Preexistence

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Arnold @ Aug. 03 2010,15:03)

Again and in Proverbs 8:22-30 also explains it how God brought forth His Son,and He was called the master craftsman.  Wisdom is an essence of God and it simple does not make sense that God would bring forth Wisdom, when He was wise from eternity….I never heard wisdom called a master craftsman either.

So what does that mean Irene? Was there ever a time God did not have is “Word” or was there ever a time God was  without “Wisdom”, the scriptures say Jesus is the “Wisdom” of God and he is the “Word” that was with God and was God in the beginning before all things which would include time.

WJ

[Arnold]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 04 2010,07:19)

Quote (Arnold @ Aug. 03 2010,15:03) Again and in Proverbs 8:22-30 also explains it how God brought forth His Son,and He was called the master craftsman.  Wisdom is an essence of God and it simple does not make sense that God would bring forth Wisdom, when He was wise from eternity….I never heard wisdom called a master craftsman either. So what does that mean Irene? Was there ever a time God did not have is “Word” or was there ever a time God was  without “Wisdom”, the scriptures say Jesus is the “Wisdom” of God and he is the “Word” that was with God and was God in the beginning before all things which would include time. WJ

W.J. You believe that The Word who became Jesus always existed. It says that He is the firstborn of all creation in all the Scriptures I quoted…. Not from all eternity…. Only Jehovah God had immortality then…. Now Jesus too has immortality….. He could have not died for us if He would have immortality……I just can't just ignore 3 Scriptures that state that He was the firstborn of all creation. And then He created all by the power of Jehovah….Col. 1:16 Irene

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 03 2010,09:07)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,21:02) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 02 2010,15:42) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:30) Keith, I think that we use trinitarian's comments because we are trying to help you see some things that they saw and you argue against over and over, like the meaning of 'monogenes' in John, for example. I don't think that earlier trinitarians have as much of a difference with me as you, Jack and I do.  I'm trying to get you to realize that so that we can get a bridge built instead of keep building a wall and digging the moat larger and larger.  Do you want to build bridges or build walls and dig moats? The earlier trinitarians are different than today's trinitarians, imo. kathi There is no bridge or gap to a Jesus that was created or “literrally born” before time. The Forefathers didn't believe that and especially the Trinitarian Forefathers. They believed in the co-eternal, co-equal nature of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit. You are trying to twist their words to fit your doctrine. Your recent claim concerning Calvin is proff of this for Calvins own words are… “…WHEN IT IS EVIDENT THAT THREE PERSONS HAVE SUBSISTED IN ONE GOD FROM ETERNITY…“ And that isn't even close to what you believe about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is it Kathi? WJ Actually, Keith, the early Christians did believe in a literal begetting of a Son from the Father before the ages.  That which was co-eternal, co-equal was the NATURE.  That is what their point is.  The nature which they both share always existed, the Son does not contain a new and different nature from the Father but a nature that ALWAYS EXISTED from the Father.  The separate person of the Son did not always exist, but his nature did always exist within the Father.  That is what these early Christians are saying. Your nature, common to man, existed since God created man and did not always exist before that.  The Son's nature, common to God, existed always.  The nature common to God did not have a beginning and thus, the nature of God and the Son of God is co-eternal and co-equal.  Perfect came FROM Perfect.  Less than perfect DID NOT come from Perfect.  The Son's nature is not less than the Father's.  That is the message. The Christians who think that the Son is not a literal offspring of the Father before the ages are not in agreement with the early Christians! The perfect nature always existed and was not made within time or just before time. Kathi Its real simple. The words “begotten” and “firstborn” have different meanings in scripture. So lets go at it in a different way. Show me where the Forefathers like “Ignatius” specifically states Jesus was “literrally born” from the Father or where they state “he had a beginning before time”. Because since the words  “begotten” and “firstborn” according to the scrtiptures can mean something different, then it is merely “conjecture” to say he had a beginnig especially since he was the in the beginning with the Father before time which is “Eternity”. Why don't you addres that point? WJ

Quote

; He said to the Son, “From the womb before the day-star I begat Thee.” What is from the womb? Had God a womb? Shall we imagine that God was fashioned with bodily members? God forbid! And why said He, “From the womb,” but that it might be understood that He begat Him of His Own Substance? So then froth the womb came forth That which Himself was who begat. For if He who begat was one thing, and another came forth out of the womb; it were a monster, not a Son.

from here: http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/b2a.htm

This quote was from Augustine. He acknowledges that the Son was truly a Son and not something other that was begotten having a different nature as the Father.

[Lightenup]

Keith,
in the beginning was…shows that during eternity, or at least in the beginning-before time, the word existed and by the time came to create the world, the word existed and was with God as a separate person and was God, the begotten God, and didn't become God at sometime after the beginning. It is telling us that the Son didn't become the begotten God in Mary but that He was the begotten God even in the beginning of the world.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Arnold @ Aug. 04 2010,07:31)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 04 2010,07:19) Quote (Arnold @ Aug. 03 2010,15:03) Again and in Proverbs 8:22-30 also explains it how God brought forth His Son,and He was called the master craftsman.  Wisdom is an essence of God and it simple does not make sense that God would bring forth Wisdom, when He was wise from eternity….I never heard wisdom called a master craftsman either. So what does that mean Irene? Was there ever a time God did not have is “Word” or was there ever a time God was  without “Wisdom”, the scriptures say Jesus is the “Wisdom” of God and he is the “Word” that was with God and was God in the beginning before all things which would include time. WJ W.J.  You believe that The Word who became Jesus always existed.  It says that He is the firstborn of all creation  in all the Scriptures I quoted…. Not from all eternity…. Only Jehovah God had immortality then…. Now Jesus too has immortality….. He could have not died for us if He would have immortality……I just can't just ignore 3 Scriptures that state  that He was the firstborn of all creation.  And then He created all by the power of Jehovah….Col. 1:16    Irene

But you misinterpret the word “firstborn.”

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=3247

the Roo

[KangarooJack]

WorshippingJesus said:

Quote

I love it when you guys use Trinitarian quotes to support your conclusions even though the conclusions of the Trinitarian Scholars disagree with yours. For instance this part of the NET's commentary… Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). “Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.”” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

Keith,

People like Kathi and Mike cannot be honest about what the father's said. They have lost the scriptural argument on “monogenes” and “protokos” and “gennao” and “yalad.” All they have left is to find FRAGMENTED quotes from the fathers that they think can help them. In other words, Kathi and Mike cannot overcome our scriptural arguments. So they have to make it appear as if we are out of accord with the fathers saying, “The fathers did not interpret scripture as you do.”

But from fragmented quotes one can make a person say what he wants. We see this in political campaign ads all the time. Everyone here knows what Kathi and Mike are doing because they were not born yesterday as Kathi and Mike think.
Jack

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 04 2010,09:58)

People like Kathi and Mike cannot be honest about what the father's said. They have lost the scriptural argument on “monogenes” and “protokos” and “gennao” and “yalad.” All they have left is to find FRAGMENTED quotes from the fathers that they think can help them.

Who has “lost” on those words?  And who has shown solid proof of their understanding?

Let's see, Kathi and I are using the fathers for one reason, and one reason only………THEY AGREE WITH US, NOT YOU TWO!
   

Where is your PROOF that “yalad”, “prototokos pasa ktisis”, “monogenes” and “gennao” support YOUR views?

Just in case you didn't know, going thread to thread declaring it does not constitute PROOF!    

The only proof you guys offer is the “proof” of “I said so”.

mike

[Arnold]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 04 2010,09:44)

Quote (Arnold @ Aug. 04 2010,07:31) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 04 2010,07:19) Quote (Arnold @ Aug. 03 2010,15:03) Again and in Proverbs 8:22-30 also explains it how God brought forth His Son,and He was called the master craftsman.  Wisdom is an essence of God and it simple does not make sense that God would bring forth Wisdom, when He was wise from eternity….I never heard wisdom called a master craftsman either. So what does that mean Irene? Was there ever a time God did not have is “Word” or was there ever a time God was  without “Wisdom”, the scriptures say Jesus is the “Wisdom” of God and he is the “Word” that was with God and was God in the beginning before all things which would include time. WJ W.J.  You believe that The Word who became Jesus always existed.  It says that He is the firstborn of all creation  in all the Scriptures I quoted…. Not from all eternity…. Only Jehovah God had immortality then…. Now Jesus too has immortality….. He could have not died for us if He would have immortality……I just can't just ignore 3 Scriptures that state  that He was the firstborn of all creation.  And then He created all by the power of Jehovah….Col. 1:16    Irene But you misinterpret the word “firstborn.” https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=3247 the Roo

Jack! There is a Scripture that tells us that the Head of Man is Christ and the head of Christ is God, which does not mean firstborn….1 Corinth. 11:3.. Firstborn is the first of the Children in a Family…. like our Son David is. Most who have more then one child will have a firstborn….. Since there are more then one Scripture that state that Christ is the firstborn, I believe it means firstborn and not first in rank….Even The Word had a beginning. Also in Col. 1:15-18 it says that He was first in all, that He may have preeminence. verse 18. firstborn of all creation and firstborn of the death…..
Irene

[gollamudi]

Hi all,
Pre-existence of Jesus is another mythology which christianity incorporated into its religion from its pagan neighbours. If Jesus was pre-existing as some being prior to his birth as human he could not be a true human at all but an alien who visited our planet from another celestial abode and after his mission he had flown back to his celestial abode. This is nothing but mythology for which there is no historical proof.
Be realistic in your approach.
Thanks and peace to you
Adam

[Arnold]

Quote (gollamudi @ Aug. 04 2010,23:10)

Hi all, Pre-existence of Jesus is another mythology which christianity incorporated into its religion from its pagan neighbours. If Jesus was pre-existing as some being prior to his birth as human he could not be a true human at all but an alien who visited our planet from another celestial abode and after his mission he had flown back to his celestial abode. This is nothing but mythology for which there is no historical proof. Be realistic in your approach. Thanks and peace to you Adam

Adam! You are ignoring clear Scriptures, and even calling Jesus a liar. He said that He came down from Heaven to do the will of His Father, Also That He wants His glory back which He had before the world was. He is now sitting at the right hand of His Father as The Word of God. He will come back as The Word of God and KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. REV . 19:13AND VERSE 16.
He was the firstborn of all creation Col. 1:15-17 through Him all was created for Him. Col 1:18 shows us that He is also the firstborn of the death, so He may have preeminence…. Meaning He was first in all.
H.N. has a good article on this subject, and you need to study it, before you call Jesus a liar.
Peace Irene

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (gollamudi @ Aug. 04 2010,23:10)

Hi all, Pre-existence of Jesus is another mythology which christianity incorporated into its religion from its pagan neighbours. If Jesus was pre-existing as some being prior to his birth as human he could not be a true human at all but an alien who visited our planet from another celestial abode and after his mission he had flown back to his celestial abode. This is nothing but mythology for which there is no historical proof. Be realistic in your approach. Thanks and peace to you Adam

Adam………Right on brother. Jesus was the (FIRST) of the Human race to become a real son of GOD at the Jordan River , He is of pure (HUMAN) Stock and no from Heavenly STOCK as a Preexistent Morphed Being would be. God was not trying to save a preexisting being who was already perfect , but a (PURE) Human Being He was Perfecting and creating him into his dear son. Scripture plainly say Jesus was son of man, Jesus even said when the SON OF MAN COMES WILL HE FIND FAITH ON THE EARTH. Notice he did not say the son of GOD come but Son of Man. Jesus was (BEGOTTEN) as a SON BY GOD AT the JORDAN. “this day (I) have (begotten) you” God said not some time in the Past. And again (I) shall be a Farther unto him and He shall Be a son unto me. ( this also shows (future tense)> not Past tense.

peace and love to you and yours Adam………………..gene

[Proclaimer]

Jesus existed in the form of God. Other translations say that he existed with divine nature. Of course this is easily understood in that it says that he emptied himself and was found in the flesh.

It is written and what is the point in trying to nullify what is written?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 05 2010,02:13)

He is of pure (HUMAN) Stock and no from Heavenly STOCK

That is your testimony Gene.

But I believe this testimony.

Philippians 2:6-11 (New International Version)
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

You are against this Gene.

Notice how the first sentence in particular completely exposes your quoted statement for what it is. I am not sure what you think you might gain from denying his origins.

Are you that hard-hearted that such words have no impact on you?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (gollamudi @ Aug. 04 2010,23:10)

Hi all, Pre-existence of Jesus is another mythology which christianity incorporated into its religion from its pagan neighbours. If Jesus was pre-existing as some being prior to his birth as human he could not be a true human at all but an alien who visited our planet from another celestial abode and after his mission he had flown back to his celestial abode. This is nothing but mythology for which there is no historical proof. Be realistic in your approach. Thanks and peace to you Adam

To Gol.

We should believe Jesus own testimony when he said, “before Abraham I am”.

Just because you do not believe his testimony, doesn't mean that we all should. It might make you feel better if we all followed your view here, but that is not the point is it.

We all have to stand before him and give an account. And Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice”. And then he said something like “and the voice of another they will not hear”.

Maybe now you can understand why it is that it appears that we cannot hear you.

Of course we do hear you, but we do not believe your testimony regarding Jesus origins.

Rather we believe that his origins are ancient. Not from 2000 or so years ago, as you teach.

[Worshipping Jesus]

To Kathi and Mike and all.

My business has picked up which is good but requires me to spend less time here on HN.

I have every intent to continue the debate with Mike in the debates thread, and Kathi I have every intent of answering both yours and Mikes claim that the Early Church Fathers supports your and Mike's views more than Jack and myself.

Briefly I might mention the theology of the Athanasian Creed is firmly rooted in the Augustinian tradition, using exact terminology of “Augustine's On the Trinity” (published 415 AD).

A close study of Augustine’s writings on the Trinity shows that his theology as well as the other Fathers lines up with Jacks belief and mine and not with the views of Kathi and especially Mike.

The Fathers view is there is “One God” consisting of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, not one God who brought birth to a separate being who is another God, not to mention their view of the Holy Spirit is totally alien to Kathi's and Mike's views.

It will sure be interesting to see how they can prove that the Early Church Fathers views line up with theirs and not ours.

WJ

[Lightenup]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2010,16:40)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 03 2010,09:07) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,21:02) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 02 2010,15:42) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:30) Keith, I think that we use trinitarian's comments because we are trying to help you see some things that they saw and you argue against over and over, like the meaning of 'monogenes' in John, for example. I don't think that earlier trinitarians have as much of a difference with me as you, Jack and I do.  I'm trying to get you to realize that so that we can get a bridge built instead of keep building a wall and digging the moat larger and larger.  Do you want to build bridges or build walls and dig moats? The earlier trinitarians are different than today's trinitarians, imo. kathi There is no bridge or gap to a Jesus that was created or “literrally born” before time. The Forefathers didn't believe that and especially the Trinitarian Forefathers. They believed in the co-eternal, co-equal nature of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit. You are trying to twist their words to fit your doctrine. Your recent claim concerning Calvin is proff of this for Calvins own words are… “…WHEN IT IS EVIDENT THAT THREE PERSONS HAVE SUBSISTED IN ONE GOD FROM ETERNITY…“ And that isn't even close to what you believe about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is it Kathi? WJ Actually, Keith, the early Christians did believe in a literal begetting of a Son from the Father before the ages.  That which was co-eternal, co-equal was the NATURE.  That is what their point is.  The nature which they both share always existed, the Son does not contain a new and different nature from the Father but a nature that ALWAYS EXISTED from the Father.  The separate person of the Son did not always exist, but his nature did always exist within the Father.  That is what these early Christians are saying. Your nature, common to man, existed since God created man and did not always exist before that.  The Son's nature, common to God, existed always.  The nature common to God did not have a beginning and thus, the nature of God and the Son of God is co-eternal and co-equal.  Perfect came FROM Perfect.  Less than perfect DID NOT come from Perfect.  The Son's nature is not less than the Father's.  That is the message. The Christians who think that the Son is not a literal offspring of the Father before the ages are not in agreement with the early Christians! The perfect nature always existed and was not made within time or just before time. Kathi Its real simple. The words “begotten” and “firstborn” have different meanings in scripture. So lets go at it in a different way. Show me where the Forefathers like “Ignatius” specifically states Jesus was “literrally born” from the Father or where they state “he had a beginning before time”. Because since the words  “begotten” and “firstborn” according to the scrtiptures can mean something different, then it is merely “conjecture” to say he had a beginnig especially since he was the in the beginning with the Father before time which is “Eternity”. Why don't you addres that point? WJ Quote ; He said to the Son, “From the womb before the day-star I begat Thee.” What is from the womb? Had God a womb? Shall we imagine that God was fashioned with bodily members? God forbid! And why said He, “From the womb,” but that it might be understood that He begat Him of His Own Substance? So then froth the womb came forth That which Himself was who begat. For if He who begat was one thing, and another came forth out of the womb; it were a monster, not a Son. from here: http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/b2a.htm This quote was from Augustine.  He acknowledges that the Son was truly a Son and not something other that was begotten having a different nature as the Father.

Keith,
You need to re-read what Augustine says in the quote.

You said:

Quote

They believed in the co-eternal, co-equal nature of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit.

You are right, they did believe and so do I. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit all have the same NATURE. My kids and I and our inner-spirits all have the same mankind nature as well. My kids and I are co-equal in nature, and our nature has been around since God gave it to mankind.

The statement, “they believed in the co-eternal, co-equal nature” just means that they all had the SAME type of nature, the nature of deity. This nature wasn't made anew and different for each person, like man's nature was new and not eternal, or the nature of animals was new and not eternal, their nature has always existed. The Son's nature has always existed, He, as a separate person, has not…but instead, He was brought forth/begotten before the ages, during eternity from the eternal substance within the Father. That is what the early Christians are saying.

This has been shown by Mike and I already.

[Arnold]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 04 2010,09:44)

Quote (Arnold @ Aug. 04 2010,07:31) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 04 2010,07:19) Quote (Arnold @ Aug. 03 2010,15:03) Again and in Proverbs 8:22-30 also explains it how God brought forth His Son,and He was called the master craftsman.  Wisdom is an essence of God and it simple does not make sense that God would bring forth Wisdom, when He was wise from eternity….I never heard wisdom called a master craftsman either. So what does that mean Irene? Was there ever a time God did not have is “Word” or was there ever a time God was  without “Wisdom”, the scriptures say Jesus is the “Wisdom” of God and he is the “Word” that was with God and was God in the beginning before all things which would include time. WJ W.J.  You believe that The Word who became Jesus always existed.  It says that He is the firstborn of all creation  in all the Scriptures I quoted…. Not from all eternity…. Only Jehovah God had immortality then…. Now Jesus too has immortality….. He could have not died for us if He would have immortality……I just can't just ignore 3 Scriptures that state  that He was the firstborn of all creation.  And then He created all by the power of Jehovah….Col. 1:16    Irene But you misinterpret the word “firstborn.” https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=3247 the Roo

That is your opinion only, Scripture says that He was the firstborn of all creation and that He was The Word of God and it says in John 1:1 IN THE BEGINNING. So which beginning was it!!!! It was the beginning of The Word of God…… And then that Word became flesh……verse 14. All of that is not MY INTERPETATION, BUT IT IS SCRIPTURE. And I go by Scripture….Not what men like you will want to teach me……No thank you!!!! W.J.ALSO IS ADDING WHEN HE SAID AND TIME, AS FAR AS THE BEGINNING GOES…John 1:1-14 says nothing of time only the beginning…..He came forth from the Father……and also wisdom was born… read it again my friend……ARE YOU W.J.
Peace Irene

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:30)

Keith, I think that we use trinitarian's comments because we are trying to help you see some things that they saw and you argue against over and over, like the meaning of 'monogenes' in John, for example.

Kathi

The word “Monogenes” was not found referring to Jesus until John 1:14, it is not in John 1:1 and follows after the word “ginomai” (genes) the second half of Monogenes which means “came into existence. Jesus came into existence in the flesh and became the “Monogenes” ((1) single of its kind, only which is the first definition of “Monogenes”. A close study of Phil 2:6-8 shows “ginomai” being used by Paul in reference to Jesus coming in the likeness of sinful flesh (coming into existence) and is found in fashion as a man.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:30)

I don't think that earlier trinitarians have as much of a difference with me as you, Jack and I do.  I'm trying to get you to realize that so that we can get a bridge built instead of keep building a wall and digging the moat larger and larger.  Do you want to build bridges or build walls and dig moats? The earlier trinitarians are different than today's trinitarians, imo.

And I am trying to get you to realize that the Trinitarian Fathers are miles apart from you and Mike in their differences as opposed to Jack and I.

You and Mike insist that the Early Church Fathers believed Jesus had a beginning and when asked to show where this is so you give a quote from Augustine which in context is ambiguous especially seeing that Augustine believed in One Divine being consisting of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

Why have you and Mike ignored Ignatius quote below?…

There is one Physician
who is possessed both of flesh and spirit;
**BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**;
GOD EXISTING IN FLESH;
true life in death;
both of Mary and of God;
first passible and then impassible,
–Jesus Christ our Lord (Letter to the Ephesians VII).

**BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**   **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**   **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**

What does “BORN AND UNBORN” mean Kathi?

Not to mention the Early Church Fathers believed in the “One God” consisting of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Not a “Binity” where there are 2 divine beings, one being who is literally born from the other.

I think I might create a thread on the Trinity and the Early Church Fathers.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,15:28)

Keith, You need to re-read what Augustine says in the quote.

Kathi

Why not read a little more of the context….

Augustine…

Now take for the present, as you thus take two men, the Father commanding, the Son obeying, yet God and God. “But the first two together are two men, the Latter together is but One God; this is a divine miracle”. Meanwhile if you would that with you I acknowledge the obedience, do you first with me acknowledge the Nature. The Father begat That which Himself is. If the Father begat ought else than what Himself is, He did not beget a true Son. The Father saith to the Son, “From the womb before the day-star, I begat Thee.”8 What is, “before the day-star “? By the day-star times are signified. So then before times, before all that is called “before;” before all that is not, or before all that is. “For the Gospel does not say, “In the beginning God made the Word;” as it is said, “In the beginning God made the Heaven and the earth;”9 or, “In the beginning was the Word born;” or, “In the beginning God begat the Word.” But what says it? “He was, He was, He was.” You hear, “He was;” believe. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”10 So often do ye hear, “Was:” seek not for thee, for that He always “was.” He then who always was, and was always with the Son, for that God is able to beget without thee; He said to the Son, “From the womb before the day-star I begat Thee.” What is from the womb? Had God a womb? Shall we imagine that God was fashioned with bodily members? God forbid! And why said He, “From the womb,” but that it might be understood that He begat Him of His Own Substance? So then froth the womb came forth That which Himself was who begat. For if He who begat was one thing, and another came forth out of the womb; it were a monster, not a Son.

Again, The theology of the creed is firmly rooted in the Augustinian tradition, using exact terminology of Augustine's On the Trinity (published 415 AD).

This is the Athanasian Creed…

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the catholic faith is this, “that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. 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 uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. AND YET THEY ARE NOT THREE ETERNALS, BUT ONE ETERNAL. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. 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 be three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. AND IN THIS TRINITY NONE IS BEFORE OR AFTER OTHER; NONE IS GREATER OR LESS THAN ANOTHER; BUT THE WHOLE THREE PERSONS ARE COETERNAL TOGETHER, AND COEQUAL: SO THAT IN ALL THINGS, AS IS AFORESAID, THE UNITY IN TRINITY AND THE TRINITY IN UNITY IS TO BE WORSHIPED. HE, THEREFORE, THAT WILL BE SAVED MUST THUS THINK OF THE TRINITY.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.
This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

As you can see there are several things that the creed disagrees with you on which are critical to the faith.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,15:28)

You are right, they did believe and so do I.  The Father, Son and Holy Spirit all have the same NATURE. My kids and I and our inner-spirits all have the same mankind nature as well.  My kids and I are co-equal in nature, and our nature has been around since God gave it to mankind.

Why are you misrepresenting what they believe by coming across like you agree with them when in fact you are miles from their belief.

AND YET THEY ARE NOT THREE ETERNALS, BUT ONE ETERNAL. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. SO LIKEWISE THE FATHER IS ALMIGHTY, THE SON ALMIGHTY, AND THE HOLY GHOST ALMIGHTY.

Kathi you do not believe the Holy Spirit is a separate person than the Father and Jesus and you also do not believe that Jesus is the Almighty or the “Most High God”. You also believe there are 2 eternals an 2 incomprehensibles and 2 uncreateds don’t you?

BUT THE WHOLE THREE PERSONS ARE COETERNAL TOGETHER, AND COEQUAL: SO THAT IN ALL THINGS, AS IS AFORESAID, THE UNITY IN TRINITY AND THE TRINITY IN UNITY IS TO BE WORSHIPED. HE, THEREFORE, THAT WILL BE SAVED MUST THUS THINK OF THE TRINITY.

The above is not at all what you and Mike believes, is it? Yet that is what Jack and I believe.

WJ

[KangarooJack]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 05 2010,08:41)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,15:28) Keith, You need to re-read what Augustine says in the quote. Kathi Why not read a little more of the context…. Augustine… Now take for the present, as you thus take two men, the Father commanding, the Son obeying, yet God and God. “But the first two together are two men, the Latter together is but One God; this is a divine miracle”. Meanwhile if you would that with you I acknowledge the obedience, do you first with me acknowledge the Nature. The Father begat That which Himself is. If the Father begat ought else than what Himself is, He did not beget a true Son. The Father saith to the Son, “From the womb before the day-star, I begat Thee.”8 What is, “before the day-star “? By the day-star times are signified. So then before times, before all that is called “before;” before all that is not, or before all that is. “For the Gospel does not say, “In the beginning God made the Word;” as it is said, “In the beginning God made the Heaven and the earth;”9 or, “In the beginning was the Word born;” or, “In the beginning God begat the Word.” But what says it? “He was, He was, He was.” You hear, “He was;” believe. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”10 So often do ye hear, “Was:” seek not for thee, for that He always “was.” He then who always was, and was always with the Son, for that God is able to beget without thee; He said to the Son, “From the womb before the day-star I begat Thee.” What is from the womb? Had God a womb? Shall we imagine that God was fashioned with bodily members? God forbid! And why said He, “From the womb,” but that it might be understood that He begat Him of His Own Substance? So then froth the womb came forth That which Himself was who begat. For if He who begat was one thing, and another came forth out of the womb; it were a monster, not a Son. Again, The theology of the creed is firmly rooted in the Augustinian tradition, using exact terminology of Augustine's On the Trinity (published 415 AD). This is the Athanasian Creed… Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this, “that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. 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 uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. AND YET THEY ARE NOT THREE ETERNALS, BUT ONE ETERNAL. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. 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 be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. AND IN THIS TRINITY NONE IS BEFORE OR AFTER OTHER; NONE IS GREATER OR LESS THAN ANOTHER; BUT THE WHOLE THREE PERSONS ARE COETERNAL TOGETHER, AND COEQUAL: SO THAT IN ALL THINGS, AS IS AFORESAID, THE UNITY IN TRINITY AND THE TRINITY IN UNITY IS TO BE WORSHIPED. HE, THEREFORE, THAT WILL BE SAVED MUST THUS THINK OF THE TRINITY. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved. As you can see there are several things that the creed disagrees with you on which are critical to the faith. Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,15:28) You are right, they did believe and so do I.  The Father, Son and Holy Spirit all have the same NATURE. My kids and I and our inner-spirits all have the same mankind nature as well.  My kids and I are co-equal in nature, and our nature has been around since God gave it to mankind. Why are you misrepresenting what they believe by coming across like you agree with them when in fact you are miles from their belief. AND YET THEY ARE NOT THREE ETERNALS, BUT ONE ETERNAL. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. SO LIKEWISE THE FATHER IS ALMIGHTY, THE SON ALMIGHTY, AND THE HOLY GHOST ALMIGHTY. Kathi you do not believe the Holy Spirit is a separate person than the Father and Jesus and you also do not believe that Jesus is the Almighty or the “Most High God”. You also believe there are 2 eternals an 2 incomprehensibles and 2 uncreateds don’t you? BUT THE WHOLE THREE PERSONS ARE COETERNAL TOGETHER, AND COEQUAL: SO THAT IN ALL THINGS, AS IS AFORESAID, THE UNITY IN TRINITY AND THE TRINITY IN UNITY IS TO BE WORSHIPED. HE, THEREFORE, THAT WILL BE SAVED MUST THUS THINK OF THE TRINITY. The above is not at all what you and Mike believes, is it? Yet that is what Jack and I believe. WJ

Keith,

Augustine said that those who misrepresent his writings (Kathi) are “dull of understanding.”

Quote

I expect, indeed, that some, who are more dull of understanding, will imagine that in some parts of my books I have held sentiments which I have not held, or have not held those which I have. But their error, as none can be ignorant, ought not to be attributed to me, if they have deviated into false doctrine through following my steps without apprehending me, while I am compelled to pick my way through a hard and obscure subject: seeing that neither can any one, in any way, rightly ascribe the numerous and various errors of heretics to the holy testimonies themselves of the divine books; although all of them endeavor to defend out of those same Scriptures their own false and erroneous opinions. The law of Christ, that is, charity, admonishes me clearly, and commands me with a sweet constraint, that when men think that I have held in my books something false which I have not held, and that same falsehood displeases one and pleases another, I should prefer to be blamed by him who reprehends the falsehood, rather than praised by him who praises it. For although I, who never held the error, am not rightly blamed by the former, yet the error itself is rightly censured; while by the latter neither am I rightly praised, who am thought to have held that which the truth censures, nor the sentiment itself, which the truth also censures. Let us therefore essay the work which we have undertaken in the name of the Lord.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130101.htm

Jack

[Author]

Posts