God walks into His Temple.

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Towerwatchman,

Please cite the above. I suspect the above is not the argument but the introduction to the argument.

I am not sure what you want here. The speaker gave a lecture on the Trinity and part of this was the gradual development of the Trinity over the first three centuries. I have a copy of both the slides and the one hour talk. I do not have a transcription but could spend some time writing some of the details of what he stated for each part of these slides. Nevertheless the slides are a good summary of the change from One God the Father and that Jesus is the Son of God to the Trinity, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Towerwatchman]

From the Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Hebrew lexicon. One of, if not, the most highly accredited lexicons currently available.

μονογενής, ές (μόνος, γένος; Hes.; LXX; PsSol 18, 4; TestSol 20:2; TestBenj 9:2; ParJer 7:26; ApcEsdr 6:16; ApcSed 9:2; Joseph., Just.; loanw. in rabb.) acc. μονογενῆ (-ῆν J 3:16 v.l.; Hb 11:17 D; also ApcEsdr 6:16)​

① pert. to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only (so mostly, incl. Judg 11:34; Tob 3:15; 8:17) of children: of Isaac, Abraham’s only son (Jos., Ant. 1, 222) Hb 11:17. Of an only son (PsSol 18:4; TestSol 20:2; ParJer 7:26; Plut., Lycurgus 59 [31, 8]; Jos., Ant. 20, 20) Lk 7:12; 9:38. Of a daughter (Diod S 4, 73, 2) of Jairus 8:42. (On the motif of a child’s death before that of a parent s. EpigrAnat 13, ’89, 128f, no. 2; 18, ’91, 94 no. 4 [244/45 A.D.]; GVI nos. 1663–69.)​

② pert. to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of someth. that is the only example of its category (Cornutus 27 p, 49, 13 εἷς κ. μονογενὴς ὁ κόσμος ἐστί. μονογενῆ κ. μόνα ἐστίν=‘unique and alone’; Pla., Timaeus 92c; Theosophien 181, §56, 27). Of a mysterious bird, the Phoenix 1 Cl 25:2.—In the Johannine lit. (s. also ApcEsdr and ApcSed: ὁ μονογενής υἱός; Hippol., Ref. 8, 10, 3; Did., Gen. 89, 18; ὑμνοῦμέν γε θεὸν καὶ τὸν μ. αὐτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 8, 67, 14; cp. ἡ δύναμις ἐκείνη ἡ μ. Hippol., Ref. 10, 16, 6) μονογενὴς υἱός is used only of Jesus. The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here (so M-M., NRSV et al.; DMoody, JBL 72, ’53, 213–19; FGrant, ATR 36, ’54, 284–87; GPendrick, NTS 41, ’95, 587–600). τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μ. ἔδωκεν J 3:16 (Philo Bybl. [100 A.D.]: 790 Fgm. 2 ch. 10, 33 Jac. [in Eus., PE 1, 10, 33]: Cronus offers up his μονογενὴς υἱός). ὁ μ. υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ vs. 18; τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μ. ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεός 1J 4:9; cp. Dg 10:2. On the expr. δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός J 1:14 s. Hdb. ad loc. and PWinter, Zeitschrift für Rel. u. Geistesgeschichte 5, ’53, 335–65 (Engl.). See also Hdb. on vs. 18 where, beside the rdg. μονογενὴς θεός (considered by many the orig.) an only-begotten one, God (acc. to his real being; i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33–36), another rdg. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is found. MPol 20:2 in the doxology διὰ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Some (e.g. WBauer, Hdb.; JBulman, Calvin Theological Journal 16, ’81, 56–79; JDahms, NTS 29, ’83, 222–32) prefer to regard μ. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ θεοῦ (J 1:13 al.); in this case it would be analogous to πρωτότοκος (Ro 8:29; Col 1:15 al.).—On the mng. of μονογενής in history of religion s. the material in Hdb.3 25f on J 1:14 (also Plut., Mor. 423a Πλάτων … αὐτῷ δή φησι δοκεῖν ἕνα τοῦτον [sc. τὸν κόσμον] εἶναι μονογενῆ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἀγαπητόν; Wsd 7:22 of σοφία: ἔστι ἐν αὐτῇ πνεῦμα νοερὸν ἅγιον μονογενές.—Vett. Val. 11, 32) as well as the lit. given there, also HLeisegang, Der Bruder des Erlösers: Αγγελος I 1925, 24–33; RBultmann J (comm., KEK) ’50, 47 n. 2; 55f.—DELG s.v. μένω. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.​

​

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 658.​

Thanks

 

[Towerwatchman]

Any day now they're going to sue this site for allowing some forumers to post long copy/paste of copyrighted books... which, after all, are just comments for people who want to search for refernces, not for people who want to teach or talk of plain biblical truths. That individual that the only thing he does is posting from books doesn't even know what he believes... he just wants to appear erudite, but he is incapable of expressing his beliefs (if he has any, because any atheist can quote books and start discussions too) but not in terms of dialogue with people. Obviously, this forum member only wants to show off, but not to study biblical truths on a personal level. He believes that biblical truths do not exist in real life, but are just talk... No one comes to a discussion forum to review books.

Foolish troll

 

[OldShepherd]

Thanks

Forgot to add something. The blue highlights indicate the historical sources the authors consulted to determine the correct definition. Despite the oft repeated accusation that scholars just make up meanings.

μονογενής, ές (μόνος, γένος; Hes.; LXX; PsSol 18, 4; TestSol 20:2; TestBenj 9:2; ParJer 7:26; ApcEsdr 6:16; ApcSed 9:2; Joseph., Just.; loanw. in rabb.) acc. μονογενῆ (-ῆν J 3:16 v.l.; Hb 11:17 D; also ApcEsdr 6:16)​

① pert. to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only (so mostly, incl. Judg 11:34; Tob 3:15; 8:17) of children: of Isaac, Abraham’s only son (Jos., Ant. 1, 222) Hb 11:17. Of an only son (PsSol 18:4; TestSol 20:2; ParJer 7:26; Plut., Lycurgus 59 [31, 8]; Jos., Ant. 20, 20) Lk 7:12; 9:38. Of a daughter (Diod S 4, 73, 2) of Jairus 8:42. (On the motif of a child’s death before that of a parent s. EpigrAnat 13, ’89, 128f, no. 2; 18, ’91, 94 no. 4 [244/45 A.D.]; GVI nos. 1663–69.)​

② pert. to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of someth. that is the only example of its category (Cornutus 27 p, 49, 13 εἷς κ. μονογενὴς ὁ κόσμος ἐστί. μονογενῆ κ. μόνα ἐστίν=‘unique and alone’; Pla., Timaeus 92c; Theosophien 181, §56, 27). Of a mysterious bird, the Phoenix 1 Cl 25:2.—In the Johannine lit. (s. also ApcEsdr and ApcSed: ὁ μονογενής υἱός; Hippol., Ref. 8, 10, 3; Did., Gen. 89, 18; ὑμνοῦμέν γε θεὸν καὶ τὸν μ. αὐτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 8, 67, 14; cp. ἡ δύναμις ἐκείνη ἡ μ. Hippol., Ref. 10, 16, 6) μονογενὴς υἱός is used only of Jesus. The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here (so M-M., NRSV et al.; DMoody, JBL 72, ’53, 213–19; FGrant, ATR 36, ’54, 284–87; GPendrick, NTS 41, ’95, 587–600). τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μ. ἔδωκεν J 3:16 (Philo Bybl. [100 A.D.]: 790 Fgm. 2 ch. 10, 33 Jac. [in Eus., PE 1, 10, 33]: Cronus offers up his μονογενὴς υἱός). ὁ μ. υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ vs. 18; τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μ. ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεός 1J 4:9; cp. Dg 10:2. On the expr. δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός J 1:14 s. Hdb. ad loc. and PWinter, Zeitschrift für Rel. u. Geistesgeschichte 5, ’53, 335–65 (Engl.). See also Hdb. on vs. 18 where, beside the rdg. μονογενὴς θεός (considered by many the orig.) an only-begotten one, God (acc. to his real being; i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33–36), another rdg. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is found. MPol 20:2 in the doxology διὰ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Some (e.g. WBauer, Hdb.; JBulman, Calvin Theological Journal 16, ’81, 56–79; JDahms, NTS 29, ’83, 222–32) prefer to regard μ. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ θεοῦ (J 1:13 al.); in this case it would be analogous to πρωτότοκος (Ro 8:29; Col 1:15 al.).—On the mng. of μονογενής in history of religion s. the material in Hdb.3 25f on J 1:14 (also Plut., Mor. 423a Πλάτων … αὐτῷ δή φησι δοκεῖν ἕνα τοῦτον [sc. τὸν κόσμον] εἶναι μονογενῆ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἀγαπητόν; Wsd 7:22 of σοφία: ἔστι ἐν αὐτῇ πνεῦμα νοερὸν ἅγιον μονογενές.—Vett. Val. 11, 32) as well as the lit. given there, also HLeisegang, Der Bruder des Erlösers: Αγγελος I 1925, 24–33; RBultmann J (comm., KEK) ’50, 47 n. 2; 55f.—DELG s.v. μένω. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.​

​

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 658.​

 

[Towerwatchman]

Greetings again Towerwatchman,

I am not sure what you want here. The speaker gave a lecture on the Trinity and part of this was the gradual development of the Trinity over the first three centuries. I have a copy of both the slides and the one hour talk. I do not have a transcription but could spend some time writing some of the details of what he stated for each part of these slides. Nevertheless the slides are a good summary of the change from One God the Father and that Jesus is the Son of God to the Trinity, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Kind regards
Trevor

Clement of Rome (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Ignatius of Antioch (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality ; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Polycarp of Smyrna (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Papias of Hierapolis (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Justin Martyr (2nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; Jesus is a pre-existent divine being created by God; the Holy Spirit is a type of angel

Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; the Son and Holy Spirit are the divine ‘hands of God’, but not fully God in their own right

=====

Did any of the ECF write what is here? Did Polycarp write "The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power," and if so, the speaker should have cited his source. Notice what is written below each ECF is almost identical word for word. Seems more of a summary by the speaker than a quote from an ECF. Also I did a word search of Polycarp's writings and did not find 'The Father alone' anywhere.

Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity evolved over time. That is different than the deity of Jesus evolving over time. One should ask "Is the belief that Jesus is God a result of the evolution of the doctrine of the Trinity, or did the doctrine of the Trinity evolve based on the belief that Jesus is God?" If the belief that Jesus is God is a byproduct of the doctrine of the Trinity we should not find any such claim in any of the ECF that were either a disciple of an Apostle of a disciple of a disciple. If we do find it then the Trinity evolved based on the early belief that Jesus is God.

Note the following. Each is cited, you are able to verify this.

Ignatius [50-117 AD] a disciple of John the Apostle.
"Continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ, our God."
[Epistle to the Traillians chapter 7]

"I pray for your happiness forever in our God, Jesus Christ."
[Epistle to Polycarp chapter 8]



Polycarp (AD 69-155) a disciple of John the Apostle.
Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.
[Letter to the Philippians 12:2]



Irenaeus A.D. 115 - 202, a student of Ignatius and Polycarp, two students of the apostle John, and the eventual bishop of Lugdunum, now Lyon France,

"For He fulfills the bountiful and comprehensive will of His Father, inasmuch as He is Himself the Savior of those who are saved, and the Lord of those who are under authority, and the God of all those things that have been formed, the Only-Begotten of the Father."
[Against Heresies Book 3 chapter 16]

ibid: "I have shown from the Scriptures that none of the sons of Adam are, absolutely and as to everything, called God, or named Lord. But Jesus is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, Lord, King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word.... He is the Holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God."
[Against Heresies book 3 chapter 19]

ibid: "Thus He indicates in clear terms that He is God, and that His advent was in Bethlehem....
[Against Heresies Book 3 Chapter 20]

ibid: Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and "He is God, for the name Emmanuel indcates this."
[Against Heresies Book 3 Chapter 21]

ibid: "Christ Himself, therfore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers."
[Against Heresies book 4 chapter 5]

ibid: "Or how shall man pass into God, unless God has first passed into man?"
[Against Heresies Book 4 chapter 33]

ibid: "It is plain that He was Himself the Word of God, who was made the son of man. He received from the Father the power of remission of sins. He was man, and He was God. This was so that since as man He suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us."
[ Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 17]

ibid: He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons.
[Against Heresies book 4 chapter 6]

ibid: Christ Jesus [is] our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father.
[Against Heresies Book 1 Chapter 10]


As to your source {History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 }
Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century,
This suggest that the belief in the deity of Christ should not have existed till around the time of the Council of Nicene. The above disproves it.

Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.

This is true to some extent. It was not the Hellenist but the Gnostics, who were influenced by the Hellenist that infiltrated the early church. Keeping it short, they had two camps, one that taught that Jesus was non physical, and another that Jesus was only physical. John wrote his epistles as a counter to Gnosticism.

Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosophical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.

The above would disagree with this. The belief that Jesus is God was taught by the Apostles.

Page 108-109: … From this sprang two doctrines, that of Arius and of Athanasius. In reality, though under other forms, it was a renewal of the struggle between rationalism and mysticism.
Page 115: In reality, Arius, whose character and doctrine have been unjustly vilified by orthodox historians, was stating the ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance.

Seems the author is bias. Notice page 108-109 he identifies Arianism as rational and the common accepted beliefs as mysticism.
Modern Arianism would be the Jehovah's Witnesses. Both believe that Jesus was a created being, first creation of God, who preexisted time, created all, and is somehow a lesser god, not on par with the Father. Others include Unitarians, Christadelphians, and Ladder Day Saints.

Arianism.
"Author of all things [made to exist] by the Father, after the Father, for the Father, and for the glory of the Father... He was both great God and great Lord and great King, and great Mystery, great Light and High Priest, the providing and law-giving Lord, Redeemer, Savior, Shepherd, born before all time, Creator of all creation."

God was not always a Father… Once God was alone, and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father. The Son was not always… [He was] made out of nothing, and once He was not.

I believe that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him… And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power...[who is] neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father."

Would you call these beliefs rational?

Speaking of the Nicene Creed:
The three ECF that I quoted are the earliest. I counted 36 quotes from nine different ECF who believed and wrote that Jesus is God who predate the Nicene Council. But I wish not to labor this.

Thankyou
TWM

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Towerwatchman,

Did any of the ECF write what is here? Did Polycarp write "The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power," and if so, the speaker should have cited his source. N

The lecture that the speaker gave was a Sunday Night public address on the subject of Trinity and the portion on the ECFs was only a part of the address and he gave the summary on the slides and spoke for a short time on each individual. The Christadelphians are a lay community and do not have a paid ministry. It is very rare for one of our members to attend a Bible Seminary or religious course at a University. The speaker at an older age, maybe in his 30s did a Theology Course, and what he discussed about the ECFs was mostly derived from one of the subjects in this course and also his own private research.

I looked up the web site for the lecture, but this is no longer available as the site now only goes back to 2017. He gave this talk on November 4th 2012 and it is for 56 minutes. The site did not load the slides but I was able to obtain the slides later from him but he holds these as copyright. As such the ECFs portion of the talk is only a summary of his understanding of their teaching.

He also gave a series of four talks earlier, in February 2011 at their Bible Class, called "Church History", each talk about 50 minutes. I decided to listen to a mp3 copy of these again before responding here, and he starts with the Didache, then covers some of the significant history in the early centuries. He mentions many of the significant people from Clement to Augustine and again a summary of their beliefs and teaching (a bit more detail this time), and concludes speaking about the Hagia Sophia. Even with these talks he does not cite his sources, but he does give the impression that he knows what he is talking about. I do not have the slides from these four talks. If you want a copy of the talks and lecture I could supply them via Dropbox, each larger than email capacity.

I was also disappointed that the book by Reville does not quote sources, but again I accept that he must have researched his material.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Towerwatchman]

Greetings again Towerwatchman,

The lecture that the speaker gave was a Sunday Night public address on the subject of Trinity and the portion on the ECFs was only a part of the address and he gave the summary on the slides and spoke for a short time on each individual. The Christadelphians are a lay community and do not have a paid ministry. It is very rare for one of our members to attend a Bible Seminary or religious course at a University. The speaker at an older age, maybe in his 30s did a Theology Course, and what he discussed about the ECFs was mostly derived from one of the subjects in this course and also his own private research.

I looked up the web site for the lecture, but this is no longer available as the site now only goes back to 2017. He gave this talk on November 4th 2012 and it is for 56 minutes. The site did not load the slides but I was able to obtain the slides later from him but he holds these as copyright. As such the ECFs portion of the talk is only a summary of his understanding of their teaching.

He also gave a series of four talks earlier, in February 2011 at their Bible Class, called "Church History", each talk about 50 minutes. I decided to listen to a mp3 copy of these again before responding here, and he starts with the Didache, then covers some of the significant history in the early centuries. He mentions many of the significant people from Clement to Augustine and again a summary of their beliefs and teaching (a bit more detail this time), and concludes speaking about the Hagia Sophia. Even with these talks he does not cite his sources, but he does give the impression that he knows what he is talking about. I do not have the slides from these four talks. If you want a copy of the talks and lecture I could supply them via Dropbox, each larger than email capacity.

I was also disappointed that the book by Reville does not quote sources, but again I accept that he must have researched his material.

Kind regards
Trevor

I prefer to establish truth as it is established in a court of law. If this was a trial to determine the deity of Jesus, and the anti deity side brought in a presentation similar to your speaker, he would have lost his case. For example after I present my argument for the deity of Christ supported by scripture, culture, worldview, ECF etc. and he presents the above to establish doubt he would have a problem. No evidence.

Reasonable doubt requires evidence, and has to fall within the parameters of the definition of reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is defined as follows. It is not a mere possible doubt or imaginary doubt. It is the state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charges. So far the counter argument against the deity of Christ is a collection of verses in isolation, personal opinions, and unsupported presentations. In a court of law that would not hold water.

In a court of law there is either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence and both are equally acceptable.

Direct evidence is evidence that can prove something all by itself. On the other hand circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect evidence, does not prove something on its own, but points us in the right direction by proving something related to the question at hand.

The case for Christianity has little direct or forensic evidence and relies heavily on circumstantial evidence. The case for the deity of Christ is as much circumstantial as the resurrection, virgin birth, Jesus miracles etc. To say that circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to establish the deity of Christ then the same can apply to the resurrection and/or virgin birth.

The nature circumstantial evidence is such that any one piece may be interpreted in more than one way. For this reason, jurors have to be careful not to infer something from a single piece of evidence. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a powerful collection, however, and each additional piece collaborates those that came before until, together, they strongly support one inference over another. An explanation derived from circumstantial evidence becomes more reasonable as the collection of collaborating evidence grows and the alternative explanation has been deemed unreasonable. [Cold Case Christianity]

If our exchange was staged in a court of law, the court would have deemed the deity of Christ to be true based on the evidence, and the oppositions failure to present evidence that would have established reasonable doubt. Now, with some people all the evidence in the world would never be sufficient. Case in point, Jesus resurrection. And that is common and acceptable. A good percentage of the prison population [after being found guilty in a jury trial] believes in their innocence.

God Bless
TWM

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Towerwatchman,

I prefer to establish truth as it is established in a court of law. If this was a trial to determine the deity of Jesus, and the anti deity side brought in a presentation similar to your speaker, he would have lost his case.

Fair enough, but if he was discussing this subject with you he would most probably quote and discuss with you his sources at length. One thing that he stated was that there are a number of different versions of the records of what these ECFs wrote, and that as such some of these were doctored. My present position is that as far as these two sources are concerned, I am only acting the role of a Librarian. The book by Reville is available for free download from the Internet. I am not interested to ask DB who gave the four classes on Church History to join CARM and answer some of your ECFs claims. He was a member 18 years ago but was banned. He and two others then set up their own forum, but this has only been discontinued about a year ago, possibly because other media (using iPhones?? short messages with not much substance) was more popular with many members.

To say that circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to establish the deity of Christ then the same can apply to the resurrection and/or virgin birth.

I fully accept the resurrection of Christ and the virgin birth, but I believe from the Biblical evidence that there is one God, Yahweh, God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[johnny guitar]

Greetings again Towerwatchman,

Fair enough, but if he was discussing this subject with you he would most probably quote and discuss with you his sources at length. One thing that he stated was that there are a number of different versions of the records of what these ECFs wrote, and that as such some of these were doctored. My present position is that as far as these two sources are concerned, I am only acting the role of a Librarian. The book by Reville is available for free download from the Internet. I am not interested to ask DB who gave the four classes on Church History to join CARM and answer some of your ECFs claims. He was a member 18 years ago but was banned. He and two others then set up their own forum, but this has only been discontinued about a year ago, possibly because other media (using iPhones?? short messages with not much substance) was more popular with many members.

I fully accept the resurrection of Christ and the virgin birth, but I believe from the Biblical evidence that there is one God, Yahweh, God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

The Lord is God.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings johnny guitar,

The Lord is God.

Yahweh is the One God, God the Father, David's and our Lord is Jesus Christ, the Son of God Psalm 110:1. Using Towerwatchman's analogy, these two statements are like our opening statements in a court case, but these have been fully discussed between us on this thread and many other threads, so instead our two statements are like two closing statements in our court case. Case closed, jury is deliberating.

Kind regards
Trevor