John 3:5. ''Unless one is born of water and of the Spirit...'' (messages, abominations)

[Clear lens]

mike555;

Mike, after looking at the last post you offered that had a lot of data and other claims that did NOT answer the question asked. I'm hoping to avoid a few repeats of something similar. Perhaps you could save us all a lot of time. You seem to quote a Christian seminary from dallas a lot. Is THIS where you got your interpretation represented by the OPENING POST where you claim : "At the moment of faith in Christ, God the Holy Spirit creates a human spirit and places it in the one who has believed.

Did someone there develop this theory of man not having spirits in them when they are born?

I wouldn't ask, but when I ask for very simple and specific information, and then notice the poster starts offering a LOT of data on a slightly different subject, it usually means they don't HAVE specific data to support their claim and are hoping to either appear knowledgeable or hope to raise a different subject.

Please mike555, I have limited time and if you don't have data that shows the ancients used your interpretation, it would be good for you to simply tell us now to avoid any waste of time or more wading through long posts that do not have the data we are asking for.

If your ministers from dallas developed this theory, or some other minister(s) you respect, it does not automatically mean it is erroneous, it simply means it is not an interpretation used anciently.

Clear
twdrnedrrd

PS - If ANYONE saw data in Mike555s post that answered my request for examples where the ancient Judao-christians used his interpretation, (i.e. "that man has no spirit in him at birth and the spirit is created within the man at the moment he believes in Jesus") please, please, please, point it out to me.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

mike555;

Mike, after looking at the last post you offered that had a lot of data and other claims that did NOT answer the question asked. I'm hoping to avoid a few repeats of something similar. Perhaps you could save us all a lot of time. You seem to quote a Christian seminary from dallas a lot. Is THIS where you got your interpretation represented by the OPENING POST where you claim : "At the moment of faith in Christ, God the Holy Spirit creates a human spirit and places it in the one who has believed.

Did someone there develop this theory of man not having spirits in them when they are born?

I wouldn't ask, but when I ask for very simple and specific information, and then notice the poster starts offering a LOT of data on a slightly different subject, it usually means they don't HAVE specific data to support their claim and are hoping to either appear knowledgeable or hope to raise a different subject.

Please mike555, I have limited time and if you don't have data that shows the ancients used your interpretation, it would be good for you to simply tell us now to avoid any waste of time or more wading through long posts that do not have the data we are asking for.

If your ministers from dallas developed this theory, or some other minister(s) you respect, it does not automatically mean it is erroneous, it simply means it is not an interpretation used anciently.

Clear
twdrnedrrd

PS - If ANYONE saw data in Mike555s post that answered my request for examples where the ancient Judao-christians used his interpretation, (i.e. "that man has no spirit in him at birth and the spirit is created within the man at the moment he believes in Jesus") please, please, please, point it out to me.

Clear . . . your scholarship is impeccable and much appreciated (though we differ on the significance of it). Mike has no such data or even an independent rationale of his own to explain it. He is simply proselytizing the "precepts and doctrines of men" (his mentors), period.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

mike555;

Mike, after looking at the last post you offered that had a lot of data and other claims that did NOT answer the question asked. I'm hoping to avoid a few repeats of something similar. Perhaps you could save us all a lot of time. You seem to quote a Christian seminary from dallas a lot. Is THIS where you got your interpretation represented by the OPENING POST where you claim : "At the moment of faith in Christ, God the Holy Spirit creates a human spirit and places it in the one who has believed.

Did someone there develop this theory of man not having spirits in them when they are born?

I wouldn't ask, but when I ask for very simple and specific information, and then notice the poster starts offering a LOT of data on a slightly different subject, it usually means they don't HAVE specific data to support their claim and are hoping to either appear knowledgeable or hope to raise a different subject.


Please mike555, I have limited time and if you don't have data that shows the ancients used your interpretation, it would be good for you to simply tell us now to avoid any waste of time or more wading through long posts that do not have the data we are asking for.

I specifically mentioned in that post (#179) that I don't know what the early church belief was with regard to whether an unbeliever had a human spirit. Why then do you make accusations of attempting to 'dodge' the question?

You did more then ask for an answer to that question. You've made statements which inplied that the early church mostly or universally believed in the pre-existence of souls. Much of post #179 was given to refute your statements. You were wrong.

I showed that the early church had different beliefs regarding the origin of the soul.

I also showed that the soul and the human spirit are different.

I also gave you Scripture which shows that the unbeliever has no human spirit.

I further told you that while what the early church believed had historic value, it has no doctrinal value.

Your problem is that you can't bring yourself to believe what the Bible says unless you find some extra-biblical support for it.

I also refuted your statement that I didn't know the difference between 'Bara' and 'Yatsar'. Or was I suppose to let that go unanswered?

If your ministers from dallas developed this theory, or some other minister(s) you respect, it does not automatically mean it is erroneous, it simply means it is not an interpretation used anciently.

Clear
twdrnedrrd

PS - If ANYONE saw data in Mike555s post that answered my request for examples where the ancient Judao-christians used his interpretation, (i.e. "that man has no spirit in him at birth and the spirit is created within the man at the moment he believes in Jesus") please, please, please, point it out to me.

The fact that the unbeliever has no human spirit is Scriptural. I provided the verses to prove it.

If you want information on Dallas Theological Seminary, then do your own research.

If you are a Christian as you claim to be, you need to spend more time on the Scriptures and less time on what the early church believed. They had pretty much the same heresies that exist in the church today.

You have limited time? Then use it doing whatever it is you're going to do.

I refer readers back to post #179.

[Jerwade]

Originally Posted by Mike555

If you are a Christian as you claim to be, you need to spend more time on the Scriptures and less time on what the early church believed.
They had pretty much the same heresies that exist in the church today.

Now, that's a truth.
When will it every change?

[Clear lens]

Mike555;

Mike, this is another post where you have not given us data that shows any of the ancients used your interpretation of scripture underlying your Opening Posts claim that “At the moment of faith in Christ, God the Holy Spirit creates a human spirit and places it in the one who has believed.” Do you see why I expressed doubt that you have the data I am asking for?

Mike; I am not simply trying to anger you and I certainly apologize if we are in operating in a “zone of discomfort” for you, however that “zone” may be where some of our greatest spiritual gains in insight are to be had in looking at what we do as individuals and our motives for doing it.

However I am also concerned with your habit of constant relabeling and operating in an area beyond your data set and simply proclaiming it is “truth”. As examples I might offer the following observations:

1)

Mike555 claimed : "I also gave you Scripture which shows that the unbeliever has no human spirit”.

NO Mike555, You did NOT give me a SINGLE scripture that showed that the unbeliever has no human spirit. You clothed Zechariah 12:1 with an unorthodox and incorrect modern personal interpretation to make it appear to support your theory that the unbeliever has no human spirit.

In post #177 I pointed out your mis-interpretation and mis-use of the word “πλασσμον” in zech 12:1, which actually meant "shaped", "formed" or "molded" and it did NOT imply an ex-nihilo creation. It is actually a scripture that quite supports the pre-existence of a spirit in man which God “shapes” and “molds” and “forms” throughout the mans life. Nowhere does this scripture imply "creation from nothing". If you STILL think Zech 12:1 supports ex-nihilo creation of a spirit, let's re-visit Zech 12:1 and you can point it out to us.

I was NOT trying to simply embarrass you by showing you this error in your interpretation of Zechariah 12:1. I was trying to help you see that you cannot pander inaccurate history and come out with accurate theology. The two are, in the case of ancient religion, connected.

You and I (and all others) are allowed our personal theories and it doesn’t bother me a bit if you theorize that the moon is made of cheese. I can live with that. What is bothersome is if you offer a scripture and historical reference and claim that the earliest Christians believed the moon was made of cheese and "it is the truth" BECAUSE the scriptures say so. It is the improper use of history that is so irksome and you habitually offer inaccurate historical errors to support what you believe IS truth.

Mike, it really doesn’t matter if your interpretation came from the group of pastors you’ve placed faith in, or if you made it up yourself. I’m ok with it either way, I just didn’t want the forum members to think your interpretation was historically orthodox in early Judao-Christianity.


Clear
twvivitzll


p.s. Regarding your claim “

“I also refuted your statement that I didn't know the difference between 'Bara' and 'Yatsar'. Or was I suppose to let that go unanswered?

I think you have me mixed up with a different detractor since I don’t ever remember suggesting that you didn’t know the difference (I simply didn't care).

However, after reading your definition, I have to agree with whoever suggested you that you still don’t know the difference between “bara’ and “yatsar” to the ancient. ‘Bara” was NOT an ex-nihilo (out of nothing) creation in ancient judao-christian thought. You are making another similar mistake to the kind you made in quoting Zechariah 12:1 in claiming 'bara' meant creation "from nothing".

[Clear lens]

MysticPhd said : “Clear . . . your scholarship is impeccable and much appreciated (though we differ on the significance of it). Mike has no such data or even an independent rationale of his own to explain it. He is simply proselytizing the "precepts and doctrines of men" (his mentors), period.

Hi MysticPhD. I think your comment that we often differ, not necessarily on the data itself, but rather we differ on the significance of data is an important thing for all of us to learn. It is one important principle underlying our interpretations of data.

Mike555 may have felt Zechariah 12:1 “signified” a "creation" of a spirit despite the usage of the word “form” in his quote. I think that MOST of us, at some point, want to make this same mistake to some extent. The goal is to be objective enough to change our minds if given better data or upon discovering our data doesn’t really indicate what we thought it did. However, emotions and bias often keep us from admitting certain data is better. It is this ability to progress in knowledge rather than the digging in of our heels against new and accurate knowledge that ought to characterize forum interactions.

Though you and I are very different, I am also coming to the conclusion that you have pointed out at least once. That often, individuals hear of an interpretation of scripture from a pastor or group they trust and then “cut and paste” it as truth as part of "the party line". Instead of true religious “conviction" of an interpretation, they possess a “refusal to doubt an interpretation”. When that interpretation is critically examined, rather than looking INSIDE their own hearts as to WHY they believe in a doctrine, they reflexively look outside for anything that SEEMS or APPEARS to support them, rather than rethink their initial premise.

It is a lack of insight rather than a lack of data. I believe that many of us (myself included) are guilty of this in our immaturity, but then some slowly evolve away from this practice as we mature. Check mike555 out in 20 years and he may have an entirely different way of looking at things, one worth listening to.

I appreciate the both the principle and the nice comment.

Clear
twvisesese

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

Mike555;

Mike, this is another post where you have not given us data that shows any of the ancients used your interpretation of scripture underlying your Opening Posts claim that “At the moment of faith in Christ, God the Holy Spirit creates a human spirit and places it in the one who has believed.” Do you see why I expressed doubt that you have the data I am asking for?

Mike; I am not simply trying to anger you and I certainly apologize if we are in operating in a “zone of discomfort” for you, however that “zone” may be where some of our greatest spiritual gains in insight are to be had in looking at what we do as individuals and our motives for doing it.

However I am also concerned with your habit of constant relabeling and operating in an area beyond your data set and simply proclaiming it is “truth”. As examples I might offer the following observations:

No clear lens. I back up what I say with Scripture.

Apparently, I have not made myself clear to you. I don't care what the early church believed. It is of no doctrinal value. What they believed has only historical value. Nor am I in a zone of discomfort. I have shown you from Scripture that the unbeliever is spiritually dead and thus has no human spirit. I am certainly not going to take the time to find out what the early church believed just to satisfy you.

It seems that you prefer to spend your 'limited time' with posturing and trying to show what an expert you imagine yourself to be. You have some historical data. You have little or no understanding of Bible doctrine.

As I told you clear lens, you need to spend less time in your extra biblical studies and more time on what the Scriptures say.

1) NO Mike555, You did NOT give me a SINGLE scripture that showed that the unbeliever has no human spirit. You clothed Zechariah 12:1 with an unorthodox and incorrect modern personal interpretation to make it appear to support your theory that the unbeliever has no human spirit.

Yes, I did. 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:1; John 3:6; Rom 8:10; Tit 3:5. Try and put the passages together if you are able to. Readers may refer to post #179.

In post #177 I pointed out your mis-interpretation and mis-use of the word “πλασσμον” in zech 12:1, which actually meant "shaped", "formed" or "molded" and it did NOT imply an ex-nihilo creation. It is actually a scripture that quite supports the pre-existence of a spirit in man which God “shapes” and “molds” and “forms” throughout the mans life. Nowhere does this scripture imply "creation from nothing". If you STILL think Zech 12:1 supports ex-nihilo creation of a spirit, let's re-visit Zech 12:1 and you can point it out to us.

I was NOT trying to simply embarrass you by showing you this error in your interpretation of Zechariah 12:1. I was trying to help you see that you cannot pander inaccurate history and come out with accurate theology. The two are, in the case of ancient religion, connected.

As I told you before clear lens, the purpose of using Zech 12:1 was to refute your belief that the spirit of man pre-existed his mortal existence. It did not. Nor was that the predominant belief of the early church. I think that it is you who are embarrassed by being shown to be wrong.

You still do not understand or want to accept that while what the early church believed has historical value, it has no doctrinal value. I have shown you that the early church had at least three different beliefs regarding the origin of the soul. So which one do you want to prove the Bible by?

You and I (and all others) are allowed our personal theories and it doesn’t bother me a bit if you theorize that the moon is made of cheese. I can live with that. What is bothersome is if you offer a scripture and historical reference and claim that the earliest Christians believed the moon was made of cheese and "it is the truth" BECAUSE the scriptures say so. It is the improper use of history that is so irksome and you habitually offer inaccurate historical errors to support what you believe IS truth.

Mike, it really doesn’t matter if your interpretation came from the group of pastors you’ve placed faith in, or if you made it up yourself. I’m ok with it either way, I just didn’t want the forum members to think your interpretation was historically orthodox in early Judao-Christianity.


Clear
twvivitzll

Well there you are. You have flat out shown above by your statement ' BECAUSE the scriptures say so' that you don't trust the Bible. You don't believe it. So much for your claim of being a Christian.

Which inaccurate historical errors are you referring to clear lens? The fact that I showed you that the early church had at least three different views with regard to the origin of the soul? 1] Pre-existence. 2] Creationist view. 3]Traducianism. Are you denying this clear lens?

p.s. Regarding your claim “ I think you have me mixed up with a different detractor since I don’t ever remember suggesting that you didn’t know the difference (I simply didn't care).

However, after reading your definition, I have to agree with whoever suggested you that you still don’t know the difference between “bara’ and “yatsar” to the ancient. [B]‘Bara” was NOT an ex-nihilo (out of nothing) creation in ancient judao-christian thought.[/b] You are making another similar mistake to the kind you made in quoting Zechariah 12:1 in claiming 'bara' meant creation "from nothing".

No clear lens. I am referring to your comment in post #177 as quoted below.

'The definition of “πλασσων” is NOT to form a thing EX-NIHILO (as if the thing did not exist before). LOOK at any good greek lexicon and it will help you in this. “Πλασσω” means to form AS IN to mould, to shape, and NOT to “create” as you’ve wrongly assumed. Thus the popular interlinear translates the line in question “…and shaping the spirit of man in him.” In the picture below. '

In response to that comment, I showed quite clearly in post #179 the difference between bara-create, and yatsar-form.

You say that 'bara' was not ex-nihilo (out of nothing). And you refer back to the early church and what you think they believed. But here is what Scripture says. Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created (bara) the heavens and the earth.'

God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing - ex-nihilo. And the Hebrew word is Bara - to create. Do you deny this clear lens?

[Clear lens]

TO THE FORUM



1) REGARDING MIKE555s THEORY THAT MANKIND HAS NO SPIRIT IN THEM UNTIL AT THE MOMENT OF FAITH

It’s clear that Mike is simply repeating himself (as I might start doing if we continue to beat this dead horse). I honestly think, that unless he has any credible and clear and NEW DATA showing his interpretation was legitimate anciently, it is a waste our time discussing his theory that :“At the moment of faith in Christ, God the Holy Spirit creates a human spirit and places it in the one who has believed.(mike555 in the Opening Post)”

I belief it’s accepted by the readers that Zechariah 12:1 Mike555 offered us does not support his theory. (IF ANYONE BELIEVES ZECH 12:1 SUPPORTS MIKE555s INTERPRETATION AND THEORY, LET US KNOW NOW) The other scriptures Mike555 appear even less likely than Zech 12:1, to support this theory than the failed Zech 12:1.

Thus I believe that we have categorized this theory as a “fail” and unless Mike555 has NEW DATA to offer us, it makes no sense to chew that cud all over again. I believe readers have already made up their minds regarding the data mike555 and I have offered and I am comfortable with this.




2 REGARDING THE THEORY THAT GOD CREATED ALL THINGS OUT OF NOTHING (i.e. EX NIHILO creation).

I do think it makes sense to follow Mike555s suggestion and discuss this theory which is popular among much of modern Christians, that God created material things out of “nothing” rather than out of “material”, especially since this is a common belief.

Regarding THIS doctrine, mike555 is in the modern majority and I am in the modern minority in that I do not believe the ancient Judao-Christian doctrine assumed an “ex nihilo” creation. I think that there are many posters who can do a better job at establishing ex nihilo since mike555’s offering example is so obviously a “bait and switch” :

In post 187 Mike relates :“… here is what Scripture says. Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created (bara) the heavens and the earth.'

God created the heavens and the earth OUT OF NOTHING - EX-NIHILO" (capitals are mine to emphasize differences in quotes and the added interpretation)

The "re quote ADDS the three words "out of nothing" is a very obvious (and clumsy) attempt to clothe a sentence with meaning it does not have.

Mike555 is NOT the only one to change texts in such ways. Such attempts to change an authors words anciently was common AND it motivated authors to addecurses upon those who changed the authors words. For example, John writes at the end of revelation : “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Rev 22:18” Such curses were to discourage others from over-interpreting the text, and then adding (or subtracting) from the author’s intent and using altered texts for their own purposes.



Mike555; Despite the obvious alteration of scriptures to support your interpretation, I think you should be given another chance to support your interpretation and your theory that the cosmos was created out of “nothing”.

Mike, why don't you think about this theory and then give us your BEST data and your BEST reasoning why you think the doctrine of “creation from nothing” was the true doctrine taught anciently. Then I’ll respond as to why I believe that it was taught that all material things were made of matter, rather than “nothing”. I'll be leaving out of town on the evening of the 6th and may not be able to respond for 4 days, so don't wait too long to respond.


Thanks



Clear
twsenevinr

[AlabamaStorm]

Mike555 - The natural man does have a spirit. However, it's called a heart of stone. It's that stony heart that first needs to be removed before God places a new spirit (or heart) within us:

Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

And, Jesus performs this act of regeneration before uniting us with His own Spirit, and sanctifying us:

Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

TO THE FORUM



1) REGARDING MIKE555s THEORY THAT MANKIND HAS NO SPIRIT IN THEM UNTIL AT THE MOMENT OF FAITH

It’s clear that Mike is simply repeating himself (as I might start doing if we continue to beat this dead horse). I honestly think, that unless he has any credible and clear and NEW DATA showing his interpretation was legitimate anciently, it is a waste our time discussing his theory that :“At the moment of faith in Christ, God the Holy Spirit creates a human spirit and places it in the one who has believed.(mike555 in the Opening Post)”

I belief it’s accepted by the readers that Zechariah 12:1 Mike555 offered us does not support his theory. (IF ANYONE BELIEVES ZECH 12:1 SUPPORTS MIKE555s INTERPRETATION AND THEORY, LET US KNOW NOW) The other scriptures Mike555 appear even less likely than Zech 12:1, to support this theory than the failed Zech 12:1.

Thus I believe that we have categorized this theory as a “fail” and unless Mike555 has NEW DATA to offer us, it makes no sense to chew that cud all over again. I believe readers have already made up their minds regarding the data mike555 and I have offered and I am comfortable with this.

Stop the posturing clear lens and climb down off your high horse before you fall off. First of all, you do not speak for anyone except yourself. You say you believe readers have already made up their minds despite the fact that you are the only one except for alabama storm who I see has something to say about it, who is even making an issue out of it. So don't presume to be a spokesman. Speak only for yourself.

You keep harping on Zech 12:1 despite the fact that I told you why I used it. And I also said that it wasn't the best verse that I could have used. But here you are once again basing your argument on it.

I gave you the Scripture in post #179 which shows that man is spiritually dead until he believes in Christ. Yet you make no mention of those verses.

If anyone is interested, they can refer to posts #179, 183 and 187.

2 REGARDING THE THEORY THAT GOD CREATED ALL THINGS OUT OF NOTHING (i.e. EX NIHILO creation).

I do think it makes sense to follow Mike555s suggestion and discuss this theory which is popular among much of modern Christians, that God created material things out of “nothing” rather than out of “material”, especially since this is a common belief.

Where is it that I suggested that a discussion be made? I can't find it. If I made no such suggestion, why then do you claim that I made it?

Regarding THIS doctrine, mike555 is in the modern majority and I am in the modern minority in that I do not believe the ancient Judao-Christian doctrine assumed an “ex nihilo” creation. I think that there are many posters who can do a better job at establishing ex nihilo since mike555’s offering example is so obviously a “bait and switch” :



The "re quote ADDS the three words "out of nothing" is a very obvious (and clumsy) attempt to clothe a sentence with meaning it does not have.

No clear lens. There is no bait and switch involved. You said that I didn't know the difference between bara-create, and Yatsar- to form. You didn't actually use the Hebrew words, but I am using them.

Genesis 1:1 'In the beginning God created (bara) the heavens and the earth. ?????? 1 Biblos Interlinear Bible

From post #179
' But just as the heavens and the earth were created out of nothing (bara), the earth was later formed (Yatsar) from existing materials.

Isa 45:18 'For thus says the LORD, who created -Bara the heavens, (He is the God who formed - Yatsar the earth and made - Asah it, He established it and did not create - bara it a waste place, But formed - Yatsar it to be inhabited.) ' Isaiah 45:18 Biblos Interlinear Bible

The universe was created out of nothing.

Adams spirit and soul were created out of nothing. Adam's body was formed from existing materials.

Mike555 is NOT the only one to change texts in such ways. Such attempts to change an authors words anciently was common AND it motivated authors to addecurses upon those who changed the authors words. For example, John writes at the end of revelation : “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Rev 22:18” Such curses were to discourage others from over-interpreting the text, and then adding (or subtracting) from the author’s intent and using altered texts for their own purposes.



Mike555; Despite the obvious alteration of scriptures to support your interpretation, I think you should be given another chance to support your interpretation and your theory that the cosmos was created out of “nothing”.

No clear lens. I did not change any text.

From post #179 Here is my lead in to Isa 45:18
' But just as the heavens and the earth were created out of nothing (bara), the earth was later formed (Yatsar) from existing materials.

And here is the passage itself.

Isa 45:18 'For thus says the LORD, who created -Bara the heavens, (He is the God who formed - Yatsar the earth and made - Asah it, He established it and did not create - bara it a waste place, But formed - Yatsar it to be inhabited.) '
Isaiah 45:18 Biblos Interlinear Bible

Putting words in parenthesis within a verse to give the definition of the word is not altering Scripture. Simply refer to these links to Genesis 1:1 and Isaiah 45:18 and view the Hebrew and English words. Click on the Strong's numbers for the definition.

Genesis 1:1 Biblos Interlinear Bible

Isaiah 45:18 Biblos Interlinear Bible

Both verses have been given in the previous section.

Mike, why don't you think about this theory and then give us your BEST data and your BEST reasoning why you think the doctrine of “creation from nothing” was the true doctrine taught anciently. Then I’ll respond as to why I believe that it was taught that all material things were made of matter, rather than “nothing”. I'll be leaving out of town on the evening of the 6th and may not be able to respond for 4 days, so don't wait too long to respond.


Thanks


Clear
twsenevinr

No clear lens. If you choose not to believe that God created the universe out of nothing, that is your concern. And people can do their own research on the matter.

Now there are those who say that 'bara' doesn't always mean to create out of nothing. And I have no problem with that. But it is an absolute truth that God created the universe out of nothing. Disagree if you want.

What I want to know is why you haven't admitted that you are wrong about the early church presumably ONLY believing in the pre-existence of souls when in fact it was only a minority belief. Why did you not mention that the early church also believed in Traducianism and in creationism as it pertains to the soul? Why are you avoiding that. You were the one who brought it up. You were the one who made an issue out of it. Why then, having been shown that you are wrong, are you avoiding it?

I also asked you to clarify the historical errors you claimed that I made (Post #187). You have not done so. Why? Since you weren't specific I suspect that you are referring to my mention of 'Traducianism' and 'Creationism as it pertains to the soul'.

And I remind you again that what the early church believed has only historical value. It has no doctrinal value. I don't CARE about what the early church believed.