Actually it does.
Did Most Early Christians Believe The Divinity of Christ?
- Thread starter RJM
- Start date
You seem confused by this ... and yet no-one else is.
That is if the word eternal is to mean time extended infinitely in nature. But nature, by it's nature, is bound by time. Spirit is outside of nature. Spirit is beyond of time&space.
Spirit is not subject to, yet permeates and maintains nature. Christ is Spirit incarnate as nature -- but perfect, sinless, by virgin birth -- crucified and risen -- fully nature and fully Spirit.
Last edited:
Quite right, I agree. How does that change things in this context?
If the Son was begotten, WHEN was he begotten?
If you say before the world was created eg. before the ages, what does that mean?
That is the mystery of Spirit, Muhammad. Spirit weaves nature? Our natural human senses cannot understand it all. It's through a glass darkly ... Imo
Post #41:
I said:
I don't expect everybody to completely grasp the topic of the infinite, nor do I claim I do.
However, there are some basic truths that can be shown, and most
people can comprehend them .. if they "want to", that is, imo.
Last edited:
What I am saying is that either the Son was begotten or he was not.
To me, the notion of an "eternally generated" Son is iillogical.
If somebody can explain it to me, I'm listening.
To me, the notion of an "eternally generated" Son is iillogical.
If somebody can explain it to me, I'm listening.
Christ perfection of Spirit/(human)nature. Begotten of Spirit, outside of time (&space)
Last edited:
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
I see we can not know what has not been recorded in History.
It is obvious now, that those who ended up controlling the Christian Faith, also controlled the minds of the uneducated by the formulation of doctrines that could not be criticised.
My guess would be that there was a large variety of thought on the divinity of Christ, that diversity of thought is reflected in our age as well.
In the end, we can not change what has been, but we can change ourselves now for the future.
Regards Tony
Last edited:
Who started this thread?
I don't see how being begotten "outside of time" changes anything at all.
Begotten is begotten .. either he was or he wasn't
..unless of course you want to claim that "divine begetting" is somehow different.
Fathers, Sons, Mothers, Uncles, Daughters . . . . . . . . . what the ****?
I find it all ludicrous .. well you know that already.
I can see HOW confusion might arise. Fathers and sons are a recurring theme in ancient superstitious belief.
Very true.
Perhaps it's time to end my participation in this thread.
I would like to remind everybody that I never suggested to delete or deface any articles on the original website.
Neither have I done so.
It was/is the Nicene Christians who wanted to blot out those articles, due to being atheistic/heretical.
I haven't taken anything personally, and I hope nobody else has.
Would it have been right for me to ignore what I consider to be incorrect?
I haven't taken to the streets and behaved violently.
The wicked frustrate the plans of the oppressed, but the LORD will protect his people.
- Psalm 14:6 -
The LORD is close to all who call on him, yes, to all who call on him in truth
- Psalm 145:18 -
Last edited:
Personally, I prefer accurate translations, but maybe that’s just me.
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
What is a good translation? These are KJV
Psalm 14:6 "Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge."
Psalm 145:18 "The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him, To all that call upon him in truth"
Regards Tony
Won’t see, imo.
You’d need to take it up with Jesus.
That’s not the reason. There are several threads on the subject.
When you accuse me personally on the internet of censoring out heresy on an interfaith website, you mean?
That’s mighty noble of you, being so oppressed and all ...
Last edited:
A pointless argument.
The articles may not be perfect, but they are no more unacceptable than the style of the refutation(s), imo.
No, I'm not accusing you of deliberately trying to mislead anybody, or of censoring the internet.
You cannot be accused of that, imo.
I apologise..
4. Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.
5. There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.
6. Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge.
- Psalms 14 -
17. The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.
18. The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.
19. He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.
- Psalms 145 -
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
..interesting to note that the verses are identical to the KJV version that @Tone quoted
Last edited:
And vice versa.
Well, my final point on this matter..
One basic truth is that you cannot explain with any logicality, how The Father and the Son
seem to not be in full communication with each other, but they are both "God".
If we stick to God being the Father, and the Son being of a "lesser divinity", there is no mystery at all
Furthermore, logic shows us that God cannot be created as He is eternal.
Therefore, suggesting that a large number of people would believe that Jesus is God
and also be created [ there is a time when the Son was not ], is suggesting that a large number of people are stupid.
I don't think that they are.
Last edited:
Phew!
The failure to understand something does not actually constitute or demonstrate the truth or falsehood of anything.
Phew!
Indeed..
Mind you it is more interesting, and perhaps easier, than washing & sewing