Search results

I agree. And the bishops in these various churches -- and their successors -- are not to be looked as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, because they exercise a power really their own.

I don't know a single Christian who would disagree, Trinitarians included. We all agree that Jesus was a man. Trinitarians just don't agree that he was only or merely a man (although he was the first to be raised from the dead in a glorified body).

Not necssarily. My wife and I have one child, a son. He is our first born. None are to follow. First doesn't require a second or a subsequent. It's possible for something or someone to be the first AND the last, the alpha AND the omega (so to speak).

We might start with the sixth canon handed down at Nicaea.

"Dwell" does not mean "is." It means to inhabit a physical space and make one's home there. God can "dwell" in a physical space or a physical person. Prior to his incarnation, the Son was neither. So your notion that what the Son "emptied himself" of (Phil. 2:6-7) was God "dwelling" within...

The Greek Othodox and the Roman See were both parts of the Catholic Church until 1054 A.D. "Catholic" didn't mean "Roman" Catholic back then. It just meant the church that was spawned on Pentecost and had spread throughout the western world (and beyond) as the true church of Christ..

Absolutely true. But my point was that "dwells" was never applied by Paul to any "contents" of the pre-incarnate Son. So Col. 2:9 puts no gloss on how we are to understand Phil. 2:6-7. Thus, you still have not given an adequate response to my post #1,185.

I agree. That's not what I challenged. Rather, I challenged your comment that "no trinity was ever known or served by a true follower prior to Catholicism adding the holy spirit to a godhead in 381 ce at the council of Constantinople." Some true followers did. If you think the doctrine...

You truncated my quote, eliminating what follows "I just don't see," as a attempt at humor. Fine, I get the joke. But you also truncated Col. 2:9 by pointing to only the word "dwells." And that's not funny at all; it's foolish. The whole verse is "for in him the whole fullness of deity...

I guess blindness is among my many afflictions.

OK. But that doesn't affect the proper meaning of Phil. 2:6-7. κατοικεῖ does not mean ἐν μορφῇ

I have to disagree with you here. Hilary of Poitiers' De Trinitate was written a few decades earlier, in which the Holy Spirit was definitely portrayed as part of the Godhead. A fascinating read, if you have the time. He (and those he persuaded, largely in the West) was a true follower who...

OK, I'll bite: How is this translation even remotely akin to "Who, having God dwelling within him, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped at"???? I suppose it means to have the spirit of God. Your Greek is failing you. ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν has the sense of putting aside, not...

It is helpful to look at Phil. 2:6-7 with some care. Looking at all the renditions of ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ I can find, I just don't see any textual basis for "in the form of God" (to use the NWT translation) meaning "God dwelling in him." It's more than that. The ESV Study Bible footnotes Phil. 2:6...

You did not. Nor were you accused of doing so.

I see the "not" in Phil. 2:6. I see what Paul says about Christ, though being in the form of God, "not" clinging to equality with God. And of course I agree that Equal and Not Equal aren't the same. The Son and the Father can not be equal once one of them has "emptied himself" of something...

Let's keep our focus. The issue is whether the longer ending of Mark's gospel was in the original manuscript, or was added later by someone else who put these words into the Lord's mouth - including the suggestion that all true believers will accomplish these signs. Isn't it apparent that all...

Have you personally done any of these things? Do you know any of "them that believe" who have? If not, what does that suggest about the spuriousness of this Marcan ending?

I agree with this. What I would resist is the notion that that the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" at the time of the Council of NIcaea was centered in Rome. Alexandria, Antioch were co-equal Sees at that time. The canons that emerged from Nicaea themselves say so.

Sure it is. That's the test for being among the "earliest Christians" -- the only comment of Jude Thadeus I was responding to. Right. Ditto for the church in Jerusalem, and in Antioch, and In Alexandria. Not MY attempt. I don't consider the RCC (of which I am not a member) to be the only...