Search results

Here is the definition of Sealioning: "Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off...

And this is blatant, intentional dishonesty as I "admitted" no such thing. In fact, I entered this thread telling you that was not true...I told you this: All human spirits/souls are created by God, including that of Jesus. The "human spirit/soul" of Jesus Christ was, like all humans...

What was my answer to your question #1? You explain to me how this did not answer your question...if you can't, I'm done. However, the "person" who is Jesus Christ has always existed.

And this is what you quoted me as saying just above this: The Son did not assume "a human person, i.e. a man " or as you put it, "the man Jesus Christ," but rather "a complete human nature." The "man Jesus Christ" never "existed" absent the person of Son of God. The fact that what I said has...

Let's look at this passage since in explicitly states that Jesus is both divine and human. This passage does not say "he gave up divinity," or "set aside divinity," or anything of the like. So, the the word being I highlighted in 2.6? Here it is: The word “being” is the Greek word...

You can't be serious...and I mean that seriously. You don't know the difference in an indefinite and definite article? Again, seriously? Here, let's look at my sentence that you quoted: Well, a "human nature' is not referred to as "a man," but rather a human nature. In that sentence...

Well, a "human nature' is not referred to as "a man," but rather a human nature. The Son did not assume "a human person, i.e. a man " or as you put it, "the man Jesus Christ," but rather "a complete human nature." The "man Jesus Christ" never "existed" absent the person of Son of God. TheLayman

No, you are confusing "a will" and "a will willed." A person possesses a will (in the case of Jesus, two wills, divine and human), but a person "wills." At any rate, Jesus is actually stating "I am not here acting on my own to selfishly fulfill personal desires, but I am here to do the will of...

No "Trinitarian" believes that, nor does the doctrine of the Trinity teach that "the mane Jesus Christ came into existence and was then assumed..." and was then "assumed" by the Son of God. And the Catholic Catechism that you have linked to does not teach that...this is a major problem with you...

Yes, as I said elsewhere, always the provocateur...I can't remember the name he went by some time ago. But knowing this, I never say that someone else is wrong because I have no idea of the conversation and context a particuar sentence was ripped from. I stop by from time to time as you know...

Of course there isn't. What's more is that the reason I added "the person" to "the Son of God" is there seems to be some confusion in these thread about the difference in meaning (as regards ontology) between "person" and "nature," so I added "person" in an attempt to remove any ambiguity in...

How many threads are you going to post this question in? In the context that this was said the "non-incarnate Son of God" refers to the person of the Son of God before the incarnation...duh, that was hard wasn't it? And "the incarnate Son of God" refers to the person of the Son of God after...

You are trolling for another one liner and you know it. Let's review, shall we? You were trying to make a "distinction" between the Son of God and Son of Mary...I told you that I had absolutely know idea what that meant but I told you that I would take a stab at what was meant...the Son of God...

Why do you do this?..i.e. get one person to say something in a sentence or word in response to one of your questions, take it out of whatever the context it was said in, and then assert, "According to Trinitarians..." That isn't even true in the limited scope of what you have heere as you have...

A great example of the complex question fallacy. There was never a distinction between the "non-incarnate Son of God" and "the incarnate Son of God" (I never said any such thing so the premise of your question is erroneous). There is a distinction between the divine nature and the human nature...

God grief man...why did you just ask me a question I already answered? The "Who" in 2:6 "made Himself of no reputation" How? Philippians 2:7 (ESV) 7 ...by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. So the preincarnate Son of God Who did not consider equality with...

I have to say, I don't like this "Jesus Son of God" and "Jesus Son of Mary" thing, I'm unclear as to exactly what is meant by it (I took a stab at what you meant in my last post). There is only one person who is the Son of God both preincarnate and incarnate, there is not one person who is the...

Yes I'm not sure I follow but since Jesus was not incarnated until after this, one could not consider Jesus the Son of Mary at the time of Phil 2.6. It is not until the events of Phil. 2.7 that Jesus becomes incarnate. TheLayman

Yah: I confess I have not read your past conversations with DGB, but you seem to be trying to put what he said at odds with what I said (as usual) and I'm not seeing that in the two quotes you have juxtaposed. I see he said "Grasp as in hold onto." So he seems to be saying a thing "to grasp...

I did not finish that sentence very well...he did not consider equality with God...*"a THING to be grasped" *(harpagmon, it is all one word). That is why I said...the verb "grasp," appears nowhere in the text, nor does any verb resembling "grasp" appear in the text. The word "harpagmon" is a...