@PattMattrick it 's cuz he's a content creator in search of an audience and a Thing. Atheist guy realizes his audience is actually mostly Christians, so decides to switch to an intra-Christian debate for clicks and hateclicks. These people aren't genuine at all.
@WalmartThomist Bad fact to get wrong. His point is correct, though and I suspect the Roman jeering is to distract people from looking too closely at it. It's not even as late as Jerome either, the distinction goes back to Athanasius, himself citing prior traditions.
@SteveSkojec@GinaminaFW Or you are mind reading his critics, while denying that orthodoxy has anything to do with our capacity to love God or identify the God we are trying to love. The Nicene Fathers thought differently and so naturally, so do those who are concerned about Craig‘s comments
@SteveSkojec@GinaminaFW William is not saying that God the Father existed before the Son, rather he is denying the key affirmation by which we understand God is actually the Father of the Son.
@SteveSkojec@GinaminaFW Saying that God has always been the Father of the Son is not incomprehensible.
Describing the nature of anything always gets more difficult, the closer you look. But the basic affirmation is critical to the God we are claiming to love.
@EcciusMaximus Bonehead miss but he’s right about the apocrypha. And Jerome wasn’t the first. Not setting doctrine by the apocryphal books goes back to Athanasius.
@Philip_Goff Because the sin of usury is based on circumstances foreign to a capitalist economy while the Bible describes gay sex as intrinsically evil in all circumstances (to’ebah)