Results 61 - 78 of 78
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184050 | ||
Hi, The Bible speaks of the Spirit as 'the Spirit of YHWH' (e.g. Judges 6.34 and often), YHWH revealed through His Spirit. And that is why Matthew 28.19 speaks of him under the umbrella heading of 'the Name'. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
62 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184066 | ||
Hi In 1 Corinthians 2.11 we read 'for what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of man which is within him, so also no one comprehends the thoughts of God but the Spirit of God' and we could add 'no one comprehends the thoughts of YHWH like the Spirit of YHWH'. We can agree that the parallel is not exact. A man's spirit does not have a separate personality like the Spirit of God has in relation to Father and Son, but the point is clear, there is a unity of being that is so close that all the thoughts of one are known to the other. Thus the spirit of a man is the man, the Spirit of God is God, and The Spirit of YHWH is YHWH while carefully noting the distinction mentioned above. However if you cannot agree it would probably be best if we agree to differ unless you have different questions that arise in your mind. Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
63 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184076 | ||
Hi If you are not prepared to see that the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of the Lord and the Spirit of God are one and the same then I will not be able to help you without writing a book on the subject. I would however point out that Paul refers to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of God in Romans 8.9-17. You seem awfully keen to prove that the Bible disagrees. But if you wish to do that fairly then you have to read the Bible on its terms not on yours, and not lay down your own conditions. Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
64 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184085 | ||
Hi further to my previous note the Spirit of God is said to be the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12.3, and in Ephesians 4.30 He is called 'the Holy Spirit of God' combining the two titles. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
65 | Same supper as John 12? | Luke 10:38 | jonp | 184364 | ||
Hi Jeff Thanks for your kind comments. However while as you rightly say John picks out what Judas said, and his motive, Matthew 26.8 brings out that a number of 'disciples' were involved in criticising her. Compare also Mark 14.5, 'they' reproached her. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
66 | The Passover Celebration | John 6:53 | jonp | 184035 | ||
Hi Searcher You will note from John 5.18 that these latest hearers were the same men who were plotting to kill him. They were men of blood. They carried death in their hearts. This explains the change that now takes place in Jesus’ tone and the change in His illustration. Their presence had brought home to Him what lay before Him. From now on He would not talk of ‘the bread of life’, the life-giving bread, but would use the Old Testament simile of ‘eating flesh’ and ‘drinking blood’, which meant killing someone, or benefiting by their death. It would still give life, for finally that life would be made available through His death. In order to fully appreciate this we need an awareness of vivid Jewish imagery. In the Old Testament the Psalmist spoke of those who ‘eat up my people like they eat bread’ (Psalm 14.4; 53.4), and Micah describes the unjust rulers of Israel as ‘those who hate the good and love the evil --- who eat the flesh of my people’ (Micah 3.3). Thus ‘eating flesh’ or ‘eating people’ signified killing them or doing them great harm. In Zechariah 9.15 the LXX speaks of the fact that the victorious people of God ‘will drink their blood like wine’ signifying a triumphant victory and the slaughter of their enemies, and David used a similar picture when three of his followers had risked their lives to fetch him water. He poured it out on the ground as an offering to God and said, ‘shall I drink the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives?’. Isaiah brought both metaphors together when he said of the enemies of Israel that God would ‘make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine’ (Isaiah 49.26), signifying that they would destroy themselves. Thus in Hebrew thought drinking a person’s blood meant killing someone or benefiting by their death. This can be paralleled elsewhere in the New Testament for in Matthew’s Gospel the people said of their 'fathers' that they were 'partakers in the blood of the prophets’ (Matthew 23.30), because they contributed to their deaths. Thus when Jesus spoke of ‘eating my flesh and drinking my blood’ He was using easily recognised metaphors. Initially Jesus signalled the change in tone in His words by saying ‘The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh’. This had more sinister overtones than what had gone before. His flesh must be given for the life of the world. Previously the eating had been by coming to Him and believing in Him. Now the thought entered that it must be eaten through His death. We could paraphrase what follows like this - ‘you are plotting to kill Me (to eat my flesh and drink My blood). Well, let Me tell you this. It is necessary for Me so to die so that this offer of life might be provided. Paradoxically, unless you do put Me to death (eat my flesh and drink my blood), the life will not be available. But as a result of the death you are plotting for Me, men will be able to partake of the benefit of My death by believing in Me and finding life through it.’ This is not a message He had been preaching to the crowds. They would not have understood. But now He has been forced into going public, for He is facing those who are after His blood, and He will declare it. These men were planning to kill Him, to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Well, they will be permitted to do so. His death was necessary for men to benefit from His life. Indeed if life was to be made available it was necessary for them to put Him to death, to “eat His flesh and drink His blood”. And paradoxically the result would be that they could then, if they came to believe, partake of the benefits of His death by receiving life. Indeed all who would come to Him must recognise that they were responsible for His death and must partake in that death and the benefits that spring from it. The innocent listeners would be puzzled, but the plotters would be fully aware of at least part of the import of His words. They knew what their own sinister intentions were. They knew what they were plotting. They knew that they were ‘after His blood’. And so did He. Yet still He was offering them life. He would not give up on them. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
67 | John 10.3The sheep hears his voice | John 10:3 | jonp | 184041 | ||
Hi Sometimes the writer wanted to say 'The Lord YHWH' (adonai YHWH). That is then translated as 'the Lord GOD' (e.g. Isaiah 50.4, 5, 7, 9). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
68 | word saved definition in Romans 10:9 | Rom 10:9 | jonp | 184305 | ||
You said that you would like to know more about ‘salvation’, so here goes. Salvation is both the act by which Jesus Christ accepts those who come to Him through the cross, accepting them on the basis of His sacrifice for them when they come to Him in faith for salvation, and the resulting process through which He works in that person in order that He may present them perfect in Himself. That is why the Bible teaches different aspects of 'salvation'. It speaks of someone as ‘having been saved’ (Titus 3.5; 2 Timothy 1.9). These verse are in the aorist tense, and indicate something that has happened once for all. This occurs when a person turns to God from sin and commits himself to Jesus Christ in faith that Christ will save him. He is ‘saved’ once for all. And because the work is totally dependent on Christ it is guaranteed. It also speaks of those who ‘have been saved and are therefore now are saved’ (Ephesians 2.5; 2.8). These are in the perfect tense and and indicate something that has happened in the past the benefit of which continues to the present time. These two definitions are what is in mind when we say a person has been ‘saved’ and is therefore now saved. But the Bible also speaks of those who “are being saved” (1 Corinthians 1.18; 2 Corinthians 2.15). These references are in the present tense and indicate a process that is going on. God is at work in them to will and do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2.13). And then the Bible speaks of those who will be saved (1 Corinthians 3.15; 5.5; 2 Corinthians 7.10; 1 Thessalonians 5.9; 2 Thessalonians 2.13 ). These are in the future tense and indicate something that is yet to happen - and equivalents. In other words, when God ‘saves’ someone they are from one point of view saved once and for all, and it is fully effective. But if it is genuine it will then result in a process by which they are being ‘changed from glory into glory’(2 Corinthians 3.18), with the final guarantee of a completed process. If the salvation is not progressing, even though slowly, then its genuineness must be questioned. The Saviour does not fail in His work. Consider a man drowning at sea, in a fierce storm, clinging to a life raft with one hand, his other arm broken and trailing behind, and both his legs paralysed, having been many hours in the freezing water and suffering from hypothermia, more dead than alive. Then along comes the life boat and drags him out and he gasps, hardly able to speak because of the seriousness of his condition, “I am saved”. Well, it is true. He is no longer doomed. But he has a long way to go. He would not have much confidence in his salvation if they put him to one side in the bow of the boat, with the waves lashing over him, and said to him, “Well, you’re saved now”, and then went off and played cards and then practised turning the lifeboat over. His confidence and dependence lie in a fully trained and capable crew who are dedicated to warming him up, treating him and getting him to hospital so that he can be fully restored. So as they get to work on him, wrapping him in a blanket and gently warming his frozen limbs, trying to set his broken arm and doing everything else necessary to restore him to some kind of normality, he can begin to have hope and think gratefully to himself, “I am being saved”. But he may well still be aware of the winds howling round, and the boat heaving in the heavy seas, and the pain and agony of his limbs, and he may then look forward and think, “I will soon be saved”. If those crewmen, and the ambulance waiting for him on shore on that terrible night, can be so dedicated, can we think that the One Who died on a cross for us on an even more terrible night, will be less dedicated? He does not just want us in the lifeboat. He wants us fully restored. And that is what He is determined to have. And if we want to be saved that is what we must want! We cannot say, ‘Lord, save me, but leave me as I am’. This salvation is entered into by an act of faith and commitment. As we genuinely recognise our need to be saved (in every way) from sin we commit ourselves completely to the One Who Saves (the Saviour), and trust Him to carry out the work, knowing that once He has begun the good work He will carry it out to the end (Philippians 1.6). We are then ‘saved’, and have entered the process of ‘being saved’. |
||||||
69 | When does one receive the Holy Spirit? | 2 Cor 1:22 | jonp | 183840 | ||
Hi The seal of the Spirit is the evidence that a person is a Christian. But that does not mean that I can judge whether another is a Christian. 'There is One that judges'. It is not for me to decide whether a person has received the Holy Spirit. Some give a very good appearance of having received the Holy Spirit and the fall away. Others seem almost untouched, but the seed is growing secretly, and gradually it flowers. Such final judgments must be left to God. The point about the seal is that it is the guarantee until the day of redemption (Ephesians 4.30) when the Buyer comes to claim His own. Salvation is through faith alone. Nothing else is required. But the faith must be genuine. Intellectual belief is not enough. There must be a genuine response of the heart. For if the Holy Spirit has been at work that will inevitably follow. Remember the people in John 2.23-24. They 'believed', but Jesus did not trust Himself to them because He knew their hearts. Literally 'He did not believe Himself unto them'. That is what saving faith is, it is 'believing yourself unto Christ' so that He might believe Himself unto you. This is often expressed in the Greek by using 'believe unto (pisteuo eis) rather than 'believe in' (pisteuo en) although the distinction does not hold in every case. For in the end Jesus did not say 'by their faith you shall know them'. He said 'by their fruits you shall know them'. For once the Holy Spirit has been received, the fruit of the Spirit must eventually result (Galatians 5.22). You will find some 'at length' articles on the Holy Spirit at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4027/. You are of course right that some continue to live just on a verse here and a verse there. That is fine for the young Christian. But the mature Christian should be seeing the word of God together as a whole. They should be eating solid meat, not just milk (Hebrews 5.12-14; 1 Corinthians 3.1-3). And that involves 'hard work'. That is why godly men write commentaries in order to pass on the fruits of their own studies. See http://www.geocities.com/petepartington/ for some free up to date Bible commentaries Best wishes jonp | ||||||
70 | When does one receive the Holy Spirit? | 2 Cor 1:22 | jonp | 183870 | ||
Dear Doc. As I was replying to a question put to me about the seal of the Spirit that was what I was emphasising. While the fruit of the Spirit is certainly the result of the Spirit's indwelling it is not in my view directly what the seal of the Spirit has in mind. The seal of the Spirit has in mind security and confidence resulting from Christs work within. I could not agree more that this must result in genuine fruit, as in fact I did mention. But I am conscious also that that fruit often takes time to grow. First the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear (Mark 4.28). As I am sure you are fully aware it may take time for a person's conversion to become obvious to others. The 'old man' does not release his hold willingly. And some have problems to battle with of which others are unaware. I am reminded of the poem - Judge not. The workings of His mind and of his heart you cannot see. What seems to your dull eyes a stain In God's pure eyes may only be A scar won on some battle field Where you would only faint and yield. That look, that air, that frets your sight May be a token that below That soul is closed in deadly fight With some infernal, fiery foe Whose look would scorch your smiling grace And send you shuddering on your face. As you would no doubt rightly point out. Jesus said, 'Why do you call Me "Lord, Lord" and do not do the things that I say?' (Luke 6.46). 'Not everyone who says to Me "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingly Rule of Heaven, but those who do the will of My Father Who is in Heaven' (Matthew 7.21). This too is the RESULT of the seal of the Spirit in the heart. But in my view the seal of the Spirit is first given in the inner heart. 'The firm foundation of God stands sure, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His' although of course it is immediately followed by 'Let every one who names the Name of the Lord depart from iniquity' (2 Timothy 2.19). But even that is initially an awareness of what must be, rather than it immediately having become an actuality in practise (although of course eventually it must be). It is the anointing within that will lead us into truth (1 John 2.20, 27). I am ever aware that the young Christian can begin to feel that he is just not coming up to scratch. He begins to fear that perhaps he has not been 'saved' after all. Thus he needs to be aware of the seal within him that can give him assurance. 'Though I am not what I should be, I thank God that I am not what I was, for I now know that I have Christ within me, and I therefore know what I should be, and that is what I intend to be'. It is God Who will work within him of His good pleasure (Philippians 2.13). I am sure you will have noted my later stress on the fact that it is 'by their fruits that they will be known'. But those fruits are the sign to men, not the divine seal. I am not quite sure how you gathered from my words that I did not think it was possible to discern the effects of salvation. Eventually it inevitably is, and I thought that I had made that quite clear. But what I stressed was that we are not qualified to judge the genuineness of those effects. We are not infallible judges. In the end we must leave that to the One Who judges rightly (Romans 14.10-13). You may add to your quotes the words of George Whitefield, 'I care not a jot for that man's religion whose very dog and cat are not the better for it'. But it may take time for it to be worked out. Best wishes Jon |
||||||
71 | what does ephesians 4:9 mean-"descended" | Eph 4:9 | jonp | 184090 | ||
Hi I expect that PDAL has in mind such Scriptures as 'If a man love Me he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him' (John 14.23). And 'behold I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and He with me' (Revelation 3.20). Or 'that according to the riches of His glory He may grant you to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith' (Ephesians 3.16-17). The heart is of course indicative of the inner being. If we are to be truly saved each of us has to have Christ within us and living through our inner being (compare Galatians 2.20). Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
72 | philippians 3 | Phil 3:10 | jonp | 184038 | ||
Hi I do not really want to argue over words but the value of something depends on how it is seen. Paul had certainly put great value on his keeping of the Law. It had been his life for years. It was the most important thing in his life. So moving from that to become a Christian would certainly have been a sacrfice for him at the time and his compatriots would definitely have seen it in that way. Of course later he recognised that it was no sacrifice at all. So in that sense I agree with you :-))) Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
73 | I can use Galatians 4:16 as a support. | 1 Tim 5:19 | jonp | 184484 | ||
Hi Thank you for your note. I had read you original question as signifying that you had problems with the leadership of your church as a whole. Later notes have revealed that you had one particular person in mind whose life was inconsistent with his profession of the Gospel. That is clearly a very different issue, and I actually agree with what you say :-))). Your course in that case would be to follow Jesus' instructions in Matthew 18.15-17, keeping in mind 1 Timothy 6.17-20. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
74 | Why is the Catholic bible different? | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183701 | ||
Martin Luther was a linguist but he was not a critical scholar as far as the canon was concerned. His 'decisions' were based purely on personal opinion. I am not criticising Luther as a person, just his approach to the canon. His achievements speak for themselves but his views about the canon were atrocious. | ||||||
75 | Why is the Catholic bible different? | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183738 | ||
When I originally commented in a brief note in reply to someone’s concern about what Martin Luther had said about certain books of the Bible that his ‘popular’ views on the canon were not reliable because they were spoken as a preacher and teacher and not as a scholar I had in mind the statements that he made that were well publicised, not his lifeteaching as a whole. I was dealing with a particular viewpoint. Unfortunately for Martin Luther he is remembered popularly for the controversial things that he said and not for the good ones (a misfortune for most famous people. Few are interested in the good things that they said). Examples include, “In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.” This is then cited popularly as that he called it ‘a right strawy epistle”. Then again he later said, “…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.” Concerning the Book of Revelation he said, “About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment,” and again, “let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him.” The impression given (which I have elsewhere called ‘atrocious’ evangelically speaking) is that people can treat the Scriptures as something which can be accepted or otherwise depending on how their own spirit leads them. Of Esther he says, Esther…which despite their [the Jews] inclusion of it in the canon deserves more than all the rest in my judgment to be regarded as noncanonical.” Later, of course he dropped these statements from his translations of the Scriptures and he did include all the books in his Bible translations as Biblical books, in contrast with the Apocrypha of which he said that they were, “books not to be regarded as equal to Holy Writ, but which are useful and good to read”. But the damage was done and Martin Luther gained the popular image of a man who did not treat the whole canon of Scripture on a par. No doubt Martin Luther on the whole wished that he had never said these things, but unfortunately for him he did and it is these statements for which he is popularly remembered. I hold Martin Luther in the highest regard (what true evangelical would not). Beside him we are all pinpricks. But we still have to admit that he made mistakes which have unfortunately been perpetuated and have caused many people problems, and that such statements are best disregarded. |
||||||
76 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183908 | ||
Hi you claim that you received salvation at baptism. It is clearly a different salvation than the one PAUL speaks of, for he said, 'Christ did not send me to baptise but to preach the Gospel' (1 Corinthians 1.17). I thank God that I did not baptise anyone except --' (1 Corinthians 1.14). Then He goes on to point out that it is the word of the cross that is the power of God unto salvation. John 3.5 does not mention baptism. That is simply an inference. The reference to water rather has in mind the picture of the coming of the Holy Spirit as rain in Isaiah 32.15; 44.1-4. How can you be assured of eternal life if you can lose it? Eternal life in in fact received by hearing Jesus Christ and truly believing in God through Him (John 5.24). All who have truly received Christ have eternal life (1 John 5.13). Matthew 19.16-17 was spoken to a young man who did not have eternal life and refers to the attitude of heart that he must have in order to enter into it by following Christ. You might better have quoted Matthew 22.34-38. But if that is a requirement for salvation it leaves us all without hope. It is rather an indicating of what the saved should be aiming at. You rightly point out that salvation can be applied in different tenses. But one does not invalidate the other. If I have been saved from stormy seas and am in the lifeboat I have been saved, I am being saved (it has not yet reached the shore), I will be saved (when it reaches harbour). But it does not make my salvation less secure. Notice that it speaks of 'having been saved'. That indicates that the saving is carried out by Someone else, the Saviour. Now a life boat might sink, but the Saviour cannot sink. And if the Saviour has saved me (the aorist indicates once for all) then nothing can prevent that salvation. It is not dependent on me but on the Saviour. Of course the process of salvation goes on and must be revealed in a changed life, but that is the result of my having been saved, not a condition of it. True I have to 'work out' my salvation with greatest care, but in that I am responding to the fact that God is at work in me to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2.12-13). HIS WORK of salvation is proceeding according to plan. Nevertheless the foundation of God stands sure. The Lord knows those who are His. And my being confirmed to the end depends solely on the faithfulness of God (1 Corinthians 1.8-9), He is the One Who saves to the uttermost because it is through His intercession not my weak struggling (Hebrews 7.25). He Who has begun a good work in me will bring it to completion in the day of Jesus Christ (Philippians 2.6). Jesus Christ is my Saviour not my crutch. Best wishes jonp |
||||||
77 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183910 | ||
Rehi stjames7 At least we can agree on the fact that salvation is offered as a free gift which cannot be earned by merit, and that no one is forced to accept that gift. But what is equally important is how that gift is obtained. You follow your church's belief that it is mainly obtained through the sacraments. But that is not what the verses you have cited say. Jesus' words to Nicodemus were to Nicodemus, and they were spoken before Christian baptism existed. They cannot therefore refer to Christian baptism. They could just possibly include a reference to John's baptism, but it is not really likely that Jesus was saying to Nicodemus 'you must be born of John's baptism' Rather as I mentioned previously His words have in mind the many promises in the prophets that speak of the Holy Spirit coming like rain and like water from Heaven (Isaiah 32.15; 44.1-5). Thus His point is that he can be born from above throughthe Holy Spirit. But how does John see this as happening. He explains it in chapter 1.12-13. 'To as many as received Him to them gave He the right to become children of God, even those who believe in His Name --- who are born of God. He illustrates it in John 4 where the woman is to drink of spiritual water be listening to His words and as a result receiving the Holy Spirit to be like a spring within her heart. There too water is mentioned but there is no conception of baptism. It is true that baptism illustrates these experiences but it is never said to bring them about. You cite "Amen, Amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." And that is good. But I do not see there any reference to a sacrament. These words were spoken in front of His disciples to the antagonistic Jews long before there was any thought of the Lord's Table, or as you would call it Holy Communion or Mass. They could not possibly have been expected to see that He was speaking of a sacrament. But Jesus wanted them to understand His words. In fact He was taking well known figures of speech from the Old Testament where 'eating flesh' and 'drinking blood' first of all meant killing people, and then receiving benefit from their death. Thus Jesus was making clear to them in a very vivid way that if they were to find life it must first of all result from their putting Him to death. He was describing the inevitability of His sufferings knowing that they were already plotting His death. But He then brings out from that that by eating and drinking of Him (something that He has already explained the meaning of in verse 35) they can find life through Him. And what does eating and drinking mean? It means coming to Him and believing on Him. So you see if we take these verses in contex they have no reference to the sacraments at all, although we will all agree that the sacraments illustrate them well. Best wishes. jonp. |
||||||
78 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183936 | ||
Hi stjames7 First may I assure you that I have read the Roman Catholic catechism and have studied the early fathers in depth. Ignatius of Antioch was a godly man and a martyr, but he was hardly a competent theologian. The others you mention came 300 years after Christ and more. Do you really consider that as near to the events? Do you consider yourslf as near to the American War of Independence and therefore able to comment on it with special authority? I do trust in the church that Jesus founded on the Rock. But did you know that of the early fathers that you want me to take notice of 44 said that the rock was the words that Peter had spoken, 17 said that it was Christ Himself, and only 18 said that it was Peter. So listening to the early fathers and taking their majority vote I would have to reject your suggestion that Peter was the rock. And please note that that is on your terms not on mine. In fact the authority of the majority of the books of the New Testament was generally agreed among the churches long before there was a Roman Catholic church. And it was done by the consensus of churches around the world (most of whom did not own allegiance to Rome), not by one church, in the second century AD. Now they were near to the event for men wers still alive who had known the Apostles, and they knew where the Gospels and letters came from. The first in fact to authorise our present canon was the Bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius. And it was confirmed at the Council of Hippo. Thus the Eastern church were the first to confirm it. The Roman church followed their lead. With cordial best wishes jonp | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] |