quote:

---

UNLESS you can establish that it is "against" their choice, you may not say that!!! Everything about their choices are formed and matured in them for the nine months in their mother.

---

quote:

---

With that mother they have felt worship, hearing and sensing the emotions and focus of worshiping God. (Stop and think here, Zack. Interudero--I'm a dad!)

---

quote:

---

PoW: "Covers them" is an analogy or a metaphor. There is the "imputed" model that we both appear to reject. I wonder whether we have to be more concrete in refering to how the Ressurrection JUSTIFIES humanity in order to address this. (I'm Nicene/Capadocian in my understanding of this!)

---

quote:

---

..were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, ...joined ...to Him . . . For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound,

---

quote:

---

32. Whence it was that, when the flesh suffered, the Word was not external to it; and therefore is the passion said to be His: and when He did divinely His Father's works, the flesh was not external to Him, but in the body itself did the Lord do them. Hence, when made man, He said, `If I do not the works of the Father, believe Me not; but if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works, that ye may know that the Father is in He and I in Him.' And thus when there was need to raise Peter's wife's mother, who was sick of a fever, He stretched forth His hand humanly, but He stopped the illness divinely. And in the case of the man blind from the birth, human was the spittle which He gave forth from the flesh, but divinely did He open the eyes through the clay. And in the case of Lazarus, He gave forth a human voice as man; but divinely, as God, did He raise Lazarus from the dead. These things were so done, were so manifested, because He had a body, not in appearance, but in truth; and it became the Lord, in putting on human flesh, to put it on whole with the affections proper to it; that, as we say that the body was His own, so also we may say that the affections of the body were proper to Him alone, though they did not touch Him according to His Godhead. If then the body had been another's, to him too had been the affections attributed; but if the flesh is theWord's (for `the Word became flesh'), of necessity then the affections also of the flesh are ascribed to Him, whose the flesh is. And to whom the affections are ascribed, such namely as to be condemned, to be scourged, to thirst, and the cross, and death, and the other infirmities of the body, of Him too is the triumph and the grace. For this cause then, consistently and fittingly such affections are ascribed not to another , but to the Lord; that the grace also may be from Him , and that we may become, not worshippers of any other, but truly devout towards God, because we invoke no originate thing, no ordinary man, but the natural and true Son from God, who has become man, yet is not the less Lord and God and Saviour.
(Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse III, 32) file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/BRJ/My%20Documents/CCEL/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/NPNF2069.HTM#P6491_2577885

---

quote:

---

6. And this above all shews the foolishness of those who say that the Word was changed into bones and flesh. For if this had been so, there were no need of a tomb. For the Body would have gone by itself to preach to the spirits in Hades. But as it was, He Himself went to preach, while the Body Joseph wrapped in a linen cloth, and laid it away at Golgotha20 . And so it is shewn to all that the Body was not the Word, but Body of the Word. And it was this that Thomas handled when it had risen from the dead, and saw in it the print of the nails, which the Word Himself had undergone, seeing them fixed in His own Body, and though able to prevent it, did not do so. On the contrary, the incorporeal Word made His own the properties of the Body, as being His own Body. Why, when the Body was struck by the attendant, as suffering Himself He asked, `Why smitest thou Me ?' And being by nature intangible, the Word yet said, `I gave My back to the stripes, and My cheeks to blows, and hid not My face from shame and spitting.' For what the human Body of the Word suffered, this the Word, dwelling in the body, ascribed to Himself, in order that we might be enabled to be partakers of the Godhead of the Word. And verily it is strange that He it was Who suffered and yet suffered not. Suffered, because His own Body suffered, and He was in it, which thus suffered; suffered not, because the Word, being by Nature God, is impassible. And while He, the incorporeal, was in the passible Body, the Body had in it the impassible Word, which was destroying the infirmities inherent in the Body. But this He did, and so it was, in order that Himself taking what was ours and offering it as a sacrifice, He might do away with it, and conversely might invest us with what was His, and cause the Apostle to say: `This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality.' (Letter LIX. To Epictetus) file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/BRJ/My%20Documents/CCEL/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/NPNF2122.HTM#P10024_3582909

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neo Matrix

2 Tim 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth

---

• Andrew preached in Achaia (southern Greece) and Scythia (Ukraine and southern Russia - St. Andrew is the patron saint of Russia), and was crucified at Patras in Achaia.


• John, brother of James and son of Zebedee
  According to John's Gospel (19:26-27), it was probably John who took Mary, the mother of Jesus as his adopted mother. He preached in Jerusalem, and later, as bishop of Ephesus, south of Izmir in western Turkey, worked among the churches of Asia Minor. During the reigns of either Emperor Nero (AD54-68) or Domitian (AD81-96), he was banished to the nearby island of Patmos, now one of the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea. He was subsequently freed and died a natural death at Ephesus c AD100.


• Philip preached the Gospel in Phrygia (west central Turkey) before dying or being martyred there at Hieropolis.


• The missionary work of Bartholomew is linked with Armenia (present day Armenia, eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, north western Iran) and India. Other locations include Egypt, Arabia, Ethiopia and Persia (Iran). Traditionally he met his death by being flayed or skinned alive, and then beheaded. Derbent, north of present day Baku on the Caspian Sea may have been his place of martyrdom. Alternatively he may have suffered this cruel fate in what is now India.


• Thomas may have laboured for the Gospel in Parthia (including modern Iraq and Iran), but stronger traditions link him with southern India. Indian Christians from the west coast Kerala area claim they were evangelized by Thomas, who was later speared to death near Madras on the east coast.


• Matthew, ater preaching in Judea, different traditions place his missionary work and possible martyrdom in Ethiopia or Persia.


• Jude is also confused in some sources with Jude, one of the brothers of Jesus. He may have preached in Assyria (eastern Iraq) and Persia (Iran), before joining with Simon the Zealot and being killed with him in Persia.

quote:

---

WHAT MATTERS, IN MY EYES, ISN'T HOW ITS EXPRESSED THAT IS IMPORTANT, BUT WHAT IS EXPRESSED.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

I don't get what the Athanasias quote is about. I know what Arianism is, but I don't know what it has to do with baptism. I thought his problem was the divinity of Christ. I personally think Jesus was as divine as the Father. The Arian view of baptism, infant or otherwise, is a best a footnote in the history of the Church.[/font=Book Antiqua]

---

quote:

---

32. Whence it was that, when the flesh suffered, the Word was not external to it; and therefore is the passion said to be His: and when He did divinely His Father's works, the flesh was not external to Him, but in the body itself did the Lord do them. Hence, when made man, He said, `If I do not the works of the Father, believe Me not; but if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works, that ye may know that the Father is in He and I in Him.' And thus when there was need to raise Peter's wife's mother, who was sick of a fever, He stretched forth His hand humanly, but He stopped the illness divinely. And in the case of the man blind from the birth, human was the spittle which He gave forth from the flesh, but divinely did He open the eyes through the clay. And in the case of Lazarus, He gave forth a human voice as man; but divinely, as God, did He raise Lazarus from the dead. These things were so done, were so manifested, because He had a body, not in appearance, but in truth; and it became the Lord, in putting on human flesh, to put it on whole with the affections proper to it; that, as we say that the body was His own, so also we may say that the affections of the body were proper to Him alone, though they did not touch Him according to His Godhead. If then the body had been another's, to him too had been the affections attributed; but if the flesh is theWord's (for `the Word became flesh'), of necessity then the affections also of the flesh are ascribed to Him, whose the flesh is. And to whom the affections are ascribed, such namely as to be condemned, to be scourged, to thirst, and the cross, and death, and the other infirmities of the body, of Him too is the triumph and the grace. For this cause then, consistently and fittingly such affections are ascribed not to another , but to the Lord; that the grace also may be from Him , and that we may become, not worshippers of any other, but truly devout towards God, because we invoke no originate thing, no ordinary man, but the natural and true Son from God, who has become man, yet is not the less Lord and God and Saviour.
(Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse III, 32) file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/BRJ/My%20Documents/CCEL/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/NPNF2069.HTM#P6491_2577885

---

quote:

---

6. And this above all shews the foolishness of those who say that the Word was changed into bones and flesh. For if this had been so, there were no need of a tomb. For the Body would have gone by itself to preach to the spirits in Hades. But as it was, He Himself went to preach, while the Body Joseph wrapped in a linen cloth, and laid it away at Golgotha20 . And so it is shewn to all that the Body was not the Word, but Body of the Word. And it was this that Thomas handled when it had risen from the dead, and saw in it the print of the nails, which the Word Himself had undergone, seeing them fixed in His own Body, and though able to prevent it, did not do so. On the contrary, the incorporeal Word made His own the properties of the Body, as being His own Body. Why, when the Body was struck by the attendant, as suffering Himself He asked, `Why smitest thou Me ?' And being by nature intangible, the Word yet said, `I gave My back to the stripes, and My cheeks to blows, and hid not My face from shame and spitting.' For what the human Body of the Word suffered, this the Word, dwelling in the body, ascribed to Himself, in order that we might be enabled to be partakers of the Godhead of the Word. And verily it is strange that He it was Who suffered and yet suffered not. Suffered, because His own Body suffered, and He was in it, which thus suffered; suffered not, because the Word, being by Nature God, is impassible. And while He, the incorporeal, was in the passible Body, the Body had in it the impassible Word, which was destroying the infirmities inherent in the Body. But this He did, and so it was, in order that Himself taking what was ours and offering it as a sacrifice, He might do away with it, and conversely might invest us with what was His, and cause the Apostle to say: `This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality.' (Letter LIX. To Epictetus) file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/BRJ/My%20Documents/CCEL/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/NPNF2122.HTM#P10024_3582909

---

quote:

---

Therefore, my bretheren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

---

"...this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me."

quote:

---

To the language of baptism, Gregory of Nyssa adds the analogy of the Kingdom. The Only-begotten is the King. This, Nyssen says, no one will deny. What is the unction of the King? It is the Spirit. (Nyssen 321) "For the Son is King, and His living, realized, and personified Kingship is found in the Holy Spirit, he anoints the Only-begotten, and so makes him the Anointed, and the King of all things that exist" (321). Gregory continues with an analogy closely linked to baptism, the Chrism:

quote:

---

For as between the body's surface and the liquid of the oil nothing intervening can be detected, either in reason or in perception, so inseparable is the union of the Spirit with the Son; and the result is that whosoever is to touch the Son by faith must needs first encounter the oil in the very act of touching; there is not a part of Him devoid of Holy Spirit. (321)

---

Thus, through doxological language (baptism and chrism), Gregory of Nyssa concurs with Gregory of Nazianzus that the Holy Spirit is co-equal with the Father and the Son.

Basil, too, uses the concept of baptism to put forth a doctrine of the Holy Spirit. He writes:

quote:

---

Whence it is that we are Christians? Through our faith, would be the universal answer. And in what way are we saved? Plainly because we were regenerate through the grace given in our baptism. How else could we be? And after recognizing that this salvation is established through the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, shall we fling away "that form of doctrine" which we received? …But for myself, I pray that with this confession I may depart hence to the Lord, and them I charge to preserve the faith secure until the day of Christ, and to keep the Spirit undivided from the Father and the Son, preserving, both in the confession of faith and in the doxology, the doctrine taught them at their baptism. (17 emphasis mine)

---

Using baptism as a type, Basil continues:

quote:

---

So before beginning the second (life), it is necessary to put an end to the first. …How then do we achieve the descent into hell? By imitating, through baptism, the burial of Christ. …For there the death on behalf of the world is one, and one the resurrection of the dead, whereof baptism is a type. …the water receiving the body as in a tomb figures death, while the Spirit pours in the quickening power, renewing our souls from the deadness of sin unto their original life. (21-22)

---

For Basil, baptism typologically displayed the doctrine of the Trinity. One is baptized by three immersions, each displaying typologically first the Father, then the Son, and then the Holy Spirit. Baptism in the name of the Son is a type of death. Baptism in the name of the Holy Spirit is a type of illumination. This illumination is not brought about by the water but by the Spirit. The water used is only a type.

By using the "language of doxology," baptism is a fitting example of the principle lex orandi lex credendi. "'As we were baptized,' Basil summarized the orthodox axiom, 'so we profess our faith; and as we profess our faith, so also we offer our praise" (Pelikan 300). The most appropriate speech concerning the deity is not the language of dogma but rather "the language of doxology and worship" (Pelikan 300).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

Not that I'm eager to get involved in this debate on top of everything else...

Paul and the apostles did have disagreement about gentile joining the church. But those differences were resolved. Basically they agreed with Paul. The Judaizers in Galatians were not the apostles. Gal. 2:9. Those who have "bewitched" the Galatians are the Juaizers who continued after the apostles had changed their minds. Paul used Peter as evidence that the gospel is meant for the gentiles too. Peter was being a hypocrite. He ate with gentiles when there were no Jews looking, but when the Jews were around, he was "aloof" in order to keep the Jewish Christians happy.

I really haven't been following this part of the discussion very carefully, so maybe this has already been said. It's spelled out pretty clearly in Galatians 2. Acts 15 too. Peter supports preaching the gospel to gentiles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

Neo Matrix: Also if Paul was preaching the same gosple why didnt the 12 go to the gentiles as well?

: Peter did.

Neo Matrix: Gal. 2:9 "...and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."

: And from a positive statement that Paul and Barnabas went (barnabas ditched) You ASSUME that no one else went. That's like saying that the Cubs won last week meaning that it was their only victory all season.

You have been proof-texting too long; its affected your thinking.


www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN500APOSTLES%20FATE.htm

• Andrew preached in Achaia (southern Greece) and Scythia (Ukraine and southern Russia - St. Andrew is the patron saint of Russia), and was crucified at Patras in Achaia.


• John, brother of James and son of Zebedee
  According to John's Gospel (19:26-27), it was probably John who took Mary, the mother of Jesus as his adopted mother. He preached in Jerusalem, and later, as bishop of Ephesus, south of Izmir in western Turkey, worked among the churches of Asia Minor. During the reigns of either Emperor Nero (AD54-68) or Domitian (AD81-96), he was banished to the nearby island of Patmos, now one of the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea. He was subsequently freed and died a natural death at Ephesus c AD100.


• Philip preached the Gospel in Phrygia (west central Turkey) before dying or being martyred there at Hieropolis.


• The missionary work of Bartholomew is linked with Armenia (present day Armenia, eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, north western Iran) and India. Other locations include Egypt, Arabia, Ethiopia and Persia (Iran). Traditionally he met his death by being flayed or skinned alive, and then beheaded. Derbent, north of present day Baku on the Caspian Sea may have been his place of martyrdom. Alternatively he may have suffered this cruel fate in what is now India.


• Thomas may have laboured for the Gospel in Parthia (including modern Iraq and Iran), but stronger traditions link him with southern India. Indian Christians from the west coast Kerala area claim they were evangelized by Thomas, who was later speared to death near Madras on the east coast.


• Matthew, ater preaching in Judea, different traditions place his missionary work and possible martyrdom in Ethiopia or Persia.


• Jude is also confused in some sources with Jude, one of the brothers of Jesus. He may have preached in Assyria (eastern Iraq) and Persia (Iran), before joining with Simon the Zealot and being killed with him in Persia.

---

quote:

---

However the verse above (Gal. 2:9) is very clear that James, Cephas (Peter), and John, went to the circumcised believing Jews not Gentiles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neo Matrix

They didnt agree long as when Paul went back there was still a problem. Acts 21:20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. Apperantly it was still a problem with them as even the Christian Jews were still under the Law and the Circumcision and water baptism. Unlike the Gentiles who was never under the Law or under the circumcision. When Peter when to the first Gentile as God was showing Peter he was now going to the gentiles in Acts 10 they were baptized by the Holy Spirit before they was water baptized. Peter water baptized them because thats what he had been taught.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

Sahid: "If you have a sinless person in a corrupted body, all you have to do is give them an imperishable body. That doesn't require second or third party sacrifice, just the death of the old body and a God who knows how to make stuff."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

I'm not jumping around to differnet atonement theories. I'm saying you don't have to atone for what is not sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

What about a child needs to be "nailed to the cross"? Their perishable bodies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

Why would a sacrifice be required to make them new? All the salvation stuff you said and quoted I agree with (I think).

---