- This topic is empty.
- Posts
LU, you are struggling to justify your strange ideology.
You are all over the place with your idea of justifying what you claim.
There is no point in quibbling over what is not even anything to do with this thread. Just admit (or STOP REFERRING TO) that you made a great error of judgement in attributing ‘WISDOM’ as being ‘Jesus’ EVEN THOUGH Solomon stated that Wisdom is a woman… (I leave a suitable pause here…!)… I think everyone can see how false ideology and wrongful attributions distract, PURPOSEFULLY or mindlessly accidentally, to a debate or discussion.., a notable and favoured TRICK used constantly by trinitarians and JiG’s.
As for the trinity creed… Everything I said is true… No attributation is given to the Father for seating Jesus next to him nor for raising Jesus from the dead. The result of this is that the impression is of JESUS raising HIMSELF from the dead and seating HIMSELF…
Lu, the creed is VERY CAREFUL to try to give convey image that is not true to the word of scriptures except by DECEPTIVE INFERENCE; to wit, missing out the CRUCIAL AND CRITICAL elements AND by FABRICATING things never seen or referred to in the scriptures…
To its deceptive CREDIT it does say one valid thing: ‘WE BELIEVE IN…’
And that is where you DO JUSTIFY YOURSELF…
Yes, … IT IS YOUR BELIEF…
LU, unfortunately it is NOT THE BELIEF of what the CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES SAYS.
AGAIN, unfortunately, LU, this thread IS ABOUT the Christian scriptures, so while in YOUR BELIEF what TOU think may be seemingly true, in the true Christian scriptures, it is NOT.
So Finally I understand why your posts are so disingenuously different and incredibly incredulous.
I can now have more patience with you as now I know that you are not a true Christian believer. In fact, I don’t see any point persisting with you as you will only deny the truth given you from the true Christian scriptures in favour of your own differential ideology… ‘What has light to do with darkness…’ The two will always humanly contend…!
Well, is that your way of admitting that you were indeed wrong with your quote of Proverbs 8:22? You simply dismiss it and not admit it. Also, learn about Hebrew words and their genders regarding terms like life and soul for instance.
LU, where do you see anything from me about a mistake concerning Proverbs. I had an epiphany and realised WHY there was such a difference between your ideology and the truth of the Christian scriptures – indeed, trinity belief as well as JiG’s.
LU, Jesus is a man, born holy and sinless by means of the overshadowing of a virgin (Mary) by God’s Holy Spirit.
LU, do you agree with that statement?
Well, well…interesting to read your thoughts about what I believe while misquoting me, twisting my words,
You are the one who says that God is made up of two persons and united together as the Spirit. I am quoting you, not misquoting.
I said:
Scripture is clear that for us there is one God the Father. For her, there is one God the Father and the Son. For Trinitarians, there is one God the Father, Son, Spirit.
You said:
Well, you can put a spin on my beliefs if you want, but at the end of the day, it is just a spin, a mishandling or what I believe and not what I actually have been explaining to you for many years now. Is that wise to continue along that path or would it be better to actually pay attention to what I write and not spin it in a way in which it is not presented. If you disagree that you have done that, then surely you can find my words that actually say that which you claim and quote me and put a link to that. I don’t believe that you can do that.
I didn’t have to look too far back to find an instance of this teaching of yours. You said:
If you believe God the Father to be in perfect unity with His Son and Their Spirit…eternally, (past, present and future), then this perfect eternal unity really make up the fullness of the one true God. Each aspect is a vital part of who God is. Each aspect is interdependent to the other.
The perfect unity of God is what is beautiful. Within the perfect unity of God, there is interdependence between each member, the Father and the Son. The perfect eternal unity cannot be divided or it seizes to be a unity and one or both members seize to be perfect.
So there you go. You teach that there is not just one God the Father, but in fact, one God the Father and the Son. You believe differently to the faith that was handed down by Jesus and the Apostles.
@t8
Nice try but you still aren’t grasping what I’m trying to tell you.
I think this is what you think I am telling you:
God = 1 Father + 1 Son
However, this is what I am saying:
The fullness of God = 1 Father + 1 Son, in unity, as God (Father) and Lord (Son). Their Holy Spirit is the unity of their personal spirits that extends from them while remaining in them. Yahweh is the name for each…the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
I hope that helps.
you asked:
LU, where do you see anything from me about a mistake concerning Proverbs.It was when you gave the ESV as the translation that you quoted from for Proverbs 8:22 but you misquoted which gave it a whole different meaning.
You also asked:
LU, Jesus is a man, born holy and sinless by means of the overshadowing of a virgin (Mary) by God’s Holy Spirit.
LU, do you agree with that statement?
My answer: No. I would put it this way:
The only begotten, eternal Son, became flesh, when the Father had sent Him into the ovum within the virgin Mary. She conceived at the moment when the Holy Spirit came upon her, and the power of the Most High overshadowed her, about nine months later, she gave birth to that child as her firstborn son, born holy and sinless.
Luke 1:35
The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
The fullness of God = 1 Father + 1 Son, in unity, as God (Father) and Lord (Son). Their Holy Spirit is the unity of their personal spirits that extends from them while remaining in them. Yahweh is the name for each…the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
But you say:
The perfect unity of God is what is beautiful. Within the perfect unity of God, there is interdependence between each member, the Father and the Son.
No mention of the fullness of God here and my words that you say are wrong are spot on with your above quote and many others. That was just the first one I came across without wasting too much time.
But let’s say that you meant to say (all along) that you are not talking about God having members, but the fullness of God. So then the Father is not fully God and only both the Father and the Son are. Errors and corrections that are still in error lead to more error.
It’s like you say that two Gods got together and became a super God or a fuller God. It’s getting worse LU.
LU, t8, ‘There is ONE GOD, the Father…’
Nothing more.
God does not DEPEND on Jesus for anything excepting that Jesus should fulfil the promise made to the patriarchs that one in the likeness of Moses should save mankind (from the son of Adam) by giving the testament that God gave him to give to mankind about HIM (God: The God… The God of the Jews): Yahweh, the Only True God).
In contrast, Jesus is WHOLLY DEPENDENT on HIS God, whom he calls by the TITLE, ‘Father’.
God created the world and everything in it TO GIVE OTS GLORIUS RULERSHIP to who ever of MANKIND who fully fitted the role of ‘Holy Son’, one who would ‘asked what The Father doe, and Do what The father does… Hear what the Father says, and SAY what the Father taught him to say.'(This is a Holy Son).
You have both heard this before and indeed read it in the scriptures but your hardened hearts refuse the word of our God: Yahweh.
To date, I have not received an answer to a question I pose many times… I know why there is no answer but the point is for me to hear YOUR answers.
The question is (not exclusively), ‘If Jesus is (some kind of) GOD (Define your version of ‘God’… !) why is he GIVEN a RULERSHIP that is LESS THAN that which ‘HIS’ already?
Within that question are many more that DEFY any trinitarian or JiG claims.
I know that the way to get around confronting this (these) question(s) is to ignore it/them, but do either of you have the FRONT to answer?
@t8
you said ( I added the letters a,b,c):
a.No mention of the fullness of God here and my words that you say are wrong are spot on with your above quote and many others. That was just the first one I came across without wasting too much time.
b.But let’s say that you meant to say (all along) that you are not talking about God having members, but the fullness of God. So then the Father is not fully God and only both the Father and the Son are. Errors and corrections that are still in error lead to more error.
c.It’s like you say that two Gods got together and became a super God or a fuller God. It’s getting worse LU.
My response:
a. I mentioned the ‘unity of God’, not just the word ‘God’ and you did not mention the ‘unity of God.’ The unity of God is the Father and the Son, not just ‘God is the Father and the Son’. There is a difference. I see ‘fullness’ as a synonym to ‘unity’.
b. The Father is NEVER without the Son, so the Father is NEVER NOT fully God. Likewise, the Son is fully God to us because He (Jesus) is NEVER WITHOUT the Father. The Father can’t be worshiped by created beings (in truth) apart from the worship of the Son and the Son can’t be worshiped (in truth) by created beings apart from the worship of the Father. In some contexts one of the two members in this unity are being spoken about and referred to as God or as Lord or LORD. It can either be the Father or the Son depending on the context. In some contexts, the focus is on both as God (Father) and Lord (Son) as in much of the NT. While the focus of the context could be on just one member, it is (with correct understanding) not to the exclusion of the other member. This unity of God has existed just fine without creation but creation does not exist at all apart from that unity of God. There was never a time when the Son was not. That is the big difference between created beings as sons and Jesus as a son. Regarding created sons, there WAS a time when the created sons were NOT.
c. The two members, the Father and the Son, are never in disunity, t8. They are not two Gods who became one super God. They are a perfect Father + a perfect Son who have always existed and have always existed in perfect unity. The Son was within the Father eternally and then begotten from the Father before creation. The Holy Spirit is their united spirits.
Think about it t8. How would your view of Jesus change if there never was a time when the Son was NOT?
you asked:
The question is (not exclusively), ‘If Jesus is (some kind of) GOD (Define your version of ‘God’… !) why is he GIVEN a RULERSHIP that is LESS THAN that which ‘HIS’ already?
First off…YHVH GOD = God of gods + Lord of lords
Secondly…Jesus emptied Himself to become a bondservant in the flesh, which would seem natural to mean, in part, He gave up His right to be in authority over whatever He was in authority over before He emptied Himself.
Thirdly…Since He was given all authority over heaven and earth, how is that a lesser rulership?? What is a higher rulership than that??
Jael, you have now gotten an answer to your supposed unanswerable question.
Just think about it.
I don’t even have to try and refute you LU, you refute yourself. I only need to spend time compiling my posts. You believe that God is the Father and the Son. Then you say that I am wrong for saying this is what you believe, yet you continue to say this is so. You are confused and spreading confusion. You also say:
The two members, the Father and the Son, are never in disunity, t8.
But can you say that The two, God and the Son, are never in disunity, t8.
Because the unity is with God and his son. Further, that unity is extended to those that belong to God and follow Jesus.
This unity is nothing to do with a multi-person God thing and everything to do with unity with God as it says. And unity with each other who have unity with God. Think of the first two commandments. There is God and man and there is unity with God and those who are sons.
you asked:
The question is (not exclusively), ‘If Jesus is (some kind of) GOD (Define your version of ‘God’… !) why is he GIVEN a RULERSHIP that is LESS THAN that which ‘HIS’ already?
First off…YHVH GOD = God of gods + Lord of lords
Secondly…Jesus emptied Himself to become a bondservant in the flesh, which would seem natural to mean, in part, He gave up His right to be in authority over whatever He was in authority over before He emptied Himself.
Thirdly…Since He was given all authority over heaven and earth, how is that a lesser rulership?? What is a higher rulership than that??
Jael, you have now gotten an answer to your supposed unanswerable question.
LU, your answer is a ‘non-answer’.
It IS a RESPONSE but NOT an answer to the question that was asked.
First off: Yahweh God IS ‘God of all who are called Gods’.. Yes, many debators and discussors are indignant that anyone but ‘the Father’, or their deity, should be called (entitled) ‘God’. But this, as I have been pointing out to you and others, is a major error. The word, term, TITLE, of ‘GOD’ SIMPLY MEANS ‘LAWGIVER, The highest, ULTIMATE RULER, the best, the most, the greatest, the … IN A (ANY) CATEGORY – by context’. Thus, Jesus pointed out that many men of renown who received (and acted on) the word of Yahweh were similarly called ‘GODS’ by Yahweh HIMSELF. This means that these men were ‘The greatest exponents of the word of God for their generation, for their time, for their efforts… But no matter how so, Yahweh was GREATER than them (obviously. He who gives is greater than he who receives). Moreover, OTHER NATIONS aside from the Jews ALSO HAD DEITIES called ‘God, and GODS’. So the belief in a deity called ‘GOD’ is not exclusive to Jews and Christians. However, virtually ALL other beliefs had multiple deities and thus multiple GODS… Each God had a name. For the Jews, called, Israelites at the time, when they came to live among the Egyptians, they were daily exposed to the Egyptian gods and there was a danger of confusing which God they were supposed to be worshipping. Moses was sent by the Israelite God to restore worship to himself and free his people. Moses knew the people would be wary and asked, ‘What if they should ask which God sent me, what is his name?’ This deity described himself to Moses as always being who he is/was, therefore his name is ‘I AM’ (meaning: Always the same: never changing: Immutable’). The Hebrew word for this is ‘YHWH’ which we loosely (best guess) say in English as ‘Yahweh’ or ‘Jehovah’ (or similar). This deity, this God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Israelites/Jews/Christians, said that he was ‘ONE GOD’. This, because OTHER NATIONS BELIEVED IN MANY GODS; Yahweh’s people were to know him as THEIR ONE AND ONLY DEITY, their one and only God.
Yahweh’s people began to use that name (NAME!!!) as a way of sealing a deal or swearing an oath on important matters as the name was so sacred – potentially, immediate death was probably the penalty for defaulting on its abuse. But it was done and many paid that penalty – I guess. So the people STOPPED using the name – even saying it. As their only God, and because of the name was so sacred, the people referred to their only God BY THAT TITLE: ‘God’. Every believing person of that nation (as today) knew whom ‘God’ referred to. Hence, today, as in, say, the New Testament, there need be on to say, ‘God’ and we know it refers to YAHWEH.
So there is no ruling out that there are no others also called ‘God’ but that these are named by their context role: ‘God of his sport’, ‘God OF….!’… You see, even among other ‘Gods’, Yahweh is ‘GOD OF… the Jews’ (context used). You cannot say there are no other God but Yahweh JUST because you claim to be Christian. A Hindu would say similarly that the Christain God is a false God… See, a stand-off… But as a Christian we can say, ‘FOR US… There is ONLY ONE GOD: The Father’.
And Jesus being called ‘Lord’… LU, LU, LU… Jesus was ‘MADE TO BE…’ Lord, BY GOD. LU, LU, LU… AFTER HE WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD AND SEATED IN THE HEAVENS …BY GOD – NEXT TO GOD….
LU, ‘NEXT TO GOD’ is ‘NOT GOD’ but ‘Lord’. Jesus is said to be ‘KING OF KINGS and Lord of Lords’ (note the order… The greatest first!! KING is greater than Kord… And GOD is greater than KING…)
JESUS is also ‘PRINCE of Peace’… LU, why ONLY Prince? Who then is ‘KING of Peace’, indeed, ‘GOD OF PEACE’?
And as to your supposed ‘answer’… No, LU, you are referring to the TEMPORARY RULERSHIP ‘UNDER GOD’ of the kingdoms of heaven and earth WHILE (and for a while only) until the world is set to rights… You well know that Jesus HANDS THEM BACK TO GOD (because they are GOD’S KINGDOMS). AFTER THAT comes the judgement and life or destruction to beliebers AND THEN Jesus is given FULL ETERNAL RULERSHIP OVER THE EARTHLY KINGDOM.
LU, it is this EARTHLY KINGDOM that I refer to – and you know that!!!!!!
So you DID NOT ANSWER the question. You did what all true blue deliberate or naive error makers do.
t8, you (we) will always be contending with LU as her religious belief is HER OWN.
She is not discussing / debating the same Christian belief that comes from the Christian scriptures that you and I are referencing – therefore what she says can never be equated to reality of OUR truth.
As You see, her ideology is a confused one. To her, the deity she CLAIMS to believe in is both a PERSON and an a NON-PERSON THING.
Her ‘God’ is a COMBINATION of two PERSONS (She tries to confuse the point by using the designer term ‘UNITY’) of which one (the Son) is ‘BORN’ from the other (the Father).
And again, each UNITY MEMBER has ITS OWN SPIRIT but that ‘own spirit’ is combined (another UNITY) to form ONE HOLY SPIRIT… which, strangely, created a THIRD (x)!
Thick skin and a fertile deceptive mind is required to read the Christian scriptures and extract pertinent verses to help qualify her belief.
It’s important to note that much of what she says does not come from the Christian scriptures.- nor can she state where her belief on such matters comes from. She does what the trinitarians do and just either state it without qualification, corrupt a Christian scripture verse, or …just ignore any questions referring to it.
t8, have you ever (can you imagine) a petulant child trying to put together a very large (or even small!!!) jigsaw puzzle – and, no matter how you point out the picture on the box cover, that child will FORCE FIT wrong pieces – even when those pieces are clearly seriously out of joint?
The thing is, that child is fully reluctant to see errors in their vision of the emerging picture, and too cowardly to admit errors. What they do is change the pieces around under cover and according to a true placement that you point out while still placing other pieces wrongly.
Such a child CANNOT be made to see the true picture. Such a child has THEIR OWN PICTURE in their mind and is frustrated by the inability to find the necessary pieces to fully (if at all) create that picture…. Angry tantrums ensue if persistence is made as to their error.
Her reply to my last post is a curious mix of verses:
1) Jesus is God with all attributes of Godness.
2) Jesus gives up his right (Is being GOD a RIGHT??)
3) You note that she refers to a perfect UNITY that makes ‘God’, but seemingly 2) does not BREAK that unity.
4) GOD(?) REWARDS Jesus (Who is strangely STILL GOD despite 2) above!) with a TEMPORARY rulership over heaven and earth – making him ‘god’ (little ‘g’) in context.
5) What is Jesus AFTER he ‘Hands back rulership to the Father’? Still GOD?
6) LU, cannot define the term, ‘God’, ‘Father’, nor ‘Son’ in context of THE SPIRITUAL but only in context of physical humanity – humanity is used to create the spiritual!!!(Ask a child to draw an animal and you will see the 2-dimensional flatness of a three-dimensional creature: No matter how it is pointed out that scriptures says that Spirits do not pro-create, lu is forced by her humanity to mentally see them do that!)
…. More…
With patient goading, they sometimes grow out of their child-like delusion.
LU, t8, ‘There is ONE GOD, the Father…’
Nothing more.
Correct. People change this by adding their own doctrines which are conjured up by pride in their own understanding. Jesus taught that we have to be like children to enter the kingdom. Adults have a problem with this. They just can’t leave alone the fact that there is one God. It is too simple. They need to complicate it with metaphysics and philosophy. When they are done with their work, they have a certain pride that comes with it and defend it at all costs. A child on the other hand accepts Jesus teachings as they are. They are simple to understand so why mess with them. Since the time of Nimrod, men have created gods for themselves. It comes from their own spirit and pride and the curse that comes is they are divided by language or doctrine. Denominations testify to this continuing creation of gods by hand or in the mind. They are divisions because men want to make a name for themselves, so God divides them to nullify their power.
But there are also people that do not dare do such a thing. God and truth is something they seek to know and learn. God is generous in revealing himself to such people because they are like children. Innocent of evil, and zealous for truth. Such people God can work with. They are teachable and they can hear his voice.
As You see, her ideology is a confused one. To her, the deity she CLAIMS to believe in is both a PERSON and an a NON-PERSON THING.
Agreed. I have been saying for years that most who believe in the Trinity or Binity, and Quinity (yes someone actually preached five as God) confuse identity with nature.
While God has divine nature and we can share in that, the one whom the nature originates is the only God. He is he, not they. The son participates and has his origins in God. He is not that God, but an image of that God. An image is not the source. This is simple to understand. But men don’t like simplicity, they prefer to wander off into metaphysics and philosophy. They prefer a more intellectual stance that gives them expert credibility, is more efficient for puffing up pride, and good for the name among men that they can inherit. But children of God are almost ignored, yet have the truth in their heart. They have little problems understanding these simple but fundamental truths.
Such suppose that God is the nature or substance and that multiple beings made of this come from this divine substance. Whereas God is first an identity not nature and nature comes from this God as does his characteristics. God is a person (he/him), although person is not really the correct word either as it breaks down to ‘one son’. He is the Father, a living being. Not a nature or attributes as some who preach a metaphysical God seem to think.
Perhaps it is fair to say that those who think God is a substance first must not actually know this God. If I said my friend was flesh and I knew them well, then what about the person? Would I really know my friend if they were merely their nature to me?
t8, I virtually agree with what you just said. And there is so much more that time does not permit me to impress on you and others here.
We have established that the deity we as suggested true Christians believe in as our God is a singular entity of spirit. Scriptures tells us: ‘God is Spirit’ and we are held to believe so according to the teachings of the scriptures.
Now we face the question of ‘The Son’.
You left the door open to LU where you say, ‘The son is from God’. LU can take that to mean ‘born from God and is therefore himself god’ as she wrongfully ideologieses.
The child conceived by the Holy Spirit in the body of the Virgin Mary and given the name, ‘Jesus’ was the PROPHESIED ‘Servant’ spoken of in the Old Testament.
A God is not a servant (in reverential terms… It can be argued that ‘The Greater actually always serves the lesser in terms of needs but in terms of scriptures we should always think Spiritual)
There is a grave error made by nearly all debators, discussor, theologians, philosophers, scholars, etc concerning the term ‘Son’. This has led the masses to devise an ideology that Jesus is a ‘pro-created Son of God’ (“God from God”… Words found nowhere in scriptures but from manmade Catholic doctrine).
The term ‘Son’ in spiritual terms (NOT HUMAN TERMS!!!) means, ‘One who does the works of his Father, his creator’. Hence, the Angels are ‘Sons of God’, Adam, before he fell from grace, was ‘Son of God’. It seems that No one likes citing Luke 3:38… Fear of seeing the truth and unfounded dread of the parallel ‘sinless and holy man, Adam’ with Jesus as ‘second/Last Adam’ causes this unadmittable failure of understanding.
But scriptures tells us clearly that ‘Everyone who is led by the Holy Spirit of God is a child of God’…
Jesus…is THE ONLY ONE who can be said to be in that position. Although the Angels in heaven, the divine Angels, are ‘sons of God’, they are constrained to do God’s work without FREEDOM therefore any misbehaviour is not non-forgiveable: Their creation was NOT in the full image of God. However, mankind, Aka, Adam, was created in the full image of God. And like a true Father, God is willing to forgive a Son of his image…but you notice that the forgiveness comes with a price tag!!!
Scriptures tells us that Jesus was not BORN ‘Son of God’ but had to PROVE HIMSELF (‘Shall be (future) called Son of God’). He was indeed Sinless and Holy but did not START his works until AFTER he was baptised, filled with the Holy Spirit, and tested in the wilderness. Here now is a true Son of God.
Jesus staked his claim to this title when the Jews accused him of saying he was ‘God’. Jesus stated EMPHATICALLY that he did not say so: ‘I said only that I was the son of God’.
Yet, despite this, the majority of theologians STILL defy the truth of Jesus’ words and say, ‘Jesus is God’.
When questioned about the irrespinsible logic, they confusingly explain that: ‘Jesus is Son of God and therefore IS GOD. God is his Father which makes him God, too. He is made of the substance and nature of God which makes him God…!’
I guess that is how science tries to say humanly that mankind is an evolution of the Apes. I guess too that everyone has to try to justify their own belief.
And as for Jesus creating the world and every thing in it. I cannot get direct answers from anyone, trinitarian, JW, JiG, or whomever.
The point is that scriptures says that ‘God created the world’ and ‘The Father is the creator’ (Which is CORRECT: ‘Father’ means ‘He who CREATES’) Yet Jesus is NOT CALLED ‘Father’. So they say, ‘oh, no, GOD CREATED THROUGH JESUS’…
Well, which is it, did Jesus create or was it ‘through him’ making him NOT THE CREATOR?
I think there is hard evidence of Scripture tampering going on around this topic – tampering so hurriedly done that it has no consistent justification elsewhere in scriptures….
And why, if Jesus is God, is he to rule over the lesser kingdom of earth (creation) if, as GOD, he ALREADY rules over both HEAVEN and earth?
In fact, we NEVER read of Jesus ruling over heaven and earth (not including his TEMPORARY rule in the millenium period : Joseph in Egypt was not PHAROAH even though he was ruling IN PLACE of PHAROAH TEMPORARILY!)
In fact, we NEVER read of Jesus ruling over heaven and earth (not including his TEMPORARY rule in the millenium period)
We never read of Jesus ruling over both heaven and earth?
Matt 28.18
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”Temporary millenium reign?
Luke 1:33
and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever. His kingdom will never end.”Miia, you are doing what many many many of those naive in scriptures do.
Jesus’ millenium reign is strictly temporary (as I pointed out). You cannot say you do not read that he ‘Hands BACK’ the kingdom to the one who gave it to him – WHEN his task is done. Did Joseph not ‘Hsnd back’ the rulership of Egypt to the PHAROAH?
Jesus’ rulership that will last for eternity is AFTER HE JUDGES THE WORLD and gives those in belief to an eternal life with him. This is when he adopts the title ‘Eternal Father’ because he will give those believers ‘Eternal Life’ (Remember the definition of ‘Father’ and therefore ‘Eternal Father’).
Miia, please try to get your timeline right if you want to debate or discuss in a cohesive and consistent manner.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
