The ****ousious God

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by theway

Of course... Everybody does, it's the same merry-go-round ride he always creates.
His MO is very simple yet an effective obfuscation tool.
As I noted the other day on the other thread, Billyray will create two separate and unrelated arguments which he'll mesh into one.
Only in this case instead of two questions or arguments, he has two separate answers that he has meshed together to your one question, "how can the Father and Son be of one substance?"
His answers are;
1. The Father and Christ are uncreated.
2. The Father does not have a body of flesh and bones, the Son does.

Both 1 and 2 are correct. As I said above you are taking the original meaning of the quote to mean something completely different than what they meant. But out of fairness to you tell me what you think they meant then perhaps we can sort this out.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by theway

When cornered on one answer he'll simply jump to the second answer as though nobody noticed the change. When cornered on the other he'll just jump back to the first.
Around and around it will go until you simply give up.

I am not cornered at all and I gave you the facts along with the heresy that they were trying to dispell which was that Christ was a created being of the Father and not eternally God. Certainly they believed that the Father was Spirit and that the Son took on a body of flesh and bones. DB is simply trying to make their quote mean something that they never intended it to mean. But I understand LDS need to do anything they can do to try and defend their false beliefs even if it means quoting outside of God's word. You should know by now that extra Biblical sources are not God's words and yet you guys continually quote them as if they are and that Christians are bound by them. Which we are not. But in this case you are simply wrong on what you think they were trying to convey.

If anyone is going round and round it is you and DB because I have already given you my take on it and you guys ignore what I have said and bring the same thng back up again.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Apologette View Post--The Persons of the Godhead are one in substance,......

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---Could you explain for us how the faith alone believe that Christ has a resurrected body of flesh and bones--and God the Father does not--and they be one in substance? The ****ousious God?

Billyray---Sure. The Father did not take on a body whereas the Son did.

dberrie---And how does that make them "one in substance"?

Billyray---Jesus was not created but of the same substance as the Father.

dberrie----You have failed to show how Christ, having a body of flesh and bones--is of the same substance as the Father. Are you saying you believe the Father is of flesh and bones also?

Luke 24:39---King James Version (KJV)

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Billyray------The Father doesn't have a body of flesh and bone. The Son does. This has nothing to do with the fact that Jesus was uncreated or same substance as the Father. That was the main issue that they were discussing and arguing against. The heresy was that Jesus was created by the Father out of nothing and that Jesus was a creature rather that God incarnate.

dberrie---But that only confirms that the Father and Son are not of the same substance.

Billyray----The Father and the Son are uncreated eternally God which is exactly what the Bible teaches. The heresy was that Jesus was a created being of the Father.

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---Anyone identifying a pattern here?

Originally Posted by Billyray

Sure that you are ignoring the original meaning of the quote. So tell me what you think they meant by what they said?

The original quote was by Apologette---The Persons of the Godhead are one in substance,.

You have tried to defend that---all along stating:

Billyray---Sure. The Father did not take on a body whereas the Son did.

Again--could you explain how God the Father not having a body of flesh and bone is the same substance as the Son having a body of flesh and bone--the ****ousious(same substance) God?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Again--could you explain how God the Father not having a body of flesh and bone is the same substance as the Son having a body of flesh and bone--the ****ousious(same substance) God?

Originally Posted by Billyray

Sure that you are ignoring the original meaning of the quote.

So tell me what you think they meant by what they said?

I asked you if you could tell me the meaning they were trying to convey by this term but you simply ignored my question--as usual. You see DB you have no interest in trying to find the truth rather you continue to play your deceptive games which I have come to expect. Below is a quote from a Catholic source which explains the original meaning that they were trying to convey with this term.

http://home.catholicweb.com/covingto...Item?ID=317816

. . .When the early Church Fathers gathered in the Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325, they were confronted with the task of explaining the relationship between the Father and the Son. They had two Greek words at their disposal in order to explain this relationship — <<****ousious>> and <<****iousious>>. <<****ousious>> means that the Son (Jesus) is of the same essence or substance as the Father, while <<****iousious>> means that the Son is of a similar essence or substance as the Father. The first makes Jesus God, the second does not. The first is the orthodox teaching of the Church, the second is heresy. There is only one iota of a difference between these two words — literally the letter “i”. . ."

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Billyray View Post---Sure that you are ignoring the original meaning of the quote. So tell me what you think they meant by what they said?

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post


The original quote was by Apologette---"The Persons of the Godhead are one in substance,."


You have tried to defend that---all along stating:

Billyray---"Sure. The Father did not take on a body whereas the Son did."

Again--could you explain how God the Father not having a body of flesh and bone is the same substance as the Son having a body of flesh and bone--the ****ousious(same substance) God?

Originally Posted by Billyray

I asked you if you could tell me the meaning they were trying to convey by this term but you simply ignored my question--as usual.

And you ignored the very statement of Apologette I addressed----"The Persons of the Godhead are one in substance,."


But you contradicted:

Billyray---"Sure. The Father did not take on a body whereas the Son did."

Once again--could you explain for us how God the Father and God the Son can have the same substance when the Son has a body of flesh and bones--and the Father does not?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

And you ignored the very statement of Apologette I addressed----"The Persons of the Godhead are one in substance,."

But we are not talking abut what Apologette said we are discussing the term "****ousious" that was used and the original meaning of that term.

What was the meaning that they were trying to convey by that term?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---And you ignored the very statement of Apologette I addressed----"The Persons of the Godhead are one in substance,."

Originally Posted by Billyray

But we are not talking abut what Apologette said

Yes we are--and if you will look--that is exactly the quote I opened the discussion with.

Could you explain to us how the persons of the Godhead are "one in substance" when you ***ign the Father without a body--and the Son with a body?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Could you explain to us how the persons of the Godhead are "one in substance" when you ***ign the Father without a body--and the Son with a body?

Sure I would be happy to--as I have already do so in my prior posts. The meaning that they were trying to convey with this term was that Jesus is God i.e. the same substance, not a created being.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Sure I would be happy to--as I have already do so in my prior posts. The meaning that they were trying to convey with this term was that Jesus is God i.e. the same substance, not a created being.

Billyray---"Sure. The Father did not take on a body whereas the Son did."

Originally Posted by Apologette View Post--The Persons of the Godhead are one in substance,......

Could you explain for us how God the Father not having a body--and Jesus Christ having a body exhibits either the same substance or proves they are God? Why would anyone tell a lie to prove they are God?


Luke 24:39---King James Version (KJV)

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Could you explain for us how God the Father not having a body--and Jesus Christ having a body exhibits either the same substance or proves they are God?

Sure the meaning of the term was meant to convey that Jesus is God, not a created being. And second do you really want me to show you from the scriptures that Jesus is God?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Sure the meaning of the term was meant to convey that Jesus is God, not a created being.

Could you explain for us hoe Jesus Christ not being a created Being somehow touches upon the fact the faith alone teach the "****ousios"(same substance) God in their creeds--all the while teaching God the Father is Spirit--and Jesus Christ is a resurrected man of flesh and bones?


Luke24:39--King James Version (KJV)

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

And that on the threat of ****ation if one does not believe that creed?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Could you explain for us how the faith alone believe that Christ has a resurrected body of flesh and bones--and God the Father does not--and they be one in substance? The ****ousious God?

Jesus has 2 totally different natures.
Fully God, as is the father, so they alike in their nature as God.
Fully human as i am, and so alike me in nature of our humanity.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Jesus has 2 totally different natures.
Fully God, as is the father, so they alike in their nature as God.
Fully human as i am, and so alike me in nature of our humanity.

You know what, I've explained that to dberrie over and over; as have many other Christians. These explanations have been purposely discarded - some people cannot be reached with the truth because they don't want to know the truth. When does one follow the Bible's admonition to reject a heretic after the second "admonition?" You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear by encouraging it to become silk; God must turn the ear into silk.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Apologette

You know what, I've explained that to dberrie over and over; as have many other Christians. These explanations have been purposely discarded - some people cannot be reached with the truth because they don't want to know the truth. When does one follow the Bible's admonition to reject a heretic after the second "admonition?" You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear by encouraging it to become silk; God must turn the ear into silk.

Jesus didn't command us to turn ears to purses. He just told us to go and teach. He didn't tell us how many times to teach just to do it.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Sure the meaning of the term was meant to convey that Jesus is God, not a created being. And second do you really want me to show you from the scriptures that Jesus is God?

This is a good point that Billy brings up

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Could you explain for us hoe Jesus Christ not being a created Being somehow touches upon the fact the faith alone teach the "****ousios"(same substance) God in their creeds--all the while teaching God the Father is Spirit--and Jesus Christ is a resurrected man of flesh and bones?


Luke24:39--King James Version (KJV)

Jesus is like the father in his nature as fully God

Jesus is like me in his nature as a man, end of discussion

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

And that on the threat of ****ation if one does not believe that creed?

Jesus is like the father in his nature as fully God

Jesus is like me in his nature as a man, end of discussion

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Could you explain for us how the faith alone believe that Christ has a resurrected body of flesh and bones--and God the Father does not--and they be one in substance? The ****ousious God?

Apparently, this dberrie believes that "heavenly father" was a "savior" on a distant earth, suffered like Christ and was resurrected.

I think it demonstrates a woeful ignorance of Scripture to ask why Jesus has a resurrected (glorified) body and the Christian God the Father does not. Apparently, Mormons miss the central fact in history - God became man in Jesus Christ. But, then, Mormons are ignorant of Christian theology and the Bible.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Apologette

You know what, I've explained that to dberrie over and over; as have many other Christians. These explanations have been purposely discarded - some people cannot be reached with the truth because they don't want to know the truth. When does one follow the Bible's admonition to reject a heretic after the second "admonition?" You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear by encouraging it to become silk; God must turn the ear into silk.

dberrie usually trolls sites like this accusing Christians of believing in "dead faith." He does it all over the net.

[MichaellS]

Interesting, , I mean the extent given. So, has dberrie and the like cooled it a bit here at WM?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by MichaellS

Interesting, , I mean the extent given. So, has dberrie and the like cooled it a bit here at WM?

Well sorta...
The current issue stems from a clear change in the official teachings about the Mormon founder Joe Smith and the fact that for years the Mormons on this forum would get all upset if someone suggested that Joe Smith was chasing skirts, however over the last few weeks the Mormons have come out and admitted Smith was into much of what the Christians here have been claiming all along.


I cant tell you the number of times this forum has had a Mormon post that Smith had nothing sexual to do with a little 14 year old girl.>>Now they have to change their tune and find a way to put a better spin on the fact that their religions horny founder was climbing on top of children that young

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Apologette

dberrie usually trolls sites like this accusing Christians of believing in "dead faith." He does it all over the net.

I thought that was a girl......

[MichaellS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Well sorta...
The current issue stems from a clear change in the official teachings about the Mormon founder Joe Smith and the fact that for years the Mormons on this forum would get all upset if someone suggested that Joe Smith was chasing skirts, however over the last few weeks the Mormons have come out and admitted Smith was into much of what the Christians here have been claiming all along.


I cant tell you the number of times this forum has had a Mormon post that Smith had nothing sexual to do with a little 14 year old girl.>>Now they have to change their tune and find a way to put a better spin on the fact that their religions horny founder was climbing on top of children that young

Just read that. Double whammy. Not only did I not know of this, but also a shock to hear of Mr. Banta getting himself banned. Now that also sounds like a train wreck out of nowhere?

[alanmolstad]

I dont know anything about the Banta situation.
I do know that I tried on several occasions to convince the Mormons who visit this site that the founder of Mormonism was having sex with children, but they would not believe me.

now the Mormon leaders have just confirmed what we Christians have been saying here all this time about how Smith was sexing it up with little children..

That seems to be the reason for any drop off in postings by Mormons here...they are embarr***ed

[alanmolstad]

so to sum up:

The Son is still fully God, as like the father is still fully God.

But so that the Son could die for us, the Son was given a 2nd nature...a human nature.

So this means that the Son has 2 natures....both 100% God, and 100% human

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Apologette

I think it demonstrates a woeful ignorance of Scripture to ask why Jesus has a resurrected (glorified) body and the Christian God the Father does not.

How so? The faith alone preach a "****ousios" (same substance)God. Yet--the Biblical record states Jesus Christ has a body of flesh and bones:


Luke 24:39----King James Version (KJV)
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.


That, in light of the fact the faith alone preach God the Father does not possess a body of flesh and bones--but Jesus Christ does. How does one collate that--especially in light of the creed?

The Athanasian Creed

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance....

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.