Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

[Berean777]

My only possible objection to what you describe is that in accordance with the Nicene Creed, I believe in the resurrection of the dead in glorified physical form, as opposed to a purely spiritual afterlife. I, together with my Orthodox, RC and traditional Protestant brethren, believe we shall be "raised incorruptible."

You may have misunderstood what I stated.

I repeat, the body that will be raised is not the body that was sowed. This means that the terrestrial earthly body which is a piece of clothing for the soul will be dissolved and returns to dust, never to be raised again. However the glorified physical form will be the heavenly house for our soul. The heavenly piece of clothing is not the terrestrial earthly.

Christianity is not about earthly bodies respawning all over again to their original parts.

In fact if you read between the lines to what Jesus and the apostles said regarding this heavenly form, you will discern that God makes the earthly physical form its function and the heavenly physical form another function. This means that there is no redundant function, because God creates perfect beings for their unique environments and in this case realms (earthly vs heavenly).

Having said that, Jesus stated an important function of the glorified raised form. This is his words

Matthew 22:30
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Jesus in the verse above is referring to the sexual bond between a man and a women in the function of procreation, meaning marriage. This function is no longer applicable in the glorified risen form. So if we extrapolate from the words of Jesus that the function of sex is no longer applicable in the raised form, then that raised form doesn't require the biological sexual functions that a man and a women have in the earthly physical form, right?

You see a redundant sexual function related to the earthly form doesn't carry over to the heavenly angelic form as Jesus said, because for the reason it has no function up there, right?

Now Paul speaks of the two different forms in his epistles and the key notes here, is why he goes to the extreme length at conveying the difference between one form to the other?

For the simple reason that they are vastly different.

The contention here is if the functions of the earthly form are applicable to the risen form and the answer from the Lord's mouth is plainly obvious to the layman.

Listen to what Paul has to say

1 Corinthians 15:35-41
The Resurrection Body
35But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

Brother Paul is highlighting two very important aspects of the glorified risen form compared to the earthly and they are-

1) Vast difference in appearance between earthly and heavenly
2) Vast difference in functionality between earthly and heavenly

So vast contrast is made of the earthly and heavenly forms related to their unique purpose driven functionality. No redundancies exist in either form and each part of the form, whether heavenly or earthly requires all of its unique functions in order to function within its realm.

But let us continue to understands Paul's writings

46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

It should be clear that Paul goes at length to explain the vast difference between the earthly and the heavenly and even orders them as the first man was of the dust of the earth, hence he will return to the dust of the earth and the second man is of the heaven, that is angelic (image of the heavenly).

Let us get another witness involved like John. John in his epistles states

1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

John is giving his human experiences and admits that he doesn't know what the experiences of the heavenly form will be. Yet he gives us a clue that when Christ appears in his glorified form, we shall be like him and then and only then can we see him as he is, meaning in his glorified form.

So John is indicating that the earthly form cannot experience nor can it see the heavenly form.

In Paul's epistles he calls this realm the third heaven.

So from all that I have written how can you still perceive that the risen form has any relation to the earthly form in appearance and functionality?

We have to deceive ourselves to believe that the form we have today with all our sexual organs will all be somehow joined back up piece by piece, that are not required according to the Lord. So why would God respawn the same earthly body with the sexual functions that are not required. What purpose will respawning the earthly body serve.

As soon as one invisages sexual organs on the raised form, then that person has desecrated that form and it can no longer be identified as Holy, nor heavenly.

 

[cgaviria]

After the cross the soul no longer goes to hades / sleep state. For the faithful the soul is immediately present with the Lord.

If this were true, then why does Paul say,

[18] And then the ones having been fallen asleep in Christ perished. [19] If in this life [*3*hoping *2*we are *4*in *5*Christ *1*only], more pitiable than all men are we. [20] But now Christ has been raised from the dead, [*2*first-fruit *3*of the ones *4*sleeping *1*he became].
(I Corinthians 15:18-20 [ABP])

Paul is first affirming that there are those who have fallen asleep IN CHRIST, meaning after Jesus was raised from the dead and the church times began. Secondly, Paul is affirming Jesus Christ is the FIRST FRUIT of the resurrection of ALL THE ONES SLEEPING, meaning he has been the FIRST TO BE RAISED FROM THE DEAD into the new promised immortal body, and all the rest STILL SLEEP.

The Lord said that when he ascends into heaven no believer will taste death.

Where do you see this in scripture? When I have seen a person die, I see no indication of "not having tasted death". This is just not true.

So the soul after the cross doesn't sleep but it is clothed immediately and in a twinkling of an eye.

The twinkling of an eye isn't referring to the moment of your death, it is referring to the RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD OF THOSE IN CHRIST at HIS SECOND COMING.

in an instant, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For it shall trump, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (I Corinthians 15:52 [ABP])

This scripture is connected with this scripture...... its the same event,

[16] For [*3*himself *1*the *2*Lord] in a word of command by the voice of an archangel, and with a trumpet of God, shall descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise up first. [17] Thereupon we the living, the ones remaining, together with them shall be seized in clouds, for meeting the Lord in the air, and thus at all times with the Lord we shall be.
(I Thessalonians 4:16-17 [ABP])

The resurrection of the dead IN CHRIST happens at his SECOND COMING. What would be the point of a resurrection if you're already hanging out alive somewhere in heaven? Wouldn't the scripture say you came down with Jesus from heaven? No, you are resurrected because your soul remains in Hades in a sleep state AWAITING resurrection where it is put forth into a new body and brought back to life, that is the very definition of RESURRECTION.

 

[Berean777]

Read again from a different angle. Move away from your current thoughts and just study what I have written as if you never studied scripture before and this is your first intro.

I am not going to show you your misreading of all the versus you quoted until you disapprove what I said with your God given mind and in your own words.

Do not quote scripture, rather you tell me from your heart, why you believe what you believe.

I made a statement that hades cannot exist after the cross and so you need to explain in your own words why you believe that it should continue even after the cross.

 

[cgaviria]

Read again from a different angle. Move away from your current thoughts and just study what I have written as if you never studied scripture before and this is your first intro.

I am not going to show you your misreading of all the versus you quoted until you disapprove what I said with your God given mind and in your own words.

Do not quote scripture, rather you tell me from your heart, why you believe what you believe.

I made a statement that hades cannot exist after the cross and so you need to explain in your own words why you believe that it should continue even after the cross.

Sure. Hades exists still because it is a collection place of the souls of men while the times of the things of the earth are being fulfilled. Once certain events come into play at the fullness of the times, then the dead souls are brought up to be resurrected. The first bringing up is the resurrection of those in Christ at his coming. The second resurrection, which is the resurrection of the rest of the dead, happens much later on for the great judgment where each will be judged and anyone not found in the book of life is tossed into a great fire.

Understanding this concept is important because it gives light to the hope of the resurrection, and how awesome the power of God is to raise people from the dead.

So I literally believe that those that are in Jesus Christ, that have died and have thus fallen asleep, will quickly wake up, even if a thousand years have passed, because just as sleep you don't feel the passing of time, so is the resurrection while you remain dead.... and those in Christ will quickly WAKE UP TO MEET THE LORD IN THE AIR. This is incredible and powerful.

 

[Berean777]

Tell me what you think rather than what you read.

How many times in the new testament is death mentioned compared to the old testament within the context of the departed.

The theme in the old testament has countless authors fearing death as a place where the person is no more. The new testament is vompletely opposite thematically.

So it is obvious that the cross changed the theme. If Paul sings death where is your sting, then finds himself in hades for the last 2000 years, could you see that this is laughable.

As new testament believers if we say that hades continue until the nessiah comes then we have the same mindset as the old testament saonts who waoted in their graves.

Guess what messiah did come and so what the old testament saints were hoping for was realised. Now this is not a repeat for the new testament age is it?

 

[cgaviria]

The theme in the old testament has countless authors fearing death as a place where the person is no more. The new testament is vompletely opposite thematically.

If that were true then why are they the ones that first mention Hades as a collection place of the dead. And not only hades but in a resurrection as well. So therefore they clearly believed in the collecting of the souls of men and also in a resurrection of the dead. That teaching has not changed since then. In fact, it is confirmed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that the dead ARE INDEED RAISED, and he is thus the first fruit of the great resurrection.

 

[Albion]

We do know from Scripture that the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father. But we also know from Scripture that the Father and Son are both Spirit and they are both Holy. Therefore, the Father and Son are both Holy Spirit.

Surely you understand that the Holy Spirit is not just a combination of two words in two different contexts. But even if we went with that approach, you have insurmountable problems defending it. For one, the Son is also a spirit so he must be the Holy Spirit, too. And for another, the New Testament clearly records that there are three, not two, and that Jesus said the Father will send the Holy Spirit, meaning that the latter must not literally BE the Father although by a different name.

It's not complicated.

Well, it is somewhat complicated...or shall we say 'far fetched?' But this doesn't make it either incorrect or correct.

 

[Berean777]

My claim is that the resurrection of the dead is not a one time event, but rather encompasses the entire new covenant age from when the graves of the old covenant saints were opened in marthew 27:53-53 all the way until the end of thr harvest, the gleaning.

In fact the wedding at Galilee symbolised the harvest by the wine being served. We are the wine of the harvest. The wedding organiser who is the symbol of the Father asks his Son that he left the last wine until last. This implies that the harvest of the wine has a bearing from when the groom Christ was glorified right up until the gleaning of the harvest.

 

[Berean777]

If that were true then why are they the ones that first mention Hades as a collection place of the dead. And not only hades but in a resurrection as well. So therefore they clearly believed in the collecting of the souls of men and also in a resurrection of the dead. That teaching has not changed since then. In fact, it is confirmed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that the dead ARE INDEED RAISED, and he is thus the first fruit of the great resurrection.

Those you quoted are all past tense related to the firstfruits of the harvest of God. Surely not a one time event!

 

[cgaviria]

My claim is that the resurrection of the dead is not a one time event, but rather encompasses the entire new covenant age from when the graves of the old covenant saints were opened in marthew 27:53-53 all the way until the end of thr harvest, the gleaning.

In fact the wedding at Galilee symbolised the harvest by the wine being served. We are the wine of the harvest. The wedding organiser who is the symbol of the Father asks his Son that he left the last wine until last. This implies that the harvest of the wine has a bearing from when the groom Christ was glorified right up until the gleaning of the harvest.

The scripture says otherwise. It speaks of two resurrections. Are you not to believe what the scripture teaches?

 

[Berean777]

If that were true then why are they the ones that first mention Hades as a collection place of the dead. And not only hades but in a resurrection as well. So therefore they clearly believed in the collecting of the souls of men and also in a resurrection of the dead. That teaching has not changed since then. In fact, it is confirmed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that the dead ARE INDEED RAISED, and he is thus the first fruit of the great resurrection.

You see you just classified the Lord, who is God as a fruit of his own harvest.

How can the Lord of the harvest be a fruit of his own harvest?

Luke 10:1-4
Jesus Sends Out the Seventy-Two

1After this the Lord appointed seventy-twoa others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. 2He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. 3Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. 4Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the

Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath and therefore the Lord of the harvest as everything has been given into his hands. So when we pray for more workers to the a Lord of the harvest, we are asking Jesus our mediator between us and God, to provide for us.

The versus that you refered to are comma delineated which the Hebrew does not have in the original manuscripts and so the translators of the NIV have recognised that and placed the comma where it belongs. Therefore the versus go like this -

1 Corinthians 15:20-24
20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

You realise that the (definite article) firstfruits of those (new covenant believers) who have fallen asleep are old covenant fathers. Christ has indeed been raised from the dead as a forerunner to the resurrection and not as the definite article in the plural, meaning many, that is, the first-fruits. The Lord of the Sabbath is not the first fruits (plural) of the harvest.

But each in turn from the forerunner to the resurrection Jesus Christ , to the firstfruits (many old covenant saints Matthew 27:52-53), then when he comes AGAIN the new covenant who belong to him under the great commission where he sent them off in twos into every town and village throughout the new covenant age.

So the harvest isn't a one or two timed event, rather it is a continuous reaping after men die. Those living shall in no way hinder those who depart to be with the Lord. Saint Stephens testimony states that the Lord appeared in the clouds for him to call him up after he died.

So too all departed faithful throughout the new covenant age have beheld the Lord's appearing after they die to be then present with the Lord.

Spiritual death in hades where the being has no conscious or recollection has been abolished after the cross and the reason why Messiah came in the first place, is to deliver those old covenant saints waiting in hades for Messiah to raise them. If this has not happened to signal the start of the reaping from the great harvest of God, then there is a denial of Christ ever coming in the first place. Hades cannot continue after the cross.

 

[Berean777]

The context of the Lord coming again in 1 Corinthians 15:23 is applicable to every departed faithful from Saint Stephan when he had his turn, right down to the last believers who are reaped at the gleaning of the harvest (the symbol of the last good wine).

The apostles writes In Hebrews 9:28 that Christ will appear the second time to the apostles who had seen him the first time, but this time they will be presented before him without sin, meaning that they will be raised, therefore indicating that it is an event immediately following departure form this earthly life. So how we are salvaged from this life is through physical death and onto life to be immediately reunited with the Lord, otherwise Paul's poetic line of death where is your sting, is something laughable if he for the last 2000 years continues to serve in hades.

The appearing of the Lord as far as Paul was concerned was imminent when he said I have finished my race and kept the faiths now there is already in store for me a crown of righteousness but not also me but also those in turn, who look forward to his appearing just like me, when they depart from this life.

 

[Wgw]

For purposes of clarification, @cgavira has elsewhere on the forum admitted that (despite the fact its authenticity is not disputed), he regards Matthew 28:19 as it exists in our Bibles to have been modified.

This basically proves my point, in the OP, that non-Trinitarianism is entirely unscriptural. @Imagican to his credit does not want to discard any verses that I am aware of, but simply rejects a literal interpretation of them, whereas @cgavira , like a great many non-Trinitarians, proposes that we reject verses present in all the major manuscript traditions because they conflict with his non-Nicene, non-Trinitarian theology.

 

[cgaviria]

For purposes of clarification, @cgavira has elsewhere on the forum admitted that (despite the fact its authenticity is not disputed), he regards Matthew 28:19 as it exists in our Bibles to have been modified.

This basically proves my point, in the OP, that non-Trinitarianism is entirely unscriptural. @Imagican to his credit does not want to discard any verses that I am aware of, but simply rejects a literal interpretation of them, whereas @cgavira , like a great many non-Trinitarians, proposes that we reject verses present in all the major manuscript traditions because they conflict with his non-Nicene, non-Trinitarian theology.

The funny thing about you is that whenever you are backed into a corner, you have no answer. I asked you if you believe in "immortal worms"? And no answer. I ask you about which baptism we should do, in the name of jesus christ or in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit? and no answer. whenever you are finally backed into a corner after you give me a complete word vomit you have no direct responses to these questions after i've asked you the same thing multiple times.

 

[Wgw]

The funny thing about you is that whenever you are backed into a corner, you have no answer. I asked you if you believe in "immortal worms"? And no answer. I ask you about which baptism we should do, in the name of jesus christ or in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit? and no answer. whenever you are finally backed into a corner after you give me a complete word vomit you have no direct responses to these questions after i've asked you the same thing multiple times.

On the contrary, I do not answer questions that are not posed in good faith, like the "immortal worms" question, nor do I answer questions that require a clarification from the person asking them before they can be responded to or that contain a fallacy.

The problem with your question regarding "immortal worms" is that you are asking a question in such a way that has the effect of, in my opinion, mocking the words of our Lord.

The problem with your other question is that it contains the possible implication that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God. It reads a liturgical formula into expressions in the NT which are not inherently liturgical in nature. The practice of the Orthodox Church, which is an example of binding apostolic tradition under 2 Thessalonians 2:15 , is to use the Trinitarian formula; however, this formula, which is scriptural and present in all anicent manuscripts of Matthew 28:19, refers with "the Son" to Jesus Christ unambiguously.

So one cannot allege that we do not baptize in the name of Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the use of the Trinitarian formula applies to him.

What your question seeks to do is to critique the Trinitarian formula as not containing the name of Jesus Christ. Your desire is that I should answer that yes, we should use the Trinitarian formula, so that you could then say "aha, got you!" In fact, however, since Jesus Christ is the Son of God, this does not apply.

Interestingly, while this does not reflect the liturgical or conversion process in the Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware has suggested that (if I understand him correctly) where use of the "Jesus name" formula is made not ina spirit of dissent to Matthew 28:19, or for purposes of promoting Oneness Pentecostalism or other theological heresies, the reverse is also true. So if the early church ever did not use the Trinitarian formula given in Matthew 28:19, it does not matter, goven that Jesus Christ is God, and Matthew 28:19 refers to God, albeit on the basis of each prosopon rather than in general.

One should not however extract from this view the idea that the prosopa are undifferentiated; they are differentiated, which is why we rebaptize, for example, oneness pentecostals.

One cannot ask someone a question when there is an error in the question, the implications of the question, or the available answers, and then claim you have backed fhem into a corner when they properly refuse to answer.

Thus for example, if I demanded of someone "do you still steal, yes or no?" when in fact they had not stolen anything, they would be correct not to give a yes or no answer. And I could not, with any pretense of decorum, then proceed to boast of having cornered them.

 

[cgaviria]

On the contrary, I do not answer questions that are not posed in good faith, like the "immortal worms" question, nor do I answer questions that require a clarification from the person asking them before they can be responded to or that contain a fallacy.

The problem with your question regarding "immortal worms" is that you are asking a question in such a way that has the effect of, in my opinion, mocking the words of our Lord.

The problem with your other question is that it contains the possible implication that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God. It reads a liturgical formula into expressions in the NT which are not inherently liturgical in nature. The practice of the Orthodox Church, which is an example of binding apostolic tradition under 2 Thessalonians 2:15 , is to use the Trinitarian formula; however, this formula, which is scriptural and present in all anicent manuscripts of Matthew 28:19, refers with "the Son" to Jesus Christ unambiguously.

So one cannot allege that we do not baptize in the name of Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the use of the Trinitarian formula applies to him.

What your question seeks to do is to critique the Trinitarian formula as not containing the name of Jesus Christ. Your desire is that I should answer that yes, we should use the Trinitarian formula, so that you could then say "aha, got you!" In fact, however, since Jesus Christ is the Son of God, this does not apply.

Interestingly, while this does not reflect the liturgical or conversion process in the Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware has suggested that (if I understand him correctly) where use of the "Jesus name" formula is made not ina spirit of dissent to Matthew 28:19, or for purposes of promoting Oneness Pentecostalism or other theological heresies, the reverse is also true. So if the early church ever did not use the Trinitarian formula given in Matthew 28:19, it does not matter, goven that Jesus Christ is God, and Matthew 28:19 refers to God, albeit on the basis of each prosopon rather than in general.

One should not however extract from this view the idea that the prosopa are undifferentiated; they are differentiated, which is why we rebaptize, for example, oneness pentecostals.

One cannot ask someone a question when there is an error in the question, the implications of the question, or the available answers, and then claim you have backed fhem into a corner when they properly refuse to answer.

Thus for example, if I demanded of someone "do you still steal, yes or no?" when in fact they had not stolen anything, they would be correct not to give a yes or no answer. And I could not, with any pretense of decorum, then proceed to boast of having cornered them.

Here we go again with no direct answer. Like I said, whenever you're finally backed into a corner, you have no direct answer. Its because your whole theology is wrong, thats why YOU CANT RECONCILE THESE BASIC SCRIPTURES. I have nothing further to say to you.

 

[Wgw]

Here we go again with no direct answer. Like I said, whenever you're finally backed into a corner, you have no direct answer. Its because your whole theology is wrong, thats why YOU CANT RECONCILE THESE BASIC SCRIPTURES. I have nothing further to say to you.

On the contrary, I do reconcile them; Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1-14) and thus the liturgical formula of Matthew 28:19 is a proper way of baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ. So when you demand to know whether I say we should baptize in the name of Jesus Christ or in accordance with Matthew 28:19, I am forced to point out your question contains an error of semantics.

I am furthermore not the one who proposes that we delete what is universally regarded by people familiar with the Greek manuscripts a verse simply because I find it inconvenient. You have no interest in the exegesis of reconciliation, rather, you seek to excise those verses which are contradictory to your pen theological preconceptions.

You have proven my point in the OP: non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural. It cannot be reconciled with sacred scripture, as it stands in opposition to it.

 

[Imagican]

I find it amusing that you constantly indicate presupposition. You know, like: "It is presupposed.................." indicating that we can take the obvious and offer it as presupposition.

But if I offer such a premise, it is immediately reduced to: "Since you don't agree with US there is no chance that we can presuppose.............".

I offer that the use of the terms 'Father and Son' we can PRESUPPOSE that ONE came before the other.

Yet because of the doctrine you have chosen to follow, you indicate that there is NO presupposition.

I offer that God would NEVER have even used the terms 'Father and Son' if they had NO traditional meaning. That would be RIDICULOUS to call something HIS SON that was not BEGOTTEN by Him.

Yet your formula has Christ NEVER REALLY begotten. Instead, it was required that those that refuse to accept it create something completely inane like: Eternal generation, (which makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever).

The obvious TRUTH as offered in scripture is that at SOME point in time, God 'beget' His SON. That means that there was OBVIOUSLY a TIME before the Son was BEGOTTEN.

If you believe otherwise, please offer the SCRIPTURE that indicates or states that Christ has been "ETERNALLY GENERATED". I'm not looking for words of MEN. But scripture that would supply this understanding.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[cgaviria]

I find it amusing that you constantly indicate presupposition. You know, like: "It is presupposed.................." indicating that we can take the obvious and offer it as presupposition.

But if I offer such a premise, it is immediately reduced to: "Since you don't agree with US there is no chance that we can presuppose.............".

I offer that the use of the terms 'Father and Son' we can PRESUPPOSE that ONE came before the other.

Yet because of the doctrine you have chosen to follow, you indicate that there is NO presupposition.

I offer that God would NEVER have even used the terms 'Father and Son' if they had NO traditional meaning. That would be RIDICULOUS to call something HIS SON that was not BEGOTTEN by Him.

Yet your formula has Christ NEVER REALLY begotten. Instead, it was required that those that refuse to accept it create something completely inane like: Eternal generation, (which makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever).

The obvious TRUTH as offered in scripture is that at SOME point in time, God 'beget' His SON. That means that there was OBVIOUSLY a TIME before the Son was BEGOTTEN.

If you believe otherwise, please offer the SCRIPTURE that indicates or states that Christ has been "ETERNALLY GENERATED". I'm not looking for words of MEN. But scripture that would supply this understanding.

Blessings,

MEC

Amen.

 

[Wgw]

I find it amusing that you constantly indicate presupposition. You know, like: "It is presupposed.................." indicating that we can take the obvious and offer it as presupposition.

But if I offer such a premise, it is immediately reduced to: "Since you don't agree with US there is no chance that we can presuppose.............".

Do you actually read my posts, old chap? I suppose not, given that I have never used the rather verbose form of "it is presupposed that..."

I offer that the use of the terms 'Father and Son' we can PRESUPPOSE that ONE came before the other.

Alas, John 1:1 says otherwise.

I offer that God would NEVER have even used the terms 'Father and Son' if they had NO traditional meaning. That would be RIDICULOUS to call something HIS SON that was not BEGOTTEN by Him.

Here you argue with yourself. The Nicene Creed, which we confess, says "Begotten, not made." You are the one seeking to argue that our Lord is a creature.

Yet your formula has Christ NEVER REALLY begotten.

In fact, it does not. Once again it would seem you are arguing against my invisible evil Sabellian twin. Classical strawman, by the way.

Instead, it was required that those that refuse to accept it create something completely inane like: Eternal generation, (which makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever).

The obvious TRUTH as offered in scripture is that at SOME point in time, God 'beget' His SON. That means that there was OBVIOUSLY a TIME before the Son was BEGOTTEN.

If you believe otherwise, please offer the SCRIPTURE that indicates or states that Christ has been "ETERNALLY GENERATED". I'm not looking for words of MEN. But scripture that would supply this understanding.

Asked and answered, ad nauseum. I'll give you a hint though; it is related to Exodus 3:14-15