- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi KJ,
Yes both Acts 2 and 13 showed by his resurrection that Jesus was the promised. messiah, the son of God of ps 2.
But he was begotten as a son by the Spirit at the Jordan.Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 13 2010,07:18) This means that He has taken full possession of His inheritance and is no longer a servant to His Father and is now above the angels.
Hi Roo,Sorry to hear of your money woes.
Acts 4 will disagree with you. Peter and John both think that Jesus is still a servant of his God.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 12 2010,15:18) Kathi said: Quote Roo,
Since when is power begotten?
Kathi,Isn't the word of the apostles good enough for ya?
32And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33God hath FULFILLED the same unto us their children, in that HE RAISED UP JESUS AGAIN; as it is also WRITTEN IN THE SECOND PSALM,
'You are my Son, TODAY have I begotten You.'
Paul unequivocally puts the begetting of Jesus at His resurrection. He said that God has fulfilled the promise “in that He raised up Jesus again from the dead; AS IT IS ALSO WRITTEN IN THE SECOND PSALM, 'You are My Son, TODAY I have begotten you.' “
Again in Colossians Paul said that Jesus was the firstborn “from the dead.” This refers to the time He became God's firstborn. Though He was anointed as God's Son at the Jordan He was not actually installed as God's firstborn Son until His exaltation. The order is the same as it was for his Father David. David was first anointed God's firstborn son and then he was installed as God's firstborn when he was EXALTED to the throne as king (Ps. 89).
Kathi:
Quote You haven't answered me as to who was preeminent over creation before Jesus.
I have not read any posts lately because I don't have that much time right now. I don't read them until I can reply. My daughter is getting married and I must take a lot of extra work so I will have the money to pay for her wedding when the time comes. My wife and I lost 17k in an investment that went bad so I have to work a lot to come up with the money to pay for her wedding.To answer your question: Did not Jesus refer to His Father as “Lord of heaven and earth?” Now that Jesus is God's fully investitured Son/Heir He has taken full possession of everything and reigns preeminent in His Father's place.
You seem to deny Hebrews 2 which says that Jesus was lower than the angels before His exaltation. Hebrews 1 clearly says that the name “begotten Son” and “firstborn” is a name that is far “so much better than the angels.” It says that as the begotten Son the angels are commanded to worship Him.
So how could Jesus have been the “begotten” and the ''firstborn” when He was lower than the angels?
Another anti-trinitarian here can see this. On page 254 of the Trinity 2 thread Bodhitharta said “Amen.”
Paul said that the heir though he is owner of all differs nothing from a servant UNTIL the appointed time of the Father. Jesus was a servant Son in the days of His flesh and was therefore under his Father and was lower than the angels. But at the appointed time of the Father Jesus became the fully investitured Son of God. This means that He has taken full possession of His inheritance and is no longer a servant to His Father and is now above the angels.
This is what it means for Him to be the “begotten Son.”
the Roo
KJ,Quote So how could Jesus have been the “begotten” and the ''firstborn” when He was lower than the angels? First of all, I do not agree that firstborn means preeminent. I believe that it means the first procreative strength of the Father. The only way He could have done anything is by being begotten as in procreated. If He hadn't come into existence before creation, He couldn't have created the world.
You only account for firstborn from the dead, not firstborn of all creation. I see 'creation' as all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, like Col 1 explains.
Jesus was raised with power, not as becoming the Son of God.
It was enlightening to read what Ignatius wrote about the begotten Son being begotten before the ages.
Nick,
God could procreate whatever He needed, so no He was not helpless.
What do you mean that Ignatius has no proven heritage?Quote (Lightenup @ June 13 2010,13:04) It was enlightening to read what Ignatius wrote about the begotten Son being begotten before the ages.
Hi Kathi,It was Eusebius who said that. He added “firstborn of every creature” right in there with the “begotten”.
mike
Quote (karmarie @ June 09 2010,19:07) Hi WJ, this is really the last thing I have to say here (on this thread) because I cant be bothered with these debates, but just to clear up this matter on the Saint Ignatius.. I cheaked it and your right
Authentic letters:
To the Ephesians
To the Magnesians
Letter to the Trallians
To the Romans
To the Philadelphians
To the Smyrnaeans
To Polycarp, Bishop of SmyrnaEpistles attributed to Saint Ignatius but of spurious origin:
Epistle to the Tarsians
Epistle to the Antiochians
Epistle to Hero, a Deacon of Antioch
Epistle to the Philippians
The Epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius
Epistle to Mary at Neapolis,
Zarbus First Epistle to St. John
Second Epistle to St. John
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary
Reply of the Blessed Virgin to this LetterBut WJ, that leaves these Authentic parts of Saint Ignatius…
(Ignatius) To the Smyrneans
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and of the beloved Jesus Christ.
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the most high Father and His beloved Son Jesus Christ.
Glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by Him has given you such wisdom, that He was the Son of God, “the first-born of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, by the Virgin Mary; was baptized by John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; that He lived a life of holiness without sin, and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. (I).
To the Ephesians
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus… being united and elected through the true passion by the will of God the Father, and of our Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For “the Word was made flesh.” Being incorporeal, He was in the body, being impassible, He was in a passible body, being immortal, He was in a mortal body, being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts. (VII).
For the Son of God, who was begotten before time began, and established all things according to the will of the Father, He was conceived in the womb of Mary, according to the appointment of God, of the seed of David, and by the Holy Ghost. For [it]says, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and He shall be called Immanuel.” He was born and was baptized by John, that He might ratify the institution committed to that prophet. (XVIII).
Jesus Christ, in His faith and in His love, in His suffering and in His resurrection. Especially if the Lord make known to me that ye come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God. (XX).
The faith of Jesus Christ, and in His love, in His passion, and in His resurrection. Do ye all come together in common, and individually, through grace, in one faith of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and “the first-born of every creature,” but of the seed of David according to the flesh. (XX).
To the Magnesians
The ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. (VI).
The ministry of Jesus Christ. He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever; for “of His kingdom there shall be no end. (VI).
Do ye therefore all run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one.(VII).
Do ye all, as one man, run together into the temple of God, as unto one altar, to one Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the unbegotten God. (VII).
There is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word. (VIII).
There is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word. (VIII).
Fare ye well in the harmony of God, ye who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ. (XV).
Fare ye well in harmony, ye who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, in Christ Jesus, by the will of God. (XV).
To the Romans
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God….I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father…abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who formed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour….I also salute in the name of Almighty God, and of Jesus Christ His Son… abundance of happiness unblameably, in God, even the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
“For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. (III).
Mike,Quote But WJ, that leaves these Authentic parts of Saint Ignatius… (Ignatius) To the Smyrneans
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and of the beloved Jesus Christ.
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the most high Father and His beloved Son Jesus Christ.
Glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by Him has given you such wisdom, that He was the Son of God, “the first-born of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, by the Virgin Mary; was baptized by John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; that He lived a life of holiness without sin, and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. (I).
Quote Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus… being united and elected through the true passion by the will of God the Father, and of our Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus th
e Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.Mike,
Quote For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. (III). Whose God was Jesus Christ according to Ignatius? He called Him “Our God.” You say He is no ones god, much like the angels, isn't that right?
Yes Kathi,
He also said: “The ministry of Jesus Christ. He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever; for “of His kingdom there shall be no end.” (VI).
But the “before all the ages” wording was Eusebius.
Anyway, I think it's hilarious that these trinitarians keep posting info to support their beliefs, and everything they post ends up biting them in the ***
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Lightenup @ June 12 2010,21:52) Mike, Quote For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. (III). Whose God was Jesus Christ according to Ignatius? He called Him “Our God.” You say He is no ones god, much like the angels, isn't that right?
Mike,
Doesn't this from Ignatius kinda bite YOU in the but?
Quote (Lightenup @ June 13 2010,13:54) Quote (Lightenup @ June 12 2010,21:52) Mike, Quote For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. (III). Whose God was Jesus Christ according to Ignatius? He called Him “Our God.” You say He is no ones god, much like the angels, isn't that right?
Mike,
Doesn't this from Ignatius kinda bite YOU in the but?
Yes, that is correct. But I also pointed out that the word “god” was used differently then. It meant simply mighty one. Is Jesus my “mighty one”? You betcha. Is he my God? No. Jehovah is my God and Jesus' God and the only true God.So, no butt-biting going on here.
mike
TO ALL:
There is a point that I have been wanting to make so I will make it now. Mikeboll has tried to prove from fragment quotes that Eusebuis believed that Jesus had a beginning. These fragments are inadmissable because in the end Eusebius submitted to and signed the Nicean creed which denied that Jesus had a beginning.About 10 years ago there was an elder at my church who had been teaching and writing that Jesus the man was not God in the flesh. I had tried to correct him on this but he would not be corrected. So I wrote the Session of my church and gave them documentation showing the elder's errors. The Session in turn submitted it to a higher governing body in the denomination. The elder was called in to be examined by them.
The elder recanted the things that he had written and spoken and the governing body cleared Him of all things. But I had still held his errors against him until finally another elder in my church who is a wise and spiritual man said to me, “In the end the elder got it right.”
It is evident from the documentation I provide below that in the end Eusebius got it right. The wise elder taught me that anything the errant elder wrote or said before his change was inadmissable.
So all the broken fragments Mikeboll has offered about Eusebius is inadmissable because in the end Eusebius got it right.
Mikeboll said:
Quote After you have STILL not answered my two simple questions about Eusebius' quote? I replied:
You give fragments from Eusebius out of their historical context. There was a progressive development in the Christology of Eusebius. It has been noted that THREE STAGES occurred in the development of the Christology of Eusebius. Note the three stages carefully especially the last stage which shows that Eusebius came to agree with the Council of Nicea and signed it and remained a supporter from that time and onward:
Quote To understand his conduct, it is necessary to look briefly at his theological position. By many he has been called an Arian, by many his orthodoxy has been defended. The truth is, three stages are to be distinguished in his theological development. The first preceded the outbreak of the Arian controversy, when, as might be expected in a follower of Origen, his interest was anti-Sabellian and his emphasis chiefly upon the subordination of the Son of God. In his works written during this period (for instance, the Praeparatio evangelica and Demonstratio evangelica), as in the works of Origen himself and other anteNicene fathers, expressions occur looking in the direction of Arianism, and others looking in the opposite direction. The second stage began with the outbreak of the controversy in 318, and continued until the Nicene Council. During this period he took the side of Arius in the dispute with Alexander of Alexandria, and accepted what he understood to be the position of Arius and his supporters, who, as he supposed, taught both the divinity and subordination of the Son. It was natural that he should take this side, for in his traditional fear of Sabellianism, in which he was one with the followers of Origen in general, he found it difficult to approve the position of Alexander, who seemed to be doing away altogether with the subordination of the Son. And, moreover, he believed that Alexander was misrepresenting the teaching of Arius and doing him great injustice (cf. his letters to Alexander and Euphration preserved in the proceedings of the second council of Nicaea, Act. vi. tom. 5: see Mansi's Concilia, xiii. 316 sq.; English translation in McGiffert, op. cit. p. 70). Meanwhile at the council of Nicaea he seems to have discovered that the Alexandrians were right in claiming that Arius was carrying his subordinationism so far as to deny all real divinity to Christ. To this length Eusebius himself was unwilling to go, and so, convinced that he had misunderstood Arius, and that the teaching of the latter was imperilling the historic belief in the divinity of Christ, he gave his support to the opposition, and voted for the Nicene Creed, in which the teachings of the Arians were repudiated. From this time on he was a supporter of Nicene orthodoxy over against Arianism (cf., e.g., his Contra Marcellum, De ecclesiastica theologia, and Theophania).
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Eusebius_of_CaesareaSo you will need to do better than provide fragments from Eusebius. Eusebius SIGNED the revised creed. Let's see how many ways I can put this:
* Eusebius SIGNED revised creed.
* Eusebius AFFIXED HIS SIGNATURE to the revised creed.
* Eusebius PUT HIS “JOHN HANCOCK” on the revised creed.
* Eusebius SUBMITTED to the revised creed and SIGNED it.
* Eusebuis RETRACTED His former support position and SIGNED the revised creed.THEREFORE, any fragmented quotes you provide from Eusebius before the final stage in the development of His Christology is inadmissable! I repeat: Fragmented quotes before the final stage of the development in Eusebius' thinking IS INADMISSABLE!
the Roo
KJ,
Why don't you ask for a moderator to mediate between you two?
Hey Mike,
I hear tell that you are a moderator now.
Are you up for this? (Craig David)Oh brother, Roo!
Again? I would like to invite Dennison to “judge” this debate we're having so maybe someone would FORCE you to answer the questions that have been asked of you. Are you willing to have a “judge”? Let's take it back to our debate thread where I already bumped this discussion. The reason I originally started our debate was so you couldn't do what you are doing here. You avoid simple straight forward questions, and keep “proclaiming” to everyone who can read the same tired non-answers. Here we go again.
I don't care if Eusebius later joined the “God is a tinkerbell fairy” cult. He was a Greek man, who was learned in theology and spoke the language that the NT was written in.
AND HE THOUGHT THAT “PROTOTOKOS PASA KTISIS” MEANT “FIRSTBORN OF EVERY CREATURE” AND THAT “MONOGENES” MEANT “ONLY BEGOTTEN”!
That debunks your new trinitarian scholars who say those words had nothing to do with God's Son's beginning.
It is hilarious to me that WJ is the one who originally posted this “fragment” of Eusebius' writings and it actually disproves the trinity. And it's even more hilarious that you guys brought out the big guns of Ignatious which FURTHER disproves the trinity!
I can't wait for your next “big gun”!
Just answer the questions, Roo. You are not fooling anyone with all this rhetoric. They can also see that you cannot not answer the questions honestly without admitting you are wrong about the Greek usage of certain words. We can ALL see that all these ranting posts are smoke and mirrors designed to distract people from the issue at hand. It's actually an insult to the intelligence of the HN members that you think they are dumb enough to fall for it.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 14 2010,01:15) About 10 years ago there was an elder at my church who had been teaching and writing that Jesus the man was not God in the flesh. I had tried to correct him on this but he would not be corrected. So I wrote the Session of my church and gave them documentation showing the elder's errors. The Session in turn submitted it to a higher governing body in the denomination. The elder was called in to be examined by them. The elder recanted the things that he had written and spoken and the governing body cleared Him of all things. But I had still held his errors against him until finally another elder in my church who is a wise and spiritual man said to me, “In the end the elder got it right.”
Roo……..To bad the elder did not have the courage to tell you all where to go, He was right in the first place. Just not enough (SALT) in Him, so he was thrown out and tromped under by the foot of men. But that just goes to show what organized religion can do. They control there People by threating to dis-fellowship as most all the thousand or so (different) religions organizations do , even though they (ALL) disagree with each other , or there would only be (ONE) right?Roo it was wrong for you to even take him before the church in the first place. IMO
peace and love……………..gene
Quote (JustAskin @ June 14 2010,02:02) KJ, Why don't you ask for a moderator to mediate between you two?
Hey Mike,
I hear tell that you are a moderator now.
Are you up for this? (Craig David)
It's funny that we were posting the same idea at the same time again. I would LOVE to continue my debate with Roo with a judge to keep things on track. I just don't think Roo is up to it – maybe I'm wrong. What do you say, Roo?I think WE could use a judge to keep things on track in the born or begotten thread.
As far as being moderator, I think it means that I am always right now, and my adversary is always wrong. Is that correct?
I don't know who (Craig David) is.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Gene Balthrop @ June 14 2010,02:25) Roo……..To bad the elder did not have the courage to tell you all where to go, He was right in the first place. Just not enough (SALT) in Him, so he was thrown out and tromped under by the foot of men. But that just goes to show what organized religion can do. They control there People by threating to dis-fellowship as most all the thousand or so (different) religions organizations do
Hi Gene,Good post! I think that most people who claim they are trinitarians, like Eusebius and this fellow that Jack wrote about would fit into the same category as the leaders mentioned in John 12,
42Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; 43for they loved praise from men more than praise from God.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 13 2010,09:15) TO ALL:
There is a point that I have been wanting to make so I will make it now. Mikeboll has tried to prove from fragment quotes that Eusebuis believed that Jesus had a beginning. These fragments are inadmissable because in the end Eusebius submitted to and signed the Nicean creed which denied that Jesus had a beginning.About 10 years ago there was an elder at my church who had been teaching and writing that Jesus the man was not God in the flesh. I had tried to correct him on this but he would not be corrected. So I wrote the Session of my church and gave them documentation showing the elder's errors. The Session in turn submitted it to a higher governing body in the denomination. The elder was called in to be examined by them.
The elder recanted the things that he had written and spoken and the governing body cleared Him of all things. But I had still held his errors against him until finally another elder in my church who is a wise and spiritual man said to me, “In the end the elder got it right.”
It is evident from the documentation I provide below that in the end Eusebius got it right. The wise elder taught me that anything the errant elder wrote or said before his change was inadmissable.
So all the broken fragments Mikeboll has offered about Eusebius is inadmissable because in the end Eusebius got it right.
Mikeboll said:
Quote After you have STILL not answered my two simple questions about Eusebius' quote? I replied:
You give fragments from Eusebius out of their historical context. There was a progressive development in the Christology of Eusebius. It has been noted that THREE STAGES occurred in the development of the Christology of Eusebius. Note the three stages carefully especially the last stage which shows that Eusebius came to agree with the Council of Nicea and signed it and remained a supporter from that time and onward:
Quote To understand his conduct, it is necessary to look briefly at his theological position. By many he has been called an Arian, by many his orthodoxy has been defended. The truth is, three stages are to be distinguished in his theological development. The first preceded the outbreak of the Arian controversy, when, as might be expected in a follower of Origen, his interest was anti-Sabellian and his emphasis chiefly upon the subordination of the Son of God. In his works written during this period (for instance, the Praeparatio evangelica and Demonstratio evangelica), as in the works of Origen himself and other anteNicene fathers, expressions occur looking in the direction of Arianism, and others looking in the opposite direction. The second stage began with the outbreak of the controversy in 318, and continued until the Nicene Council. During this period he took the side of Arius in the dispute with Alexander of Alexandria, and accepted what he understood to be the position of Arius and his supporters, who, as he supposed, taught both the divinity and subordination of the Son. It was natural that he should take this side, for in his traditional fear of Sabellianism, in which he was one with the followers of Origen in general, he found it difficult to approve the position of Alexander, who seemed to be doing away altogether with the subordination of the Son. And, moreover, he believed that Alexander was misrepresenting the teaching of Arius and doing him great injustice (cf. his letters to Alexander and Euphration preserved in the proceedings of the second council of Nicaea, Act. vi. tom. 5: see Mansi's Concilia, xiii. 316 sq.; English translation in McGiffert, op. cit. p. 70). Meanwhile at the council of Nicaea he seems to have discovered that the Alexandrians were right in claiming that Arius was carrying his subordinationism so far as to deny all real divinity to Christ. To this length Eusebius himself was unwilling to go, and so, convinced that he had misunderstood Arius, and that the teaching of the latter was imperilling the historic belief in the divinity of Christ, he gave his support to the opposition, and voted for the Nicene Creed, in which the teachings of the Arians were repudiated. From this time on he was a supporter of Nicene orthodoxy over against Arianism (cf., e.g., his Contra Marcellum, De ecclesiastica theologia, and Theophania).
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Eusebius_of_CaesareaSo you will need to do better than provide fragments from Eusebius. Eusebius SIGNED the revised creed. Let's see how many ways I can put this:
* Eusebius SIGNED revised creed.
* Eusebius AFFIXED HIS SIGNATURE to the revised creed.
* Eusebius PUT HIS “JOHN HANCOCK” on the revised creed.
* Eusebius SUBMITTED to the revised creed and SIGNED it.
* Eusebuis RETRACTED His former support position and SIGNED the revised creed.THEREFORE, any fragmented quotes you provide from Eusebius before the final stage in the development of His Christology is inadmissable! I repeat: Fragmented quotes before the final stage of the development in Eusebius' thinking IS INADMISSABLE!
the Roo
Hi Roo,Let us look at the Nicene Creed that he signed. From what I can tell, Roo, you don't agree with the Nicene Creed. You don't believe that the Son was begotten “before all worlds.”
Quote Nicene Creed NICENE CREED
325 A.D.
EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
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.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
(from Creeds of the Church, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Re-read this section:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.And in one Lord Jesus C
hrist, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds;So that is kinda like rubbing you the wrong way about now, huh Roo?
You couldn't sign the Nicene Creed or the doctrine of the trinity either.
1. the Nicene Creed specifically says that the Son was begotten by the Father before all worlds. You say He was begotten when He was resurrected.2. The doctrine of the trinity says that the Son is co-eternal, you say that the Son began being the Son after the resurrection.
Why are you masquerading around like you are a supporter of the Nicene Creed and the trinity doctrine? Are you trying to blend in with your church. Should the elder report you? I bet he would be interested in your posts on here.
Just saying is all…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 12 2010,22:14) Quote (Lightenup @ June 13 2010,13:54) Quote (Lightenup @ June 12 2010,21:52) Mike, Quote For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. (III). Whose God was Jesus Christ according to Ignatius? He called Him “Our God.” You say He is no ones god, much like the angels, isn't that right?
Mike,
Doesn't this from Ignatius kinda bite YOU in the but?
Yes, that is correct. But I also pointed out that the word “god” was used differently then. It meant simply mighty one. Is Jesus my “mighty one”? You betcha. Is he my God? No. Jehovah is my God and Jesus' God and the only true God.So, no butt-biting going on here.
mike
Mike,
Jesus is the mighty WHAT?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
