John 3:18
- Thread starter Snacks
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I am not questioning the key points of belief regarding the gospel of Christ, you're totally right about that. Rather I am focusing on when He became God's "only begotten" Son exactly. I think your perspectives are correct and Biblical, but there's more to it.
There's the sense that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God in terms of His physical live birth by Mary:
John 1:14
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Then there's the sense that Jesus as God's only begotten Son existed prior to being born as a human:
1 John 4:9
9In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
Then there's the sense that you're talking about, where Jesus is a Son of the resurrection:
Romans 1:4
4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
I might note that Jesus was still God's only begotten Son regardless of whether anyone knew it or believed it, but His resurrection from the dead was what showed this or demonstrated this.
Final thought, Jesus had divine power and authority before His resurrection and, of course, He received this command from His Father:
John 10:17,18
17Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Jesus' divinity was sure, intact, and very real before His resurrection though the resurection played a key role in proving this to the world. Though those who don't believe or are unaware of this don't alter the fact He has always been God's only begotten Son.
There's the sense that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God in terms of His physical live birth by Mary:
John 1:14
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Then there's the sense that Jesus as God's only begotten Son existed prior to being born as a human:
1 John 4:9
9In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
Then there's the sense that you're talking about, where Jesus is a Son of the resurrection:
Romans 1:4
4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
I might note that Jesus was still God's only begotten Son regardless of whether anyone knew it or believed it, but His resurrection from the dead was what showed this or demonstrated this.
Final thought, Jesus had divine power and authority before His resurrection and, of course, He received this command from His Father:
John 10:17,18
17Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Jesus' divinity was sure, intact, and very real before His resurrection though the resurection played a key role in proving this to the world. Though those who don't believe or are unaware of this don't alter the fact He has always been God's only begotten Son.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Time ran out to edit my previous comment before I began having more thoughts, (seems to happen a lot) but I'll keep it short. The pre-existence of Jesus is a great study. Here's one verse, but there are more.
John 17:5
5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
John 17:5
5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
-
1
- Show all
P
I am old school and so as Rose Ann Rosanna Danna would say, 'It's always somethin'' It is nice to see in these comments that there is a true search for veracity. I had been solely relying on tv and internet preachers and reading commentaries via Bible Hub for approximately 4 years in trying to determine what God is telling us in His 'Word' and somehow I was directed to this chat site some time in August. Now I never know how to say things just right and so I see I am not alone in that regard when I read the posts on this chat site. Hallelujah!!!! However, some of the arguments here are as confusing as the Bible commentators. It's not building an ark exhausting doing this search for veracity. More like rocket science exhausting. I was looking in to the exchange between Jesus and the 'grammateus' concerning (the 'prote' commandment). Jesus used the word 'dianoias' for mind and the scribe in reply used the word 'syneseos' for understanding. Jesus says the scribe answered 'nounechos', discretely. Given here in English are the words of the KJV, Authorized Version, as some call it. Now it seems to me the exact words used in translation to any language from the available 'original' writings is not that significant. i.e. It is the message of the verses that is important. If you bother to read the entire exchange it seems the scribe was rather patronizing, “Well, Master, thou hast said the truth.” Jesus reply is gracious to even us antagonists.
Definition of veracity
1 : conformity with truth or fact : accuracy. 2 : devotion to the truth : truthfulness. 3 : power of conveying or perceiving truth. 4 : something true makes lies sound like veracitie
Definition of veracity
1 : conformity with truth or fact : accuracy. 2 : devotion to the truth : truthfulness. 3 : power of conveying or perceiving truth. 4 : something true makes lies sound like veracitie
-
2
- Show all
I'm sincerely glad to hear that.
I am likewise doing the same.
There isn't more to it, with the "it" specifically referring to when Jesus was actually "begotten", and I'll prove the same momentarily by addressing your claims and the scriptures that you cited in attempts to prove or substantiate your claims.
In reality, there's no such sense, and if you'll seriously consider what I'm about to say, then you'll easily and clearly see this for yourself.
The Apostle John penned these words, right?
Well, ask yourself the following question:
When did the Apostle John "behold his glory" or, more specifically, "the glory as of the only begotten of the Father"?
I mean, John was obviously talking about something that he "beheld" during Christ's incarnation, BUT did John see Christ's "glory as of the only begotten of the Father" pre-resurrection or post-resurrection?
The correct answer is post-resurrection, and we can know this of a certainty by simply reading the words of Jesus that this same Apostle John penned later on in this same gospel.
I'm referring to the following:
John chapter 17
[1] These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
[2] As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
[3] And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
[4] I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
[5] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
It wasn't until Jesus was crucified, buried, and RISEN FROM THE DEAD that the Father "glorified his Son" or glorified Jesus "with the glory that he had with the Father before the world was".
THIS is "the glory as of the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14) that John "beheld", and he "beheld" it POST-RESURRECTION or after Jesus had been "begotten" or raised from the dead.
Unlike the vast majority of professing Christians today, the Apostle John fully understood what Jesus being "begotten" actually meant.
He did, after all, later on pen the following:
Revelation chapter 1
[4] John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
[5] And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
[6] And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Again, the Apostle John fully understood that Jesus truly is "the only begotten Son of God" or "the first begotten of the dead" in that Jesus Christ is the only person to have ever been raised from the dead who has already received his glorified body. The rest of us have this hope, but Jesus truly is "the only begotten Son of God" or "the first begotten of the dead" even as I type.
Again, in reality, there's simply no such sense.
Remember, John is writing POST-RESURRECTION. With such being the case, he's simply saying "that we might live through him", with the "him" being Jesus, because he is God's "only begotten Son" or the only person to have ever been raised from the dead who has already received his glorified body. As I've said before, there is NO SALVATION offered to anybody apart from Christ's resurrection from the dead and our belief in the same.
Perhaps this will help you to better understand what John was actually saying here.
Turning back to the gospel of this same Apostle John which had previously been penned, John said the following:
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (John 1:18)
Again, in his gospel, John was writing POST-RESURRECTION.
With this reality in mind, how did "the only begotten Son" wind up "in the bosom of the Father"?
Well, I believe that Moses gave us the correct answer to this question.
Please consider the following:
Exodus chapter 4
[1] And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee.
[2] And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod.
[3] And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it.
[4] And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand:
[5] That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.
[6] And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.
[7] And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh.
[8] And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign.
The LORD gave signs to Moses by which he was to convince the children of Israel that he had actually sent Moses unto them, and these signs pointed directly to Jesus Christ.
In relation to the first sign, Jesus is the rod who was cast down to the ground or to this earth in that he left heaven to come to this earth. While here, figuratively speaking, he became a serpent, similar to the serpent on the pole that Moses was instructed to make, in that he became sin for us or took upon himself all of the sins that we had committed while in league with "that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan" (Rev. 12:9, 20:2). Ultimately, he was picked back up, or resurrected from the dead, and he returned to his former state before being cast down to the ground.
The same exact principle applies in the second sign that the LORD gave to Moses. In other words, in the same manner that Moses placed his hand in his bosom, Jesus was initially in the bosom of the Father. Similarly, when Moses removed his hand from his bosom and it became leprous, when Jesus left the Father's bosom to come to this earth, he, figuratively speaking, became leprous by taking all of our sins upon himself. Finally, when Moses' hand was again returned to his bosom, it returned to its former state, and Christ similarly did the same when he returned to the Father's bosom AFTER HE WAS BEGOTTEN OR AFTER HE WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD.
Again, my point is that John fully understood what it meant that Jesus was "begotten", and it had nothing to do with either his earthly birth or with something that allegedly took place prior to Christ's incarnation.
I'm sorry, but that's all that I probably have time for today.
I am likewise doing the same.
There isn't more to it, with the "it" specifically referring to when Jesus was actually "begotten", and I'll prove the same momentarily by addressing your claims and the scriptures that you cited in attempts to prove or substantiate your claims.
In reality, there's no such sense, and if you'll seriously consider what I'm about to say, then you'll easily and clearly see this for yourself.
The Apostle John penned these words, right?
Well, ask yourself the following question:
When did the Apostle John "behold his glory" or, more specifically, "the glory as of the only begotten of the Father"?
I mean, John was obviously talking about something that he "beheld" during Christ's incarnation, BUT did John see Christ's "glory as of the only begotten of the Father" pre-resurrection or post-resurrection?
The correct answer is post-resurrection, and we can know this of a certainty by simply reading the words of Jesus that this same Apostle John penned later on in this same gospel.
I'm referring to the following:
John chapter 17
[1] These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
[2] As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
[3] And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
[4] I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
[5] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
It wasn't until Jesus was crucified, buried, and RISEN FROM THE DEAD that the Father "glorified his Son" or glorified Jesus "with the glory that he had with the Father before the world was".
THIS is "the glory as of the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14) that John "beheld", and he "beheld" it POST-RESURRECTION or after Jesus had been "begotten" or raised from the dead.
Unlike the vast majority of professing Christians today, the Apostle John fully understood what Jesus being "begotten" actually meant.
He did, after all, later on pen the following:
Revelation chapter 1
[4] John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
[5] And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
[6] And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Again, the Apostle John fully understood that Jesus truly is "the only begotten Son of God" or "the first begotten of the dead" in that Jesus Christ is the only person to have ever been raised from the dead who has already received his glorified body. The rest of us have this hope, but Jesus truly is "the only begotten Son of God" or "the first begotten of the dead" even as I type.
Again, in reality, there's simply no such sense.
Remember, John is writing POST-RESURRECTION. With such being the case, he's simply saying "that we might live through him", with the "him" being Jesus, because he is God's "only begotten Son" or the only person to have ever been raised from the dead who has already received his glorified body. As I've said before, there is NO SALVATION offered to anybody apart from Christ's resurrection from the dead and our belief in the same.
Perhaps this will help you to better understand what John was actually saying here.
Turning back to the gospel of this same Apostle John which had previously been penned, John said the following:
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (John 1:18)
Again, in his gospel, John was writing POST-RESURRECTION.
With this reality in mind, how did "the only begotten Son" wind up "in the bosom of the Father"?
Well, I believe that Moses gave us the correct answer to this question.
Please consider the following:
Exodus chapter 4
[1] And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee.
[2] And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod.
[3] And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it.
[4] And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand:
[5] That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.
[6] And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.
[7] And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh.
[8] And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign.
The LORD gave signs to Moses by which he was to convince the children of Israel that he had actually sent Moses unto them, and these signs pointed directly to Jesus Christ.
In relation to the first sign, Jesus is the rod who was cast down to the ground or to this earth in that he left heaven to come to this earth. While here, figuratively speaking, he became a serpent, similar to the serpent on the pole that Moses was instructed to make, in that he became sin for us or took upon himself all of the sins that we had committed while in league with "that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan" (Rev. 12:9, 20:2). Ultimately, he was picked back up, or resurrected from the dead, and he returned to his former state before being cast down to the ground.
The same exact principle applies in the second sign that the LORD gave to Moses. In other words, in the same manner that Moses placed his hand in his bosom, Jesus was initially in the bosom of the Father. Similarly, when Moses removed his hand from his bosom and it became leprous, when Jesus left the Father's bosom to come to this earth, he, figuratively speaking, became leprous by taking all of our sins upon himself. Finally, when Moses' hand was again returned to his bosom, it returned to its former state, and Christ similarly did the same when he returned to the Father's bosom AFTER HE WAS BEGOTTEN OR AFTER HE WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD.
Again, my point is that John fully understood what it meant that Jesus was "begotten", and it had nothing to do with either his earthly birth or with something that allegedly took place prior to Christ's incarnation.
I'm sorry, but that's all that I probably have time for today.
The Father says He will justify the ungodly. He also teaches that some are disobedient by His will. Not tht I needed it, but these teachings to me are further admonishment not to judge others to condemnation, and to be merciful, even when ill treated, loving those who hate us.
This is a tll order for mere flesh and blood however the Holy Spirit does strengthen our will in these matters to do and not simply lip these duties.
This is a tll order for mere flesh and blood however the Holy Spirit does strengthen our will in these matters to do and not simply lip these duties.
-
2
- Show all
Live4Him3 said:
Jesus is NOT "God's one and only Son"
In scripture, Christians are called "sons of God":
The phrase "God's one and only Son" is literally "uniquely born son". Jesus was virgin born. A miracle.
Christians are sons of God via faith in Christ. John 1:12 and Gal 3:26
Adoption is a future event, per Romans 8:23.
Jesus is NOT "God's one and only Son"
In scripture, Christians are called "sons of God":
The phrase "God's one and only Son" is literally "uniquely born son". Jesus was virgin born. A miracle.
Christians are sons of God via faith in Christ. John 1:12 and Gal 3:26
Adoption is a future event, per Romans 8:23.
-
1
- Show all
.
The Greek word translated "only begotten" is monogenes which always, and
without exception, indicates an only child, e.g. Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42,
Luke 9:38, and Heb 11:17.
NOTE: Ishmael was Abraham's son too. However, when Abraham emancipated
Hagar, it severed her boy's legal ties to Abraham, thus leaving him with only
the one son.
Rom 8:23-25 pertains to the body, and it's for the future.
Rom 8:15, Gal 4:5, and Eph 1:5 pertain to the person, and it's for the now.
NOTE: Mother Teresa complained that she felt not the slightest glimmer of
the Lord's presence during virtually the entire five decades of her missionary
activity in India; and towards the end of her life quite frankly questioned
whether there was a God out there. What the . . .?
Well; it's only too obvious. Teresa was flying solo as the Spirit never once
corroborated her association with God.
"For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have
received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit
itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." (Rom
8:15-16)
Just think of the ramifications of that! If the most pious nun in recent history
failed to obtain the Spirit of adoption; what about the John Que and Jane
Doe pew warmers?
* The "Spirit of adoption" is the Spirit of Christ (Gal 4:9) without which no
one belongs to Christ. (Rom 8:9 and 1John 5:9-12)
_
The Greek word translated "only begotten" is monogenes which always, and
without exception, indicates an only child, e.g. Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42,
Luke 9:38, and Heb 11:17.
NOTE: Ishmael was Abraham's son too. However, when Abraham emancipated
Hagar, it severed her boy's legal ties to Abraham, thus leaving him with only
the one son.
Rom 8:23-25 pertains to the body, and it's for the future.
Rom 8:15, Gal 4:5, and Eph 1:5 pertain to the person, and it's for the now.
NOTE: Mother Teresa complained that she felt not the slightest glimmer of
the Lord's presence during virtually the entire five decades of her missionary
activity in India; and towards the end of her life quite frankly questioned
whether there was a God out there. What the . . .?
Well; it's only too obvious. Teresa was flying solo as the Spirit never once
corroborated her association with God.
"For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have
received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit
itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." (Rom
8:15-16)
Just think of the ramifications of that! If the most pious nun in recent history
failed to obtain the Spirit of adoption; what about the John Que and Jane
Doe pew warmers?
* The "Spirit of adoption" is the Spirit of Christ (Gal 4:9) without which no
one belongs to Christ. (Rom 8:9 and 1John 5:9-12)
_
FreeGrace2 said:
Adoption is a future event, per Romans 8:23.
Correct. Our adoption is future. Believers are NOT "adopted" into the family of God. Believers are BORN again into the family of God.
I heard about all that as well. If she had only ever followed RCC doctrine, then she wasn't saved.
Amen!
It is important to note that the Spirit bears witness WITH our spirit. Too many pastors, who should know better, misquote the verse to say "the Spirit bears witness TO our spirit" as if that is our evidence of being His.
Adoption is a future event, per Romans 8:23.
Correct. Our adoption is future. Believers are NOT "adopted" into the family of God. Believers are BORN again into the family of God.
I heard about all that as well. If she had only ever followed RCC doctrine, then she wasn't saved.
Amen!
It is important to note that the Spirit bears witness WITH our spirit. Too many pastors, who should know better, misquote the verse to say "the Spirit bears witness TO our spirit" as if that is our evidence of being His.
We ALL have to accept that we are wrong on some things.
We ALL think we're right on what we say, or we wouldn't say it.
I believe everything I say is right. I also believe I MUST be wrong on some things. NO ONE is right on everything.
If everyone agreed with everything you say, then there would be no contention for you.
So in essence what you are saying here is that you are tired that not everyone agrees with everything you say.
Once you make peace with the idea that A- not everyone is going to agree with you. And B- that you are wrong on some things, you will not get tired of people so quickly.
This is NOT to say we shouldn't argue our points passionately. We should. Just don't let the discussion bother you so much.
We ALL think we're right on what we say, or we wouldn't say it.
I believe everything I say is right. I also believe I MUST be wrong on some things. NO ONE is right on everything.
If everyone agreed with everything you say, then there would be no contention for you.
So in essence what you are saying here is that you are tired that not everyone agrees with everything you say.
Once you make peace with the idea that A- not everyone is going to agree with you. And B- that you are wrong on some things, you will not get tired of people so quickly.
This is NOT to say we shouldn't argue our points passionately. We should. Just don't let the discussion bother you so much.
-
6
-
1
- Show all
Not even close.
In reality, not that reality means anything to quite a number of different posters here, the only thing that I have on my shoulders is a good head with the mind of Christ inside of it.
Here is what you're currently straining at to hopefully find a gnat while swallowing the proverbial camel:
At my end, I simply politely and civilly answered a question in relation to whether or not I blog here.
Of all people, you, GaryA, ought to be aware of the real motivation behind my comments because you participated in a thread that I started not too long ago in which I was petitioning for a formal one-on-one moderated debate forum where Christian doctrine could be debated civilly without interruption or derailment.
For example, I said, and I quote:
https://christianchat.com/suggestions/how-about-a-debate-forum.205857/#post-4858004
Again, in relation to blogs, which is what I was addressing in my response to Runningman's question, I said, and I quote:
https://christianchat.com/suggestions/how-about-a-debate-forum.205857/#post-4858057]
And, of course, this is the post that I was referring to in relation to my question about blogs:
https://christianchat.com/user2user-tech-support/blogs.205702/#post-4849113
THIS is my motivation, Gary, and not some chip on my shoulder.
Now, let's see who find something contentious to argue about in what I just had to sadly explain.
After all, it's only by PRIDE that contention comes, and some of you just can't seem to fulfill your unquenchable desires for PROUD CONTENTION.
Me?
I'm just looking to hopefully get some Christian doctrine out there that people can be referred to at times without having to wade through pages of contention and strife...AND GOD IS PERFECTLY PLEASED WITH THE SAME.
Have a good night.
In reality, not that reality means anything to quite a number of different posters here, the only thing that I have on my shoulders is a good head with the mind of Christ inside of it.
Here is what you're currently straining at to hopefully find a gnat while swallowing the proverbial camel:
At my end, I simply politely and civilly answered a question in relation to whether or not I blog here.
Of all people, you, GaryA, ought to be aware of the real motivation behind my comments because you participated in a thread that I started not too long ago in which I was petitioning for a formal one-on-one moderated debate forum where Christian doctrine could be debated civilly without interruption or derailment.
For example, I said, and I quote:
https://christianchat.com/suggestions/how-about-a-debate-forum.205857/#post-4858004
Again, in relation to blogs, which is what I was addressing in my response to Runningman's question, I said, and I quote:
https://christianchat.com/suggestions/how-about-a-debate-forum.205857/#post-4858057]
And, of course, this is the post that I was referring to in relation to my question about blogs:
https://christianchat.com/user2user-tech-support/blogs.205702/#post-4849113
THIS is my motivation, Gary, and not some chip on my shoulder.
Now, let's see who find something contentious to argue about in what I just had to sadly explain.
After all, it's only by PRIDE that contention comes, and some of you just can't seem to fulfill your unquenchable desires for PROUD CONTENTION.
Me?
I'm just looking to hopefully get some Christian doctrine out there that people can be referred to at times without having to wade through pages of contention and strife...AND GOD IS PERFECTLY PLEASED WITH THE SAME.
Have a good night.
Looking at this from a different perspective, I've seen many times when debaters butt in on threads with long-winded posts and scripture lists; then another comes, then another. Pretty soon they take over. So there are two sides to this. Personally I'd like to see the debaters and scripture posters have their own area. I've got an ignore list a mile long just to filter them out.