• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How you Percieve Christ of Nazareth

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
1. Greek term for communion is defined as:

1) fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse
1a) the share which one has in anything, participation
1b) intercourse, fellowship, intimacy
1b1) the right hand as a sign and pledge of fellowship (in fulfilling the apostolic office)
1c) a gift jointly contributed, a collection, a contribution, as exhibiting an embodiment and proof of fellowship

We believe fellowship is listed as a quality of the Spirit--not a personage. This is consistent with the listing of particular qualities of the Father and Son--grace and love.

But my question wasn't about the communion of the Holy Spirit. My question was, why would Paul list the Holy Spirit apart from the Father and the Son in this doxology, if the Holy Spirit is merely the acting, guiding force of Father and Son?

And what's this about the Spirit praying for us with groaning, and what about the "mind of the Spirit" in Romans 8:26-27?
26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

2. We do not consider the Didache as inspired prose.
It's not prose, it's a manual of instructions governing the Sacramental, spiritual, ethical and hierarchic life of the ancient Church, and it's the oldest non-Biblical text we have. It's not the same kind of material as the Bible. You're right, it's not inspirational, it's instructional. Why baptize in the name of Father, Son AND Holy Spirit, as written in the Didache? Wouldn't naming the Father and Son cover it?

As you probably know the trinity was not formally adopted until after 325 A.D. the Council of Nicea. It was finally adopted, essentially as now commonly understood, by the 381 Council of Constantinople.
And it was only explicitly defined because now, Christians didn't have to worry about getting thrown to the lions, being burned alive or tortured to death, and now they had time to actually deal with heresies. The Trinity was only defined because it was being challenged by Arianism, which asserted that the Son and the Holy Spirit were merely created beings. The Church had to act to preserve the faith of the Apostles.

As a matter of fact, Ignatius never mentioned the Holy Spirit as God in any of his writings and he was one of John's students.
Because, if anyone was in danger of having their divinity denied, it would be Jesus. At the time, it was not necessary to defend the divinity of the Spirit, because it was clear.

Besides, even if Ignatius never explicitly called the Holy Spirit God, it's always Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the Fathers. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Father, Son and Holy Spirit...

Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual.
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
But my question wasn't about the communion of the Holy Spirit. My question was, why would Paul list the Holy Spirit apart from the Father and the Son in this doxology, if the Holy Spirit is merely the acting, guiding force of Father and Son?

1 We dont believe assigning a name (holy spirit) to the power and essence of God makes it a person.. If that we're the case, the wind, gravity, inertia, etc should be people too.

And what's this about the Spirit praying for us with groaning, and what about the "mind of the Spirit" in Romans 8:26-27?
26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

2. Yes the Holy Spirit works within our human brain, body and spirit to assist us in our spiritual journey. This was understood by Paul. Not once, either in his epistles, or in any other writing of the Bible, is a doxology to be found, which ascribes praise to Father, Son and Spirit, or to the Trinity in any form.

It's not prose, it's a manual of instructions governing the Sacramental, spiritual, ethical and hierarchic life of the ancient Church, and it's the oldest non-Biblical text we have. It's not the same kind of material as the Bible. You're right, it's not inspirational, it's instructional. Why baptize in the name of Father, Son AND Holy Spirit, as written in the Didache? Wouldn't naming the Father and Son cover it?

3. See point 1

And it was only explicitly defined because now, Christians didn't have to worry about getting thrown to the lions, being burned alive or tortured to death, and now they had time to actually deal with heresies. The Trinity was only defined because it was being challenged by Arianism, which asserted that the Son and the Holy Spirit were merely created beings. The Church had to act to preserve the faith of the Apostles.

4. Challenged by Arianism? We believe it was the other way around. I believe binatarianism was challenged by the fresh, new doctrine of the day--trinitarianism. Dr Arius didn't even want to attend the council. He was forced to attend by Constantine. This probably undermined Dr Arius' position in the eyes of the emperor who had the final say over which doctrine was accepted. "Pure" trinitarians actually made up only around 15% of the attendees, a smaller percentage were pure arians and the rest were semi-arians. Proof that most in the early church were binatarian. Furthermore, Eusebius records how 2nd century church leaders in Asia minor and Antioch (where true Christianity resided) opposed Montanus--a 2nd century converted pagan priest who many attribute as the progenitor of the current trinitarian concept. Notice what the wiki article titled "arianism" states:

"Some historians define and minimize the Arian conflict as the exclusive construct of Arius and a handful of rogue bishops engaging in heresy; but others recognize Arius as a defender of 'original' Christianity, or as providing a conservative response against the politicization of Christianity seeking union with the Roman Empire.​

Arianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I take the latter view.

Because, if anyone was in danger of having their divinity denied, it would be Jesus. At the time, it was not necessary to defend the divinity of the Spirit, because it was clear.

5. If it was clear, there would had been no need for a council.

Besides, even if Ignatius never explicitly called the Holy Spirit God, it's always Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the Fathers. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Father, Son and Holy Spirit...

6. See point 1
 
Last edited:

HeartFire

Shades of Reason
This is a question that i have had for some time now, and please do not be offended (i honestly do not want nor believe in out-right offending anyone). In the Bible all of Christ's teachings where of His Father, so why is it that Christ is worshiped over His Father. I realize that without the death of Christ on the Cross and His Resurrection we could not ask God for repentance according to Christianity; it just seems to me that if you kneel to the King before the battle is won then there is no-one to stand by the Kings side (not that this is necessarily needed). How is it that teachings of proper ways to worship God turned into the Teacher being the one worshiped? (Do not get me wrong, when the Prince is given His Crown of Glory I will be one of the first on my knees;))

This is exactly why I do not worship Jesus. I worship God and by doing so, I honor Jesus. I honor Christ by yielding to God's love, which is all Jesus really ever asked of us. To me, Christ is a brother, and God both our heavenly father and mother. We are family, thus I honor and respect the family unit.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
1 We dont believe assigning a name (holy spirit) to the power and essence of God makes it a person.. If that we're the case, the wind, gravity, inertia, etc should be people too.
But my question, again. Why list the Holy Spirit apart from the Father and Son? If the Holy Spirit is the power and essence of God, then there would be absolutely no need to name it. Naming the Father and Son alone would include the Holy Spirit.

So why have a doxology including Father, Son AND Spirit? You have yet to explain why the Holy Spirit is always listed separate.

2. Yes the Holy Spirit works within our human brain, body and spirit to assist us in our spiritual journey. This was understood by Paul. Not once, either in his epistles, or in any other writing of the Bible, is a doxology to be found, which ascribes praise to Father, Son and Spirit, or to the Trinity in any form.
But there is the doxology I cited. Even if it is not a doxology of praise, you still have to explain why the Holy Spirit--which is, according to you, God's essence--is listed separate from Father and Son, who are both God.


3. See point 1
And see my above two points.


4. Challenged by Arianism? We believe it was the other way around. I believe binatarianism was challenged by the fresh, new doctrine of the day--trinitarianism. Dr Arius didn't even want to attend the council. He was forced to attend by Constantine. This probably undermined Dr Arius' position in the eyes of the emperor who had the final say over which doctrine was accepted. "Pure" trinitarians actually made up only around 15% of the attendees, a smaller percentage were pure arians and the rest were semi-arians. Proof that most in the early church were binatarian. Furthermore, Eusebius records how 2nd century church leaders in Asia minor and Antioch (where true Christianity resided) opposed Montanus--a 2nd century converted pagan priest who many attribute as the progenitor of the current trinitarian concept. Notice what the wiki article titled "arianism" states:
"Some historians define and minimize the Arian conflict as the exclusive construct of Arius and a handful of rogue bishops engaging in heresy; but others recognize Arius as a defender of 'original' Christianity, or as providing a conservative response against the politicization of Christianity seeking union with the Roman Empire.​
Arianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I take the latter view.
Arius was no Binitarian. Your own source makes that clear.

The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from—God the Father. This belief is grounded in the Gospel of John passage “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (verse 14:28)[3]
Because virtually all extant written material on Arianism was written by its opponents, the nature of Arian teachings is difficult to define precisely today. The letter of Auxentius,[11] a 4th-century Arian bishop of Milan, regarding the missionary Ulfilas, gives the clearest picture of Arian beliefs on the nature of the Trinity: God the Father ("unbegotten"), always existing, was separate from the lesser Jesus Christ ("only-begotten"), born before time began and creator of the world. The Father, working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, who was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father. The Father was seen as "the only true God". First Corinthians 8:5-8:6 was cited as proof text:
Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as in fact there are many gods and many lords — yet for us there is one God (Gk. theos - θεος), the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord (kyrios - κυριος), Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
—NRSV
A letter from Arius to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia succinctly states the core beliefs of the Arians:
Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.
—Theodoret: Arius's Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, translated in Peters' Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41
Arianism denies, in no unclear terms, that Jesus was God or divine. Arius was definitely no Binitarian; his teachings go against Binitarianism just as much as they go against Trinitarianism.

5. If it was clear, there would had been no need for a council.
Unfortunately, heresies came in later.

6. See point 1
And see everything else I've posted.
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
But my question, again. Why list the Holy Spirit apart from the Father and Son? If the Holy Spirit is the power and essence of God, then there would be absolutely no need to name it. Naming the Father and Son alone would include the Holy Spirit.

So why have a doxology including Father, Son AND Spirit? You have yet to explain why the Holy Spirit is always listed separate. But there is the doxology I cited. Even if it is not a doxology of praise, you still have to explain why the Holy Spirit, which is, as you say, God's essence, is listed separate from Father and Son, who are both God.

The spirit is an essential component of the salvation process, as is the Father and Son. Thus it's mention with the Father and Son is appropriate. It would be illogical to imply its referring to a third person of the Godhead especially when Paul and other apostles only addressed the Father and Son but never addressed the spirit: (Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:3; II Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil 1:2; Col. 1:2; I Thess. 1:1; II Thess. 1:2; I Tim 1:2; II Tim 1:2; Titus 1:4; Phile. 1:3; II Pet. 1:2).

In these official salutations of the apostles, there is not one mention of the Holy Spirit. Also James said he was: “a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (James 1:1). John said:“And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (I John 1:3). In all, there is no mention of the Holy Spirit!

In all these introductions of the apostles showing the ones they represented, there is not one mention of the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit were an individual co-equal with the Father and the Son, this consistent omission is incomprehensible. In fact, it would have been insolence and insubordination on the part of the apostles. In modern terms, this would be like recognizing three people who own and run a business, but representatives in the field would only give references to two of them as the ones who own the business. This is unthinkable.

Arius was no Binitarian. Your own source makes that clear .Arianism denies, in no unclear terms, that Jesus was God or divine. Arius was definitely no Binitarian; his teachings go against Binitarianism just as much as they go against Trinitarianism.

According to its core definition, he was:

Binitarianism is a Christian theology of two personae, two individuals, or two aspects in one Godhead (or God)​
Binitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure if you read the whole article, but it does confirm Arius' binatarianism:

"Arius taught that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally. Arians taught that the pre-incarnate Jesus was a divine being created by (and therefore inferior to) God the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist..."​

He believed Christ was an essential part of the dual Godhead with one caveat- the Father, at some point, created the Son.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
The spirit is an essential component of the salvation process, as is the Father and Son. Thus it's mention with the Father and Son is appropriate.
Yet, according to you, the Spirit has no role of "its" own, unless you want to divorce the active force/essence of Father and Son FROM the Father and the Son.

So why distinguish the acting force of God, from God? That is not a logical separation. The Spirit in and of itself, according to you, is not important, nor is it truly separate from Father and Son.

Also, on a side note, Polycarp sure gave glory to Father, Son and Holy Spirit:
Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen.
We wish you, brethren, all happiness, while you walk according to the doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; with whom be glory to God the Father and the Holy Spirit, for the salvation of His holy elect, after whose example479 the blessed Polycarp suffered, following in whose steps may we too be found in the kingdom of Jesus Christ!
And then we have Athenagoras of Athens, writing around 180:

CHAP. X.--THE CHRISTIANS WORSHIP THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST.
That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being--I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nous kai logos) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nous], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logikos]; . . . The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. "The Lord," it says, "made me, the beginning of His ways to His works." The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points
Athenagoras of Athens says, in no unclear terms, that Christians worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

And something else from Justin Martyr:
But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him),1776 and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.
Here's the footnote given in that quote:

This is the literal and obvious translation of Justin’s words. But from c. 13, 16, and 61, it is evident that he did not desire to inculcate the worship of angels. We are therefore driven to adopt another translation of this passage, even though it be somewhat harsh. Two such translations have been proposed: the first connecting “us” and “the host of the other good angels” as the common object of the verb “taught;” the second connecting “these things” with “the host of,” etc., and making these two together the subject taught. In the first case the translation would stand, “taught these things to us and to the host,” etc.; in the second case the translation would be, “taught us about these things, and about the host of the others who follow Him, viz. the good angels.” [I have ventured to insert parenthetic marks in the text, an obvious and simple resource to suggest the manifest intent of the author. Grabe’s note in loc. gives another and very ingenious exegesis, but the simplest is best.]
And JUST in case you think this could mean that angels are worshipped along with Father, Son and Holy Spirit, further on in St. Justin Martyr's Apology...

Whence to God alone we render worship.
So, God alone is worshipped. Yet, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are worshipped together... Hmmm...

According to its core definition, he was:
Binitarianism is a Christian theology of two personae, two individuals, or two aspects in one Godhead (or God)​
Binitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure if you read the whole article, but it does confirm Arius' binatarianism:
"Arius taught that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally. Arians taught that the pre-incarnate Jesus was a divine being created by (and therefore inferior to) God the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist..."​
He believed Christ was an essential part of the dual Godhead with one caveat- the Father, at some point, created the Son.
No, Arius taught at best that the Father and Son were of SIMILAR essence, but they were not consubstantial. And if they were only of similar essence, then they cannot both be part of the same Godhead, unless you want to take the Mormon view of the Godhead. That is, three separate beings, united in purpose. You're twisting around the words, since you aren't familiar with the actual controversy. Allow me to explain it for you:

Arius taught that the Son was an inferior created being, as marked red. The Son was not on the same level as the Father, and even though the Son was viewed as somehow divine, the Son was not God, but merely a created being.

From Schaff's volume on the Seven Ecumenical Councils:

The Semi-Arian party in the fourth century attempted to steer a middle course between calling the Son Consubstantial and calling him a creature. Their position, indeed, was untenable, but several persisted in clinging to it; and it was adopted by Macedonius, who occupied the see of Constantinople. It was through their adoption of a more reverential language about the Son than had been used by the old Arians, that what is called the Macedonian heresy showed itself. Arianism had spoken both of the Son and the Holy Spirit as creatures. The Macedonians, rising up out of Semi-Arianism, gradually reached the Church’s belief as to the uncreated majesty of the Son, even if they retained their objection to the homoousion as a formula. But having, in their previously Semi-Arian position, refused to extend their own “homoiousion” to the Holy Spirit, they afterwards persisted in regarding him as “external to the one indivisible Godhead,” Newman’s Arians, p. 226; or as Tillemont says (Mém. vi., 527), “the denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit was at last their capital or only error.” St. Athanasius, while an exile under Constantius for the second time, “heard with pain,” as he says (Ep. i. ad Serap., 1) that “some who had left the Arians from disgust at their blasphemy against the Son of God, yet called the Spirit a creature, and one of the ministering spirits, differing only in degree from the Angels:”
The Arians did not believe the Son was part of some Binity. Rather, they believed the Son to be a mere created being, completely separate from God. Just because the Son was viewed as divine or exalted does not mean that He was viewed as being consubstantial with the Father, or that the Son was viewed as being God Himself.

Moreover, according to even the Semi-Arians, the Holy Spirit was not God's essence or active force, but another created being.
 

horizon_mj1

Well-Known Member
In order to understand this, one must first understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

Before we continue, the following two disclaimers need to be made:
1: When we Christians speak of the Trinity, we do NOT define it as God having schizophrenia or multiple-personality disorder; the Trinity is not God switching between three different "modes" or "masks."
Lol:D I pretty much figured that out on my own; my family (immediate and extended) consists of several different Denominations in which the Trinity is taught.

2: When we Christians speak of the Trinity, we do NOT mean to say that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three wholly separate entities. We do not have three Gods, but One. We do not hold the Mormon position of "Three persons united in purpose only."
No neither do I, this being another of several reasons why I left the Mormon (LDS) Church.

Now that that's out of the way, here is the actual definition of what the Trinity is, courtesy of OrthodoxWiki.org:

Now, to define those Greek terms that showed up in that quote:

-Hypostasis: A person.
-Ousia: An essence; i.e. that which makes an entity that particular entity; for example, the essence of Shiranui117 is different from the essence of horizon_mj.
-Homoousios: Of one essence.

In this case, since Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all of the same Divine Essence, they all are one "being," each Person being fully God. It is not a case of 1/3+1/3+1/3=1, or of 1+1+1=3, but 1+1+1=1. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not just "parts" of God, but are each fully God in their own right. Three distinct Persons, yet one God. Distinct, yet not separate. United, yet not confused or mixed.
Understood and agree to a point;)

So yes, Jesus is indeed the Son of God, yet is also fully God Himself.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
Well explained; may I ask of what direct faith do you claim? I am a bit familliar with some Orthodox Religions (my real first name is after a Greek Orthodox Saint, although many are unfamilliar with even though there is a school in NY NY that bears the same name).
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Understood and agree to a point;)
If I may ask, is there anything you would say differently, or anything with which you disagree?

Well explained; may I ask of what direct faith do you claim? I am a bit familliar with some Orthodox Religions (my real first name is after a Greek Orthodox Saint, although many are unfamilliar with even though there is a school in NY NY that bears the same name).
I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian. The Eastern Orthodox Church is the second largest Christian body in the world behind the Roman Catholic Church, consisting of 225 million followers. Our church is also ancient, and we can visibly trace both our lineage and our teachings clear back to the Apostles without any gaps in continuity.

Eastern Orthodox Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as a side note, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc. are not different religions. Both of them are part of the same Eastern Orthodox Church. A Greek Orthodox can partake of the Eucharist from a Russian Orthodox Church and vice-versa without any issues whatsoever.

If you ever want to learn more about Orthodox Christianity, you're more than welcome to stop by the Orthodox Christian DIR and ask whatever questions and raise whatever concerns you may have. There are several of us Orthodox on this site who would be happy to help. :)
 

horizon_mj1

Well-Known Member
If I may ask, is there anything you would say differently, or anything with which you disagree?

I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian. The Eastern Orthodox Church is the second largest Christian body in the world behind the Roman Catholic Church, consisting of 225 million followers. Our church is also ancient, and we can visibly trace both our lineage and our teachings clear back to the Apostles without any gaps in continuity.

Eastern Orthodox Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as a side note, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc. are not different religions. Both of them are part of the same Eastern Orthodox Church. A Greek Orthodox can partake of the Eucharist from a Russian Orthodox Church and vice-versa without any issues whatsoever.

If you ever want to learn more about Orthodox Christianity, you're more than welcome to stop by the Orthodox Christian DIR and ask whatever questions and raise whatever concerns you may have. There are several of us Orthodox on this site who would be happy to help. :)
As stated, understand and agree to "a point"; that point breaches similarities with the 1+1+1=1 explanation. I feel the Trinity works in secession for the same ends met with a spiritual likeness defined through physical differences (kind of like a Government for lack of a better synonym:sarcastic) I thank you very much for your Invitation and may take you up on it; I always have questions:eek:.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
We do not hold the Mormon position of "Three persons united in purpose only."
You know, that word "only" really takes away from how we Mormons see the Godhead. It certain does at least lessen the absoluteness of their unity.

The Father and the Son are physically distinct from one another, and yet they are also "one." I say this because I understand the word "one" to refer to something other than one in "substance" or "essence." I believe they are one in will and purpose, one in mind and heart, and one in power and glory. They are "one" in virtually every respect except for the physical. It would be impossible to explain, or even to understand, the degree of their unity. It is perfect; it is absolute. They think, feel and act as "one God." Because of this perfect unity, and because they share the title of "God," I think of them together in this way. It would be impossible to worship one of them without also worshipping the other.

There are numerous instances where the word "one" is found in the scriptures denoting a unity which is not physical:

Exodus 24:3 says, "And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do."

2 Corinthians 13:11 says, "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you."

Acts 4:32 states, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."

In every one of these instances, the word "one" denotes unity, the kind of unity which exists between the Father and the Son. There is nowhere in the Bible where the word "substance" or "essence" (or any synonym for either of these words) is used to describe the unity between the Father and the Son. This concept is a later development and was not taught by Christ or His Apostles.

I do have one question for you, if you wouldn't mind... Trinitarian Christians always focus almost exclusively on the word "one," and insist that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one God." And as I have already stated, I believe it's entirely accurate to say they are "one God" -- provided you can also explain not only the ways in which they are "one" but the ways in which they are "three." If they are truly "three" as well as "one," in what way are they "three"? (If at all possible, would you mind sticking to a plain English explanation, as I am looking for terms I can relate to, and I really don't have enough background in ancient Greek to be able to get my mind around Greek terminology.)
 
Last edited:

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
You know, that word "only" really takes away from how we Mormons see the Godhead. It certain does at least lessen the absoluteness of their unity.

The Father and the Son are physically distinct from one another, and yet they are also "one." I say this because I understand the word "one" to refer to something other than one in "substance" or "essence." I believe they are one in will and purpose, one in mind and heart, and one in power and glory. They are "one" in virtually every respect except for the physical. It would be impossible to explain, or even to understand, the degree of their unity. It is perfect; it is absolute. They think, feel and act as "one God." Because of this perfect unity, and because they share the title of "God," I think of them together in this way. It would be impossible to worship one of them without also worshipping the other.
Alright, understood. I beg your pardon; I did not mean to misrepresent your faith. I spoke rashly.

There are numerous instances where the word "one" is found in the scriptures denoting a unity which is not physical:
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by a "physical" unity?

I do have one question for you, if you wouldn't mind... Trinitarian Christians always focus almost exclusively on the word "one," and insist that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one God." And as I have already stated, I believe it's entirely accurate to say they are "one God" -- provided you can also explain not only the ways in which they are "one" but the ways in which they are "three." If they are truly "three" as well as "one," in what way are they "three"? (If at all possible, would you mind sticking to a plain English explanation, as I am looking for terms I can relate to, and I really don't have enough background in ancient Greek to be able to get my mind around Greek terminology.)
Alright, here goes; The three members of the Trinity, while one in essence and undivided, are also each their own distinct Person, and they relate to each other in different ways. The Father is the source of the Trinity, even though the Son and Spirit have always existed alongside the Father.

-The Father is the Unbegotten, and it is from Him that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.
-The Son is the only-Begotten of the Father, and His eternal (i.e. essential/existential) relationship to the Holy Spirit isn't entirely understood, though the Son is understood to send the Spirit upon the world. (John 15:26) Also, Jesus Christ the Son of God is the only member of the Trinity to be both fully divine AND fully human, and to have both human and divine wills, in each case possessing the full qualities of both natures and both wills, without change, confusion, separation or division.
-The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, (John 15:26) and was also responsible for sending Christ into the world, via the Annunciation to Mary. It is worthwhile to note that the Holy Spirit does NOT eternally proceed from the Son. As far as how procession is different from being begotten, we honestly have no freaking clue XD I think a Saint said that trying to figure out the difference would lead to insanity.

Even though, as you said, the three members of the Trinity all have the same Divine Will, they each have their own distinct minds, roles and actions. They are distinguished from one another by their relationships to one another. An example of how we Christians experience this is the fact that we come to the Father through Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
Yet, according to you, the Spirit has no role of "its" own, unless you want to divorce the active force/essence of Father and Son FROM the Father and the Son.

1. Perhaps you skipped over the posts where I mentioned the HS is an essential component of the salvation process. *Gods power and essence have a role to play, its just not the third person of trinity..

So why distinguish the acting force of God, from God? That is not a logical separation. The Spirit in and of itself, according to you, is not important, nor is it truly separate from Father and Son.

2. Sure it is. We experience separation of power and force everyday. One quick example that comes to mind is a person blowing air out of their mouth. The air would be the power eminating from its source.. Employing your logic would make the air we exert a separate personage from the person blowing it. Now that to me is illogical.*

Also, on a side note, Polycarp (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xiv.html)sure gave glory (ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library) to Father, Son and Holy Spirit:
>>
>> *---Quote---
>>
>> Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, *I bless * * * Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus * * * Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory * * * both now and to all coming ages. Amen.*
>>
>> ---End Quote---
>>
>> ---Quote---
>>
>> We wish you, brethren, * * * all happiness, while you walk according to the doctrine of the Gospel of * * * Jesus Christ; *with whom be glory to God the Father and the Holy Spirit, * * * for the salvation of His holy elect,* after whose example479 (ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library) the blessed Polycarp suffered, following in whose steps may we * * * too be found in the kingdom of Jesus Christ!
>>
>> ---End Quote---
>>
>> And then we have Athenagoras of Athens (Athenagoras of Athens: A Plea for the Christians), writing around 180:

3. Yet Paul gave glory to the Father and Son but consistently left out glory to the HS way before 180:

Rom_16:27 *to God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.*

Php_4:20 *Now to our God and Father be glory forever and ever. Amen.​

Either Paul was being severely disrespectful to God or the HS is not the third person of the God head. *The logical choice would be the latter.

>> *---Quote---
>>
>> CHAP. X.--THE CHRISTIANS WORSHIP THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST.
>>
>> That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, *uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is *apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by *light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has *been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being--I have *sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of *God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though *the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode *of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the *Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; *for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the *Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in *oneness and power of spirit, the u
>>
>> *nderstanding and reason (nous *kai logos) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your *surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I *will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having *been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal *mind [nous], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with *Logos [logikos]; . . . The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. "The Lord," it *says, "made me, the beginning of His ways to His works." The Holy Spirit Himself *also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, *flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. *Who, then, *would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the *Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their *distinction in order*, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to *the divine
>>
>> *nature confined to these points
>>
>> ---End Quote---
>>
>> Athenagoras of Athens says, in no unclear terms, that Christians worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
>>
>> And something else (ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library) from Justin Martyr:
>>
>> ---Quote---
>>
>> But both Him, * * * and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the * * * host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him),1776 (ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library) and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them * * * in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who * * * wishes to learn, as we have been taught.
>>
>> ---End Quote---
>>
>> Here's the footnote given in that quote:
>>
>> ---Quote---
>>
>> This is the literal and obvious * * * * * * translation of Justin’s words. But from c. 13, 16, and 61, it is evident * * * * * * that he did not desire to inculcate the worship of angels. We are * * * * * * therefore driven to adopt another translation of this passage, even * * * * * * though it be somewhat harsh. Two such translations have been proposed: * * * * * * the first connecting “us” and “the host of the other * * * * * * good angels” as the common object of the verb “taught;” * * * * * * the second connecting “these things” with “the host * * * * * * of,” etc., and making these two together the subject taught. *In the * * * * * * first case the translation would stand, “taught these things to us * * * * * * and to the host,” etc.; in the second case the translation would * * * * * * be, “taught us about these things, and about the host of the others * * * * * * who follow Him, viz. the good angels.”* [I have ventured to insert * * * * * * parenthetic marks in the te
>>
>> *xt, an obvious and simple resource to suggest * * * * * * the manifest intent of the author. Grabe’s note in loc. * * * * * * gives another and very ingenious exegesis, but the simplest is best.]
>>
>> ---End Quote---
>>
>> And JUST in case you think this could mean that angels are worshipped along with Father, Son and Holy Spirit, further on (ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library) in St. Justin Martyr's Apology...
>>
>> ---Quote---
>>
>> Whence to God alone we render worship.
>>
>> ---End Quote---
>>
>> So, God alone is worshipped. Yet, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are worshipped together... Hmmm...
>>
4. Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, none of what you posted proves the HS is a separate person...Besides, shouldnt we base doctrine from the bible?(2tim3:16)
>
>
>>
>> *No, Arius taught at best that the Father and Son were of SIMILAR essence, but they were not consubstantial. And if they were only of similar essence, then they cannot both be part of the same Godhead, unless you want to take the Mormon view of the Godhead. That is, three separate beings, united in purpose. You're twisting around the words, since you aren't familiar with the actual controversy. Allow me to explain it for you:Arius taught that the Son was an inferior created being, as marked red. The Son was not on the same level as the Father, and even though the Son was viewed as somehow divine, the Son was not God, but merely a created being.

5. According to this letter from Arius himself, he viewed the Son as the "perfect God":

A letter from Arius to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia succinctly states the core beliefs of the Arians:

Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.​
Theodoret: Arius's Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, translated in Peters' Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41

I believe the one that misunderstands the controversy is you my friend.. I just realized this is a dir thread.. No debating is allowed. So this will be my last response.
—
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Alright, understood. I beg your pardon; I did not mean to misrepresent your faith. I spoke rashly.
No apology necessary. :)

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by a "physical" unity?
Well, to answer that, I just looked up the word "physical" to see how closely the dictionary definition came to expressing my thoughts. Since that definition was pretty close, I'll start by posting it:

Physical: relating to the body, rather than to the mind, the soul, or the feelings, real and touchable, existing in the real material world, rather than as an idea or notion, and able to be touched and seen.

Thank you, too, for your response to my question. I hope you don't mind if we explore it further.

Alright, here goes; The three members of the Trinity, while one in essence and undivided, are also each their own distinct Person, and they relate to each other in different ways. The Father is the source of the Trinity, even though the Son and Spirit have always existed alongside the Father.

-The Father is the Unbegotten, and it is from Him that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.
Okay, right off the bat, I sort of agree and sort of disagree. ;) To get us started, I again looked up a couple of terms in the dictionary. Could you tell me if these definitions are acceptable to you?

Source: the origin, the place, person, or thing through which something has come into being or from which it has been obtained.

Beget: to cause, to be the cause of something; to father, to be the father of a child. Synonymns: To bring about, precipitate, create, bring or produce.

If you agree with the definitions I've provided, could you explain how something can be the source of something that already exists and has existed as long as its source has? Also, I don't understand how it's possible to beget something that was already there. Lastly, Mormons are frequently accused of believing that the Son was a "created being" whereas traditional Christians say that Jesus Christ was not created. According to the definition of "beget," though, "create" is a synonym for "beget"; in other words, the two words could be used interchangeably. You would say that Jesus Christ was begotten, but created. I would say you're splitting hairs.

Hopefully, we can have a productive dialogue. So far, it's looking like that might actually happen. :) I have lots more to say, but will leave it at this for now.

Oops -- just one more question. I know you believe that God is spirit. (Actually, so do I, but I would interpret that somewhat differently than you do.) What I would like to know is... Do you believe that the resurrected Christ has a corporeal body or that He is once again spirit only? He was seen ascending into Heaven in bodily form and said that He will return in like manner. If this is the case, I would imagine that He still has a bodily form. Note: when I say "corporeal," I do not mean "mortal." I think we can definitely agree that Jesus Christ is immortal. To put it another way... if He were to appear today exactly as He currently exists, would we still be able to see Him and feel the wounds in His hands and feet?
 
Last edited:

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Either Paul was being severely disrespectful to God or the HS is not the third person of the God head. *The logical choice would be the latter.
False dilemma. There are more options than that.

4. Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, none of what you posted proves the HS is a separate person...Besides, shouldnt we base doctrine from the bible?(2tim3:16)
The early Christians couldn't base doctrine on something that wouldn't be compiled until 367 at the earliest.

Moreover, there was no such thing as Sola Scriptura before the 1500's. One cannot take Scripture out of the larger context of Sacred Tradition.

A letter from Arius to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia succinctly states the core beliefs of the Arians:
Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.​
Theodoret: Arius's Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, translated in Peters' Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41
And he goes on to say:

"And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any essential being"

Also, if you recall the excerpt from Wikipedia that you yourself quoted:

The Father was seen as "the only true God."
Sorry, no room for Binitarianism there.

I believe the one that misunderstands the controversy is you my friend.. I just realized this is a dir thread.. No debating is allowed. So this will be my last response.
—
Alright. If you wish to continue this, then PM me, and we can take this to the 1V1 debate forum.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
No apology necessary. :)

Well, to answer that, I just looked up the word "physical" to see how closely the dictionary definition came to expressing my thoughts. Since that definition was pretty close, I'll start by posting it:

Physical: relating to the body, rather than to the mind, the soul, or the feelings, real and touchable, existing in the real material world, rather than as an idea or notion, and able to be touched and seen.

Alright, no, I don't mean a physical unity, but an essential unity.

From Dictionary.com:
Essence
1.the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features: Freedom is the very essence of our democracy.

5. Philosophy . the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental,[physical] phenomenal, illusory, etc.

If it was a physical unity, then that would imply Sabellianism to me. IOW, they each share what makes God "God." Thus, they are all one God, "Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Trinity one in Essence and undivided," yet three Persons.


Thank you, too, for your response to my question. I hope you don't mind if we explore it further.
By all means. :)

Okay, right off the bat, I sort of agree and sort of disagree. ;) To get us started, I again looked up a couple of terms in the dictionary. Could you tell me if these definitions are acceptable to you?

Source: the origin, the place, person, or thing through which something has come into being or from which it has been obtained.

Beget: to cause, to be the cause of something; to father, to be the father of a child. Synonymns: To bring about, precipitate, create, bring or produce.
Yeah, those sound right.

If you agree with the definitions I've provided, could you explain how something can be the source of something that already exists and has existed as long as its source has? Also, I don't understand how it's possible to beget something that was already there.
Think of it as having a spring that was always there. If you have a spring that was always there, then naturally a river will always be flowing from the spring, yes? The spring and the river are two separate entities, and we can distinguish one from the other, but there was never a time when the spring was and the river was not.

Lastly, Mormons are frequently accused of believing that the Son was a "created being" whereas traditional Christians say that Jesus Christ was not created. According to the definition of "beget," though, "create" is a synonym for "beget"; in other words, the two words could be used interchangeably. You would say that Jesus Christ was begotten, but created. I would say you're splitting hairs.
It's like the difference between "by" and "through. "By" CAN mean "through," but it has different meanings as well. For example, you can say "I am by the store," but you cannot say "I am through the store." It doesn't fit within the context.

Plus, if God is uncreated, then Jesus must also be uncreated. Because if Jesus was created, then by definition, He would not be God. Yet, He is God's Son. So therefore, it is appropriate to say that He is eternally begotten, yet not created.

Hopefully, we can have a productive dialogue. So far, it's looking like that might actually happen. :) I have lots more to say, but will leave it at this for now.
I actually do anticipate this to turn out well, and I hope this trend continues. :)

Oops -- just one more question. I know you believe that God is spirit. (Actually, so do I, but I would interpret that somewhat differently than you do.) What I would like to know is... Do you believe that the resurrected Christ has a corporeal body or that He is once again spirit only? He was seen ascending into Heaven in bodily form and said that He will return in like manner. If this is the case, I would imagine that He still has a bodily form. Note: when I say "corporeal," I do not mean "mortal." I think we can definitely agree that Jesus Christ is immortal. To put it another way... if He were to appear today exactly as He currently exists, would we still be able to see Him and feel the wounds in His hands and feet?
Yes, Jesus was risen in the same body as He had before the crucifixion. However, it was glorified. The tomb was found empty, and Jesus appeared to His disciples with the marks still in His hands and feet.

John 20:
25 So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
And when He comes back, I think a lot of people will be surprised to find that He isn't a Caucasian with brown/blonde hair and blue eyes! :p
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
False dilemma. There are more options than that.

The early Christians couldn't base doctrine on something that wouldn't be compiled until 367 at the earliest.

Moreover, there was no such thing as Sola Scriptura before the 1500's. One cannot take Scripture out of the larger context of Sacred Tradition.

And he goes on to say:



Also, if you recall the excerpt from Wikipedia that you yourself quoted:

Sorry, no room for Binitarianism there.

Alright. If you wish to continue this, then PM me, and we can take this to the 1V1 debate forum.

We can continue here
 

heksesang

Member
I see Christ as the final and greatest prophet of God sent to Israel. He was a human and a son of God, like any one human who chooses to follow God.

His death was the sign of Jonah which he had promised the people. After saying that he would give them that sign, he had to die or else be discredited as a false prophet. There was no way out of it without destroying everything he was sent to do.

Christ died to make sure that his word would stay true, so that we would indeed one day learn of it. And because of that he deserves our gratitude.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
I see Christ as the final and greatest prophet of God sent to Israel. He was a human and a son of God, like any one human who chooses to follow God.

His death was the sign of Jonah which he had promised the people. After saying that he would give them that sign, he had to die or else be discredited as a false prophet. There was no way out of it without destroying everything he was sent to do.

Christ died to make sure that his word would stay true, so that we would indeed one day learn of it. And because of that he deserves our gratitude.
So, pretty much, you have the Muslim view of Jesus, except you believe He actually died?
 

heksesang

Member
So, pretty much, you have the Muslim view of Jesus, except you believe He actually died?
I do believe that if Jesus had not died he would have been a false prophet according to the Torah. He promised them the sign of Jonah, so he had to give them the sign of Jonah.
I also believe that God would forgive sins even before Jesus died, I don't believe he has some twisted sense of justice where he must kill someone. He IS justice. Whatever he does is justice. Even the OT says that if you turn away from your sins, God will forget them.
And I also believe that by following the teachings of Christ, you will find God. He is the truth, the way and the light because his teachings lead to God.

However, I do not have a muslim view just because I don't agree with your view.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
I do believe that if Jesus had not died he would have been a false prophet according to the Torah. He promised them the sign of Jonah, so he had to give them the sign of Jonah.

I also believe that God would forgive sins even before Jesus died, I don't believe he has some twisted sense of justice where he must kill someone. He IS justice. Whatever he does is justice. Even the OT says that if you turn away from your sins, God will forget them.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Such ideas as the ones you reject here were invented over a thousand years after the start of Christianity, and are not Biblical.

And I also believe that by following the teachings of Christ, you will find God. He is the truth, the way and the light because his teachings lead to God.
Also agreed. However, we do need help to follow the teachings; we as humans can't do it all on our own.

However, I do not have a muslim view just because I don't agree with your view.
I think you misunderstand what I meant, and it wasn't even meant to be derogatory. So allow me to clarify:

The Muslims believe that Jesus was not divine; He was only human. A great Prophet beloved by God, but just a human. He was not begotten by God; He is no more God's "son" than any other man is a "son" of God.

^The above is what I understood you to be saying about your view of Jesus. If I have that wrong, my apologies.
 
Top