- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Keith,
Quote To say Jesus is another being from God is to divide the essence. Can you tell me your definition of the word 'being' here?
Also, what do you mean when you say 'divide the essence?'
Can you please explain this in a simple way for me?
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 05 2010,14:39) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 04 2010,15:13) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 05 2010,09:25) Pierre,
I agree with the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed. They are both creeds in the Protestant churches that I have gone to.
kathiwell you have been ,accepting the catholic creeds raped in a tender rapping paper with acceptable small truths but with one of its abomination as well the trinity,i guess no one caches people
without truth in it ,the devil way.and Constantine is the Antichrist,he did a good job did he?yes he still trapping people like you in his web.
Pierre
Pierre,
Why do you take the role of the Accuser of the Brethren when you disagree?Was 'Accuser of the Brethren' listed among the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Nope.
“But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.” (1 Corinthians 12:7-11)
The Accuser of the Brethren would get his gift of being an Accuser of the Brethren from satan, not the Holy Spirit.
Kathido you believe that you are part of;for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit,ect….
so you believe that you are giving some light ,you are inventing what is not there,and this is not the only wrong view you proclaim,
those scriptures you are quoting were addressed to the true Christians not the one who took apart the church at the time of Paul ,you are totally intending to follow men doctrines
and so try to deceive the many.you agree with them so you believe in them i mean all of them.your wordsand this is the catolic church.
PierrePierre,
Again you huff and puff but do not address anything specific.Is it possible for you to discuss how you think the Nicene Creed is wrong? Please back up your disagreements with it using scripture.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 05 2010,23:51) Pierre,
Again you huff and puff but do not address anything specific.Is it possible for you to discuss how you think the Nicene Creed is wrong? Please back up your disagreements with it using scripture.
kathiyou ask me to bring you some scriptures and a certain logic to it of the why and were ;
but if i have to eat a dish and someone piuck in it i will not give you the scientific complex of all the variation of virus in it ,and bacteria and what they can do to you ect,
this is your work to establish those things ,but spreading the news that it is good to consume that is wrong,
the ten virgin end up being split in two the wise one add achieve what they needed to do for the wait of the Lord and refused to share it.
your ego is starting to show.
Pierre
Pierre,
Again no defense, just wild imagination? You don't seem to mind filling your posts with accusations towards me but when it comes to discussing why you accuse me with a real defense you choose more accusations instead. Your blindness will lead the other blind into the pit. Wake up!Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 06 2010,07:32) Pierre,
Again no defense, just wild imagination? You don't seem to mind filling your posts with accusations towards me but when it comes to discussing why you accuse me with a real defense you choose more accusations instead. Your blindness will lead the other blind into the pit. Wake up!
kathiyou have received many scriptures but you chuff them all a side because it does not fit your views
Pierre
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2010,16:36) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 04 2010,15:10) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2010,14:25) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 02 2010,22:06) They both had valid points. Much like HN. We will probably see a new creed in our lifetime that takes 'only begotten' out of it entirely. This will further the evolution away from the original intent as I see it.
KathiYour point above shows bias, because the creeds didn't come until the third century. So there was an evolution from the orginal Apostles beliefs until then. You have chosen to stop there, when the church went further in clarifying their beliefs.
There is no contradiction in any of the creeds, but the contradiction comes when you accept one and not all because of your own interpretation of the word begotten.
As Irene has pointed out they were Trinitarians who believed in the worship of “One true God” who were of “One essence” not dividing the substance.
Do you believe they worshipped 2 or 3 Gods, or divine beings Kathi?
How can you claim that Jesus is part of the One God that is to be worshipped when you claim they are two beings?
Do you see the problem you have here? No early Father worshipped two “Gods”.
WJ
Keith,Quote There is no contradiction in any of the creeds, but the contradiction comes when you accept one and not all because of your own interpretation of the word begotten. You say that my interpretation of the word 'begotten' is not inline with the intent of the creed? I disagree. I believe that it is your interpretation of the word 'begotten' that is not inline with the intent of the creed. The early church did not teach of a predesignated begetting to take place in the future in time, in Mary, but a begetting which took place before the ages in the perfect tense, not a future tense nor in an ongoing tense. The Nicene Creed also speaks of a birth in Mary. It teaches both times of a coming into existence. The early church father's taught of a begetting that brought an offspring, a literal Son.
KathiPlease read the entire Athanasian Creed and tell me if you read where Jesus had a beginning.
Begotten does not always mean procreation and you know this. I have pointed out many quotes that you have posted of the early Fathers to support you and yet they clearly taught Jesus was with the Father always!
WJ
Keith,
What do you think that begotten means in the Athanasian Creed?God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
Acd what does it mean in the Nicene Creed according to you?
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 06 2010,12:25) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2010,16:36) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 04 2010,15:10) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2010,14:25) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 02 2010,22:06) They both had valid points. Much like HN. We will probably see a new creed in our lifetime that takes 'only begotten' out of it entirely. This will further the evolution away from the original intent as I see it.
KathiYour point above shows bias, because the creeds didn't come until the third century. So there was an evolution from the orginal Apostles beliefs until then. You have chosen to stop there, when the church went further in clarifying their beliefs.
There is no contradiction in any of the creeds, but the contradiction comes when you accept one and not all because of your own interpretation of the word begotten.
As Irene has pointed out they were Trinitarians who believed in the worship of “One true God” who were of “One essence” not dividing the substance.
Do you believe they worshipped 2 or 3 Gods, or divine beings Kathi?
How can you claim that Jesus is part of the One God that is to be worshipped when you claim they are two beings?
Do you see the problem you have here? No early Father worshipped two “Gods”.
WJ
Keith,Quote There is no contradiction in any of the creeds, but the contradiction comes when you accept one and not all because of your own interpretation of the word begotten. You say that my interpretation of the word 'begotten' is not inline with the intent of the creed? I disagree. I believe that it is your interpretation of the word 'begotten' that is not inline with the intent of the creed. The early church did not teach of a predesignated begetting to take place in the future in time, in Mary, but a begetting which took place before the ages in the perfect tense, not a future tense nor in an ongoing tense. The Nicene Creed also speaks of a birth in Mary. It teaches both times of a coming into existence. The early church father's taught of a begetting that brought an offspring, a literal Son.
KathiPlease read the entire Athanasian Creed and tell me if you read where Jesus had a beginning.
Begotten does not always mean procreation and you know this. I have pointed out many quotes that you have posted of the early Fathers to support you and yet they clearly taught Jesus was with the Father always!
WJ
Keith,
What do you think that begotten means in the Athanasian Creed?God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
Acd what does it mean in the Nicene Creed according to you?
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
kathinow you getting smarter WJ is on your side ,the pope also on your side those are the right people to ask because they will help you in your travel away from the truth,
they know they have been there for so long they do not know the way back,
and no i am not blue,and not hyper neither,just see some looking to go backwards to the Dumpsters of apostasy.
but you guys do not see it that way ,because you feel in your waters in there.
Pierre
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 04 2010,23:38) Keith, Quote To say Jesus is another being from God is to divide the essence. Can you tell me your definition of the word 'being' here?
Also, what do you mean when you say 'divide the essence?'
Can you please explain this in a simple way for me?
KathiIt is simple. To divide the essence of God would be making the Father and Jesus into “2 Gods”.
Again, this is what the creed says…
And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. “But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost“. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. “And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. “And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty“. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.
This is in agreement with the scriptures for we know there is only “One Spirit” which we have recieved and that is God.
They worshipped “One True God” not two.
You keep dodging this question Kathi…
Do you worship “One True God” or 2 Kathi?
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 05 2010,13:25) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2010,16:36) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 04 2010,15:10) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2010,14:25) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 02 2010,22:06) They both had valid points. Much like HN. We will probably see a new creed in our lifetime that takes 'only begotten' out of it entirely. This will further the evolution away from the original intent as I see it.
KathiYour point above shows bias, because the creeds didn't come until the third century. So there was an evolution from the orginal Apostles beliefs until then. You have chosen to stop there, when the church went further in clarifying their beliefs.
There is no contradiction in any of the creeds, but the contradiction comes when you accept one and not all because of your own interpretation of the word begotten.
As Irene has pointed out they were Trinitarians who believed in the worship of “One true God” who were of “One essence” not dividing the substance.
Do you believe they worshipped 2 or 3 Gods, or divine beings Kathi?
How can you claim that Jesus is part of the One God that is to be worshipped when you claim they are two beings?
Do you see the problem you have here? No early Father worshipped two “Gods”.
WJ
Keith,Quote There is no contradiction in any of the creeds, but the contradiction comes when you accept one and not all because of your own interpretation of the word begotten. You say that my interpretation of the word 'begotten' is not inline with the intent of the creed? I disagree. I believe that it is your interpretation of the word 'begotten' that is not inline with the intent of the creed. The early church did not teach of a predesignated begetting to take place in the future in time, in Mary, but a begetting which took place before the ages in the perfect tense, not a future tense nor in an ongoing tense. The Nicene Creed also speaks of a birth in Mary. It teaches both times of a coming into existence. The early church father's taught of a begetting that brought an offspring, a literal Son.
KathiPlease read the entire Athanasian Creed and tell me if you read where Jesus had a beginning.
Begotten does not always mean procreation and you know this. I have pointed out many quotes that you have posted of the early Fathers to support you and yet they clearly taught Jesus was with the Father always!
WJ
Keith,
What do you think that begotten means in the Athanasian Creed?God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
Acd what does it mean in the Nicene Creed according to you?
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
It means that he was eternally begotten with no beginning and no end. Pure and simple. Jesus has always been with the Father.While this seems impossible to man, yet it is the infinite God that we are talking about.
If Jesus is of the same “Infinite essence” or everything that the Father is then to be exacly like him he had to be “infinite” also without beginning and without end.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 06 2010,14:02) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 05 2010,13:25) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2010,16:36) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 04 2010,15:10) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2010,14:25) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 02 2010,22:06) They both had valid points. Much like HN. We will probably see a new creed in our lifetime that takes 'only begotten' out of it entirely. This will further the evolution away from the original intent as I see it.
KathiYour point above shows bias, because the creeds didn't come until the third century. So there was an evolution from the orginal Apostles beliefs until then. You have chosen to stop there, when the church went further in clarifying their beliefs.
There is no contradiction in any of the creeds, but the contradiction comes when you accept one and not all because of your own interpretation of the word begotten.
As Irene has pointed out they were Trinitarians who believed in the worship of “One true God” who were of “One essence” not dividing the substance.
Do you believe they worshipped 2 or 3 Gods, or divine beings Kathi?
How can you claim that Jesus is part of the One God that is to be worshipped when you claim they are two beings?
Do you see the problem you have here? No early Father worshipped two “Gods”.
WJ
Keith,Quote There is no contradiction in any of the creeds, but the contradiction comes when you accept one and not all because of your own interpretation of the word begotten. You say that my interpretation of the word 'begotten' is not inline with the intent of the creed? I disagree. I believe that it is your interpretation of the word 'begotten' that is not inline with the intent of the creed. The early church did not teach of a predesignated begetting to take place in the future in time, in Mary, but a begetting which took place before the ages in the perfect tense, not a future tense nor in an ongoing tense. The Nicene Creed also speaks of a birth in Mary. It teaches both times of a coming into existence. The early church father's taught of a begetting that brought an offspring, a literal Son.
KathiPlease read the entire Athanasian Creed and tell me if you read where Jesus had a beginning.
Begotten does not always mean procreation and you know this. I have pointed out many quotes that you have posted of the early Fathers to support you and yet they clearly taught Jesus was with the Father always!
WJ
Keith,
What do you think that begotten means in the Athanasian Creed?God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
Acd what does it mean in the Nicene Creed according to you?
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
It means that he was eternally begotten with no beginning and no end. Pure and simple. Jesus has always been with the Father.While this seems impossible to man, yet it is the infinite God that we are talking about.
If Jesus is of the same “Infinite essence” or everything that the Father is then to be exacly like him he had to be “infinite” also without beginning and without end.
WJ
WJyou are teaching a OXIMORAN of your own;
Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God.
Jn 1:2 He was with God in the beginning.if there is a beginning it is never infinite,the beginning of that time maybe never be known,but it still a beginning.
since we know that the WORD was created the first that would be the beginning and there is no end to him.
this is scriptural.
Pierre
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 05 2010,15:02) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 05 2010,13:25) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2010,16:36) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 04 2010,15:10) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 04 2010,14:25) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 02 2010,22:06) They both had valid points. Much like HN. We will probably see a new creed in our lifetime that takes 'only begotten' out of it entirely. This will further the evolution away from the original intent as I see it.
KathiYour point above shows bias, because the creeds didn't come until the third century. So there was an evolution from the orginal Apostles beliefs until then. You have chosen to stop there, when the church went further in clarifying their beliefs.
There is no contradiction in any of the creeds, but the contradiction comes when you accept one and not all because of your own interpretation of the word begotten.
As Irene has pointed out they were Trinitarians who believed in the worship of “One true God” who were of “One essence” not dividing the substance.
Do you believe they worshipped 2 or 3 Gods, or divine beings Kathi?
How can you claim that Jesus is part of the One God that is to be worshipped when you claim they are two beings?
Do you see the problem you have here? No early Father worshipped two “Gods”.
WJ
Keith,Quote There is no contradiction in any of the creeds, but the contradiction comes when you accept one and not all because of your own interpretation of the word begotten. You say that my interpretation of the word 'begotten' is not inline with the intent of the creed? I disagree. I believe that it is your interpretation of the word 'begotten' that is not inline with the intent of the creed. The early church did not teach of a predesignated begetting to take place in the future in time, in Mary, but a begetting which took place before the ages in the perfect tense, not a future tense nor in an ongoing tense. The Nicene Creed also speaks of a birth in Mary. It teaches both times of a coming into existence. The early church father's taught of a begetting that brought an offspring, a literal Son.
KathiPlease read the entire Athanasian Creed and tell me if you read where Jesus had a beginning.
Begotten does not always mean procreation and you know this. I have pointed out many quotes that you have posted of the early Fathers to support you and yet they clearly taught Jesus was with the Father always!
WJ
Keith,
What do you think that begotten means in the Athanasian Creed?God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
Acd what does it mean in the Nicene Creed according to you?
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
It means that he was eternally begotten with no beginning and no end. Pure and simple. Jesus has always been with the Father.While this seems impossible to man, yet it is the infinite God that we are talking about.
If Jesus is of the same “Infinite essence” or everything that the Father is then to be exacly like him he had to be “infinite” also without beginning and without end.
WJ
Keith,
I can accept infinite essence of the Son. I can't accept that begotten before the ages means, as far as I can tell, the same thing as unbegotten before the ages. You are defining begotten as unbegotten, imo.Your definition of 'eternally begotten':
Quote It means that he was eternally begotten with no beginning and no end. Pure and simple. Jesus has always been with the Father. How is that different from the Father being called 'unbegotten' in the creed?
The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.23.The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
I noticed that the A. creed doesn't say 'eternally begotten' or 'eternally generated.' That I am glad to notice because I can't accept that term as scriptural. The term 'eternally begotten' was put in the Nicene Creed but is not in the original. I think the term 'eternally begotten' is not from God.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 05 2010,14:55) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 04 2010,23:38) Keith, Quote To say Jesus is another being from God is to divide the essence. Can you tell me your definition of the word 'being' here?
Also, what do you mean when you say 'divide the essence?'
Can you please explain this in a simple way for me?
KathiIt is simple. To divide the essence of God would be making the Father and Jesus into “2 Gods”.
Again, this is what the creed says…
And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. “But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost“. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. “And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. “And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty“. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.
This is in agreement with the scriptures for we know there is only “One Spirit” which we have recieved and that is God.
They worshipped “One True God” not two.
You keep dodging this question Kathi…
Do you worship “One True God” or 2 Kathi?
WJ
Quote It is simple. To divide the essence of God would be making the Father and Jesus into “2 Gods”. I don't buy that understanding for a minute. Essence is nature. Did your nature divide when you had kids. Did you become a man with less human nature when you conceived your kids? God the Father begetting a Son from the eternal essence in no way divided that essence. The Father did not become less divine nature by begetting a Son.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 05 2010,17:09) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 05 2010,14:55) Lightenup,Nov. wrote:Keith,
Quote To say Jesus is another being from God is to divide the essence. Can you tell me your definition of the word 'being' here?
Also, what do you mean when you say 'divide the essence?'
Can you please explain this in a simple way for me?
KathiIt is simple. To divide the essence of God would be making the Father and Jesus into “2 Gods”.
Again, this is what the creed says…
And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. “But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost“. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. “And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. “And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty“. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.
This is in agreement with the scriptures for we know there is only “One Spirit” which we have recieved and that is God.
They worshipped “One True God” not two.
You keep dodging this question Kathi…
Do you worship “One True God” or 2 Kathi?
WJ
Quote It is simple. To divide the essence of God would be making the Father and Jesus into “2 Gods”. Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 05 2010,17:09) I don't buy that understanding for a minute. Essence is nature. Did your nature divide when you had kids.
Yes, my kids are two beings aren't they?WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 05 2010,17:05) I can accept infinite essence of the Son. I can't accept that begotten before the ages means, as far as I can tell, the same thing as unbegotten before the ages. You are defining begotten as unbegotten, imo.
KathiI accept the other definition of 'Begotten” that is without “procreation”. That is what the creed means when it says “not made or created”.
The eternal essence of the Son was always the Son! Just as the eternal essence of the Father was always the Father, same essence same God!
Are you going to answer the question?
Do you worship “One True God” or 2 Kathi?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 06 2010,10:17) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 05 2010,17:09) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 05 2010,14:55) Lightenup,Nov. wrote:Keith,
Quote To say Jesus is another being from God is to divide the essence. Can you tell me your definition of the word 'being' here?
Also, what do you mean when you say 'divide the essence?'
Can you please explain this in a simple way for me?
KathiIt is simple. To divide the essence of God would be making the Father and Jesus into “2 Gods”.
Again, this is what the creed says…
And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. “But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost“. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. “And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. “And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty“. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.
This is in agreement with the scriptures for we know there is only “One Spirit” which we have recieved and that is God.
They worshipped “One True God” not two.
You keep dodging this question Kathi…
Do you worship “One True God” or 2 Kathi?
WJ
Quote It is simple. To divide the essence of God would be making the Father and Jesus into “2 Gods”. Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 05 2010,17:09) I don't buy that understanding for a minute. Essence is nature. Did your nature divide when you had kids.
Yes, my kids are two beings aren't they?WJ
Keith,
Your two beings are of one essence and all three of you are not 1/3 of that one essence are you? No division of essence was necessary. This whole idea of 'dividing of essence' is not understood by you, imo.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 06 2010,10:24) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 05 2010,17:05) I can accept infinite essence of the Son. I can't accept that begotten before the ages means, as far as I can tell, the same thing as unbegotten before the ages. You are defining begotten as unbegotten, imo.
KathiI accept the other definition of 'Begotten” that is without “procreation”. That is what the creed means when it says “not made or created”.
The eternal essence of the Son was always the Son! Just as the eternal essence of the Father was always the Father, same essence same God!
Are you going to answer the question?
Do you worship “One True God” or 2 Kathi?
WJ
Keith,
I have told you repeatedly that I believe in the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed. How many God's are there testified in those creeds?Quote The eternal essence of the Son was always the Son! Just as the eternal essence of the Father was always the Father, same essence same God! Yet, the Son was not begotten at one point and then begotten before the ages. The Father was never begotten. You haven't satisfactorily explained that distinction.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 08 2010,11:32) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 06 2010,10:24) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 05 2010,17:05) I can accept infinite essence of the Son. I can't accept that begotten before the ages means, as far as I can tell, the same thing as unbegotten before the ages. You are defining begotten as unbegotten, imo.
KathiI accept the other definition of 'Begotten” that is without “procreation”. That is what the creed means when it says “not made or created”.
The eternal essence of the Son was always the Son! Just as the eternal essence of the Father was always the Father, same essence same God!
Are you going to answer the question?
Do you worship “One True God” or 2 Kathi?
WJ
Keith,
I have told you repeatedly that I believe in the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed. How many God's are there testified in those creeds?Quote The eternal essence of the Son was always the Son! Just as the eternal essence of the Father was always the Father, same essence same God! Yet, the Son was not begotten at one point and then begotten before the ages. The Father was never begotten. You haven't satisfactorily explained that distinction.
KathiSo you are saying that the creeds teach the worship of more than “One True God”?
No you are missunderstandig the dividing of the substance.
It is a yes or no quesiton Kathi.
Do you worship “One True God” or 2 Kathi?
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
