Posted on 05/10/2013 7:36:49 PM PDT by boatbums
“Well, no. But nice try.”
Well yes, and it’s not a nice try. It’s a simple fact. You’re more than welcome to quote my post and find a way to remove “Augustine” and ‘Ser,227” or “Letter 98” or ‘Tractate 25” out of it to imagine it all as the work of an “anonymous author.”
” It’s a simple fact. “
Nope. You have many extraneous quotes in there of anonymous authors.
Quotes that are commonly recognized do not need to be sourced, e.g. "Ask not what your country can do for you..."
Ancient manuscripts or documents may be sourced briefly, e.g. 2nd Amendment, Didache, Polycarp to the Philippians.
If it is a modern source, title, date, author etc. are necessary to examine copyright restrictions. But simply noting the url or hotlink is faster and easier - and it strengthens your arguments since your correspondents can examine your excerpts in context.
“Nope. You have many extraneous quotes in there of anonymous authors.”
OK. Quote them.
You may look as long as you want. My opinions and that of Holy Mother the Church always agree.
Rather, you should cite them.
“Quotes that are commonly recognized do not need to be sourced, e.g. “Ask not what your country can do for you...”
Ancient manuscripts or documents may be sourced briefly, e.g. 2nd Amendment, Didache, Polycarp to the Philippians.
If it is a modern source, title, date, author etc. are necessary to examine copyright restrictions. But simply noting the url or hotlink is faster and easier - and it strengthens your arguments since your correspondents can examine your excerpts in context.”
Thanks for this. You won’t have to worry about me quoting stuff and not including the citation or link, if appropriate.
If they refuse the answer your questions then do not keep asking - that would be badgering, another form of “making it personal.”
“Rather, you should cite them.”
I did. You accused me of not citing all of them, mingling “anonymous quotes” with my non-anonymous ones, supposedly. So, please provide the offending uncited quote. I can’t reach into your hallucinations and pluck them out, now can I?
** You asserted that God the Father is not different from His Word.**
True.
** You then assert that the Word is different from the Father and is, in fact, literally a child of God (God gave birth), as an inferior and finite creation.**
No, I’m saying the God the Father always had his own Word, but placed it in a man’s body. Father’s word is not a separate entity from himself. God’s word is his plan, and he chose to apply his plan in a specific way, for “God, who at sundry times and divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son......he hath by inheritance obtained a better name than they..”. And God said, “..this day I have begotten thee...”.
The Son “is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature”; that God uses projects his will to man in a way another man can understand. He is powered, if you will, by the only God there is: the Father. For the Christ said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.” Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet hast thou NOT KNOWN ME, Philip? he that hath SEEN me hath SEEN the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am IN the Father, and the Father IN me? the WORDS that I speak unto you I SPEAK NOT OF MYSELF”(remember John 1:1? Whose words are they? The Father’s)”: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works”.
Do you deny that the Father is a Spirit? Better get out the scissors and cut out John 4:23 and 24. If you agree that He is a Spirit then good for you, for Paul taught that as well, saying to the Athenians: “God that made the world and all things therein......giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;....he be not far from everyone of us: for in him we live and move and have our being”. Acts 17:24-28. Sound familiar? Remember the Son saying “I am in the Father”? But since he was filled with God, he also has the Father in him, not just around him.
**Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
This is not the language of a “force” or energy of the Father, otherwise He would never have been spoken of in this way at all.**
If it helps, here’s Jesus explaining it again: “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you FROM the Father, even the Spirit of TRUTH” (’truth’ is words, right? remember John1:1?) “, which PROCEEDETH from the Father, he shall testify of me.” John 15:26
You confidently display your position, yet dodge several of the snags I pointed out in the trinitarian ‘creed’, for instance, the Father only ‘knowing the hour’.
You didn’t touch the point that the phrases ‘God the Son’ and ‘God the Holy Ghost (or Spirit)’ are not found in the scriptures. That’s because it would indicate separate ‘Gods’, when there is but one (and not one in agreement with others).
Last question before this OTR driver must go to sleep: Is the Father’s name ‘Jesus’? (clues: John 5:43 and Heb. 1:4)
Remember that the Son said the Holy Ghost would be sent in his name (Jesus). That’s why the apostles obeyed the Lord’s command in Matt. 28:19, and baptized in the name of Jesus, for the remission of sins, in the book of Acts.
“I did”
Nope.
“No, I’m saying the God the Father always had his own Word, but placed it in a man’s body. Father’s word is not a separate entity from himself. God’s word is his plan, and he chose to apply his plan in a specific way, for “God, who at sundry times and divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son......he hath by inheritance obtained a better name than they..”. And God said, “..this day I have begotten thee...””
Okay, so your’e saying that the Word is a part of God, essentially. This is different than a created being, even from this stand point, since an angel isn’t God’s foot, or His arm (if He had any of those) or His breath. In this case, you say that Jesus literally is the voice of God proceeding from the Father. The scripture we were quoting, on the other hand, read that the Word and God are exactly the same being, not one being part of another.
“The Son “is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature”;”
From Barnes’ commentary:
“Among all the creatures of God, or over all his creation, occupying the rank and pro-eminence of the first-born. The first-born, or the oldest son, among the Hebrews as elsewhere, had special privileges. He was entitled to a double portion of the inheritance. It has been, also, and especially in oriental countries, a common thing for the oldest son to succeed to the estate and the title of his father. In early times, the first-born son was the officiating priest in the family, in the absence or on the death of the father. There can be no doubt that the apostle here has reference to the usual distinctions and honors conferred on the first-born, and means to say that, among all the creatures of God, Christ occupied a pre-eminence similar to that. He does not say that, in all respects, he resembled the first-born in a family; nor does he say that he himself was a creature, for the point of his comparison does not turn on these things, and what he proceeds to affirm respecting him is inconsistent with the idea of his being a created being himself.”
Right after that verse, Paul makes it clear that Jesus Christ is the creator of all things. By definition, Christ Himself cannot be “created.”
“Do you deny that the Father is a Spirit?”
No, I just don’t deny all the passages that say the Holy Spirit is there too.
“You confidently display your position, yet dodge several of the snags I pointed out in the trinitarian ‘creed’, for instance, the Father only ‘knowing the hour’.”
You ignored all my quotes from Isaiah and Revelation. I rarely bother with outside sources when the evidence is so clear in the scripture.
“Nope.”
Go grab a notebook, and just write “Yes” followed by “No” on it, until you’re happy.
I always hear people speak of salvation in terms of what’s in it for them, but never in terms of what’s in it for God.
**You ignored all my quotes from Isaiah and Revelation.**
Jesus Christ is first and last because of the Father in him, who is Alpha and Omega, first and the last. (that was easy).
You ignored my John 14 discussion, and how it tied in with John 1:1 quite well.
**I rarely bother with outside sources... From Barnes’ commentary:**
lol
Perhaps you prefer Peter to have said, in Acts 10:38, “..How God the Father anointed God the Son, Jesus of Nazareth, with God the Holy Ghost....”. (sigh)
Personally, I think Peter nailed it in his version.
If I make it back home tomorrow night, I’ll log in. Off to bed. Lord bless.
I guess it's just a human trait. We can know from Scripture that it was God who reached out to fallen mankind and provided a way to balance His mercy with His righteous holiness and justice. God does not wink at sin, in fact, God will not allow ANY sin into heaven - not so much as a lie. But he loved us so much that he made a way for us to be redeemed from our fallen state. God the Son (Jesus) took on human flesh, lived a sinless life and then sacrificially died FOR the sins of the world - past, present and future. He rose from the dead to prove Jesus was God incarnate and to show that his sacrifice was a once-for-all satisfaction for sin. He paid the penalty we deserved - which was death - and offers the gift of salvation to all those who would receive it through faith in Christ.
We know that God doesn't NEED anything, yet he created us knowing full well before hand what we would do and what it would cost to redeem us. Sadly, many people have no desire at all to know God or to accept his gift of everlasting life in heaven. That DOES grieve God. So, what's in it for God? That's a deep question but my thought is that through his love and mercy, as well as his leading and calling, he has souls he loves to spend eternity with and who will glorify and praise him forever.
LOL. The Pope of the Church of Self in his natural habitat.
Regards
Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. When Paul wrote this it was not viewed as "Scripture". It wasn't part fo the "Bible" until almost 300 years later. The Only Scripture they had at that time was the OT.
My issue is with post 377 and 433. Despite the fact that some of these quotes are from Popes, saints, etc. I know there are plenty of anti-Catholic sites out there who pick and choose quotes out of context. The poster should be posting the link of the website along with the quotes.
I could do the same thing from a Catholic apologist website, but I do not.
Ah, time for an education.....
Paul's writings WERE recognized as Scripture at the time the NT was being written as anyone familiar with the Bible would know.
2 Peter 3:15-17 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.