Sacred Scripture you should seriously take a step back...

...And gasp in outright horror at just where Ellen White's most maggoty anti Biblical teachings have stranded you.

...You are rejecting crystal clear Scriptures that even Martin Luther and your general run of the mill Fundie Baptist accept.

...I pray you eventually begin to realize the actual theological area you are in here.

You do realize that by rejecting that The Father PREDESTINED that Salvation would come THROUGH His Only Son......

....Is both rejecting The Father & The Son - it's a textbook rejection.

Instead of smelling the coffee you hop and skip over this issue I just described as if it were nothing.....

...And focus your energies on playing with Rubik's Cubes thinking you can solve the Book of the Apocalypse.

[Israfel]

Gus,

Scripture was not written for or against the Jewish Nation alone.

As Jesus said in regard to the Sabbath truth: "the Sabbath was made for MAN", so the Word was written, lived and died to save HUMANITY, yes to whoever will, come and drink or live by every word that proceed out of the mouth of God Almighty!

So the Scriptures were written for MAN.

When Adam sinned the remedy was proclaimed to rescue the "OFFSPRING" of Adam not only to himself or the Jews .

Babylon or the great whore ain't no Jewish system at all, why?

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day {day that Jesus should return} shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; [talking here of the Christian Church, no Jewish Church or a church.]

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thes.2:3,4 {Who did something like that from history?} All emphasis mine.

Please Gus, be honest to yourself and admitt that these verses are not talking about the Jews, whom from before Jesus died, told them that their house was left to them desolate...

and again history reveals that after a few years from Jesus went back to heaven, Jerusalem was overthrown and burned down.

Now where did they exalt themselves in God's Church even taking the place of God on earth? Isn't it the Pope that called himsel the vicar of Christ, even professing to forgive man their sins?

The man of sin named in 2 Thessalonians, the great whore is NO Jewish authority at ALL? Nonsense, nonsense! If you wish, I can show you that from the Holy Scripts.

[Gustave]

Gus,

Scripture was not written for or against the Jewish Nation alone.

[Overaged]

You have not yet described Adventist theology at all. You keep saying you did; but I keep waiting for "evidence" that is not out of context.

[John317]

...that Ellen White was about as anti-Trinitarian as it gets.

This is completely false. No anti-Trinitarian will talk about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as "the three holiest beings of heaven."

No anti-Trinitarian will say, either, that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person and the third person of the eternal Godhead. Ellen White taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct, divine Personages, all three of whom are "the fullness of the Godhead." She says that Christ is the eternal, omnipotant, self-existent Son of God.

Do you really believe that an Anti-Trinitarian would teach what she does in Evangelism 614-617? Please read what she says in those pages as well as in her many other statements on the topic.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

...And she is where SDA's get their incorrect ideas about the Sabbath & Apocalypse.

Your statement here only shows your lack of understanding of the history of the development of SDA doctrines. Virtually all of the SDA beliefs in regard to the Sabbath and the Apocalypse are held by other Christians, and they were held by Christians prior to the ministry of Ellen G. White.

[John317]

Ellen claimed that "in Christ was life original, unborrowed, eternal, etc....

...This "life" according the endless statements made by the Review and Hearald.

...Was the life force of the FATHER so if Christ died oh well -the life goes back to the Father & we still have God around.

It's time you folks step up to the plate and face the music....

What she said was that "in Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived." DA 530. It's a statement that no anti-Trinitarian would utter with understanding.

Since Christ's life is original with Himself, and since His life is not derived from anyone outside of Himself-- including the Father-- it is absolutely impossible for the life of the pre-existent Christ to have come from the Father.

As far as statements in the Review and Herald are concerned, please remember that not everything published in that paper is representative of SDA beliefs as currently held by the SDA church. Some articles are the views and opinions of their authors, and this is particularly so when it comes to the understanding of the church with respect to the nature of God and the Trinity.

[Overaged]

As far as statements in the Review and Herald are concerned, please remember that not everything published in that paper is representative of SDA beliefs as currently held by the SDA church. Some articles are the views and opinions of their authors, and this is particularly so when it comes to the understanding of the church with respect to the nature of God and the Trinity.

[John317]

...

Ellen White

Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost, and the world that God created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus, and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon his countenance. Soon I saw him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, "He is in close converse with his Father." The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with his Father. Three times he was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time he came from the Father we could see his person; and his countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with loveliness, such as words cannot express. He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that he had been pleading with his Father, and had obtained his consent to give his life a ransom, to bear their sins, and take the sentence of death upon himself to open a way that man might find pardon for transgressing God's command

That's at odd's with the Bible, friend...

...It's at odd's a whole bunch.

...Because the Bible says Christ was chosen long prior to the world being created!

...1 Peter 1,20

You need to read everything Ellen White says on the topic. Ellen White taught that "Christ was given to die before the foundation of the world" (TM 264). She wrote much more on the topic, in complete agreement with 1 Peter 1: 20, in 6 SDA BC 1082 (1957 edition).

Originally Posted By: Gustave

The teaching of the Bible is that it was "THE FATHER'S WILL" that we be saved in Christ...

...Jesus completed the work "THE FATHER" sent Him to do.

...Jesus said in talking to His Father NOT MY WILL BUT YOURS.

And Ellen trys to pass that of as a vision. Gimme a break!

Again, if you really read Ellen White's writings, you will see that she does not contradict this. Of course it was the Father's will. She could not have been plainer about this than she was in the book, Desire of Ages, pages 22, 685-696.

[Kountzer]

Some weird dish is put on this board.

[Overaged]

Again, if you really read Ellen White's writings, you will see that she does not contradict this. Of course it was the Father's will. She could not have been plainer about this than she was in the book, Desire of Ages, pages 22, 685-696.

I am pretty sure Gus is copying some "apologetics" materials. This is why I have questioned him about what his own church teaches about our church. Even they would not *officially* support what he is trying to say here.

[Gustave]

What she said was that "in Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived." DA 530. It's a statement that no anti-Trinitarian would utter with understanding.

Since Christ's life is original with Himself, and since His life is not derived from anyone outside of Himself-- including the Father-- it is absolutely impossible for the life of the pre-existent Christ to have come from the Father.