- This topic is empty.
- Posts
When reporting a post for violation of the rules in this Message Board, please use the official process.
At the bottom of each post is a link titled “Report this post to a moderator”. Click that and tell us why it is inappropriate and then we can action it within the system.
I am getting too many requests via PM or email to penalize people because of bad posts. If I respond from there, then there is no record for a start as to why the penalty was given, unless you dedicate some time for detective work to find where the original complaint actually is, and doing it the official way leaves a record for all moderators and therefore makes it easier to revoke a square later on if the inappropriate behavior has been addressed.
Please also remember that as moderators we prefer to be posting as members here rather than using up excessive time trying to keep everyone happy.
So please make our job easier.
From now on, I will just ignore all reports of inappropriate behavior that do not come through the proper channel.
Also, it is sad that inappropriate behavior exists here in the first place. Just remember than when you post in an inappropriate manner, it actually degrades what you are saying. When bad fruit is associated with a post, then that devalues your post and standing, even if your post is correct.
Think about BP. The acronym may stand for Beyond Petroleum, and their logo might be a nice eco-friendly yellow and green looking flower, but spilling oil into the Gulf tarnishes their reputation and devalues their message and image beyond anything.
So try to think about that next time you decide to be nasty. Don't preach and then couple it with an oil spill in a delicate environment.
t8,
This is to inform you that Kathi has been threatening to report me because I said that her views imply that God is bisexual in the sense being a hermaphrodite. She has said many times here that God has a body and a womb and should expect that this may be misunderstood.
Anyway, in response I first posted an apology to her for the matter of my speaking harshly to her a few weeks ago. In that post I said that I would apologize regarding the “bisexual” (hermaphrodite) remark if she explained her views about God having a body and a womb (p. 70 “Born and Begotten” 4th post down).
She clarified her position (though I still disagree) and I apologized on page 72 of that thread second post down.
the Roo
t8,
Roo is giving you proof of an apology to falsely accusing me of claiming a bisexual God and I am considering accepting that apology but will not be quick to do so given the fact that he has also accused me of many things which he has NOT given proof of nor apologized for. I listed some of them for him and challenged him to confess and apologize or show his proof. He has not done either.
I did accept his apology of the harsh words he said a few weeks ago. However, his harsh words have continued and he has shown nothing to back them up, just false accusations which damages the reader and the falsely accused. If you need proof of anything that I said I can supply that. But mainly I just wanted you to have a fuller picture than what roo is painting above.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2010,04:54) t8,
Roo is giving you proof of an apology to falsely accusing me of claiming a bisexual God and I am considering accepting that apology but will not be quick to do so given the fact that he has also accused me of many things which he has NOT given proof of nor apologized for. I listed some of them for him and challenged him to confess and apologize or show his proof. He has not done either.
I did accept his apology of the harsh words he said a few weeks ago. However, his harsh words have continued and he has shown nothing to back them up, just false accusations which damages the reader and the falsely accused. If you need proof of anything that I said I can supply that. But mainly I just wanted you to have a fuller picture than what roo is painting above.
Kathi,Let's forgive and forget and start over huh? You have also falsely accused Keith and I of dishonesty by “pretending” to be Trinitarians because we deny eternal generation. After I showed that Tertullian taught that there were two stages in the existence of the Word and that He became Son you continued your attack on us. Yet when you invoked Tertullian to clarify your position I accepted it. Though I disagree with your treatment of Tertullian I at least know now where you are coming from with this “body” and “womb” talk in reference to God.
If I understand you correctly you are really saying that Christ originated from the heart of God which Tertullian metaphorically called a “womb.”
I still believe that you misunderstand Tertullian. I could visit a third world country and see that a children's hospital is needed. My heart may be moved and a plan to build a hospital may be born. After the hospital is built it may be said that it came from the womb of my heart. But the thought or reason preexists the hospital.
This is what I think Tertullian was getting at. God saw our sinful predicament and His answer to our need was a Son. At that point the Son was born in the heart (or womb) of God. But that Son was the eternal Word.
I do want to foster understanding from now on. So I apologize for ALL my offensive remarks toward you. I sincerely apologize for EACH and EVERY offense.
the Roo
Roo,
I will forgive you and I can accept that you and WJ truly believe you are trinitarians and that our definitions of being a trinitarian are different. So I am sorry for using the word 'pretend.'Keith,
I'm sorry for using the word 'pretend' in that post about 'pretending' to be trinitarians. We have different definitions of the term and I understand that you really believe that you are a trinitarian but by a different definition than I have for the belief. I have been called a lot of things by you which I am not. I wish that you could see that someday.Love is a choice
the KathiQuote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2010,15:02) Roo,
I will forgive you and I can accept that you and WJ truly believe you are trinitarians and that our definitions of being a trinitarian are different. So I am sorry for using the word 'pretend.'Keith,
I'm sorry for using the word 'pretend' in that post about 'pretending' to be trinitarians. We have different definitions of the term and I understand that you really believe that you are a trinitarian but by a different definition than I have for the belief. I have been called a lot of things by you which I am not. I wish that you could see that someday.Love is a choice
the Kathi
KathiI accept your oppology but I am curious as to what things you refer to that I have called you.
I think we all at times get a little personal, which is okay until a line has been crossed over which is not becomming of a Christian.
Attacks of someones beliefs is different than attacking the person by name calling or insinuating someone is dishonest or lying unless there is proof.
WJ
Keith,
You have called me many things that I am not and I do not care to go through the threads but these are some that come to mind:Dishonest
Arian
Polytheist
anti-trinitarian
that I insist that 'begotten' always means to be 'born'Kathi
That is true guys.
You have also use those same words against me, when you should be disputing or commending the teachings.
Please do not label people unless they call themselves by that label.
Calling people names that they do not wish to be called is wrong and immature.
When you were in school you normally got chastised for calling people names. It is no different here.Also, I personally do not see what the point of difference is if someone calls themselves a Trinitarian, Unitarian, or whatever, and telling them that they are not that label by its true definition if what you are saying is true. Because that is not name calling, that is pointing out a fact.
Please, just be civilised and show some fruit that is worthy of what you claim to represent.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2010,09:32) Keith,
You have called me many things that I am not and I do not care to go through the threads but these are some that come to mind:Dishonest
Arian
Polytheist
anti-trinitarian
that I insist that 'begotten' always means to be 'born'Kathi
Kathi,I am not going to justify my negative remarks here. But Keith and I have put up with a lot more than anyone else. Gene and Nick have said that we are of the “harlot.” We have been accused of teaching the doctrine of “antichrist.” Keith has been belittled by JA and others but he knows that it goes with the territory. It has always been that way throughout the centuries so you will need to tuffen up a little if you want to engage.
the Roo
Fair enough Roo, but it would be nice if you guys didn't resort to names and labels that we do not identify with.
You can challenge what we teach by all means, but calling us Arians means that we follow Arius and if he taught that Jesus was a creature that started life 2000 years ago, and had no divine existence previous to emptying himself, (as Gene believes) then we are not with Arius.
However to be honest, I am not to sure what Arius really taught. Because history favoured Athanasius, it could be said that his enemies had the power of the record of history about Arius and it certainly wouldn't have been complimentary.
So if you call us Arians, then show us where we believe his whole doctrine before you even consider it.
I mean, I do not label you a Muslim because you believe that Jesus is the messiah. You know what I mean.
Quit with the names and labels, unless you have substantial proof that we are indeed Arians, Unitarians, Martians, or whatever.
Lets just do what we are suppose to do here. Challenge the doctrine. You don't win, when you start acting like a child of the world and use names and insults to win.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 13 2010,19:35) Fair enough Roo, but it would be nice if you guys didn't resort to names and labels that we do not identify with. You can challenge what we teach by all means, but calling us Arians means that we follow Arius and if he taught that Jesus was a creature that started life 2000 years ago, and had no divine existence previous to emptying himself, (as Gene believes) then we are not with Arius.
However to be honest, I am not to sure what Arius really taught. Because history favoured Athanasius, it could be said that his enemies had the power of the record of history about Arius and it certainly wouldn't have been complimentary.
So if you call us Arians, then show us where we believe his whole doctrine before you even consider it.
I mean, I do not label you a Muslim because you believe that Jesus is the messiah. You know what I mean.
Quit with the names and labels, unless you have substantial proof that we are indeed Arians, Unitarians, Martians, or whatever.
Lets just do what we are suppose to do here. Challenge the doctrine. You don't win, when you start acting like a child of the world and use names and insults to win.
Fair enough t8. But on a thread I started about Nick's interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:19 you said that I made an antichrist statement:Quote KJ,
God was in Christ.
The alternative is that God wasn't in Christ.
And it doesn't say that God is Christ.The first line is right, the second one is antichrist, and the third is not written.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=3275The apostle John clearly defines the teaching of antichrist as that which denies that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. I had said that Paul's statement, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” means that God was on the basis and grounds of Christ's atoning work reconciling the world to Himself.” How is this a denial that Jesus Christ came in the flesh?
I was quite shocked that you think of this as “antichrist” teaching. Our reconciliation with God is in Christ, that is, on the basis and grounds of Christ's atoning work is it not?
What did Christ mean when He said, “This is the new covenant IN My blood?” He meant that His blood is the basis and grounds of God's new covenant dealings with man.
My exegesis was NOT a denial that God was “in” Christ in the sense you say. But that's not the point of 2 Corinthians 5:19. The Father certainly was not “in” Christ in the sense you mean when He was hanging on the cross. His Father abandoned Him.
So we all think the other guy is a heretic. But I don't require apologies because I consider this spiritual warfare. When a soldier is attacked by an enemy soldier he does not say “I want an apology.”
However, character assassination is certainly inappropriate. But calling someone an “Arian” is not character asaassination if that person believes that there was a time that the Word was not. The belief that there was a time that the Word was not is historicaly Arian and if Kathi has that conviction she should be proud to be called an Arian.
Roo
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2010,17:32) Keith,
You have called me many things that I am not and I do not care to go through the threads but these are some that come to mind:Dishonest
Arian
Polytheist
anti-trinitarian
that I insist that 'begotten' always means to be 'born'Kathi
Kathi1. Dishonest.
I have to see context because I am sure there was a reason I said “dishonest” and its doubtfull that I said “You are dishonest” but more like “it seems you are being dishonest”.
I try to stay away from calling people dishonest unless it is fact. Nevertheless if I have said “you are dishonest” and it wasn't true then I ask for your forgiveness.
2. Arian
Sorry. A Spade is a Spade. Jesus, Paul, and the others named those who they believed to be in error. The antitrinitarian issue has been going on for ages and the main contention was a man named “Arius” that did not believe that Jesus was God almighty or believed in the Trinity. He is the reason the “Athanasian Creed” was written to head off those who followed his false teachings. You do not agree with the creed do you Kathi?
Jude called certain ones “Wells without water”, Paul called certain ones “dogs”. Arian is a mild statement that shows where your faith falls. I find nothing in scriptures wrong with giving labels to someone if that label fits and if it doesn't then prove how you are not an “Arain” by your faith and teachings.
3. Polytheist
Again, a Spade is a Spade. You believe in 2 divine beings or 2 Gods. You have said yourself that God begets God and the only thing different in the 2 is their age. You call Jesus your God and worship him. The definition of Polytheism is “The belief in more than One God”.
4. anti-trinitarian
Are you “Pro” Trinitarian? You can only be on one side of the issue or teaching.
It is obvious to me that you are anti-trinitarian because there is hardly a post anywhere that you make in response to Jack and myself that is not “against” us. You have constantly sought disagreement on every turn of what we teach.
5. that I insist that 'begotten' always means to be 'born'
Ok, but you do insist that “begotten” when it comes to Jesus means born as if it is unambguous truth and then infer that Jack and I are being dishonest.
So I will no longer say that to you that it only has one meaning and I oppologize for saying so.
WJ
Keith,
I'm not dishonest, I may be wrong but not dishonest. My honesty is why I can't agree with you on some main themes. I agree with you on some things and I have spoken that at times.I don't think you know that an Arian believes that the Son was created and created out of nothing that had existed before Him. You know very well that I have never said the son was created and I have clearly said that I agree that the Son has a nature in Him that is the same that the Father has in Him. Yet you still claim that I am an Arian. You do not seem to respect my answers to your accusations and we get no where. It seems like it is your decision as to what I am and others are. You pride yourself on calling a spade a spade but I think that you have tunnel vision. You still claim that I am an anti-trinitarian. I have told you over and over that I am not but even as recently as in your above post you have disrespected my words. I am not a trinitarian but I fellowship with many that would say that they are and we get along just fine. They don't attack me for what I believe because we share the important beliefs and we love each other and realize that the glass is dim through which we all see. Among those that claim to be trinitarians, most have really not looked into what that really means. Others have a belief in a type of trinity. Those who I have fellowship see themselves and myself as Christian and that is our common name.
Therefore, I am not against trinitarians. I am not anti-trinitarians. I disagree with the trinity doctrine in some points but I am not anti those who agree with it. However, I have never met trinitarians that believe that the Son had a beginning in time from a pre-existent substance and so I think that is a significant difference between you and I.
As far as polytheist, I recently showed you a quote from Tertullian that explained that away. Do you call him a polytheist?
Are you still going to call me anti-trinitarian?
Are you still going to call me Arian?
Are you still going to call me a polytheist?I accept your apology about the meaning of begotten. Thank you!
I am pro-Christian, let's be Christians together in spite of our differences.
KathiQuote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 13 2010,03:25) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2010,09:32) Keith,
You have called me many things that I am not and I do not care to go through the threads but these are some that come to mind:Dishonest
Arian
Polytheist
anti-trinitarian
that I insist that 'begotten' always means to be 'born'Kathi
Kathi,I am not going to justify my negative remarks here. But Keith and I have put up with a lot more than anyone else. Gene and Nick have said that we are of the “harlot.” We have been accused of teaching the doctrine of “antichrist.” Keith has been belittled by JA and others but he knows that it goes with the territory. It has always been that way throughout the centuries so you will need to tuffen up a little if you want to engage.
the Roo
Roo,
Actually I have put up with a lot. I don't think that anyone should have to put up with all that most of us have if Christian conduct and humility was the spirit in which we posted. I don't think anyone would have to toughen up if everyone acted with respect or at least responded with respect.Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2010,13:28) As far as polytheist, I recently showed you a quote from Tertullian that explained that away. Do you call him a polytheist?
Yep, anyone that says there is more than “One True God” and worships them is a polytheist, IMO.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2010,13:28) Are you still going to call me anti-trinitarian?
If it offends you, no. I apologize for offending you.But I still believe that you rigorously oppose the view which is a major issue in the Christian faith for it gives a completely different view of Jesus and in essence is another Jesus.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2010,13:28) Are you still going to call me Arian?
No, based on the definition maybe you are Semi Arian….In 381 the First Council of Constantinople was called in order to attempt to deal with the 'binitarians', who were called Semi-Arians then.[citation needed] However, as the trinity was officially finalized at this time, the offended Semi-Arians walked out. “Semi Arianism…They rejected the Arian view that Christ was created and had a different nature from God (anomoios dissimilar), but neither did they accept the Nicene Creed which stated that Christ was “of one substance (homoousios) with the Father.” Semi Arians taught that Christ was similar (in Greek homoios) to the Father, or of like substance (homoiousios), but still subordinate.”[2]
For the rest of the history of the Semi-Arianists, since also called Macedonians, see Pneumatomachi. Also, in more modern times, groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses and the Creation Seventh Day Adventists have sometimes been called “Semi-Arians.”[3] Source
Is that you?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2010,13:28) Are you still going to call me a polytheist?
You do know the definition of a Polytheist don't you? If so don't try to sugar coat it by saying that you believe in “Only One True Theos” the Father but yet say that Jesus is a true theos too!Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2010,13:28) I accept your apology about the meaning of begotten. Thank you! I am pro-Christian, let's be Christians together in spite of our differences.
Kathi
The term “Christian” has gotten a bad rap. Everybody is a “Christian”.I am sorry Kathi, I can't warm up and be all fuzzy with those who preach another Jesus and especially those who do not call him their God and worship him. The scriptures warn us about heretics.
WJ
Keith,
I don't know anything about a semi-arian except from your quote. I would think that you are a semi-tinitarian since you don't believe the Son always existed as a Son. You preach another Jesus than those Trinitarians that preach that the Son existed as a Son before the ages, and which the Nicea Creed states. I would guess many at your own church believe that the Son was the Son before the ages in a real way, not in a plan in the mind of God way as I understand you to think. Maybe I misunderstand you there.
Those are two different Jesus' one that was the Son before the ages, and one that was the Son beginning in Mary and not before the ages. You see that don't you. Are you warm and fuzzy with them or treat them like heretics?So in your opinion Tertullian is a polytheist then.
Quote Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2010,13:28)
As far as polytheist, I recently showed you a quote from Tertullian that explained that away. Do you call him a polytheist?your response:
Quote Yep, anyone that says there is more than “One True God” and worships them is a polytheist, IMO. Quote Consubstantiality is a term used in Latin Christian christology, coined by Tertullian in Against Hermogenes 44, used to translate the Greek term homoousios.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConsubstantialSo you think Tertullian was a polytheist yet he coined the term trinity and consubstantiality/homoousious.
I agree with the Nicene creed…did you miss that in my posts? Apparently the Semi-arians did not agree with that, so I guess that doesn't make me a semi-arian either.
I'm not asking you to be warm and fuzzy…just respectful even when not treated respectful.
I accept your apology for calling me an anti-trinitarian. Thanks Keith.
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2010,17:03) Keith,
I don't know anything about a semi-arian except from your quote. I would think that you are a semi-tinitarian since you don't believe the Son always existed as a Son. You preach another Jesus than those Trinitarians that preach that the Son existed as a Son before the ages, and which the Nicea Creed states.
The Nicea Creed was created to combat the Arians and while it obviously was not complete in its statement, eventually the Church adopted 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 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. 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 another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him 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 Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence 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 is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; 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 God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for 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 truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.I believe everything in the creed to be scriptual. Most protestant Churchs believe in this creed. So are you saying that those Forefathers were semi-Trinitarian?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2010,17:03) I would guess many at your own church believe that the Son was the Son before the ages in a real way, not in a plan in the mind of God way as I understand you to think. Maybe I misunderstand you there.
Yes you do misunderstand and I have already explained this to you.Jesus was the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world and was foreordained for that purpose, but he did not become the Lamb of God until he came in the flesh and died on the tree.
It is a true statement to say that Jesus is the same “person” that was with the Father in the beginning and in saying that he is the Only Begotten Son of the Father that was “begotten” by the Father before the ages is a true statement when you understand that he is the same person and not another or diferent Son that was born in Mary.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2010,17:03) Those are two different Jesus' one that was the Son before the ages, and one that was the Son beginning in Mary and not before the ages. You see that don't you.
No I don't see that Kathi. Jesus “the same yesterday, today and forever”. If Jesus was a Son before the ages and then was born a different Son by Mary then he would be a another Jesus and not the same person, and the Word that was with God and was God would not still be the Word. The Spirit of Christ, Jesus the Eternal life that was with the Father could not change. He simply clothed himself with humanity by putting on the likeness of sinful flesh and was called the Son of God and later was declared to be the “Only Begotten Son”. Sons of God in scriptures were men.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2010,17:03) Are you warm and fuzzy with them or treat them like heretics?
They see the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as One God, Kathi and they call Jesus their God and worship him. That is the bottom line regardless of his origins. Big differenct than warming up to heritics.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2010,17:03) So in your opinion Tertullian is a polytheist then.
If he is a Trinititarian then he believes that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-eternal, co-equal and that there is One God consisting of three persons. Is that what he believes? if so then he would call you a Polytheist. If not then I believe he is a Polytheist.As regards the subjects of subordination of the Son to the Father, the New Catholic Encyclopedia has commented: “In not a few areas of theology, Tertullian’s views are, of course, completely unacceptable. Thus, for example, his teaching on the
Trinity reveals a subordination of Son to Father that in the later crass form of Arianism the Church rejected as heretical.”[18] WikiWJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 14 2010,08:06) ep, anyone that says there is more than “One True God” and worships them is a polytheist, IMO.
Yes it is your opinion and I could debate that opinion very easily. But not in this topic.Just realise that we do not worship 3 as God but one as God.
And we acknowledge the other usages of theos and elohim in scripture.We are just acknowledging what the scripture teaches. We haven't created cleverly devised fables. We have no doctrine but that which is scripture and as such can be convinced to change if scripture shows something different to our current understanding.
Work with that WJ. No more name calling and unnecessary labels please.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 14 2010,02:11) Fair enough t8. But on a thread I started about Nick's interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:19 you said that I made an antichrist statement: Quote KJ,
God was in Christ.
The alternative is that God wasn't in Christ.
And it doesn't say that God is Christ.The first line is right, the second one is antichrist, and the third is not written.
Read it again Roo.God was in Christ.
The alternative is that God wasn't in Christ.The first line is right, the second one is antichrist.
I simply said that to say that God wasn't in Christ, is an antichrist statement because you would then be denying that he was the Christ by reason of the safe assumption that God was working through and in him.
If you said that God wasn't actually in Christ Jesus doing the work, then you would be denying pretty much the whole purpose of the Christ because the Christ is the anointed one.
I am sure that if you read it again, you will see that I correctly say that to deny that God wasn't in Christ would be an antichrist statement.
For further explanation and to not detract from this topic, read a new topic I created that is dedicated to this.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….447;r=1Quote (t8 @ Aug. 14 2010,13:56) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 14 2010,02:11) Fair enough t8. But on a thread I started about Nick's interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:19 you said that I made an antichrist statement: Quote KJ,
God was in Christ.
The alternative is that God wasn't in Christ.
And it doesn't say that God is Christ.The first line is right, the second one is antichrist, and the third is not written.
Read it again Roo.God was in Christ.
The alternative is that God wasn't in Christ.The first line is right, the second one is antichrist.
I simply said that to say that God wasn't in Christ, is an antichrist statement because you would then be denying that he was the Christ by reason of the safe assumption that God was working through and in him.
If you said that God wasn't actually in Christ Jesus doing the work, then you would be denying pretty much the whole purpose of the Christ because the Christ is the anointed one.
I am sure that if you read it again, you will see that I correctly say that to deny that God wasn't in Christ would be an antichrist statement.
For further explanation and to not detract from this topic, read a new topic I created that is dedicated to this.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….447;r=1
t8,I took this back to the original thread I started in Member Profiles.
Roo
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
