Search results

I used to come around here often. not much anymore. I am a member of an EPC church in Houston, TX. I am Ordained ready or okayed by the presbytery. My calling is as a chaplain but I have been waiting for a specific call. I got a possible one on Friday to be a chaplain at a prison in...

I was not really name calling. I was calling a spade a spade. If one beleives in two beings or subjects in Christ then he or she is a heretic. It is more loving to call them that than to act like that are not.

The creeds are scriptural. They use scriptural language often. But no I will not stop pointing fingers if another is speaking heresy. There are not two subjects. There is one. Scripture does not speak of two Christ's. It speaks of one. It states that JC is the Emmanuel or God with us. He...

Greek philosophy? That response is so lame. Harnack has proven to be more of a hack than anything else. That whole Greek Philosophy thing is so passe.

Who said the Word had a beginning? I didn't. All I said was teh God was born, lived, suffered, died, and rose again. I think a famous creed or two says something like that.

No. I serve the ONE Lord Jesus Christ. Obviously you serve two Lords Jesus Christ man and Divine.

Again two natures does not equal two beings. Christ is one being. The Word became Flesh and dwelt amongst us. It is not the Word attached the Flesh to itself and they dwelt among us.

No both were. are you a Nestorian? Is Christ more than one subject? Is he two sons? I think Cyril of Alexandria and the Fathers of the church were right. Cyril and the rest of the Orthodox Fatehrs disagree with you. Along with Calvin, Luther, and Puritan John Owen. I can name more but I...

No. Not two beings. Two natures. I think there is a big difference between the two. Two beings =two subjects or two persons. At least that is how I look at it. Two natures does not.

No. Jesus Christ was one person adn one subject. He was begotten. Singular. The mystery of the incarnation is that the Word became flesh. That God was born, suffered, died, and rose again. God was begotten. That means his divine nature was part of what was begotten. The divine nature...

Who is God? It matters what you mean by God. Usually when the Bible uses the word "God" it means the Father. This is very clear in john. The Spirit is the Spirit. Jesus is the Son of God. And God is the Father. But john and the rest of scripture also makes very clear that Jesus and the...

DarkGreenmind, i think that will help clear things up is in someways you are right God did not die. okay God did not cease to exist. Well let me explain it another way. Jesus has two natures human and divine. The human nature died. Okay I think we all agree on that. Right? However...

Monogerism, I can't keep up this pace. i will reply later but it will be a littel while since i I have much stuff to do. i just wrote aavery long reply and then my computer went crazy and I lost it. So i will reply but maybe late tomorrow or Monday and that reply might be my last since we...

Sorry no major Christian tradition except for maybe some in the Anabaptist and Baptist traditions think the way you do. Neither did Luther or Calvin or Zwingli. And since it is impossible to come without theolgy or a tradition to the text it would be impractical to try and do otherwise. It is...

What are you talking about? Never have i said you are omniscent. i have never asked you to prove a negative. Again prove that the Son was given the title of the Son at the incarnation. This is what you have said. I am not asking for you to prove that the Son was not the Son eternally. i am...

Everyone does. No one reads scripture with a blank slate. It would be improper to do so. It is not eisegesis. It is taken the whole of the Bible into account when you are interpreting a part of it. Again I reject that kind of thinking. In the real world one cannot be so precise. One has to...

You are playing a game. You continue not to read or respond to what is written. I am asking to prove that the Son became the SOn at the incarantion. I do not think you can get around this. So I cannot say that you can't prove your argument? This is just silly. I have already told you that...

I tried that verse before and it has some historical baggage also.

It seems like you are playing a game. You know that I have stated that you must prove not that the Son was not eternally the Son but that the Son became the Son at the incarnation. See your positive statement is that the Son became to be the Son at a certain period of time. So you must prove...

[/COLOR] You asked me for proof and what the church has taught abut scripture is proof. If you went into a room where 99 people saw the murder and one read about it. The 99 said Joe did it while the one said Jim did it. Who would you believe? I know you would not agree with him. That is...