On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:00:07 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
JD writes:Dean, do you accept a difference between what one is , ontologically speaking, and what one does?I do. That "he was made to be like us in every respect" is a statement of the essence of His being.He can not possibly be same as us in the essence of His being and wholly God at the same time.No kidding !! But His humanity was the same as ours. But , of course, you do not actuallybelieve that he was the Son of Man - except through the process of adoption !! Totally unbiblical.He came in our likeness JD - not as us. The word adoption is yours. I'd say you trying to put humanity on him that is the same as ours is what is unbiblical.If this were possible there would be no savior needed because there would be no gulf between God and sin.Can't have it both ways JD. Can't have what both ways?What I am saying is that God will never ever honey up with sin or join with sin and when someone has to adjust it won't be Him. He says "I am the Lord, I change not"It has nothing to do with whether or not He committed sin or whether or not He suffered. More than this, the Gk text does not speak so much of his "being made" as it does of a sense of obligation. Christ, according to the Gk text, was OBLIGATED to be "like us in every respect." That He is the Son of Man(kind) is born of obligation. The text is not saying that He was made like us, but that He was obligated to be like us in every respect !!Malarkey; he volunteered to come and die for us and God layed upon Him the iniquity of us all. This is how he knows the feeling of our infirmities.Malarkey ?? Spoken like a true anti-intellectual. The fact of the matter is this - the Gk text speaks of obligation in just the manner I have described.So? Are you telling me that God is obligated to us? Why wasn't he obligated to the pre-flood folk the ones who died - all except for 8 ppl. Was he also obligated to them?In this passage, we have the theology of the Son of Man rather than the history of the Son of Man. That Christ is human is without question and is accepted by many as a historical occurance. But this is a secondary consideration in this Hebrews 2:17-18 text. That His humanity is born of necessity, of obligation , is a theological consideration -- only known to us through revelation.If He was obligated to be like us in all respects, I am equally obligated to believe such.... and so John the Apostle makes it obligatory for us to admit that Jesus Christ came in the flesh !! jdJohn the apostle was dealing with a gnostic problem JD. You need to study the time and culture these things were written itoAnd you need to get a theology that agrees with scripture without the use of JudyLogic. I speak of the Gk text and you deny it without any grammatical reasons -- without ANY reasons whatsoever. I quote a scripture and you tell us , "Oh, that scripture doesn't apply because the writer had a differenct problem in mind." No way of making my point when you hornor your own oipinion above that of scripture and the greek text.My beliefs are based on scripture JD, excuse me if I don't see them through a grid of men's teachings.By the way -- did you ignore my challenge? The fact of the matter isthis --- your theology would not be allowed in the church you attend or the BSF you brag of attending. You can shut me up on this one, reeeeaaaaalllll easy. I will write what I believe. You submit it to your pastor and the BSF leadership. Put up or shut up, Judy.What new craziness is this JD? I am not going to anyone with this mess; I did not ignore anything. I answered your so called challenge - you just don't read very thoroughly.jd----------------------------------------------------------------------------
