Roymond

Well of course if you avoid official Catholic sites you can find all sorts of things! At least three popes have admonished Catholics who do this that they are in error, but Catholics are about as stubborn as anyone else so it hasn't helped a lot.

You keep claiming that but there is no difference between a believer here and a believer there; there is one church, not two, and its members are members for the same cause, not different ones. To make a division in the church is to make a division in Christ. If asking a saint in heaven is "putting someone in between you and Jesus", so is asking a saint on Earth. Both the saints in heaven and the saints on Earth have the same 'location': we are all "in Christ".

Repeating the same errors does not make them true. If Christ is not God from all eternity, "from everlasting" as many translations pout it, then He is not God at all. You are preaching a different Jesus -- or you are so badly mixed up about being a human and being God at the same time that you can't see clearly.

Mortar in England should be expected to test several thousand years older than it actually is because they generally used limestone for making mortar, and the limestone is what's giving the result. Interestingly, Roman mortar can give all sorts of ages with C-14 dating because different batches used different sources of volcanic ash, wood ash, and -- the "secret" ingredient -- seawater, beside the usual lime from limestone.

That's backwards: C-14 dating is only useful with things that normally both contain carbon and exchange it with the atmosphere. Not many rocks fit the bill.

Keeping in mind that there is a vast difference between people who actually read the Greek and Hebrew and those who just look up words in a lexicon.

It's quite reliable -- every weird result critics appeal to has been explained by the very people who ran the tests. In fact scientists learned quite a bit from than weird result, primarily that when something comes from a river carbon-dating it isn't dependable, because different materials when associated with or found in flowing water lose or gain carbon in ways that make the results less than dependable (which made a lot of scientists, including some archaeologists, very unhappy because they had used results on things taken from flowing water).

Interestingly that was the conclusion reached by the ancient scholars who on the basis of just the Hebrew concluded that the universe is ancient beyond human comprehension. They said the entire universe was so dense with fluid/water that light could not shine until God commanded light into existence, so the fluid/water thinned enough for light to flow.

All I will believe is what is actually written -- in the Hebrew text, as commented on by the Septuagint. You, along with certain others here, are just making things up that aren't in the scriptures.

Where did you get biblehub? I know at least five different websites where multiple translations can be read. Which lexicon are you claiming to use?

And now you resort to making things up about people again, on top of getting the use of a Hebrew verb wrong. I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or aren't able to follow a discussion, but your regular fantasies about others here, and your refusal to learn from people who know better than you do after you admit you don't know the languages, points to one or the other.

You try to explain away your unfounded accusation? That just compounds your sin!

It is not the same phrase in both, and that makes all the difference. Please, before you try to expound theology, go and study ancient Greek for two years and then New Testament Greek, and go and study Hebrew for at least four years. You are making errors that are obvious once you can actually read the languages. No, it didn't "become chaos", the text does not support that no matter how often you repeat your errors. And your error regarding the Isaiah text has been explained to you at least three times.

I have shown you your errors. So have others. You just ignore everyone who doesn't agree with you.

Then so is asking anyone here on Earth to pray for us. Though no one, not even Roman Catholics, are "praying to the saints" in the same sense as praying to God; they are asking saints in heaven to pray for them just as they would ask a friend to pray for them. To be consistent, you should never ask anyone to pray for you, because it makes no difference if they're a saint on Earth or a saint gone ahead. If there was a difference, then it would mean that the church is divided, but the church is the body of Christ and cannot be divided!

I don't know how I can make this any plainer: if Jesus did not have a human spirit, as we do, then He cannot be our Redeemer. He "had two spirits" because He was God, who is Spirit, and because He was man, who has a spirit. Also, His divinity comes from eternity; He was and is the eternal Logos made flesh, the Logos Who is God, Whose very being is God. Those are what the scriptures and the councils have taught, not that He wore a human body like a costume, which is what you are saying, but that He was a human being with every human 'part' that we have, including a spirit.

Just for accuracy, the King James relied more on earlier English versions, and on the Hebrew, than on the Latin. Their Hebrew knowledge would be considered sketchy today, which is why they often went to the Septuagint when they couldn't figure out the Hebrew; when both of those left them puzzling they turned (IIRC) to Tyndale's translation -- there are sections of the KJV that are basically copied from Tyndale, in fact.

I can't agree with this. Paul speaks of the elemental principles of this world that enslave those who didn't have the Law, and for many that is enough to recognize that they need a Savior. Looking at myself I know that I fail my own standards, and that is misery enough to know to cry for help! As an ancient liturgy says, I am broken and there is no health in me, but Jesus brings that health, the wholeness of spirit.

Ah, one of those "already but not yet" situations theologians talk about: we in Christ have attained those standards, but not in our lives; our new man has attained those standards and more, but our old man clings on and fails them. We are already righteous... but not yet.

I heard a sermon once about "How Jesus Broke the Law". The title sure got attention, but the pastor explained that Jesus was "too big" for the Law, so He shattered it by rising above it and reaching beyond it. Jesus was under the Law while on Earth, but the Law fell before Him because the Law was made for sinners; it couldn't extend far enough to cover or contain the Son of Man who was no sinner at all.

Since sins were covered, they were not paid for; the sacrifice "paid for" the covering. Yes, the Cross is the end of the sacrificial system in terms of history, but the foundation of the sacrificial system is indeed Christ on the Cross; that is the font of God's mercy to all, and apart from the Cross there is no mercy. That the Cross comes later in history is not a problem since the Cross stands not just in history but in eternity.

By your reasoning then it is a sin to ask another Christian to pray for you: if it is wrong to ask some Christians to pray for you, then it is wrong to ask any Christians to pray for you. Those who have died and gone ahead are just as much fellow Christians as those still with us, so if asking a Christian already in heaven to pray for us makes them a mediator then asking a Christian still on earth to pray for you makes that Christian a mediator. So having prayer requests at church or Bible study according to your argument is "to believe the lie that Jesus does not love you because He is angry at the moment". Are you really ready to rebuke anyone who asks you to pray for them? and tell them they are "denying Him as the only Mediator between God and men"? The only difference between the saints in heaven and the saints on Earth is that the ones in heaven have the advantage of already being with the Lord.

You cannot explain things to one set of heretics by using another heresy. That Muslims may think Christians are polytheists is not a matter than requires us to move into heresy to accommodate them. No! The councils flat out condemned the idea that Jesus had a beginning of any kind! That position was summed up by saying that there was a time when the Son was not, and it was rejected. No, it means that there was never a time when He was not being begotten. I read this stuff in the original language, and "eternally begotten" means just that: that there is no point in eternity when the Father was not begetting the Son, no point when the Son was not being begotten. That is forcing God to fit a human model. "Pre-existing substance" is a philosophical notion that applies only to material things; it does not apply to God since Jesus is of the same substance as the Father. The existence of the Son is God; as John wrote (translating literally) "And GOD is what the Logos was being". The Son has no other existence except being God. And that only makes multiple Gods to those who restrict God to being no better than a man. You insist on reducing God to being a human being -- He is not! God does not beget the way a man begets; His begetting is continual without beginning. That is why He is called "Father" and is called "Son"; those are not things that happened to Him as though He could change, they are realities of Him who does not change. "Twice begotten" does not mean that the first was like the second. The council explicitly says that the Son was begotten "before all time", apart from time, meaning throughout eternity. I put in bold and green where they clearly say that the Son was always begotten, Wesley using the phrase "from all eternity" and Calvin "from everlasting". These phrases indicate that as long as there was the Father, so also there was the Son. That is not what the apostles taught. John wrote that "GOD is what the Logos was being"; He was God because that's what/who He was before He became flesh. The scripture calls Jesus the "only-begotten God", just as John identifies Him as God who was face-to-face with God while being God. The Son is fully God as is the Father. No, Jesus is God because He is the Logos whose very being is God, as John says. "One substance" means that everything the Father is, so also is the Son, that the Son is fully God just as the Father is. They are not "made" one substance, they have always been one substance, one being, one essence, since "substance" means the "stuff" of their being. He was preaching on John 1, which makes it clear that the Logos was and is God, and that the Logos became flesh, which is to say that God became flesh. That isn't "his personal philosophy", it is what the apostle wrote: since the Logos is the Son, and the Logos is God, then the Son is God; and since the Logos was always with God, then the Son was always with God; thus there was never a time when the Father was but the Son was not; both are God and thus both have had their being from all eternity.

No -- if Jesus had no human spirit then He was not fully human, and if He was not fully human then He cannot be a Redeemer. Jesus was divine because He is the eternal Son of the Father who became flesh. The idea you are propounding makes Jesus partly human and partly divine, not fully human and fully divine.

I rebuke this in the Name of JESUS! You accuse people here of all sorts of things just because they seek to teach you, correct you, guide you, admonish you, and you respond in arrogance and with insults! This is NOT the behavior of one walking in the Spirit. You need to repent and apologize.