Seconds of Pre Embryonic Life of Jesus Christ?

[Sean]

Yes, both trinitarian AND oneness teach that God has a human nature.

Both think they are NOT the daughters of Rome.

Both are fooling themselves.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Sean

Yes, both trinitarian AND oneness teach that God has a human nature.

Both think they are NOT the daughters of Rome.

Both are fooling themselves.

4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.


Listen to your Savior.

Start all over and read the Bible without presupposition.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Sean

Fact is, the "holy RCC" is the founder of the "Hypostatic Union of God" theory.(2 natures of God)

The Idea that became God the Son(trinitarian), and God the son(oneness), was originally elected and ratified here....



Hypostatic union
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The oldest known icon of Christ Pantocrator at Saint Catherine's Monastery. The two different facial expressions on either side emphasize Christ's dual nature as both divine and human.[1][2]

Composites of the two sides of the face.
Hypostatic union (from the Greek: ὑπόστασις hypóstasis, "sediment, foundation, substance, subsistence") is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, or individual existence.[3]

The First Council of Ephesus in 431 AD recognized this doctrine and affirmed its importance, stating that the humanity and divinity of Christ are made one according to nature and hypostasis in the Logos.



So, your mother is proud of all of you for bearing her foundational torch all these years.

I thought you said we aren't credible if we use commentaries?

So, do as I say and not as I do, Sean?

Then you use Wikepedia as your source? Now THAT'S credible!

Sean, you're such a yawn.

[TK Burk]

Sean, I thought you said you answer "ALL" questions?

Why do you keep avoiding this one?

You have used Colossians 2:9 many--MANY--times in the effort to prove your theory that Jesus was "MADE GOD" when He received the "fulness of the Godhead" sometime (you never determined when that time is) "after His resurrection."

Thus, this makes the answer to question vital to prove your theory.

So, come on Rabban, give us poor ignorant apostolics the answer to this question:

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Within the context of what is taught in Colossians 2, where does it state that Colossians 2:9 made Jesus God?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Sean has answered us a long time ago.

This is what he believes



Keep clicking them red sneakers together boy, because with every heretical post, you must be chanting. "There's no place like Rome, There's no place like Rome, There's no place like Rome, There's no place like Rome!"



"Oh, Auntie Em, There's no place like ROME!"

[Sean]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Sean, I thought you said you answer "ALL" questions?

Why do you keep avoiding this one?

You have used Colossians 2:9 many--MANY--times in the effort to prove your theory that Jesus was "MADE GOD" when He received the "fulness of the Godhead" sometime (you never determined when that time is) "after His resurrection."

Thus, this makes the answer to question vital to prove your theory.

So, come on Rabban, give us poor ignorant apostolics the answer to this question:

Just common sense.

The omnipresent God did not fit inside Jesus during his earthly life.

When the omnipresent God made Jesus a quickening spirit(per 1 Cor. 15:45), his newly acquired omnipresence became the container of God, thus the Col. 2:9 effect.

[Sean]

Oh no, not another verse!!!....



John 7:29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.



Are these the exact same being?

[Sean]

29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.



Here is another look at "them".


Are they the same exact being?

[Sean]

H/U's think Jesus really meant....



29 But HIM knows him: for HIM is from him, and he hath sent HIM.



LOL

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Sean

Just common sense.

"COMMON SENSE"??

You interpret the meaning of God's word with "common sense"?

No context--just "common sense"?

So an entire chapter in the Bible can say one thing, but because of your "common sense," you can make a passage say whatever you want it to--no matter how out of context it may be with what is actually found in that chapter?

So, your entire theological position relies solely on verses that are interpreted through your "common sense"?

Wow!

Sean, you've posted some humdingers before, but this time you really surpassed yourself.

After reading your post no one who loves the truth of God's word could EVER take anything you say about the Bible seriously.