- This topic has 1,500 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 11 2010,16:33) Hi Lu, And what have you learnt from Ignatius that you could not have learnt from Scriptures?
And what have you learnt from Ignatius that another has not disputed?The teachings of these others is for the ones at that time – that is why there is so much controversy over what they said or didn't say, did or didn't do and therefore each can pick from their teaching what they like – hence – everything is at loggerheads with everything … everything one person says about Ignatius can be refuted by another, even another who thinks that that is not what Ignatius MEANT when he wrote “x” or “y”.
For this reason, I put no faith nor trust in such writings. It is for 'personal' use only (IMO) to develop one's Personal idea but not to expouse as Gospel to another.
say Ignatius said he believed that Jesus was an Angel. Well, believe or refute as you like. Then say, “I believe Jesus was/was not an Angel”, but not “I believe …because Ignatius said this or that”
This latter is like hiding behind a stone wall and claiming to be showing yourself – no, you are behind a wall.
You would be hiding behind Ignatius – I don't want to hear what Ignatius said – I want to hear what YOU say – What You believe.
JA,
My beliefs are in several topics publicly displayed. Seek and you will find
Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 11 2010,16:49) All, This is all I have to say – on this thread.
I used to be a big supporter of the Early Church Father's, Nick would say “The Apostasy started early” I would say “No that's not true Nick'.
Reading here has completly put me off, there is so much anger, words have completly lost their meaning,
Now I know how other's felt when I would give them the Early Church Father's and say [demand] “read this”, I would say their beliefs are wrong and I would hold what I had given them higher than scripture. I hadn't even read the Epistles of Paul at the time. They would respond with all they need to know is in scripture, I wasn't satisfied with that, like a drug, they're always had to be more, better, the first is always the best, then you are continuously chasing but never get it again because everything starts disagreeing with the first, and nothing makes sense. So I believe Nick was right. And my Family. The earliest writing is scripture, Weren't the Authors John, James and Peter, all Disciples of Christ.
Believing is faith, we don't need to know everything. I also have faith that what God put together for us, the scriptures, are protected by Him, the witness of the coming Kingdom taken throughout the world before the end. As Jesus said.
The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, prophecy has to do with what is happening, what will happen, not what has been. The Holy Spirit is what leads people to truth, and in it's own time, We can never comprehend God or the pre-existent word because we are only Human. That is why the word came in the flesh, so we could understand. And that is the simple truth which scripture says.
Mike, wasn't it you who's first post on the forum said – KISS [keep it simple stupid], to accept thing's as a child, I told you that was the best thing Id ever read here.
Hi Shimmer,
You are writing from the perspective of you. What you don't realize is that I have been posting, up until recently when you mentioned Ignatius, without concern for early church fathers. I had not studied them. I had, over the years, developed my understanding by seeking the Holy Spirit through Bible reading. I explained my understanding on here by using terms like “begotten God” “unbegotten God” “having the same nature as God” “God begat God, man begat man” “womb of God” “spirit type of body” “firstborn of all creation to have the sense of the first fruit of the Father” etc. It wasn't till recently that I found all these terms used exactly or close to exactly in Ignatius and Tertullian and other's writings. Obviously I have a very different perspective from you. I was elated to find this kind of agreement.We are obviously different and that is good but you don't have to poo poo the church father's writings just because they confuse you. They confirm what I have believed God to be doing in my life. I will continue to confirm what I read from the church father's with the scriptures. Maybe it is the place that we are in each of our walk. I started only with scripture and then sought confirmation on HN but then we can't get past anything here. Finally, I feel like we can move on, if we are honest, by looking at the early disciples. Can you see this?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,17:00) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,07:27) I wouldn't dismiss the words of the early true disciples of Christ because they can explain the culture of the times and reflect general understandings of the words of their mentors with far more accuracy than we can.
KathiYou say all this but yet you dismiss most of what the Trinitarian Fathers teach. You deny that they believe as you do when you reject their teaching that there is “One Divine Being” consisting of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
Even Ignatius believed in the three and preached that the Holy Spirit is a seperate person of the Godhead.
You pick and choose what you want and then distort what they really meant.
Your claim that they believed like you as far as Jesus being begotten is ambiguous at best because to be begotten does not always mean “Procreate”, and in fact not once do I know of did they ever use the word “Procreate” in reference to the Father and Jesus.
And even if they believed he is begotten before the ages or time it still does not interpret to God bringing birth to another being called God, does it?
WJ
Keith,
I believe in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit but differently than the doctrine of the trinity. Therefore I can't say that I am a trinitarian. I do believe that I am a Christian so obviously, I think our understanding of the relationship of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit does not have to be in complete agreement since we can only see dimly now. My frustration with religious people is their dogmatic approach to the trinity doctrine when no one can see clearly yet.you said:
Quote Even Ignatius believed in the three and preached that the Holy Spirit is a seperate person of the Godhead. You did not put your source for that, would you mind doing so?
When you say “one Divine being consisting of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.” I would rather say “the Father, Son consisting of the same nature and united in the Holy Spirit of God.”
Now, could you agree with my statement that I would rather say?
Hi JA, Shimmer, Kathi and All,
I totally understand what JA and Shimmer are saying about secular sources. But JA, you have been posting in the Alpha and Omega thread. RM cited Rev 1:11 from the KJV,
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Now verse 13 makes it clear that the person speaking in verse 11 is Jesus. So I was stumped because I knew that couldn't be right. Then I noticed that only a handful of the translations have that bolded part above. What to do? Could I answer this riddle ONLY WITH SCRIPTURE? Or was it okay to research it a bit and see what secular info I could find? Well, you know what I did, I'm sure. I researched it and found out that when the KJV was translated, they had a limited selection of Greek manuscripts to translate from. We have since discovered older and older mss, and it turns out that those words aren't in the older ones. They were added to later mss by scribes – at least that's the general concensus.
That's why the newer Bibles don't have those words in them – even the admittedly pro trinity versions. And you know if there was the slightest chance of those words being legit that they would all jump at the chance to include them to help support their trinity belief.
The point of this story is that nobody can claim to ONLY NEED SCRIPTURE. What if the translation is biased as in this case I just mentioned? After all JA, any Bible you read was translated by mere men. And the above is a case in point that these mere men were not flawless.
After a brief intermission, I'll conclude with why this applies to the early church fathers.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (JustAskin @ Aug. 12 2010,08:48) Mike, I accept your apology.
Hi JA,How gracious of you.
While by now I have become accustomed to being talked down to by you, I should have continued turning the other cheek. I let the evil one in for a minute, and I am truly sorry for the things I said.peace and love,
mikeHi All,
Now for part 2 of “Secular Information”.
Here's what it all comes down to for me. The Bible says Jesus was begotten before all things. It says he is the only begotten Son of God. The trinitarians do not want that to mean LITERALLY begotten, for that would bring their empire crashing down with one punch. So they must invent new meanings for “yalad” and “monogenes”.
JA does not want Jesus to be LITERALLY begotten, for that would bring his “Satan is God's REAL firstborn” theory crashing down as well.
But what to do? The actual words of the scriptures are getting in the way of your “WANTS”.
Here come the early church fathers to the rescue. I don't know how to say this any clearer than I've said it a hundred times:
I don't personally care WHAT the early church fathers believed and don't expect any of you to.
But when you start adding up these ancient biblical scholars, NONE OF WHOM seemed to think the scriptures implied that Jesus was raised from the dead to the “postion” or “title” of only begotten Son of God, then you gotta ask yourself this:
How do I KNOW that those words that actually MEAN begotten were used in a more abstract way and don't really mean begotten when applied to Jesus?
And this is what I've been asking for………PROOF. If nothing else, at least some kind of inkling as to how you can just “imagine” these words didn't really mean what their definitions clearly are.
So for KJ and WJ, could you maybe find a chuch father that actually thought that Jesus was begotten at any other time except “before the world” or “before all the ages”? Could you find one that thought the “Today” Paul quoted should be taken as “the day Jesus was raised is the day he was “begotten”?
And for JA, could you SCRIPTURALLY show me why these words don't mean what their definitions and usage throughout the Bible clearly indicate that they DO mean? (JA, you can take some extra time because I know you still have to figure out why Jesus said he was the Almighty in Rev 1:11. What?…….you can't use the fruits of my secular research, can you? That would be sort of like you admitting that sometimes secular info can help you to understand scripture. So, I'll watch the Alpha and Omega thread, and see how you explain “Jesus the Almighty”.)
You guys have your missions……..this post will self-destruct in 60 seconds.
peace and love,
mikeMike,
Did you see what i wrote to kathi…
External study is not “OUTLAWED” by me – It is the continuous reference as if they are Gospel: “Fred, down the local cider bar, said that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene and he showed me in the scriptures 'this proof' and that proof'!”.
Telling everyone what “Fred” said carries no swing, isn't that something like Anecdotal? Take of what “Fred” said, yes, if you like, BUT make it your own, say your own: “I believe that Jesus [could have been]/[was] married to Mary Magdelene” because of 'this proof' or 'that proof'”
Scriptures is not anecdotal, it is qualified by a host of eminent persons as the word of Him and the testimony of he whom He sent and having sent – received back in triumphal glory as a begotten Son of God – the perfect exemplary “Son” to lead Mankind to also become follow-on exemplary “Begotten Sons”, and as Sons of God, Brother of Christ and as Brothers Heirs with him to the Kingdom of God.
When Jesus and the Disciples quote from the Scriptures, did they say, “Xyz said…” or did they say “It say in this place or that place, this… or that…”?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 12 2010,09:00) Even Ignatius believed in the three and preached that the Holy Spirit is a seperate person of the Godhead. You pick and choose what you want and then distort what they really meant.
Your claim that they believed like you as far as Jesus being begotten is ambiguous at best because to be begotten does not always mean “Procreate”, and in fact not once do I know of did they ever use the word “Procreate” in reference to the Father and Jesus.
Hi Keith,I'll second Kathi's request for the link where you got that info about Ignatius.
And I would like you to show how either Kathi or I have “distorted” the thoughts of the early church fathers.
Finally, could you show me where an early church father thought Jesus was begotten only in “title” or “postition”? Or maybe a scripture that has the word “yalad” used and doesn't have to do with childbirth? Or “monogenes” for that matter.
mike
Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 12 2010,10:24) Mike, Did you see what i wrote to kathi…
External study is not “OUTLAWED” by me – It is the continuous reference as if they are Gospel: “Fred, down the local cider bar, said that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene and he showed me in the scriptures 'this proof' and that proof'!”.
Telling everyone what “Fred” said carries no swing, isn't that something like Anecdotal? Take of what “Fred” said, yes, if you like, BUT make it your own, say your own: “I believe that Jesus [could have been]/[was] married to Mary Magdelene” because of 'this proof' or 'that proof'”
Scriptures is not anecdotal, it is qualified by a host of eminent persons as the word of Him and the testimony of he whom He sent and having sent – received back in triumphal glory as a begotten Son of God – the perfect exemplary “Son” to lead Mankind to also become follow-on exemplary “Begotten Sons”, and as Sons of God, Brother of Christ and as Brothers Heirs with him to the Kingdom of God.
When Jesus and the Disciples quote from the Scriptures, did they say, “Xyz said…” or did they say “It say in this place or that place, this… or that…”?
Hi JA,Actually, they said “It is written” alot.
And why would you compare Fred at the bar with Eusebius, who was thought to be the greatest Greek teacher and most learned theologian of his day? Isn't that apples and oranges? But that's beside the point anyway.Don't you find it weird that only you KJ and WJ seem to think Jesus was not LITERALLY begotten? Can you show me where “begotten” didn't mean “childbirth”? I know of only two, both said by Paul. Would you like to discuss why these two instances of “gennao” that are clearly used metaphorically are enough to sway you to think Jesus was metaphorically begotten by God? And you are mistaken when you think Peter says were are begotten of God. It is a different word that means “begotten AGAIN”. That word is NEVER used of Jesus.
Let's talk it out in a point by point manner and try to get to the bottom of this disagreement.
mike
Kathi,
Seeing that you have assumed the responsibility to explain yourself I will apologize for charging you with inferring that God is bisexual in the sense of being a hermaphrodite. I apologize because I want to foster understanding.
Please note that Keith and I have not threatened you for your false accusation that we are dishonest and “pretend” to be Trinitarians. We know it gets tuff doing this and we realize that if we play with the boys we must be tuff like the boys.
As for Tertullian you again cite fragments out of their historical context. Note what he said:
Quote We … believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation… that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made.
http://www.reformation21.org/miscell….eri.phpNote that Tertullian said that God had a Son “UNDER THE FOLLOWING DISPENSATION.”
This was called the “Economical Trinity.”
Quote Like the Apologists, Tertullian posited a two-stage existence in the Word: First as immanent within the Father, then as expressed at the Son's generation: There are some who allege that even Genesis opens thus in Hebrew: “In the beginning God made for Himself a Son.” As there is no ground for this, I am led to other arguments derived from God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone – being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call logos, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suita ble to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even before the beginning; because also Word itself consists of Reason, which it thus proves to have been the prior existence as being its own substan ce…. He became also the Son of God and was begotten when He proceeded forth from Him (from chs. 5,7).
Note the language used:
1. Two stage existence in the Word as immanent with God and then as expressed at the Son's generation. The Word CLEARLY preexisted His becoming Son for Tertullian!
2. The Son is derived from “God's own dispenstaion.”
3. God was never alone but possessed His own Reason the Word.
4. The word was “more ancient” in relation to the beginning (that is, He was before the beginning).
5. The Word became ALSO the Son of God.”
THE SON CAME FROM THE FATHER'S HEART (“WOMB”) AS A RESPONSE TO OUR SIN! BUT THE WORD HIMSELF WAS ALWAYS WITH GOD. THE SON IS WHAT THE WORD BECAME TO CARRY OUT THE PLAN OF REDEMPTION!
Now please let's get back to scripture! Isaiah 43:10 says that no God came into being before or AFTER God. The LXX uses the word “ginomai” from which the word “gennao” (begotten) is derived. Therefore, there was no God begotten before or AFTER God!
I am done talking the fathers with you.
I have apologized. If it is not good enough then go ahead and report me!
the Roo
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,17:39) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,17:00) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,07:27) I wouldn't dismiss the words of the early true disciples of Christ because they can explain the culture of the times and reflect general understandings of the words of their mentors with far more accuracy than we can.
KathiYou say all this but yet you dismiss most of what the Trinitarian Fathers teach. You deny that they believe as you do when you reject their teaching that there is “One Divine Being” consisting of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
Even Ignatius believed in the three and preached that the Holy Spirit is a seperate person of the Godhead.
You pick and choose what you want and then distort what they really meant.
Your claim that they believed like you as far as Jesus being begotten is ambiguous at best because to be begotten does not always mean “Procreate”, and in fact not once do I know of did they ever use the word “Procreate” in reference to the Father and Jesus.
And even if they believed he is begotten before the ages or time it still does not interpret to God bringing birth to another being called God, does it?
WJ
Keith,
I believe in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit but differently than the doctrine of the trinity. Therefore I can't say that I am a trinitarian. I do believe that I am a Christian so obviously, I think our understanding of the relationship of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit does not have to be in complete agreement since we can only see dimly now. My frustration with religious people is their dogmatic approach to the trinity doctrine when no one can see clearly yet.you said:
Quote Even Ignatius believed in the three and preached that the Holy Spirit is a seperate person of the Godhead.
You did not put your source for that, would you mind doing so?When you say “one Divine being consisting of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.” I would rather say “the Father, Son consisting of the same nature and united in the Holy Spirit of God.”
Now, could you agree with my statement that I would rather say?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,17:39) My frustration with religious people is their dogmatic approach to the trinity doctrine when no one can see clearly yet.
KathiHow about showing some understanding with those that call Jesus their God and worship him? It seems you have more patience for those who do not see Jesus as their God and who do not worship him but rather makes him into a mere man.
But I know what you mean, I feel the same frustration because of the religious dogmatic views of the “Anti Trins”.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,17:39) When you say “one Divine being consisting of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.” I would rather say “the Father, Son consisting of the same nature and united in the Holy Spirit of God.”
Of course you would, which is a total denial of Jesus own words who speaks of the Spirit as “Another” and the writings of the Apostles including the Forefathers.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,17:39) You did not put your source for that, would you mind doing so?
Ignatius to the PhiladelphiansFor as the false prophets and the false apostles drew [to themselves] one and the same wicked, deceitful, and seducing spirit; so also did the prophets and the apostles receive from God, through Jesus Christ, “one and the same Holy Spirit, who is good, and sovereign, and true, and the Author of [saving] knowledge. For there is one God of the Old and New Testament, “one Mediator between God and men,” for the creation of both intelligent and sensitive beings, and in order to exercise a beneficial and suitable providence [over them]. “There is also one Comforter, who displayed His power in Moses, and the prophets, and apostles.
“Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, “and of the Holy Ghost“.” All then are good together, the law, the prophets, the apostles, the whole company of others that have believed through them: only if we love one another.
Letter to Ephesus
“But the Holy Spirit does not speak His own things, but those of Christ, and that not from himself, but from the Lord; even as the Lord also announced to us the things that He received from the Father. For, says He, “the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father's, who sent Me. And says He of the Holy Spirit, He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever things He shall hear from Me. And He says of Himself to the Father, “I have,” says He, “glorified Thee upon the earth ; I have finished the work which, Thou gavest Me; I have manifested Thy name to men. “And of the Holy Ghost, “He shall glorify Me, for He receives of Mine.
Most all of the early Fathers mentions the Holy Spirit as a third person and uses personal pronouns in refering to him.
WJ
Hey Jack,
Your post is to Kathi, but I couldn't help but see this:
that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself,
First as immanent within the Father, then as expressed at the Son'sgeneration:
And your dude's explanation basically says God was alone by Himself, except for his thoughts. And those “thoughts” were generated into His Son. It's like saying that if I'm alone on a desert island, I'm not really alone because “my thoughts” are with me. So the Son as a being wasn't really eternal, but the “thought” in God's mind was eternal?
And the real reason I'm even jumping in here is because I just couldn't resist this:
Quote Now please let's get back to scripture! Isaiah 43:10 says that no God came into being before or AFTER God. The LXX uses the word “ginomai” from which the word “gennao” (begotten) is derived. Therefore, there was no God begotten before or AFTER God! NOW you want to use “ginomai” and “gennao” as LITERALLY BEGOTTEN?
Too funny, man.mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2010,18:23) So they must invent new meanings for “yalad” and “monogenes”.
You need to check with Paul and the Apostles Mike.Paul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews and spoke Hebrew and was closer to Jesus and the LXX than any of the early Fathers, and he gives examples of the word Begotten “Yalad” or “gennao” a different meaning than you say.
Why do you keep denying this and making your false claims as if they are unambiguous?
Not to mention the Apostles quoted Pss 2:7 in light of his resurrection. I would rather believe them than your false claims.
You are accusing them of reinventing the word when it is you that is doing that because yours and Kathi’s definition of “Beget” or begotten is not at all like a literal begetting as a Father and a Mother having sex and bringing birth to another being by procreation is it?
The Trinitarian Forefathers didn't believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were “Three beings”, did they? One God from another God.
Heck if God can reproduce himself than that would mean that he is not infinite wouldn't it? Because he can become greater the more Sons that he brings birth to.
Your definition is more in line with Greek Mythology that teaches God begets Gods which is an “oxymoron”.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2010,18:54) Don't you find it weird that only you KJ and WJ seem to think Jesus was not LITERALLY begotten?
Wrong.Everyone that I know of here except for Irene does not believe that he was begotten (born) before the ages or time.
WJ
Hi WJ,
You said:
Quote You need to check with Paul and the Apostles Mike. Paul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews and spoke Hebrew and was closer to Jesus and the LXX than any of the early Fathers, and he gives examples of the word Begotten “Yalad” or “gennao” a different meaning than you say.
Show me.You said:
Quote Not to mention the Apostles quoted Pss 2:7 in light of his resurrection. I would rather believe them than your false claims.
Then why do none of the early church fathers seem to think that Jesus was “begotten” when he was raised? It's only the three J's that think this on HN, and I've just recently posted your ulterior motives.You said:
Quote You are accusing them of reinventing the word when it is you that is doing that because yours and Kathi’s definition of “Beget” or begotten is not at all like a literal begetting as a Father and a Mother having sex and bringing birth to another being by procreation is it?
Okay then, let's go scripture by scripture starting with “yalad”, then on to “monogenes” and finally “gennao” and see what context the scriptures use these words in. I'll give you a hint; Kathi, I and the church fathers have it right. But let's do it. In fact, instead of me listing the 499 mentions of “yalad”, most of which mean childbirth, why don't you start with the first mention of it you can find that DOESN'T mean childbirth, and we'll go from there. Oh yeah, and make sure it's one that's right next to a sentence that says “You are my Son”.You said:
Quote The Trinitarian Forefathers didn't believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were “Three beings”, did they? One God from another God.
I don't know and don't really care. But they all seem to think the Son proceeded FROM the Father after the Father was already existent. Why do you think that is considering the Son wasn't “begotten” until he was raised from the dead?You said:
Quote Heck if God can reproduce himself than that would mean that he is not infinite wouldn't it? Because he can become greater the more Sons that he brings birth to.
And therein lies the truth. God didn't reproduce “Himself” did He? He begat a Son before the world was created.mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 12 2010,11:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2010,18:54) Don't you find it weird that only you KJ and WJ seem to think Jesus was not LITERALLY begotten?
Wrong.Everyone that I know of here except for Irene does not believe that he was begotten (born) before the ages or time.
WJ
Oh but you misunderstood. Who here thinks he wasn't actually literally begotten, but instead raised to a “postition” of “begotten”?Some think he was REALLY begotten by God and Mary.
Some thing he was SPIRITUALLY begotten of God at the Jordan.
Only the three J's think he was given the “title” of “begotten Son of God” when he was raised from the dead.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 12 2010,11:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2010,18:54) Don't you find it weird that only you KJ and WJ seem to think Jesus was not LITERALLY begotten?
Wrong.Everyone that I know of here except for Irene does not believe that he was begotten (born) before the ages or time.
WJ
Mike,It's about what the scripture says and not what everyone else believes. Most here do not have an education anyway.
the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 12 2010,12:09) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 12 2010,11:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2010,18:54) Don't you find it weird that only you KJ and WJ seem to think Jesus was not LITERALLY begotten?
Wrong.Everyone that I know of here except for Irene does not believe that he was begotten (born) before the ages or time.
WJ
Mike,It's about what the scripture says and not what everyone else believes. Most here do not have an education anyway.
the Roo
Hi Jack,Although I think that was a harsh thing to say, I get the point. I'm just wondering why none of the early church “fathers” thought like you about Jesus being given the title of only begotten when he was raised? They all must have read Paul's quotes of Ps 2, right?
Why didn't any of them think of it the way you, WJ and JA do? Why didn't they think that was the “Today” that he was “begotten”?
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
