Search results

OK we'll carry the analogy further. "Bill went to the store. He bought dog food and took it home. His wife, Jane, then gave the food to their two dogs. They ate it up in less than five minutes. Jane then washed the bowls, dried them and put them away." I hope that's enough to show I could go on...

Well, Paul wrote the scripture alright. Athenasius then added to it something Paul did not say. Romans 10:9-10 is an incredibly simple, straight forward formula to get born again. There is no way around it. There's no more need to "interpret" it than if I were to say, "Bill went to the store."...

As a matter of fact, I don't see anything in 1 Corinthians 2:10-13 that can't be taken in a literal sense. What I don't see as literal is that a man and a woman are actually one flesh. I don't think everything is a figure of speech, just those parts that fit the definition of a figure of speech...

Virtually all scholars agree that Matthew 29:19 was not in the original text. But even if it were, there is no record that any the Apostles followed that formula. There are several accounts of people getting baptized in the book of Acts and they all say the baptism was done in the name of Jesus...

Well, I'm married to a wonderful woman, and I know for a fact she is NOT actually me, (good thing for her :)), so I know it can't be taken literally. In normal writing, when something can't be taken literally, it is probably a figure of speech. A figure of speech is a legitimate tool of grammar...

I know you wrote a lot more, but I'll just address this for now, since it is a common idea that we can't understand God. 1Cor 2:16, For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. Phil 2:5, Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ...

It depends on the concept. When a word has to be used to explain a concept that is quite impossible (a son being his own father), then the concept itself is highly suspect. At least to me it is. What exactly is this essence anyway? Do people have essences? Why can't you and I share the same...

I stand corrected. It's funny I forgot God in the equation since He is the only one that faithfully carries out His part in the relationship. Thanks for the correction!

No offense taken my friend. Still it seems odd that God did not have the vocabulary to make clear what one must do to be saved. I'm pretty sure He has the word "essence" in His vocabulary. If He had wanted to say three persons are one essence. He could have. But He didn't. The word "essence" is...

Marriage is a two part deal. The man is to the woman as Christ is to the church. Eph 5:25, Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; The man must deny his own self for the benefit of the woman. Like Christ died for the church, the husband must...

The Athenasius Creed uses several word that are not in the scriptures. Much of the Creed is based on the word "essence" which word, though found in Pagan literature, is not found in the scriptures themselves. So I stand by my statement that, "...all explanations of necessity go to sources...

I don't see how they were both right. If Paul said that we need to confess Jesus as Lord and believe that God raised him from the dead, then it would not be necessary to believe the trinity as Athenasius said. I'm sorry, but I see Athenasius adding to the scripture.

Well I do see three spirits there. What I don't see is that they are actually one spirit. Virtually all scholars say Matthew 28:19 was added to the original text. That makes sense since there is not one single record that shows the Apostles followed that formula. If you read Acts you will see...

You are quite correct on that point. We should call them "scriptures" which word is used many times. So we can get doctrine from Harry Potter? Where does it explicitly say we can't? Your intimation here is further proof that we can include Harry Potter to formulate our rule of faith and...

I think so. I mean it all comes down to going with something God said or something Athenasius said. It shouldn't be too hard of a decision.

Well, wouldn't two persons be two gods? "...For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost..." This is from the Athenasian Creed. It says there are three persons. It goes on to say there are not three persons but one person. Very confusing to say the...

Very good verse. I did read it carefully, but I don't see a trinity there, let alone the requirement that one believe in the trinity to be saved. I think I read it as written. You seem to be inserting something that just isn't there. But maybe I'm missing something. Where do you see the trinity...

I see what you are saying, but if that were it, wouldn't it amount to adding something more than, "confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead," which is what the scriptures themselves say? What about the people that lived before...

What happened to all the people who lived during Paul's time? Not having lived long enough to hear Athenasius, are they not saved? Rom 8:9, You, however, are - controlled not by the flesh, but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ...

Those who don't believe Jesus is God usually hear something like, "Are you saying Jesus was a mere man?" First of all, there really is no such thing as a "mere" man. Ps 8:4-5, 4 what is man that You are mindful of him, or the son of man that You care for him? 5 You made him a little lower...