Defining and setting the terms

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 20 posts - 161 through 180 (of 249 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #206227
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    WorshippingJesus said:

    Quote
    Paul also called Jesus the “Rock” that followed the children of Israel in the wilderness. 1 Cor 10:4


    Keith,

    The “Rock” begat (yalad) Israel when He delivered them out of Egypt.

    And the ESV which is based in older manuscripts says that it was Jesus who saved the people out of Egypt

    5Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved[a] a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. (Jude 5).

    Did the preincarnate Jesus have “reproductive strength” in the sense that Kathi says of the Father?

    Jack

    #206231

    Kathi

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,18:47)
    He didn't say the I and the Father “am” one.


    No that would be improper english.

    But he did say I and the Father “are one” not “are one” in unity.

    But he also said he was the “I am”, didn't he?

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,18:47)
    I believe in unity within the Godhead.  The beginning that I believe in is the beginning of a separate person than the Father.  Most early Christians believe that the separate person had a beginning in His separateness.  His eternal substance could very well be within a seed in the Father which bore the future fruit of a separate person…a son during eternity.


    You can believe what you want but none of what you just said is supported by scriptures.

    WJ

    #206232

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,19:30)
    Eventually there is a source, someone un-begotten.


    Kathi

    He is the “begotten Son” because he emptied himself and came in the flesh.

    Or did you forget that part?

    Scriptures do not support Jesus begetting before the ages, that is merely conjecture!

    WJ

    #206234

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,19:32)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 26 2010,18:09)

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,17:55)
    I believe all that but I also believe that scriptures support the Son being the firstborn over all creation and that firstborn created all things in heaven and on earth.


    Kathi

    Ambiguous, for the term “firstborn” in relation to Jesus simply means he has the preeminence and is the Son of the Promise like Isaac.

    He is also the firstborn from the dead, does that mean he was literraly born from death or the first to rise from the dead, or is it more like he has the preeminece over all those who rise from the dead for he is the resurrection and the life.

    He is also the firstborn of many brethren, does that mean he was a man before he came in the flesh or does it mean that he has the preeminence over the adopted sons?

    WJ


    He was the firstborn of many brethren in that He was the first to be born from the dead to everlasting life.


    Jesus was the resurection and the Life so how could he have been born to everlasting life?

    Jesus said whoever lived and believed in him would never die.

    Do you think that promise didn't apply to him?

    Death is not ceasing to exist. Jesus Spirit never died for he was the “Eternal life” that was with the Father in the beginning.

    WJ

    #206236
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,02:38)
    Kathi

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,18:47)
    He didn't say the I and the Father “am” one.


    No that would be improper english.

    But he did say I and the Father “are one” not “are one” in unity.

    But he also said he was the “I am”, didn't he?

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,18:47)
    I believe in unity within the Godhead.  The beginning that I believe in is the beginning of a separate person than the Father.  Most early Christians believe that the separate person had a beginning in His separateness.  His eternal substance could very well be within a seed in the Father which bore the future fruit of a separate person…a son during eternity.


    You can believe what you want but none of what you just said is supported by scriptures.

    WJ


    Keith,

    Kathi says, “I believe” while you say, “the scripture says.” This is telling isn't it?

    Jack

    #206238
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    WorshippingJesus said:

    Quote
    Death is not ceasing to exist. Jesus Spirit never died for he was the “Eternal life” that was with the Father in the beginning.


    Keith,

    You speak the truth brother! The scripture says that Jesus was “put to death in the flesh but quickened in the spirit (small “s”). In His spirit He did not and could not die. Jesus went down to hades ALIVE as Jonah went into the belly of the fish ALIVE. The belly of the fish was likened to being in hades (Jonah 2:1-2).

    Jack

    #206310
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 27 2010,10:59)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,02:38)
    Kathi

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,18:47)
    He didn't say the I and the Father “am” one.


    No that would be improper english.

    But he did say I and the Father “are one” not “are one” in unity.

    But he also said he was the “I am”, didn't he?

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,18:47)
    I believe in unity within the Godhead.  The beginning that I believe in is the beginning of a separate person than the Father.  Most early Christians believe that the separate person had a beginning in His separateness.  His eternal substance could very well be within a seed in the Father which bore the future fruit of a separate person…a son during eternity.


    You can believe what you want but none of what you just said is supported by scriptures.

    WJ


    Keith,

    Kathi says, “I believe” while you say, “the scripture says.” This is telling isn't it?

    Jack


    Acts 8:37
    37 [And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]
    NASU

    I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God too :)

    #206322

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 27 2010,15:55)

    Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 27 2010,10:59)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,02:38)
    Kathi

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,18:47)
    He didn't say the I and the Father “am” one.


    No that would be improper english.

    But he did say I and the Father “are one” not “are one” in unity.

    But he also said he was the “I am”, didn't he?

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,18:47)
    I believe in unity within the Godhead.  The beginning that I believe in is the beginning of a separate person than the Father.  Most early Christians believe that the separate person had a beginning in His separateness.  His eternal substance could very well be within a seed in the Father which bore the future fruit of a separate person…a son during eternity.


    You can believe what you want but none of what you just said is supported by scriptures.

    WJ


    Keith,

    Kathi says, “I believe” while you say, “the scripture says.” This is telling isn't it?

    Jack


    Acts 8:37
    37 [And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]
    NASU

    I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God too :)


    Kathi

    That we can agree on! :D

    WJ

    #206326
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 28 2010,07:55)

    Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 27 2010,10:59)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,02:38)
    Kathi

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,18:47)
    He didn't say the I and the Father “am” one.


    No that would be improper english.

    But he did say I and the Father “are one” not “are one” in unity.

    But he also said he was the “I am”, didn't he?

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,18:47)
    I believe in unity within the Godhead.  The beginning that I believe in is the beginning of a separate person than the Father.  Most early Christians believe that the separate person had a beginning in His separateness.  His eternal substance could very well be within a seed in the Father which bore the future fruit of a separate person…a son during eternity.


    You can believe what you want but none of what you just said is supported by scriptures.

    WJ


    Keith,

    Kathi says, “I believe” while you say, “the scripture says.” This is telling isn't it?

    Jack


    Acts 8:37
    37 [And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]
    NASU

    I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God too :)


    Christ died for our sins according to the scripture. He was buried according to the scripture. He rose again the third day according to the scripture.

    Whether or not Kathi believes this is not the issue.

    the Roo

    #206330
    JustAskin
    Participant

    Have the terms been defined and set yet?

    [Moderator]

    #206332
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Here is a little answer to Islam regarding the begotten Son.  It seems that WJ and Roo would side with the Islam' s here.

    Quote
    Begetting and Self-sufficiency

    This is a self-contradiction due to confusion of terms.

    10:68
    They say [the Christians]: “Allah hath begotten a son!”
    Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient!
    His are all things in heaven and on earth!
    No warrant have ye for this!
    (An essentially identical statement is made in Sura 2:116-117.) This above verse

    1) denies that God has a begotten Son, and
    2) explains this by saying that God is self-sufficient; he doesn't need anyone to depend on.

    10:68 tells us the reason God wouldn't have a begotten Son is because God is self-sufficient. We are going to use a rule from formal logic to make another statement about what this verse tells us. The rule is that (A implies B) is equivalent to (not B implies not A).

    IF: It tells us that:

    God does not have a begotten Son, for He is self-sufficient.
    THEN, according to the Law of Contrapositives, the Qur'an also tells us:

    If God HAS a begotten Son, then God is NOT self-sufficient.
    Since “not self-sufficient” means the same as “dependent,” the above can be restated as:

    If God HAS a begotten Son, God is dependent.
    This reasoning is very Qur'anic, as we find it this implication clearly spelled out for example in Sura 6:101 (see below).

    According to C.S. Lewis, “To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man.”

    So, what God begets is God; so if God had a begotten Son, it would not mean he would be dependent on some other entity; it would mean that He would be dependent on Himself. DEPENDENT ON HIMSELF. That is the very meaning of self-sufficience. So that verse is obviously self-contradictory and therefore wrong.

    The Qur'anic argument receives its force from the reasoning that in order to “beget” God needs a consort, a wife, and would therefore be dependent, i.e. longer self-sufficient. For example, we read in Sura 72:3 “And exalted is the Majesty of our Lord: He has taken neither a wife nor a son.” on which Yusuf Ali comments in note 5730: “They abjure … the doctrine of a son begotten by Allah, which would also imply a wife of whom he was begotten.” This is not only the reasoning of the commentators though, since the Qur'an itself gives this argument in Sura 6:101 stating:

    Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth;
    how can he have a son when He has no consort?
    He created all things,
    and He hath full knowledge of all things.
    Obviously, the author of the Qur'an cannot answer this question and and has not the necessary knowledge of all things, since nowhere in the Bible is a wife mentioned. This begotten Son comes from the Father only, without any involvement of a third party, and therefore God was not dependent on anyone. This begetting is a begetting with full self-sufficiency. The author of the Qur'an might not have understood this, but the Qur'anic logic is wrong if it is supposed to be a response to the Biblical revelation.

    This topic obviously begs the question what “begetting” means in regard to God, and how there can be still only one God in the “bringing forth” of the Son from the Father. (Note: I did not say “after” but “in” since this is a reality from eternity and not subject to our time frame. The Son was God from all eternity. And this “begetting” is without the involvement of a wife or any sexual act.)

    Some of these topics can be explored in the sections on the identity of Jesus and the doctrine of Trinity. An article on the terminology of “be

    I especially can relate to C.S. Lewis here:

    Quote
    According to C.S. Lewis, “To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man.”


    from: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/qi034.html

    I don't think that C.S. Lewis is thinking about the Son as the man from Mary here, do you?  God is not a man.  He is talking about what happened before the ages…that is when God beget God, not in Mary for if that were the case, the begotten God would have had a beginning in time and not actually be like the one who beget Him.  The one that came from Mary had flesh, blood and bones.  God the Father is not flesh.  What happened in Mary was not like a begetting that would produce God.  God doesn't need a counterpart to produce His offspring.

    #206335
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 27 2010,16:32)

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 28 2010,07:55)

    Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 27 2010,10:59)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,02:38)
    Kathi

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,18:47)
    He didn't say the I and the Father “am” one.


    No that would be improper english.

    But he did say I and the Father “are one” not “are one” in unity.

    But he also said he was the “I am”, didn't he?

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,18:47)
    I believe in unity within the Godhead.  The beginning that I believe in is the beginning of a separate person than the Father.  Most early Christians believe that the separate person had a beginning in His separateness.  His eternal substance could very well be within a seed in the Father which bore the future fruit of a separate person…a son during eternity.


    You can believe what you want but none of what you just said is supported by scriptures.

    WJ


    Keith,

    Kathi says, “I believe” while you say, “the scripture says.” This is telling isn't it?

    Jack


    Acts 8:37
    37 [And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]
    NASU

    I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God too :)


    Christ died for our sins according to the scripture. He was buried according to the scripture. He rose again the third day according to the scripture.

    Whether or not Kathi believes this is not the issue.

    the Roo


    Does that say Christ “died?” Yep, I believe it does.

    #206340

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 27 2010,16:47)

    Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 27 2010,16:32)

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 28 2010,07:55)

    Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 27 2010,10:59)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,02:38)
    Kathi

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,18:47)
    He didn't say the I and the Father “am” one.


    No that would be improper english.

    But he did say I and the Father “are one” not “are one” in unity.

    But he also said he was the “I am”, didn't he?

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,18:47)
    I believe in unity within the Godhead.  The beginning that I believe in is the beginning of a separate person than the Father.  Most early Christians believe that the separate person had a beginning in His separateness.  His eternal substance could very well be within a seed in the Father which bore the future fruit of a separate person…a son during eternity.


    You can believe what you want but none of what you just said is supported by scriptures.

    WJ


    Keith,

    Kathi says, “I believe” while you say, “the scripture says.” This is telling isn't it?

    Jack


    Acts 8:37
    37 [And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]
    NASU

    I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God too :)


    Christ died for our sins according to the scripture. He was buried according to the scripture. He rose again the third day according to the scripture.

    Whether or not Kathi believes this is not the issue.

    the Roo


    Does that say Christ “died?”  Yep, I believe it does.


    Kathi

    Don't just hit and run!

    What is death?

    What did Jesus mean when he said…

    And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 11:26

    For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; “so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart (center) of the earth. Matt 12:40

    The word heart means the center!

    What about Pauls words…

    But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. Phil 1:22-24

    Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54

    You have been born again haven't you? If so you have eternal life and to be absent from the Body is to be present with the Lord.

    WJ

    #206341
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Keith,
    Death is of the flesh, not the spirit. Christ's flesh died but did not decay and was resurrected and joined once again with His Spirit.
    Yes, I have been born again.

    #206342
    Lightenup
    Participant

    A protestant pastor on begetting:

    Quote
    What the language of the Nicene Creed wanted to say was that the Son is God just as the Father is God. It was intended to assert an equality of being. And for that what was needed was a language other than the language of making. What we beget is like ourselves. What we make is not; it is the product of our free decision, and its destiny is ours to determine. Of course, on this Christian understanding human beings are not begotten in the absolute sense that the Son is said to be begotten of the Father. They are made—but made by God through human begetting. Hence, although we are not God’s equal, we are of equal dignity with each other. And we are not at each other’s disposal. If it is, in fact, human begetting that expresses our equal dignity, we should not lightly set it aside in a manner as decisive as cloning.

    http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9706/articles/meilaender.html

    #206343
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    Kathi said:

    Quote
    I especially can relate to C.S. Lewis here:

    According to C.S. Lewis, “To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man.”
    from: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/qi034.html

    I don't think that C.S. Lewis is thinking about the Son as the man from Mary here, do you?  God is not a man.  He is talking about what happened before the ages…that is when God beget God, not in Mary for if that were the case, the begotten God would have had a beginning in time and not actually be like the one who beget Him.  The one that came from Mary had flesh, blood and bones.  God the Father is not flesh.  What happened in Mary was not like a begetting that would produce God.  God doesn't need a counterpart to produce His offspring.

    Kathi Mike and their fragmented quotes. Please note the facts below:

    Quote
    C. Christ

    In Mere Christianity Lewis referred to “Christ, the Man who was God.” In The Problem of Pain he spoke of “the Incarnate God” and THE SON “CO-ETERNAL WITH THE FATHER” In The Weight of Glory Lewis mentioned “the humanity of Christ” and “His deity.” The liberal scholar Norman Pittenger blamed Lewis “for believing that Jesus claimed deity because the fourth Gospel says He did,” to which Lewis replied: “I think that Jesus Christ is (in fact) the Son of God.” To Arthur Greeves (December 26, 1945) Lewis wrote that at Bethlehem “God became man.”

    One of the sad realities is that as a young man, Arthur Greeves had adopted the Christian view and Lewis the atheistic one. Later Greeves wandered through Unitarianism and other quagmires. Lewis replied to his letter (December 11, 1949): “Your doctrine, under its old name of Arianism, was given a…very full run for its money. But it didn’t last.” Lewis asked his friend, “If [Christ] was not God, who or what was He?” He concluded: “The doctrine of Christ’s divinity seems to me not something stuck on…but something that peeps out at every point [of the New Testament] so that you have to unravel the whole web to get rid of it…and if you take away the Godhead of Christ, what is Christianity all about?” In Mere Christianity Lewis includes his belief in “the Virgin Birth of C
    Lewis also tackled an explanation of what is commonly called “the eternal generation of the Son.” He wrote: “One of the creeds says that Christ is the Son of God ‘begotten, not created’…[which] has nothing to do with the fact that when Christ was born on the earth as a man, that man was the son of a virgin.” Rather, “what God begets is God.” This negative explanation clarifies somewhat but is not overly helpful. Elsewhere he penned that “the one begets and the other is begotten. The Father’s relation to the Son is not the same as the Son’s relation to the Father.” Christ as “Son,” Lewis observed, “cannot mean that He stands to God [the Father] in the very same physical and temporal relation which exists between offspring and male parent in the animal world;” this doctrine involves a “harmonious relation involving homogeneity.” The normally ingenious and down-to-earth Lewis left his readers in the complicated and heady realms of theological disquisition on this doctrine, but (let’s face it) who has ever heard a clearly illustrated exposition of it from a pulpit? In one more attempt Lewis declared: “The Son exists because the Father exists; BUT THERE WAS NEVER A TIME BEFORE THE FATHER PRODUCED THE SON.” Lewis would probably have done better to steer clear of this subject altogether.

    Two other of Lewis’s Christological opinions are interesting. In speaking of the kenosis (Philippians 2:7) he stated: “I certainly think that Christ, in the flesh, was not omniscient-if only because a human brain could not, presumably be the vehicle of omniscient consciousness….” In another comment, bearing upon John 3:13, Lewis claimed “Christ’s divine nature never left [heaven] and never returned to it.” For one who never claimed to be a theologian, Lewis certainly managed to involve himself in some intricate theological twine. Nevertheless, he was emphatic about retaining the full deity and humanity of Christ as addressed in the early Christian creeds.


    http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000i/townsend2000e.htm

    Lewis said that the Son was “co-eternal” with the Father. To Lewis “begotten” meant that Christ was the SAME KIND AS THE FATHER JUST AS WJ AND I ASSERT. He explicitly said the “begetting” did not have a temporal relation.

    Kathi has become a lot like Mike now. She has no scriptural argument so she has to invoke fragmented quotes from the fathers. First Calvin and now C. S. Lewis. Which trinitarian father will she convert to Arianism next?

    the Roo

    #206344
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote
    I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God too

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,08:23)
    Kathi

    That we can agree on!

    WJ


    You have a big BUT though. (I don't mean it like that  :D )

    He is the son of God, BUT he is also the God that he is the son of.

    It cancels it out don't you think?

    #206348

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 27 2010,16:43)

    Here is a little answer to Islam regarding the begotten Son.  It seems that WJ and Roo would side with the Islam' s here.


    Circular, since I am sure there are truths that Islam has that you agree with for all religions have some truth.

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 27 2010,16:43)

    According to C.S. Lewis, “To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man.”


    How do you know he is not speaking of the incarnation? The scriptures do not mention a begetting before the ages.

    Before you latch onto C.S Lewis you should see who it is you are siding with…

    –  By the time of his death, Lewis had moved from Idealism (no idea of a personal God) to Pantheism (an impersonal God in everything) and then to Theism (the existence of God). In Letters to Malcolm (p. 107), Lewis indicates that shortly before his death he was turning toward the Catholic Church. Lewis termed himself “very Catholic” — his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may “belong to Christ without knowing it” is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement that “Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism …” (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become “gods,” an apparent affirmation of theistic evolution. He also believed the Book of Job is “unhistorical” (Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 110), and that the Bible contained “error” (pp. 110, 112) and is not divinely inspired (The Inklings, p. 175). Lewis used profanities, told bawdy stories, and frequently got drunk with his students (5/19/90, World magazine). Christians need to read more critically The Abolition of Man, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, The Great Divorce, and God in the Dock. For example, Lewis never believed in a literal hell, but instead believed hell is a state of mind one chooses to possess and become — he wrote, “… every shutting-up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind is, in the end, Hell” (The Great Divorce, p. 65). Source

    WJ

    #206351

    Quote (t8 @ July 27 2010,17:24)

    Quote
    I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God too

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,08:23)
    Kathi

    That we can agree on!

    WJ


    You have a big BUT though. (I don't mean it like that  :D )

    He is the son of God, BUT he is also the God that he is the son of.

    It cancels it out don't you think?


    t8

    Not at all. False logic! I am not a Modalist?

    Does the term “Son of man” cancel out that he is “Man”?

    WJ

    #206357
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,09:10)

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 27 2010,16:47)

    Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 27 2010,16:32)

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 28 2010,07:55)

    Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 27 2010,10:59)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,02:38)
    Kathi

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,18:47)
    He didn't say the I and the Father “am” one.


    No that would be improper english.

    But he did say I and the Father “are one” not “are one” in unity.

    But he also said he was the “I am”, didn't he?

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2010,18:47)
    I believe in unity within the Godhead.  The beginning that I believe in is the beginning of a separate person than the Father.  Most early Christians believe that the separate person had a beginning in His separateness.  His eternal substance could very well be within a seed in the Father which bore the future fruit of a separate person…a son during eternity.


    You can believe what you want but none of what you just said is supported by scriptures.

    WJ


    Keith,

    Kathi says, “I believe” while you say, “the scripture says.” This is telling isn't it?

    Jack


    Acts 8:37
    37 [And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]
    NASU

    I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God too :)


    Christ died for our sins according to the scripture. He was buried according to the scripture. He rose again the third day according to the scripture.

    Whether or not Kathi believes this is not the issue.

    the Roo


    Does that say Christ “died?”  Yep, I believe it does.


    Kathi

    Don't just hit and run!

    What is death?

    What did Jesus mean when he said…

    And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 11:26

    For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; “so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart (center) of the earth. Matt 12:40

    The word heart means the center!

    What about Pauls words…

    But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. Phil 1:22-24

    Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54

    You have been born again haven't you? If so you have eternal life and to be absent from the Body is to be present with the Lord.

    WJ


    Keith,

    I had explicitly said earlier today that Christ was put to death but in the flesh. Yet Kathi makes it appear as if I deny Jesus died in any sense at all. This is the hatchet job she is doing regarding the triitarian fathers.

    This gives me the confidence that truth is prevailing.

    Jack

Viewing 20 posts - 161 through 180 (of 249 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account