SLPCCC
Active Member
Jesus is not God in the sense you ascribe to. He is not a co-equal among three.
You are twisting the scriptures with words. Back up what you say with God's words, history, and early Church Fathers' writings.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus is not God in the sense you ascribe to. He is not a co-equal among three.
If I believed everything the "church fathers" you believe in said, I'd be like you. (But I'm not.) Now here is what the scripture says: tell us what the "church fathers" say about it, ok?You are twisting the scriptures with words. Back up what you say with God's words, history, and early Church Fathers' writings.
If I believed everything the "church fathers" you believe in said, I'd be like you. (But I'm not.) Now here is what the scripture says: tell us what the "church fathers" say about it, ok?
Psalm 45:6 King James Version: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre."
Thy throne?? God's throne is --- explain psalm 45, go with the church fathers and not yourself, of course. You might want to start, I'll help you out from time to time.
The Bible says what it has to. By the way, what did the "Church Fathers" say about Psalm 45:6 and 7?You are twisting the scriptures with words. Back up what you say with God's words, history, and early Church Fathers' writings.
You really make me smile. So figure this out, and then please say what those you deem as "church fathers" say about the following verses:What Bible translation are you using because as you know the JWS' bible is corrupted. Also, use other scriptures to back up your point. This is why your arguments are weak. You don't use scriptures. This is how I know you are just going by what the WT says. Plus, I bet you can't even explain that scripture yourself LOL.
Nothing in the scriptures says that the Son is equal to the Father and the holy spirit. (Absolutely nothing.) Thus the church fathers you think are inspired seem to make up their own doctrine.You are twisting the scriptures with words. Back up what you say with God's words, history, and early Church Fathers' writings.
There is only one God to Jesus and he called that God the only TRUE God. That does not mean as some like to say that Jesus is a false God. It means that the term God has certain applications in scripture, and it does not mean trinity, unless, of course, you think it does or want it to.There is only one God, yes?
You don't know? Do you really believe that Mary did not have relations with a man in order to conceive Jesus?If Jesus is fully human, and if we are fully human as well, then if Jesus (a fully human person) came from heaven, we must all (being equally fully human) come from heaven. If Jesus came from heaven, but we do not, what does that say? Does it say that there's a difference between Jesus and the rest of us? What is that difference?
Constantine made the decision, didn't he? And yet -- he was baptized by a supporter of Arius.I'm aware of them and find them interesting. But that's why I was wondering how Athanasius convinced the Church that Arian was a heresy. The Apostolic Fathers, tradition, and scripture had to be his sources. I see that they teach the deity of Christ.
"Certain applications?"There is only one God to Jesus and he called that God the only TRUE God. That does not mean as some like to say that Jesus is a false God. It means that the term God has certain applications in scripture, and it does not mean trinity, unless, of course, you think it does or want it to.
The Bible says what it has to. By the way, what did the "Church Fathers" say about Psalm 45:6 and 7?
The Greek says "young woman," not "virgin." However, the story reads so much like the miraculous birth of Augustus, that it's believed that the Gospelers ripped the story off. There's much to validate the theory that the mythic Jesus was, in fact, a ripoff of the story of the god-man Augustus. But none of that answers the questions I posed to you. Why don't you answer those questions? If Jesus is not God, that means he's fully human. So, what's the difference between Jesus and the rest of us, that he gets to be God's gatekeeper? Luck of the draw? Payola? What?You don't know? Do you really believe that Mary did not have relations with a man in order to conceive Jesus?
Thanks, I didn't think you really believed the Bible anyway. Perhaps SPLCCC can help you with the church fathers and their beliefs as well as his.The Greek says "young woman," not "virgin." However, the story reads so much like the miraculous birth of Augustus, that it's believed that the Gospelers ripped the story off. There's much to validate the theory that the mythic Jesus was, in fact, a ripoff of the story of the god-man Augustus. But none of that answers the questions I posed to you. Why don't you answer those questions? If Jesus is not God, that means he's fully human. So, what's the difference between Jesus and the rest of us, that he gets to be God's gatekeeper? Luck of the draw? Payola? What?
I pray to the God and Father of Jesus by means of Jesus. Something you might not understand but hopefully you will.
You really make me smile. So figure this out, and then please say what those you deem as "church fathers" say about the following verses:
JPS Tanakh 1917
"Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever; A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom."
Quite an interesting translation by the Jewish Publication Society of verse 6. "Thy throne given of God."
Once you figure what God's throne means then perhaps we can get into greater detail. Maybe with the comments about that from the "church fathers"?
King James Version says, Psalm 45:6 - Your throne, O God, is forever and ever: the scepter of your kingdom is a righteous scepter.
So God's throne is forever and ever. "All authority" was given to Jesus. Now why don't you tell us that he is equal to the other two persons but in subjection to the Father, ok? I'm suggesting you pray for yourself.
I hope and believe people can see that you are being a bit biased, shall we say.That's all you got, please, Jews? Of course, their bible is not going to be translated in any way to support Christian theology. But the JWs are not Christian so I can see them using their bible. LOL
Arianism is high Christology, just not trinitarian (it's subordinationism). And it was at the end of 3rd century. The gentile Christianity grew bigger and independent of Judaism. Low Christology (Nazarenes, Ebionites) became marginalized and condemned as heresy.I'm aware of them and find them interesting. But that's why I was wondering how Athanasius convinced the Church that Arian was a heresy. The Apostolic Fathers, tradition, and scripture had to be his sources. I see that they teach the deity of Christ.
I do believe the bible -- to be precisely what it is: a fallible product of humanity, inspired by God, certainly, but not without mistakes and a lot of mythic writing. The bible is multivalent, so treating it a s some precisely-written textbook is a YUGE mistake.Thanks, I didn't think you really believed the Bible anyway.
I think the history may show that Mary was a married woman. The myth is a ripoff of the miraculous birth of Augustus.From what I recall of your posts, you really don't believe that Mary was a virgin when she conceived.
I said that the Greek was "young woman." I don't care what the King James says; it's a translation. Do you read Koine' Greek, BTW?Also, you take issue with the following, I suppose, which state unequivocably that Mary was a virgin, i.e., did not "know a man."
Did you think the following translators read koine Greek? I don't read it, but I can look it up in an interlinear sometime..But that is not really your point, is it? Because you seem to believe Mary was NOT a virgin and that the story was taken from some other account.I do believe the bible -- to be precisely what it is: a fallible product of humanity, inspired by God, certainly, but not without mistakes and a lot of mythic writing. The bible is multivalent, so treating it a s some precisely-written textbook is a YUGE mistake.
I think the history may show that Mary was a married woman. The myth is a ripoff of the miraculous birth of Augustus.
I said that the Greek was "young woman." I don't care what the King James says; it's a translation. Do you read Koine' Greek, BTW?