It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
the Jews were accusing Jesus of calling himself the Son of God and they called it blasphemy. But, Jesus responded to their accusation with a simple verifiable question. Doesn’t your Law say that you are gods?
In other words God had called them gods a long time before Jesus said He was the Son of God and they ignored it like religious people still do today. Do you see the parallels found in our churches today? Do you see the religious patterns still prevalent in the minds of religious people today?
Here is one of the verses that Jesus heard read from their law and Jesus learned this verse in their temple so they could not deny that it was written there:
Psa 82:6 I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
In this verse in Psalms Jesus was taught that the Most High God called men gods.
If Jesus could read and see this verse in the Bible, how is it that the religious leaders of the day did not understand what they had read in their own law? Did God blaspheme when He called men gods? This verse further goes on to call all men and women the children of the Most High. That means they were all called the sons and daughters of God before Jesus said He was the Son of God!
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by wildtimes
How many begotten Sons of God are there?
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by wildtimes
I never said anything about original sin, that's a false teaching. And the answer is, Jesus of Nazareth is the only begotten Son of God. Not even Adam was begotten.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe
What does that have to do with the Council of Nicaea?
Originally posted by colbe
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe
What does that have to do with the Council of Nicaea?
Everything. Don't quote Catholic history while you reject the faith. You have no authority and neither do I, the
reason Jesus established one faith. We can know what God has revealed.
Everyone and to help NTT, the question to ask, by whose authority do you reject Original Sin?
Original Sin is true. You reject the God given authority of the Church who canonized the Bible and instead go with Martin Luther's heresy of the Bible is now your authority (Sola Scriptura). There are verses in Scripture to confirm Original Sin.
www.thefreedictionary.com...
Adj. 1. begotten - (of offspring) generated by procreation; "naturally begotten child"
biological - of parents and children; related by blood; "biological child"
Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by colbe
Everyone and to help NTT, the question to ask, by whose authority do you reject Original Sin?
Original Sin is true. You reject the God given authority of the Church who canonized the Bible and instead go with Martin Luther's heresy of the Bible is now your authority (Sola Scriptura). There are verses in Scripture to confirm Original Sin.
No, colbe, it's not. It's a made-up way to control people and make them feel like no matter what they do, they are crap.
Also....
you missed the part about Jesus being the only "begotten." No....
begotten, by definition,
means "conceived."
www.thefreedictionary.com...
Adj. 1. begotten - (of offspring) generated by procreation; "naturally begotten child"
biological - of parents and children; related by blood; "biological child"
ALL BABIES are born from the insemination of a ripe ovum....caused by a MAN and a WOMAN having sex.....no other way to do it.
And every zygote, every embryo, every fetus, EVERY ONE OF THEM -- of us -- are begotten that way. Even Jesus!! Begotten.
Original sin is an outdated notion.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by colbe
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe
What does that have to do with the Council of Nicaea?
Everything. Don't quote Catholic history while you reject the faith. You have no authority and neither do I, the
reason Jesus established one faith. We can know what God has revealed.
No, it has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Changing the subject is a red herring fallacy.
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Yeah? I'm just not seeing it, sorry.
Sounds like like a quite a stretch, after reading the whole chapter.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe
It's not a lame excuse, and no one is "running away". Changing the subject has no place in rational debate. We were discussing the Council of Nicaea and what you brought up has nothing to do with that. If you want to discuss your matter make a thread, simple as that.
Since it appears you don't know what a red herring fallacy is you can read up on it here.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Yeah? I'm just not seeing it, sorry.
Sounds like like a quite a stretch, after reading the whole chapter.
Not at all. It's a conversation between three people, and it's about the future when the Son is reigning.