Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; herepeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 7:14) under the unction of the same Holy Spirit of course "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (God with us) (see Isa 9:6, Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3-5; Matt 1:22,23) Ampl It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8. Yes it is, the exact same wording is found in Isaiah 7:14. Immanuel means "God with us" Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came up with this revelation by himself. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ? I'm not into quibbling over Gk words JD; the meaning is more important to me and it is the Father all things were reconciled to at this point. This is repeated in Vs.22 "Yet now has (Christ the Messiah) reconciled (you to God) in the body of His flesh through death, in order to present you holy and faultless and irreproachable in His (the Father's) presence. (And this He will do) provided that you continue to stay with and in the faith (in Christ), well grounded and settled and steadfast, not shifting or moving away from the hope..." Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus. I wasn't reading the KJV JD, that time I was quoting fromthe NASV and the Amplified says the same thing. Jesus did not come to glorify himself. I am saying that the words "God" or "Father" do not appear int he KJ greek text -- or any greek text. "Father" is an added word. PS: I wouldn't take Lightfoots comments too seriously, apparently he was in cahoots with Westcott Hort. Fine -- but I do take him seriously. If you are allowing him to add and remove the words of scripture for you, then Oh well!! I would say you are begging to be confused. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, establishing His eternity as the Son. John also writes
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
cd: John for me it is difficult to grasp the full spectrum of what the other person is conveying in this medium. I believe this holds true for the entire group as I have wittinessed other becoming angry for this type of simple misunderstanding. In the below we agree entirely andI do admit to a bias for the KJ and sought to give it some support. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 7:55:26 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God But as Adam Clark shows in the below "the Fullness"mentioned are Godly attributes as Christ is one with God. Hi, Dean. You seem to beadding a correction of sorts to what I said. I certainly believe Christ to be the Son of God and , thus, God. I hope you do not misunderstand my point. In the end, I believe that this verse is saying that Christ reconciled all things unto Himself -- proving that He is, indeed, God. Interesting quote from A Clark, however. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus. As I understand the textual consideration, the issue centers around eudokew and is translated "pleased God that .."A rather poor translation , I think. J.B. Lightfoot gives the word a nominative apppliance and seems to argue for the omission of the word "God" while arguing FOR the absolute use of (God's good purpose.) John puts his thinking cap on and comes up with this: To insert " .. the Father's pleasure" or ".appeared good to God .." or any such addition gives one the opportunity to misunderstand the the reference to "himself" as in "... He reconciled all things unto Himself ..." and argue that it appeared good to the Father to use Christ to reconcile all things unto the Father. If we omit what is , in fact omitted -- a specific reference to the (a) personhood of deity, then the passage reads "...it was the divine pleasure that all the fulness centered in Him (Jesus) and that in Him all things are reconciled unto Himself (Jesus.)" cd: You seem to be correct John as both Adam Clark and The Interlinear Bible agrees with you. But as Adam Clark shows in the below "the Fullness"mentioned are Godly attributes as Christ is one with God. Adam Clark wrote: Col 1:19 - For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell - As the words, the Father are not in the text, some have translated the verse thus: For in him it seemed right that all fullness should dwell; that is, that the majesty, power, and goodness of God should be manifested in and by Christ Jesus, and thus by him the Father reconciles all things to himself. The pµa, or fullness, must refer here to the Divine nature dwelling in the man Christ Jesus.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Judy, here is the perfect example of what Lance has been telling you these past couple of days. Look at this exchanget: Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came up with this revelation by himself. The fact that I am talking about the definition of Immanuel, the fact that I have repeated myself on that point, the fact that I have given the word "definition" in caps for the sake of emphasis coupled with the fact that you still missed what I said and inserted "revelation [by himself" in the place of "definition" is proof positive that you miss the meaning of posted message. Lance does not think you do this "on purpose." I do. I think you have a spirit of rebellion within, that you are nonetheless a child of God and a sister in Christ -- albeit a rebellious sister (at times.) And I say "rebelliious" because , in this case, you simply do not want to admit you are wrong. I beleive you see my point perfectly and Lance is not so sure that you do. You will find the DEFINITION for "Immanuel" presented in two places - a Hebrew or Greek dictionary (lexicon) and in Matthew 1:23, written by Matthew. The Apostles is, indeed, giving us a "divinely stated defintioin." It is a definition that has no meaning without the corresponding reality -- Jesus IS God with us." You and DM change wording all the timeand then proceed as if saying something critical to the intitial discussion. Here , you have changedthe specific "definition" to the more general "revelation." In your comment above, you admit "Itmay not be spelled out " AND THAT IS MY VERY POINT. It ISN'T spelled out anywhere except in Matthew 1:23 by Matthew. Period. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; herepeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 7:14) under the unction of the same Holy Spirit of course "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (God with us) (see Isa 9:6, Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3-5; Matt 1:22,23) Ampl It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8. Yes it is, the exact same wording is found in Isaiah 7:14. Immanuel means "God with us" Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came up with this revelation by himself. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ? I'm not into quibbling over Gk words JD; the meaning is more important to me and it is the Father all things were reconciled to at this point. This is repeated in Vs.22 "Yet now has (Christ the Messiah) reconciled (you to God) in the body of His flesh through death, in order to present you holy and faultless and irreproachable in His (the Father's) presence. (And this He will
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ? I'm not into quibbling over Gk words JD; Yeh, we wouldn't want to accuse you of quibbling. You know full well that the italicized words in the KJ (aren't you one of them there KJ onlyist peoples?) means THAT THE WORD IS ADDED. You got it in your little hands -- the word father is italicized. What are we arguing about? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; herepeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 7:14) under the unction of the same Holy Spirit of course "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (God with us) (see Isa 9:6, Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3-5; Matt 1:22,23) Ampl It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8. Yes it is, the exact same wording is found in Isaiah 7:14. Immanuel means "God with us" Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came up with this revelation by himself. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ? I'm not into quibbling over Gk words JD; the meaning is more important to me and it is the Father all things were reconciled to at this point. This is repeated in Vs.22 "Yet now has (Christ the Messiah) reconciled (you to God) in the body of His flesh through death, in order to present you holy and faultless and irreproachable in His (the Father's) presence. (And this He will do) provided that you continue to stay with and in the faith (in Christ), well grounded and settled and steadfast, not shifting or moving away from the hope..." Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus. I wasn't reading the KJV JD, that time I was quoting fromthe NASV and the Amplified says the same thing. Jesus did not come to glorify himself. I am saying that the words "God" or "Father" do not appear int he KJ greek text -- or any greek text. "Father" is an added word. PS: I wouldn't take Lightfoots comments too seriously, apparently he was in cahoots with Westcott Hort. Fine -- but I do take him seriously. If you are allowing him to add and remove the words of scripture for you, then Oh well!! I would say you are begging to be confused. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, establishing His eternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes him in eternity as the Word of God rather than an "eternal son" He wasn't the firstborn of all creation because He is and was a member of the Godhead so He has always been. He is the firstborn of the New Creation.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Amen!! -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cd: John for me it is difficult to grasp the full spectrum of what the other person is conveying in this medium. I believe this holds true for the entire group as I have wittinessed other becoming angry for this type of simple misunderstanding. In the below we agree entirely andI do admit to a bias for the KJ and sought to give it some support. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 7:55:26 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God But as Adam Clark shows in the below "the Fullness"mentioned are Godly attributes as Christ is one with God. Hi, Dean. You seem to beadding a correction of sorts to what I said. I certainly believe Christ to be the Son of God and , thus, God. I hope you do not misunderstand my point. In the end, I believe that this verse is saying that Christ reconciled all things unto Himself -- proving that He is, indeed, God. Interesting quote from A Clark, however. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus. As I understand the textual consideration, the issue centers around eudokew and is translated "pleased God that .."A rather poor translation , I think. J.B. Lightfoot gives the word a nominative apppliance and seems to argue for the omission of the word "God" while arguing FOR the absolute use of (God's good purpose.) John puts his thinking cap on and comes up with this: To insert " .. the Father's pleasure" or ".appeared good to God .." or any such addition gives one the opportunity to misunderstand the the reference to "himself" as in "... He reconciled all things unto Himself ..." and argue that it appeared good to the Father to use Christ to reconcile all things unto the Father. If we omit what is , in fact omitted -- a specific reference to the (a) personhood of deity, then the passage reads "...it was the divine pleasure that all the fulness centered in Him (Jesus) and that in Him all things are reconciled unto Himself (Jesus.)" cd: You seem to be correct John as both Adam Clark and The Interlinear Bible agrees with you. But as Adam Clark shows in the below "the Fullness"mentioned are Godly attributes as Christ is one with God. Adam Clark wrote: Col 1:19 - For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell - As the words, the Father are not in the text, some have translated the verse thus: For in him it seemed right that all fullness should dwell; that is, that the majesty, power, and goodness of God should be manifested in and by Christ Jesus, and thus by him the Father reconciles all things to himself. The pµa, or fullness, must refer here to the Divine nature dwelling in the man Christ Jesus.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
You must not be understanding JD; I said in my last post on this matter that for me meaning is a whole lot more important than quibbling over Greek words and the meaning of Col 1:19 is reinterated in 2 Cor 5:19 Where you will notice that it does say it was God (the Holy Spirit) in Christ who does the reconciling andit does not say it was Christ as God who reconciled the world to himself (Christ) as you are trying to say to prove your point. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:15:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ? I'm not into quibbling over Gk words JD; Yeh, we wouldn't want to accuse you of quibbling. You know full well that the italicized words in the KJ (aren't you one of them there KJ onlyist peoples?) means THAT THE WORD IS ADDED. You got it in your little hands -- the word father is italicized. What are we arguing about? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; herepeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 7:14) under the unction of the same Holy Spirit of course "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (God with us) (see Isa 9:6, Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3-5; Matt 1:22,23) Ampl It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8. Yes it is, the exact same wording is found in Isaiah 7:14. Immanuel means "God with us" Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came up with this revelation by himself. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ? I'm not into quibbling over Gk words JD; the meaning is more important to me and it is the Father all things were reconciled to at this point. This is repeated in Vs.22 "Yet now has (Christ the Messiah) reconciled (you to God) in the body of His flesh through death, in order to present you holy and faultless and irreproachable in His (the Father's) presence. (And this He will do) provided that you continue to stay with and
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
JD, this is not worth any more bandwidth - you are making a mountain out of a molehill ... a little teeny molehill at that. Matthew was not being original here. So what if he defines the meaning of the name Emmanuel? A Hebrew reading Hebrew could have done it also during the time of Isaiah in 740BC. PS: I will overlook your outlandish assumptions with regard to my character and person. You just don't know aboutboundaries or decorum I guess ... On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:10:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, here is the perfect example of what Lance has been telling you these past couple of days. Look at this exchanget: Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came up with this revelation by himself. The fact that I am talking about the definition of Immanuel, the fact that I have repeated myself on that point, the fact that I have given the word "definition" in caps for the sake of emphasis coupled with the fact that you still missed what I said and inserted "revelation [by himself" in the place of "definition" is proof positive that you miss the meaning of posted message. Lance does not think you do this "on purpose." I do. I think you have a spirit of rebellion within, that you are nonetheless a child of God and a sister in Christ -- albeit a rebellious sister (at times.) And I say "rebelliious" because , in this case, you simply do not want to admit you are wrong. I beleive you see my point perfectly and Lance is not so sure that you do. You will find the DEFINITION for "Immanuel" presented in two places - a Hebrew or Greek dictionary (lexicon) and in Matthew 1:23, written by Matthew. The Apostles is, indeed, giving us a "divinely stated defintioin." It is a definition that has no meaning without the corresponding reality -- Jesus IS God with us." You and DM change wording all the timeand then proceed as if saying something critical to the intitial discussion. Here , you have changedthe specific "definition" to the more general "revelation." In your comment above, you admit "Itmay not be spelled out " AND THAT IS MY VERY POINT. It ISN'T spelled out anywhere except in Matthew 1:23 by Matthew. Period. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; herepeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 7:14) under the unction of the same Holy Spirit of course "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (God with us) (see Isa 9:6, Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3-5; Matt 1:22,23) Ampl It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8. Yes it is, the exact same wording is found in Isaiah 7:14. Immanuel means "God with us" Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !!
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
2 Cor 5.19 ... that God was in Christ reconciling the world ... In the one person of Christ God was reconciling the world. Here we see what the fathers called the hypostatic union:God and humanity together, fully represented and fully reconciled in the constitution of this one person, Jesus Christ -- he being both fully divine and fully human, God and the world united in his person: What is so difficult about that? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 7:47 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God You must not be understanding JD; I said in my last post on this matter that for me meaning is a whole lot more important than quibbling over Greek words and the meaning of Col 1:19 is reinterated in 2 Cor 5:19 Where you will notice that it does say it was God (the Holy Spirit) in Christ who does the reconciling andit does not say it was Christ as God who reconciled the world to himself (Christ) as you are trying to say to prove your point. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:15:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ? I'm not into quibbling over Gk words JD; Yeh, we wouldn't want to accuse you of quibbling. You know full well that the italicized words in the KJ (aren't you one of them there KJ onlyist peoples?) means THAT THE WORD IS ADDED. You got it in your little hands -- the word father is italicized. What are we arguing about? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; herepeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 7:14) under the unction of the same Holy Spirit of course "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (God with us) (see Isa 9:6, Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3-5; Matt 1:22,23) Ampl It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8. Yes it is, the exact same wording is found in Isaiah 7:14. Immanuel means "God with us" Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came up with this revelation by himself. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God(to Dean)
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 8:49:13 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God(to Dean) Well, I am kind of liking the new Dean. Anyway -- maybe the difference is found in our function within the Body or just our personality make-up. I could have been quite the intellectual, I think, except that I was put into an Okies body !! I am as hick a looking guy as you will find. I write some of the big words and I understand most of what I read from the intellectual side of the room, but I seldom speak above a 10th grade level. cd: John I am in total disagreement with you on this as I have never spoken to a 10 th graded with this dept of understanding nor intellect-preach on. For me using "big words" often confuses but one does have to consider the audience we are attempting to communicate with and use appropriate wording- I have found that some "big words" can bring more dept of understanding to our message if the one receiving is able to find that dept of meaning in those words-for me anything else is a waste of time. and I absolutely love 'research" in the written word. We cannot, or shall I say, we dare not stop thinking. Our brains, Dean, were not made to justreceive. They were not made to thrill at the stagnent. For my money, the greatest question a student of the Message can ask -- over and over again - is "what if?" If you know greek, the big question is "what if this nuance was intended instead of that one?" But one can do much the same thing comparing the translations. If you are just looking for error - well, I guess that is easy to find. But sometimes, when comparing the translations, a thought goes roaring by because you were open to the text. If you don't reach out andgrab that moment of connectivity (just couln't come up with a better word, sorry) -- you miss some of the glory God intended as you study the Word. It is this kind of study that makes one a better communicator of God's word. It is this kind of study that reveals the Message to be God's Word !!! If we thrill at His presense, why not His Word ??? cd: Amen John but on that shady side I want to be sure that "thought" did come from God and not man-but I can also agree that the Holy Spirit can teach us which is of God and which is of man. This fear of being sure stems from the fact that I dwell uponthe read word almost continually and in doing so those word become a part of who I am-they are in effect becoming me-or better said I am becoming them- so the purest mewill be the most pleasing to God as the reflection of the Son must show in me-if not then I will have failed this Holy God and I don't want to always do so. The thrill you speak of is love for God John-I amthrilled to understand that and see that in you-thank for sharing this. My Unitarian son was asking me the other day, "Do you believe in verbal plenary inspiration, Dad?" If I had said "yes," the fight would have been on. He's a lawyer , 38 years old and asharp son of a gun. So I said this: "What I believe, son, is the thrill I experience as I study this book and a truth jumps out and hitsmerightbetween the eyes !! The mesh that is one thought moving into another thought, expressed hundreds of years apart but making perfect sense as you read them together,well, that is all the "proof" of inspiration I need.When it is all said and done, The Bible is extemely important to me because it takes me from the center of my world and puts Another's opinion there - one that has been proven over the centuries." And so I study and share and my son nods his head And, hopefully Dad has scored one for th e Kipper !! cd: Rest assured that if they become silent they are listening- to receive a nod is to get agreement-well done. My son is at odds with my beliefs also but it helps me to remember that those who loved Jesus the most is those He forgave the most-these usually end up being the strongest preachers of Gods word- so with my son I see hope beyond the drugs,Homo tendencies, fornication and the love of using others to have gain as my God is stronger than those weakinesses.So with that thought ever couple of years I try again. This year at Christmas he watched the Passion of Christ with me and laterthat night I heard him playing the DVD again-hope grows. No more noble an effort on my part than what you do with the Word in your world. Some of your methods are disagreeable to me. But you get this same thrill (I assume) not so much as you studybut as you reach out in ministry -- Street PreacherStyle. Our functions are different but the passion is of the same source. jd cd: Good to see you are not in total disagreement with Street Preaching John. Would you care to go and wittiness some of that in person in order to better understand why we preach in the manner we do? New Orleans
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
NOTHING! However, I'm prepared to say that Judy, past, present and, future, cannot 'reconcile' herself to this understanding. Thus my point concerning 'why'. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 07, 2006 10:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God 2 Cor 5.19 ... that God was in Christ reconciling the world ... In the one person of Christ God was reconciling the world. Here we see what the fathers called the hypostatic union:God and humanity together, fully represented and fully reconciled in the constitution of this one person, Jesus Christ -- he being both fully divine and fully human, God and the world united in his person: What is so difficult about that? Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 7:47 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God You must not be understanding JD; I said in my last post on this matter that for me meaning is a whole lot more important than quibbling over Greek words and the meaning of Col 1:19 is reinterated in 2 Cor 5:19 Where you will notice that it does say it was God (the Holy Spirit) in Christ who does the reconciling andit does not say it was Christ as God who reconciled the world to himself (Christ) as you are trying to say to prove your point. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:15:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ? I'm not into quibbling over Gk words JD; Yeh, we wouldn't want to accuse you of quibbling. You know full well that the italicized words in the KJ (aren't you one of them there KJ onlyist peoples?) means THAT THE WORD IS ADDED. You got it in your little hands -- the word father is italicized. What are we arguing about? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; herepeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 7:14) under the unction of the same Holy Spirit of course "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (God with us) (see Isa 9:6, Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3-5; Matt 1:22,23) Ampl It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8. Yes it is, the exact same wording is found in Isaiah 7:14. Immanuel means "God with us" Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I c
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God(to Dean)
cd: Good to see you are not in total disagreement with Street
Preaching John. Would you care to go and wittiness some of that in person in
order to better understand why we preach in the manner we do? New Orleans Mardi
Gras Tues Feb 23- March 1 -We havefood and lodging but the expense for the
trip is "Dutch". Regardless of choice-thank you for sharing a part of yourself
John as now I understand you more:-)
How far is Jackson, MS, from New Orleans, John?
Maybe we could meet a compromise here: you- and I'll go down to N.O. and learn
from the Street Preachers, and then Dean(and whoever else wants to) can
come up to Jackson and learn from Baxter and the boys. Sounds great to me . .
.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Dean
Moore
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 8:48
AM
Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as
the incarnate God(to Dean)
- Original Message -
From:
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/6/2006 8:49:13 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as
the incarnate God(to Dean)
Well, I am kind of liking the new Dean.
Anyway -- maybe the difference is found in our function within
the Body or just our personality make-up. I could have been quite the
intellectual, I think, except that I was put into an Okies body
!! I am as hick a looking guy as you will find. I write
some of the big words and I understand most of what I read from the
intellectual side of the room, but I seldom speak above a 10th grade
level.
cd: John I am in total disagreement with you on this as I have
never spoken to a 10 th graded with this dept of understanding nor
intellect-preach on. For me using "big words" often confuses but one does
have to consider the audience we are attempting to communicate with and use
appropriate wording- I have found that some "big words" can bring more dept
of understanding to our message if the one receiving is able to find that
dept of meaning in those words-for me anything else is a waste of
time.
and I absolutely love 'research" in the written word. We cannot,
or shall I say, we dare not stop thinking. Our brains, Dean, were
not made to justreceive. They were not made to
thrill at the stagnent. For my money, the greatest question a
student of the Message can ask -- over and over again - is
"what if?" If you know greek, the big question is "what if
this nuance was intended instead of that one?" But one can do much the
same thing comparing the translations. If you are just looking
for error - well, I guess that is easy to find. But
sometimes, when comparing the translations, a thought goes
roaring by because you were open to the text. If you don't reach out
andgrab that moment of connectivity (just couln't come up
with a better word, sorry) -- you miss some of the glory God
intended as you study the Word. It is this kind of study that makes
one a better communicator of God's word. It is this kind of study that
reveals the Message to be God's Word !!! If we thrill at His
presense, why not His Word ???
cd: Amen John but on that shady side I want to be sure that
"thought" did come from God and not man-but I can also agree that the Holy
Spirit can teach us which is of God and which is of man. This fear of being
sure stems from the fact that I dwell uponthe read word almost
continually and in doing so those word become a part of who I am-they are in
effect becoming me-or better said I am becoming them- so the purest
mewill be the most pleasing to God as the reflection of the Son must
show in me-if not then I will have failed this Holy God and I don't want to
always do so. The thrill you speak of is love for God John-I
amthrilled to understand that and see that in you-thank for sharing
this.
My Unitarian son was asking me the other day, "Do you believe in
verbal plenary inspiration, Dad?" If I had said
"yes," the fight would have been on. He's a lawyer , 38
years old and asharp son of a gun. So I said
this: "What I believe, son, is the thrill I experience
as I study this book and a truth jumps out and
hitsmerightbetween the eyes !! The mesh
that is one thought moving into another thought, expressed hundreds of years
apart but making perfect sense as you read them
together,well, that is all the "proof" of inspiration I
need.When it is all said and done, The Bible is
extemely important to me because it takes me from the center of my world and
puts Another's opinion there - one that has been proven over the
centuries."
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
The followig from the internet explains that this is a doctrine ppl are incapable of fully understanding - that being the case IMO it is just mouthing someone elses words. God gives understandig The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine that we are incapable to fully understanding. In summary, the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, that there is no mixture or dilution of either nature, and that He is one united Person. On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 10:52:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: NOTHING! However, I'm prepared to say that Judy, past, present and, future, cannot 'reconcile' herself to this understanding. Thus my point concerning 'why'. From: Taylor 2 Cor 5.19 ... that God was in Christ reconciling the world ... In the one person of Christ God was reconciling the world. Here we see what the fathers called the hypostatic union:God and humanity together, fully represented and fully reconciled in the constitution of this one person, Jesus Christ -- he being both fully divine and fully human, God and the world united in his person: What is so difficult about that? Bill From: Judy Taylor You must not be understanding JD; I said in my last post on this matter that for me meaning is a whole lot more important than quibbling over Greek words and the meaning of Col 1:19 is reinterated in 2 Cor 5:19 Where you will notice that it does say it was God (the Holy Spirit) in Christ who does the reconciling andit does not say it was Christ as God who reconciled the world to himself (Christ) as you are trying to say to prove your point. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:15:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ? I'm not into quibbling over Gk words JD; Yeh, we wouldn't want to accuse you of quibbling. You know full well that the italicized words in the KJ (aren't you one of them there KJ onlyist peoples?) means THAT THE WORD IS ADDED. You got it in your little hands -- the word father is italicized. What are we arguing about? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; herepeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 7:14) under the unction of the same Holy Spirit of course "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (God with us) (see Isa 9:6, Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3-5; Matt 1:22,23) Ampl It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8. Yes it is, the exact same wording is found in Isaiah 7:14. Immanuel means "God with us" Why
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
PS: To accept this doctrine one would have to deny the fall because the fact is that all are born by procreation into the first Adam who is under a curse. Jesus is the second Adam who is begotten rather than procreated; he had no sin nature, was under no curse. He was holy at his birth and never sinned; this can not be said of any other person. None. On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 11:42:31 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The followig from the internet explains that this is a doctrine ppl are incapable of fully understanding - that being the case IMO it is just mouthing someone elses words. God gives understandig The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine that we are incapable to fully understanding. In summary, the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, that there is no mixture or dilution of either nature, and that He is one united Person. On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 10:52:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: NOTHING! However, I'm prepared to say that Judy, past, present and, future, cannot 'reconcile' herself to this understanding. Thus my point concerning 'why'. From: Taylor 2 Cor 5.19 ... that God was in Christ reconciling the world ... In the one person of Christ God was reconciling the world. Here we see what the fathers called the hypostatic union:God and humanity together, fully represented and fully reconciled in the constitution of this one person, Jesus Christ -- he being both fully divine and fully human, God and the world united in his person: What is so difficult about that? Bill From: Judy Taylor You must not be understanding JD; I said in my last post on this matter that for me meaning is a whole lot more important than quibbling over Greek words and the meaning of Col 1:19 is reinterated in 2 Cor 5:19 Where you will notice that it does say it was God (the Holy Spirit) in Christ who does the reconciling andit does not say it was Christ as God who reconciled the world to himself (Christ) as you are trying to say to prove your point. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:15:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ? I'm not into quibbling over Gk words JD; Yeh, we wouldn't want to accuse you of quibbling. You know full well that the italicized words in the KJ (aren't you one of them there KJ onlyist peoples?) means THAT THE WORD IS ADDED. You got it in your little hands -- the word father is italicized. What are we arguing about? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; herepeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 7:14) under the unction of the same Holy Spirit of course "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (God with us) (see Isa 9:6, Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3-5; Matt 1:22,23)
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God(to Dean)
- Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/7/2006 11:35:38 AM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God(to Dean) cd: Good to see you are not in total disagreement with Street Preaching John. Would you care to go and wittiness some of that in person in order to better understand why we preach in the manner we do? New Orleans Mardi Gras Tues Feb 23- March 1 -We havefood and lodging but the expense for the trip is "Dutch". Regardless of choice-thank you for sharing a part of yourself John as now I understand you more:-) How far is Jackson, MS, from New Orleans, John? Maybe we could meet a compromise here: you- and I'll go down to N.O. and learn from the Street Preachers, and then Dean(and whoever else wants to) can come up to Jackson and learn from Baxter and the boys. Sounds great to me . . . Bill cd: Who are Baxter and the Boys Bill? I will be coming thru Mississippi (but will advoid Laural MS as I totaled my truck there last time on their s-cruve). - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 8:48 AM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God(to Dean) - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 8:49:13 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God(to Dean) Well, I am kind of liking the new Dean. Anyway -- maybe the difference is found in our function within the Body or just our personality make-up. I could have been quite the intellectual, I think, except that I was put into an Okies body !! I am as hick a looking guy as you will find. I write some of the big words and I understand most of what I read from the intellectual side of the room, but I seldom speak above a 10th grade level. cd: John I am in total disagreement with you on this as I have never spoken to a 10 th graded with this dept of understanding nor intellect-preach on. For me using "big words" often confuses but one does have to consider the audience we are attempting to communicate with and use appropriate wording- I have found that some "big words" can bring more dept of understanding to our message if the one receiving is able to find that dept of meaning in those words-for me anything else is a waste of time. and I absolutely love 'research" in the written word. We cannot, or shall I say, we dare not stop thinking. Our brains, Dean, were not made to justreceive. They were not made to thrill at the stagnent. For my money, the greatest question a student of the Message can ask -- over and over again - is "what if?" If you know greek, the big question is "what if this nuance was intended instead of that one?" But one can do much the same thing comparing the translations. If you are just looking for error - well, I guess that is easy to find. But sometimes, when comparing the translations, a thought goes roaring by because you were open to the text. If you don't reach out andgrab that moment of connectivity (just couln't come up with a better word, sorry) -- you miss some of the glory God intended as you study the Word. It is this kind of study that makes one a better communicator of God's word. It is this kind of study that reveals the Message to be God's Word !!! If we thrill at His presense, why not His Word ??? cd: Amen John but on that shady side I want to be sure that "thought" did come from God and not man-but I can also agree that the Holy Spirit can teach us which is of God and which is of man. This fear of being sure stems from the fact that I dwell uponthe read word almost continually and in doing so those word become a part of who I am-they are in effect becoming me-or better said I am becoming them- so the purest mewill be the most pleasing to God as the reflection of the Son must show in me-if not then I will have failed this Holy God and I don't want to always do so. The thrill you speak of is love for God John-I amthrilled to understand that and see that in you-thank for sharing this. My Unitarian son was asking me the other day, "Do you believe in verbal plenary inspiration, Dad?" If I had said "yes," the fight would have been on. He's a lawyer , 38 years old and asharp son of a gun. So I said this: "What I believe, son, is the thrill I experience as I study this book and a truth jumps out and hitsmerightbetween the eyes !! The mesh that is one thought moving into another thought, expressed hundreds of years apart but making perfect sense as you read them together,well, that is all the "proof" of inspiration I need.When it is all said and done, The Bible is extemely important to me because it takes me from the center of my world and puts Another's opinion there - one that has been proven over the centuries." And so I study and share and my son nods his head And, hopeful
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
An interesting aside, perhaps, on the terminology of "hypostatic union": The Greek word hupostasis is a compound of hupos which means "under" and stasis which means "to stand"; hence in this phrase we have the "understanding" union. That understanding maynot be exhaustive, but it is real and true nonetheless. This is the case with all our understanding of God: because we are finite and he infinite, it is impossible for us to fully comprehend him, but that is not to say that we can know him to our fullest potential; that is, to really know him. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 9:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God The followig from the internet explains that this is a doctrine ppl are incapable of fully understanding - that being the case IMO it is just mouthing someone elses words. God gives understandig The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine that we are incapable to fully understanding. In summary, the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, that there is no mixture or dilution of either nature, and that He is one united Person. On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 10:52:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: NOTHING! However, I'm prepared to say that Judy, past, present and, future, cannot 'reconcile' herself to this understanding. Thus my point concerning 'why'. From: Taylor 2 Cor 5.19 ... that God was in Christ reconciling the world ... In the one person of Christ God was reconciling the world. Here we see what the fathers called the hypostatic union:God and humanity together, fully represented and fully reconciled in the constitution of this one person, Jesus Christ -- he being both fully divine and fully human, God and the world united in his person: What is so difficult about that? Bill From: Judy Taylor You must not be understanding JD; I said in my last post on this matter that for me meaning is a whole lot more important than quibbling over Greek words and the meaning of Col 1:19 is reinterated in 2 Cor 5:19 Where you will notice that it does say it was God (the Holy Spirit) in Christ who does the reconciling andit does not say it was Christ as God who reconciled the world to himself (Christ) as you are trying to say to prove your point. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:15:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ? I'm not into quibbling over Gk words JD; Yeh, we wouldn't want to accuse you of quibbling. You know full well that the italicized words in the KJ (aren't you one of them there KJ onlyist peoples?) means THAT THE WORD IS ADDED. You got it in your little hands -- the word father is italicized. What are we arguing about? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; herepeats the words of the proph
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
. . . a doctrine ppl are incapable of fully understanding . . . God gives understanding Judy, do you fully understand God? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 9:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God The followig from the internet explains that this is a doctrine ppl are incapable of fully understanding - that being the case IMO it is just mouthing someone elses words. God gives understandig The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine that we are incapable to fully understanding. In summary, the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, that there is no mixture or dilution of either nature, and that He is one united Person.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Yeah, either that or it will require that you correct your understanding on some of the issues you raise. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God PS: To accept this doctrine one would have to deny the fall because the fact is that all are born by procreation into the first Adam who is under a curse. Jesus is the second Adam who is begotten rather than procreated; he had no sin nature, was under no curse. He was holy at his birth and never sinned; this can not be said of any other person. None. On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 11:42:31 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The followig from the internet explains that this is a doctrine ppl are incapable of fully understanding - that being the case IMO it is just mouthing someone elses words. God gives understandig The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine that we are incapable to fully understanding. In summary, the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, that there is no mixture or dilution of either nature, and that He is one united Person. On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 10:52:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: NOTHING! However, I'm prepared to say that Judy, past, present and, future, cannot 'reconcile' herself to this understanding. Thus my point concerning 'why'. From: Taylor 2 Cor 5.19 ... that God was in Christ reconciling the world ... In the one person of Christ God was reconciling the world. Here we see what the fathers called the hypostatic union:God and humanity together, fully represented and fully reconciled in the constitution of this one person, Jesus Christ -- he being both fully divine and fully human, God and the world united in his person: What is so difficult about that? Bill From: Judy Taylor You must not be understanding JD; I said in my last post on this matter that for me meaning is a whole lot more important than quibbling over Greek words and the meaning of Col 1:19 is reinterated in 2 Cor 5:19 Where you will notice that it does say it was God (the Holy Spirit) in Christ who does the reconciling andit does not say it was Christ as God who reconciled the world to himself (Christ) as you are trying to say to prove your point. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:15:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ? I'm not into quibbling over Gk words JD; Yeh, we wouldn't want to accuse you of quibbling. You know full well that the italicized words in the KJ (aren't you one of them there KJ onlyist peoples?) means THAT THE WORD IS ADDED. You got it in your little hands -- the word father is italicized. What are we arguing about? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Either what Bill? On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 10:33:35 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah, either that or it will require that you correct your understanding on some of the issues you raise. Bill From: Judy Taylor PS: To accept this doctrine one would have to deny the fall because the fact is that all are born by procreation into the first Adam who is under a curse. Jesus is the second Adam who is begotten rather than procreated; he had no sin nature, was under no curse. He was holy at his birth and never sinned; this can not be said of any other person. None. On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 11:42:31 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The followig from the internet explains that this is a doctrine ppl are incapable of fully understanding - that being the case IMO it is just mouthing someone elses words. God gives understandig The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine that we are incapable to fully understanding. In summary, the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, that there is no mixture or dilution of either nature, and that He is one united Person. On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 10:52:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: NOTHING! However, I'm prepared to say that Judy, past, present and, future, cannot 'reconcile' herself to this understanding. Thus my point concerning 'why'. From: Taylor 2 Cor 5.19 ... that God was in Christ reconciling the world ... In the one person of Christ God was reconciling the world. Here we see what the fathers called the hypostatic union:God and humanity together, fully represented and fully reconciled in the constitution of this one person, Jesus Christ -- he being both fully divine and fully human, God and the world united in his person: What is so difficult about that? Bill From: Judy Taylor You must not be understanding JD; I said in my last post on this matter that for me meaning is a whole lot more important than quibbling over Greek words and the meaning of Col 1:19 is reinterated in 2 Cor 5:19 Where you will notice that it does say it was God (the Holy Spirit) in Christ who does the reconciling andit does not say it was Christ as God who reconciled the world to himself (Christ) as you are trying to say to prove your point. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:15:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ? I'm not into quibbling over Gk words JD; Yeh, we wouldn't want to accuse you of quibbling. You know full well that the italicized words in the KJ (aren't you one of them there KJ onlyist peoples?) means THAT THE WORD IS ADDED. You got it in your little hands -- the word father is italicized. What are we arguing about? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 11:43:47 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God couple of thoughts, Dean. I do not think we disagree at all on point #4. The union that is the being we know as Jesus (Son of God, Son of Man) is not possible without the function of humility (Philip 2) and that is what you are talking bout at #4. You make a timely addition to what I said. I fully agree with you on this. Your comment at #5 -- could you explain this. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." cd: I agree with this towards a hint of the "word" of St. John1being more than just a son as 1;1 shows Christ's Deity as God. # cd: I seemed to be trying to put the placement of your mentioned "the Son" closer towards v.1 being God-to support you faith as Christ being God. Regardless, we are stating the same conclusion. I think I see your point, but not sure. At #6, there are those who believe that He was a son of God as we are. This confession of Peter's lays taht to rest because the confession and the truth of the confession are the product of revelation (flesh and blood has not revealed ..) If Jesus is only a son , revelation is not necessary. I beleive that "Son of God" meant that He was God. cd:Iview the word "Son" as a directional meaning pointing to God-so yes the same truth has prevailed in us both-past the worldly deception all men suffer(ed) from-may God receive the praise. 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. cd: On thisI am in total agreement John. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all things, on the earth and in the heavens unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. cd: On thisI am in agreement as Jesus flooded the earth and was the great" I Am" that Moses spoke to in the burning bush. Christ is also seen as the Captain of the Lord of Hostsin Joshua 5 :13-15. (Note that no Angelic being ever allowed this type of worshiping to happen due in my opinion to Godly fear). 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His eternity as the Son. cd: Again we agree. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. cd: There is a shade of disagreement here as I view Christ as taking on a subjective role while a man-with all the frailties of a man-while in the form of man.Yet not forgetting the Glory/ Honor he held with the Fatherbefore the foundation of the world.In that earthly form he showed strong tears and crying before God and was heard in that He feared God Hebrews 5:7. He is also shown as the Lord almighty in Rev 1:8 so the son ship role did/is/will end(ed) to total equality. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." cd: I agree with this towards a hint of the "word" of St. John1being more than just a son as 1;1 shows Christ's Deity as God. 6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy Representative of the living God." cd: On this I strongly agree as to be anything else-such as a prophet-is to make Christ a liar-for he said "I am" and the Jews clearly understood this to mean equal with God as they sought to killhim. King Nebuchadnezzar make this same claim and was struck withinsanity for 7 yrs. I hope I am not confusion anyone-if so push for the explanation. Bill if you were asking for something else or more please clarifly. Hoping to help. jd
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God(to Dean)
(I assume) not so much as you studybut as you reach out in ministry -- Street PreacherStyle. Our functions are different but the passion is of the same source. jd cd: Good to see you are not in total disagreement with Street Preaching John. Would you care to go and wittiness some of that in person in order to better understand why we preach in the manner we do? New Orleans Mardi Gras Tues Feb 23- March 1 -We havefood and lodging but the expense for the trip is "Dutch". Regardless of choice-thank you for sharing a part of yourself John as now I understand you more:-) -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 3:38:57 AM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts. Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley. cd: John what I meant by stating:" You on the other hand are a different matter entirely"in the last couple of sentences is that you view /search thing differently then I . I just accept things at some point in my search ESP when I realize there aresome things will never be understood while in this flesh.-you go deeper with the why/how -I think but realize I also searched this long and hard many times thur the years.I think I am saying I have rest with Christ being God you want more-make sense?
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God(to Dean)
Hmm - that not a bad a idea!! -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cd: Good to see you are not in total disagreement with Street Preaching John. Would you care to go and wittiness some of that in person in order to better understand why we preach in the manner we do? New Orleans Mardi Gras Tues Feb 23- March 1 -We havefood and lodging but the expense for the trip is "Dutch". Regardless of choice-thank you for sharing a part of yourself John as now I understand you more:-) How far is Jackson, MS, from New Orleans, John? Maybe we could meet a compromise here: you- and I'll go down to N.O. and learn from the Street Preachers, and then Dean(and whoever else wants to) can come up to Jackson and learn from Baxter and the boys. Sounds great to me . . . Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 8:48 AM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God(to Dean) - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 8:49:13 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God(to Dean) Well, I am kind of liking the new Dean. Anyway -- maybe the difference is found in our function within the Body or just our personality make-up. I could have been quite the intellectual, I think, except that I was put into an Okies body !! I am as hick a looking guy as you will find. I write some of the big words and I understand most of what I read from the intellectual side of the room, but I seldom speak above a 10th grade level. cd: John I am in total disagreement with you on this as I have never spoken to a 10 th graded with this dept of understanding nor intellect-preach on. For me using "big words" often confuses but one does have to consider the audience we are attempting to communicate with and use appropriate wording- I have found that some "big words" can bring more dept of understanding to our message if the one receiving is able to find that dept of meaning in those words-for me anything else is a waste of time. and I absolutely love 'research" in the written word. We cannot, or shall I say, we dare not stop thinking. Our brains, Dean, were not made to justreceive. They were not made to thrill at the stagnent. For my money, the greatest question a student of the Message can ask -- over and over again - is "what if?" If you know greek, the big question is "what if this nuance was intended instead of that one?" But one can do much the same thing comparing the translations. If you are just looking for error - well, I guess that is easy to find. But sometimes, when comparing the translations, a thought goes roaring by because you were open to the text. If you don't reach out andgrab that moment of connectivity (just couln't come up with a better word, sorry) -- you miss some of the glory God intended as you study the Word. It is this kind of study that makes one a better communicator of God's word. It is this kind of study that reveals the Message to be God's Word !!! If we thrill at His presense, why not His Word ??? cd: Amen John but on that shady side I want to be sure that "thought" did come from God and not man-but I can also agree that the Holy Spirit can teach us which is of God and which is of man. This fear of being sure stems from the fact that I dwell uponthe read word almost continually and in doing so those word become a part of who I am-they are in effect becoming me-or better said I am becoming them- so the purest mewill be the most pleasing to God as the reflection of the Son must show in me-if not then I will have failed this Holy God and I don't want to always do so. The thrill you speak of is love for God John-I amthrilled to understand that and see that in you-thank for sharing this. My Unitarian son was asking me the other day, "Do you believe in verbal plenary inspiration, Dad?" If I had said "yes," the fight would have been on. He's a lawyer , 38 years old and asharp son of a gun. So I said this: "What I believe, son, is the thrill I experience as I study this book and a truth jumps out and hitsmerightbetween the eyes !! The mesh that is one thought moving into another thought, expressed hundreds of years apart but making perfect sense as you read them together,well, that is all the "proof" of inspiration I need.When it is all said and done, The Bible is extemely important to me because it takes me from the center of my world and puts Another's opinion there - one that has been proven over the centuries." And so I study and share and my son nods his head And, hopefully Dad has scored one for th e Kipper !! cd: Rest assured that if they become silent they are listening- to receive a nod is to get agreement-well done. My son is at odds with my beliefs also but
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Thanks, Dean jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 11:43:47 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God couple of thoughts, Dean. I do not think we disagree at all on point #4. The union that is the being we know as Jesus (Son of God, Son of Man) is not possible without the function of humility (Philip 2) and that is what you are talking bout at #4. You make a timely addition to what I said. I fully agree with you on this. Your comment at #5 -- could you explain this. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." cd: I agree with this towards a hint of the "word" of St. John1being more than just a son as 1;1 shows Christ's Deity as God. # cd: I seemed to be trying to put the placement of your mentioned "the Son" closer towards v.1 being God-to support you faith as Christ being God. Regardless, we are stating the same conclusion. I think I see your point, but not sure. At #6, there are those who believe that He was a son of God as we are. This confession of Peter's lays taht to rest because the confession and the truth of the confession are the product of revelation (flesh and blood has not revealed ..) If Jesus is only a son , revelation is not necessary. I beleive that "Son of God" meant that He was God. cd:Iview the word "Son" as a directional meaning pointing to God-so yes the same truth has prevailed in us both-past the worldly deception all men suffer(ed) from-may God receive the praise. 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. cd: On thisI am in total agreement John. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all things, on the earth and in the heavens unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. cd: On thisI am in agreement as Jesus flooded the earth and was the great" I Am" that Moses spoke to in the burning bush. Christ is also seen as the Captain of the Lord of Hostsin Joshua 5 :13-15. (Note that no Angelic being ever allowed this type of worshiping to happen due in my opinion to Godly fear). 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His eternity as the Son. cd: Again we agree. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. cd: There is a shade of disagreement here as I view Christ as taking on a subjective role while a man-with all the frailties of a man-while in the form of man.Yet not forgetting the Glory/ Honor he held with the Fatherbefore the foundation of the world.In that earthly form he showed strong tears and crying before God and was heard in that He feared God Hebrews 5:7. He is also shown as the Lord almighty in Rev 1:8 so the son ship role did/is/will end(ed) to total equality. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." cd: I agree with this towards a hint of the "word" of St. John1being more than just a son as 1;1 shows Christ's Deity as God. 6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy Representative of the living God." cd: On this I strongly agree as to be anything else-such as a prophet-is to make Christ a liar-for he said "I am" and the Jews clearly understood this to mean equal with God as they sought to killhim. King Nebuchadnezzar make this same claim and was struck withinsanity for 7 yrs. I hope I am not confusion anyone-if so push for the explanation. Bill if you were asking for something else or more please clarifly. Hoping to help. jd
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
10:30 - I and my Father are one - If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said these words without being guilty of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that Christ does not say, I and My Father, which my our translation very improperly supplies, and which in this place would have conveyed a widely different meaning: for then it would imply that the human nature of Christ, of which alone, I conceive, God is ever said to be the Father in Scripture, was equal to the Most High: but he says, speaking then as God over all, I and The Father, e?? ?a? ?? pat?? e?? esµe? - the Creator of all things, the Judge of all men, the Father of the spirits of all flesh - are One, One in nature, One in all the attributes of Godhead, and One in all the operations of those attributes: and so it is evident the Jews understood him. See Joh_17:11, Joh_17:22. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:39 AM Subject: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] EarthLink Revolves Around You. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 12:18:07 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 9:48:58 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all things, on the earth and in the heavens unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His eternity as the Son. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." 6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy Representative of the living God." Hoping to help. jd cd:Also consider these words of Jesus I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8) ...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11) I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18) John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time without end-I can only solve this by a comparison of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that has no end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what isthere at that end?A wall? And what is on the other side of that wall or is thedept of that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to thinkof one being who are three-but ifI consider my self more then one my understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and spirit-this is how I am created in the image of one who is a spirit, who came in the body and has /is a eternal soul. Three parts of the whole. Take a whole pie , cut it into three equal slices and taste each slice. How are they different? They taste, look ,and smell the same but are different slices-yet they are the same. That being said I simple view Christ as God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem solved-for me. You on the other hand are a d ifferently matter entirely:-) So here is another type of similar theory/thinking. John Wesley wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and the Father are one - Not by consent of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one _expression_ of himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore if he was not God he must have been the vilest of m
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
See 'He Came Down From Heaven' The Preexistence of Christ and the Christian Faith' by Douglas McCready, IVP 2005 - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 03:38 Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts. Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley. Dean, I believe there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. The Spirit expresses the will of the Father and the Son. You do not know anything about Barth, nor do you care but, his view is something that I fully agree with -- and, I came to my understanding before I read Barth. The personality of God is seen in the two. The activity of God is seen in the third. I have been in discussion with some Unitarians. These men (there are three of them) believe that God and the Father are one and the same to the exclusion of all other considerations. Christ pre-existed the virgin birth only as the "Plan."So your scriptures where of some importance to me. I skipped the part ofyour post that set us at odds. But, there it is.Iam interested in your answer to Bill's question, as well. Another point that I did not include in my post is this: if Christ had a pre-existence as something or someone other than the Son of God, then His sonship is an action of adoption. It makes no differenc to me whether He was born and this "begetting" made Him the Son -- such begetting is only a form of adoption, if Christ pre-existed that birth as something other than the Son. We have Andy Taylor and He is predestined to become Andy Smithson. There is no way in which he can become a Smithson except through some form of adoption and weknow this because he has a prior existence as someone other thanAndy Smithson. There is no "becoming" when it comes to the Sonship of Christ because there is no hint of adoption in His regard. If He is alive and well and not the Son, His becoming is adoptive. Ok -- I'll stop repeating myself. I think this is a strong point. jd -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Dean. I moved your post up in its entirety below.Thequestion I am having difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention. Ivery much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), witha possible exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can mean"only unique," and therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other than that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very well-stated. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill cd:Also consider these words of Jesus I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8) ...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11) I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18) John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time without end-I can only solve this by a comparison of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that has no end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what isthere at that end?A wall? And what is on the other side of that wall or is thedept of that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to thinkof one being who are three-but ifI consider my self more then one my understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and spirit-this is how I am created in the image of one who is a spirit, who came in the body and has /is a eternal soul. Three parts of the whole. Take a whole pie , cut it into three equal slices and taste each slice. How are they different? They taste, look ,and smell the same but are different slices-yet they are the same. That being said I simple view Christ as God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem solved
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Again, see 'He came down from Heaven' The Preexistence of
Christ and the Christian Faith' Douglas McCready, IVP, 2005
- Original Message -
From:
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 05, 2006 23:32
Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as
the incarnate God
Hi Dean. I moved your post up in
its entirety below.Thequestion I am having difficulties answering
in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with
John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention.
Ivery much affirm
everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), witha possible
exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state
that "only begotten" is a term which can mean"only unique," and
therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only
a reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other than
that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very well-stated.
But then when I read your post, I find myself in
much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern.
And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help
add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this
one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very
much appreciated.
Thanks,
Bill
cd:Also consider these words of Jesus
I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the
Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev
1:8)
...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11)
I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18)
John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week ends-as does
years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time without end-I can only
solve this by a comparison of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that
has no end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what isthere at
that end?A wall? And what is on the other side of that wall or is
thedept of that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to thinkof
one being who are three-but ifI consider my self more then one my
understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and spirit-this is how I
am created in the image of one who is a spirit, who came in the body and has
/is a eternal soul. Three parts of the whole. Take a whole pie , cut it into
three equal slices and taste each slice. How are they different? They taste,
look ,and smell the same but are different slices-yet they are the same. That
being said I simple view Christ as God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem
solved-for me. You on the other hand are a d ifferently matter entirely:-) So
here is another type of similar theory/thinking.
John Wesley wrote:
Joh 10:30 - I and the Father are one - Not by consent of will only, but
by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes
Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius,
proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the
beginning of the world, use any one _expression_ of himself, which could
possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that
heard our Lord speak. Therefore if he was not God he must have been the vilest
of men.
Adam Clark wrote:
Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one - If
Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said these words without being guilty
of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that Christ does not say, I and My
Father, which my our translation very improperly supplies, and which in this
place would have conveyed a widely different meaning: for then it would imply
that the human nature of Christ, of which alone, I conceive, God is ever said
to be the Father in Scripture, was equal to the Most High: but he says,
speaking then as God over all, I and The Father, e?? ?a? ?? pat?? e??
esµe? - the Creator of all things, the Judge of all men,
the Father of the spirits of all flesh - are One, One in nature, One in all
the attributes of Godhead, and One in all the operations of those attributes:
and so it is evident the Jews understood him. See Joh_17:11, Joh_17:22.
- Original Message -
From:
Dean
Moore
To: TruthTalk
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:39
AM
Subject: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as
the incarnate God
Dean Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
- Original Message -
From:
Dean
Moore
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/5/2006 12:18:07 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as
the incarnate God
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. The word "begotten" means just what it says JD. It is also used in Gen 5:4; Lev 18:11, Deu 23:8, John 1:14 and Acts 13:33. The meaning in these verses is plain. It is a mystery to me why you would want to change it to "unique" unless it is to conform to some doctrine outside the scope of God's Word and the faith ONCE delivered to the saints. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and the Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." What makes you think John 1:10 references the "incarnation"? John had just said "he is the light who gives light to every man" and long before any incarnation it is written "Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" Jesus is the Word spoken through the prophets and rejected by God's covenant people. 6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy Representative of the living God." Christ? Means "anointed one" JD. Hoping to help. jd
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
parts of the whole. Take
a whole pie , cut it into three equal slices and taste each slice. How are
they different? They taste, look ,and smell the same but are different
slices-yet they are the same. That being said I simple view Christ as
God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem solved-for me. You on the other
hand are a d ifferently matter entirely:-) So here is another type of
similar theory/thinking.
John Wesley wrote:
Joh 10:30 - I and the Father are one - Not by consent of will only,
but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes
Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius,
proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the
beginning of the world, use any one _expression_ of himself, which could
possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that
heard our Lord speak. Therefore if he was not God he must have been the
vilest of men.
Adam Clark wrote:
Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one -
If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said these words
without being guilty of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that Christ does
not say, I and My Father, which my our translation very improperly supplies,
and which in this place would have conveyed a widely different meaning: for
then it would imply that the human nature of Christ, of which alone, I
conceive, God is ever said to be the Father in Scripture, was equal to the
Most High: but he says, speaking then as God over all, I and The Father,
e?? ?a? ??
pat?? e?? esµe? - the Creator of all things, the Judge
of all men, the Father of the spirits of all flesh - are One, One in nature,
One in all the attributes of Godhead, and One in all the operations of those
attributes: and so it is evident the Jews understood him. See
Joh_17:11,
Joh_17:22.
- Original Message -
From:
Dean
Moore
To: TruthTalk
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006
10:39 AM
Subject: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ
as the incarnate God
Dean Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
- Original Message -
From:
Dean Moore
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/5/2006 12:18:07 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as
the incarnate God
- Original Message -
From:
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/5/2006 9:48:58 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ
as the incarnate God
1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for
Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the
meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you
will --- God with us. This
single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people
will choose to follow their bias.
2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ
reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the
representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn
all things, on the earth and in the heavens unto Himself. This
passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate
Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation
was performed in the body of His flesh.
3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the
gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the
world, estalishing His eternity as the Son.
4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that
actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or
appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ
became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal
Son, never becoming -- always being.
5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and
Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world
(incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not
know Him."
6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful statement that
looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy
Representative of the living God."
Hoping to help.
jd
cd:Also con
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
NOTHING, Judy, is so unless it stands in the light of ALL scripture. You do understand, do you not, that that includes what YOU SAY, do you not? 'Nonsense' you say? John/Bill hold more understanding of the scriptures in their pinky finger that you ever will should you live for another 1,000 years. You, Judy, need more understandintg that comes by the Holy Spirit than comes by the 'rationalizing' of your own mind. No matter what DM suggests by his various references to 'inspired' readings of scripture, neither you nor he read scripture infallibly. Get over the 'idolotry' of your interpretation. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 06:48 Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:38:57 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts. Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley. Dean, I believe there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. The Spirit expresses the will of the Father and the Son. You do not know anything about Barth, nor do you care but, his view is something that I fully agree with -- and, I came to my understanding before I read Barth. The personality of God is seen in the two. The activity of God is seen in the third. I have been in discussion with some Unitarians. These men (there are three of them) believe that God and the Father are one and the same to the exclusion of all other considerations. Christ pre-existed the virgin birth only as the "Plan."So your scriptures where of some importance to me. I skipped the part ofyour post that set us at odds. But, there it is.Iam interested in your answer to Bill's question, as well. There it is - the theology of Barth. Just because it came to you before you read him does not mean it is so unless it stands in the light of ALL scripture. Another point that I did not include in my post is this: if Christ had a pre-existence as something or someone other than the Son of God, then His sonship is an action of adoption. Nonsense. He was the pre-existent Word or Wisdom of God for whom God provided a body. In Luke 24:44 He tells ppl that he has been written about in the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Other than the prophecy in Isa 9 - "Unto us a child is born" where do you find an "eternal Son" in all of the OT? It makes no differenc to me whether He was born and this "begetting" made Him the Son -- such begetting is only a form of adoption, if Christ pre-existed that birth as something other than the Son. We have Andy Taylor and He is predestined to become Andy Smithson. There is no way in which he can become a Smithson except through some form of adoption and weknow this because he has a prior existence as someone other thanAndy Smithson. There is no "becoming" when it comes to the Sonship of Christ because there is no hint of adoption in His regard. If He is alive and well and not the Son, His becoming is adoptive. Ok -- I'll stop repeating myself. I think this is a strong point. jd You need "understanding" which comes by way of the Holy Spirit, rather than Barthian "rationalizing" JD From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Dean. I moved your post up in its entirety below.Thequestion I am having difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention. Ivery much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), witha possible exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can mean"only unique," and therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other than that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very well-stated. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill cd:Also consider these words of Jesus I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginnin
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Why should I pay any more mind to you than I do to SNL
Lance? You give your opinion which is all you seem
to have to hang on to. If you can show me
evidence by God's Word that what I presently believe is wrong then
I
will give serious consideration to your counter
points. So far all you have produced is opinions, yours and
those
of others. Yes .. scripture is to be understood
in the light of All other scripture so that there are no
contradictions
and you don't have to explain away or cut out anything
- jt
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:18:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NOTHING, Judy, is so unless it stands in the
light of ALL scripture. You do understand, do you not, that that includes what
YOU SAY, do you not?
'Nonsense' you say? John/Bill hold more
understanding of the scriptures in their pinky finger that you ever will
should you live for another 1,000 years.
You, Judy, need more understandintg that comes by
the Holy Spirit than comes by the 'rationalizing' of your own mind. No matter
what DM suggests by his various references to 'inspired' readings of
scripture, neither you nor he read scripture infallibly. Get over the
'idolotry' of your interpretation.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 06, 2006 06:48
Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as
the incarnate God
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:38:57 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts.
Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below,
just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley.
Dean, I believe there is a Father, a Son and a Holy
Spirit. The Spirit expresses the will of the Father and the
Son. You do not know anything about Barth,
nor do you care but, his view is something that I fully agree
with -- and, I came to my understanding
before I read Barth. The personality of God is seen in the
two. The activity of God is seen in the third. I have
been in discussion with some Unitarians. These men
(there are three of them) believe that God and the Father are one and the
same to the exclusion of all other considerations. Christ
pre-existed the virgin birth only as the "Plan."So your
scriptures where of some importance to me. I skipped the part
ofyour post that set us at odds. But, there it
is.Iam interested in your answer to Bill's question, as
well.
There it is - the theology of Barth. Just because
it came to you before you read him does not mean it is so
unless
it stands in the light of ALL
scripture.
Another point that I did not include in my post is this: if
Christ had a pre-existence as something or someone other than the Son of
God, then His sonship is an action of adoption.
Nonsense. He was the pre-existent Word or
Wisdom of God for whom God provided a body. In Luke 24:44 He tells
ppl that he has been written about in the law of Moses, the Prophets, and
the Psalms. Other than the prophecy in Isa 9 - "Unto us a
child is born" where do you find an "eternal Son" in all of the
OT?
It makes no differenc to me whether He was born and this
"begetting" made Him the Son -- such begetting is only a
form of adoption, if Christ pre-existed that birth as something other than
the Son. We have Andy Taylor and He is predestined
to become Andy Smithson. There is no way in which he can
become a Smithson except through some form of adoption and weknow
this because he has a prior existence as someone other thanAndy
Smithson. There is no "becoming" when it comes to the Sonship of
Christ because there is no hint of adoption in His
regard. If He is alive and well and not the
Son, His becoming is adoptive. Ok -- I'll stop repeating
myself. I think this is a strong point.
jd
You need "understanding" which comes by way of
the Holy Spirit, rather than Barthian "rationalizing" JD
From:
"Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Dean. I moved your post
up in its entirety below.Thequestion I am having
difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you
see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in
understanding your point of contention.
Ivery much
affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below),
witha possible exception over the wording in his fourth point,
where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can
mean&
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. The word "begotten" means just what it says JD. It is also used in Gen 5:4; Lev 18:11, Deu 23:8, John 1:14 and Acts 13:33. The meaning in these verses is plain. It is a mystery to me why you would want to change it to "unique" unless it is to conform to some doctrine outside the scope of God's Word and the faith ONCE delivered to the saints. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and the Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." What makes you think John 1:10 references the "incarnation"? John had just said "he is the light who gives light to every man" and long before any incarnation it is written "Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" Jesus is the Word spoken through the prophets and rejected by God's covenant people. 6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy Representative of the living God." Christ? Means "anointed one" JD. Hoping to help. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 07:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. The word "begotten" means just what it says JD. It is also used in Gen 5:4; Lev 18:11, Deu 23:8, John 1:14 and Acts 13:33. The meaning in these verses is plain. It is a mystery to me why you would want to change it to "unique" unless it is to conform to some doctrine outside the scope of God's Word and the faith ONCE delivered to the saints. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and the Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." What makes you think John 1:10 references the "incarnation"? John had just said "he is the light who gives light to every man" and long before any incarnation it is written "Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" Jesus is the Word spoken through the prophets and rejected by God's covenant people. 6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy Representative of the living God." Christ? Means "anointed one" JD. Hoping to help. jd
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
I don't believe I've ever seen you respond, since
my appearance on TT, to ANYONE'S BIBLICAL EVIDENCE that ran counter to your own.
Why? I've no idea! IMO, SOME, of that which ran counter to your understanding
was SOUND while your understanding was UNSOUND. I've seen David exhibit
remarkable patience while walking you through something a step at a time. How
did it end up? Pretty much where it was to begin with. Why? I've no
idea!
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 06, 2006 07:38
Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as
the incarnate God
Why should I pay any more mind to you than I do to
SNL Lance? You give your opinion which is all you seem
to have to hang on to. If you can show me
evidence by God's Word that what I presently believe is wrong then
I
will give serious consideration to your counter
points. So far all you have produced is opinions, yours and
those
of others. Yes .. scripture is to be understood
in the light of All other scripture so that there are no
contradictions
and you don't have to explain away or cut out
anything - jt
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:18:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
NOTHING, Judy, is so unless it stands in the
light of ALL scripture. You do understand, do you not, that that includes
what YOU SAY, do you not?
'Nonsense' you say? John/Bill hold more
understanding of the scriptures in their pinky finger that you ever will
should you live for another 1,000 years.
You, Judy, need more understandintg that comes
by the Holy Spirit than comes by the 'rationalizing' of your own mind. No
matter what DM suggests by his various references to 'inspired' readings of
scripture, neither you nor he read scripture infallibly. Get over the
'idolotry' of your interpretation.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 06, 2006 06:48
Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ
as the incarnate God
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:38:57 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts.
Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below,
just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley.
Dean, I believe there is a Father, a Son and a Holy
Spirit. The Spirit expresses the will of the Father and the
Son. You do not know anything about
Barth, nor do you care but, his view is something that I fully
agree with -- and, I came to my
understanding before I read Barth. The personality of God is
seen in the two. The activity of God is seen in the
third. I have been in discussion with some
Unitarians. These men (there are three of them)
believe that God and the Father are one and the same to the exclusion of
all other considerations. Christ pre-existed the virgin
birth only as the "Plan."So your scriptures where of some
importance to me. I skipped the part ofyour post that
set us at odds. But, there it is.Iam
interested in your answer to Bill's question, as well.
There it is - the theology of Barth. Just
because it came to you before you read him does not mean it is so
unless
it stands in the light of ALL
scripture.
Another point that I did not include in my post is this: if
Christ had a pre-existence as something or someone other than the Son of
God, then His sonship is an action of adoption.
Nonsense. He was the pre-existent Word or
Wisdom of God for whom God provided a body. In Luke 24:44 He tells
ppl that he has been written about in the law of Moses, the Prophets,
and the Psalms. Other than the prophecy in Isa 9 - "Unto us
a child is born" where do you find an "eternal Son" in all of the
OT?
It makes no differenc to me whether He was born and this
"begetting" made Him the Son -- such begetting is only
a form of adoption, if Christ pre-existed that birth as something other
than the Son. We have Andy Taylor and He is
predestined to become Andy Smithson. There is no way
in which he can become a Smithson except through some form of adoption
and weknow this because he has a prior existence as someone other
thanAndy Smithson. There is no "becoming" when it comes to
the Sonship of Christ because there is no hint of adoption in His
regard. If He is alive and well and not the
Son, His becoming is adoptive. Ok -- I'll stop
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. The word "begotten" means just what it says JD. It is also used in Gen 5:4; Lev 18:11, Deu 23:8, John 1:14 and Acts 13:33. The meaning in these verses is plain. It is a mystery to me why you would want to change it to "unique" unless it is to conform to some doctrine outside the scope of God's Word and the faith ONCE delivered to the saints. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and the Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." What makes you think John 1:10 references the "incarnation"? John had just said "he is the light who gives light to every man" and long before any incarnation it is written "Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" Jesus is the Word spoken through the prophets and rejected by God's covenant people. 6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy Representative of the living God." Christ? Means "anointed one" JD.
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
You are not producing anything here Lance - just
alluding to things I can't recall. You need to produce the "so
called"
evidence along with my "unsound" understanding.
The only issue I remember DavidM "patiently" trying to walk me
through
is something that is more in his field of biology ie
his belief that Jesus had a fallen Adamic nature just like ours. I say
He
did not and that he is unique in being the ONLY
begotten of the Father. David agrees with the ONLY begotten part..
so
what we disagree on is minimal and he died on the cross
without sin. Can you think of anything else?
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:53:54 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't believe I've ever seen you respond, since
my appearance on TT, to ANYONE'S BIBLICAL EVIDENCE that
ran counter to your own. Why? I've no idea! IMO,
SOME, of that which ran counter to your understanding was SOUND while your
understanding was UNSOUND. I've seen David exhibit remarkable patience
while walking you through something a step at a time. How did it end up?
Pretty much where it was to begin with. Why? I've no idea!
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 06, 2006 07:38
Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as
the incarnate God
Why should I pay any more mind to you than I do to
SNL Lance? You give your opinion which is all you seem
to have to hang on to. If you can show me
evidence by God's Word that what I presently believe is wrong then
I
will give serious consideration to your counter
points. So far all you have produced is opinions, yours and
those
of others. Yes .. scripture is to be
understood in the light of All other scripture so that there are no
contradictions
and you don't have to explain away or cut out
anything - jt
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:18:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
NOTHING, Judy, is so unless it stands in the
light of ALL scripture. You do understand, do you not, that that includes
what YOU SAY, do you not?
'Nonsense' you say? John/Bill hold more
understanding of the scriptures in their pinky finger that you ever will
should you live for another 1,000 years.
You, Judy, need more understandintg that
comes by the Holy Spirit than comes by the 'rationalizing' of your own
mind. No matter what DM suggests by his various references to 'inspired'
readings of scripture, neither you nor he read scripture infallibly. Get
over the 'idolotry' of your interpretation.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 06, 2006 06:48
Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ
as the incarnate God
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:38:57 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts.
Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two
below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley.
Dean, I believe there is a Father, a Son and a Holy
Spirit. The Spirit expresses the will of the Father and
the Son. You do not know anything
about Barth, nor do you care but, his view is something that I
fully agree with -- and, I came to my
understanding before I read Barth. The personality of God
is seen in the two. The activity of God is seen in the
third. I have been in discussion with some
Unitarians. These men (there are three of them)
believe that God and the Father are one and the same to the exclusion
of all other considerations. Christ pre-existed the virgin
birth only as the "Plan."So your scriptures where of some
importance to me. I skipped the part ofyour post
that set us at odds. But, there it
is.Iam interested in your answer to Bill's question,
as well.
There it is - the theology of Barth. Just
because it came to you before you read him does not mean it is so
unless
it stands in the light of ALL
scripture.
Another point that I did not include in my post is this: if
Christ had a pre-existence as something or someone other than the Son
of God, then His sonship is an action of
adoption.
Nonsense. He was the pre-existent Word
or Wisdom of God for whom God provided a body. In Luke 24:44 He
tells ppl that he has been written about in the law of Moses, the
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 08:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. The word "begotten" means just what it says JD. It is also used in Gen 5:4; Lev 18:11, Deu 23:8, John 1:14 and Acts 13:33. The meaning in these verses is plain. It is a mystery to me why you would want to change it to "unique" unless it is to conform to some doctrine outside the scope of God's Word and the faith ONCE delivered to the saints. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and the Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." W
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. The word "begotten" means just what it says JD. It is also used in Gen 5:4; Lev 18:11, Deu 23:8, John 1:14 and Acts 13:33. The meaning in these verses is plain. It is a mystery to me why you would want to change it to "unique" unless it is to conform to some doctrine outside the scope of God's Word and the faith ONCE delivered to the saints. 5. John - chapter one
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 08:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
cd: I believe the difficulties arise from you misconception that I am disagree with John's statements-I am not. I am/was attempting to add to what John had written-Giving him my point of view so to speak-for what that is worth :-) - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 11:23:46 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Hi Dean. I moved your post up in its entirety below.Thequestion I am having difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention. Ivery much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), witha possible exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can mean"only unique," and therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other than that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very well-stated. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill cd:Also consider these words of Jesus I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8) ...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11) I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18) John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time without end-I can only solve this by a comparison of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that has no end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what isthere at that end?A wall? And what is on the other side of that wall or is thedept of that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to thinkof one being who are three-but ifI consider my self more then one my understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and spirit-this is how I am created in the image of one who is a spirit, who came in the body and has /is a eternal soul. Three parts of the whole. Take a whole pie , cut it into three equal slices and taste each slice. How are they different? They taste, look ,and smell the same but are different slices-yet they are the same. That being said I simple view Christ as God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem solved-for me. You on the other hand are a d ifferently matter entirely:-) So here is another type of similar theory/thinking. John Wesley wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and the Father are one - Not by consent of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one _expression_ of himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore if he was not God he must have been the vilest of men. Adam Clark wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one - If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said these words without being guilty of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that Christ does not say, I and My Father, which my our translation very improperly supplies, and which in this place would have conveyed a widely different meaning: for then it would imply that the human nature of Christ, of which alone, I conceive, God is ever said to be the Father in Scripture, was equal to the Most High: but he says, speaking then as God over all, I and The Father, e?? ?a? ?? pat?? e?? esµe? - the Creator of all things, the Judge of all men, the Father of the spirits of all flesh - are One, One in nature, One in all the attributes of Godhead, and One in all the operations of those attributes: and so it is evident the Jews understood him. See Joh_17:11, Joh_17:22. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:39 AM Subject: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] EarthLink Revolves Around You. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 12:18:07 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 9:48:58 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly,
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
We are talking past each other Lance. I am not speaking of a godliness or holiness obtained by osmosis but one that is inward. A pure heart and unfeigned love. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:56:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. From: Judy Taylor DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. 4. In view of the
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
FWIW, I do believe that this describes YOU. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 09:05 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God We are talking past each other Lance. I am not speaking of a godliness or holiness obtained by osmosis but one that is inward. A pure heart and unfeigned love. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:56:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. From: Judy Taylor DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not abo
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Jesus addresses this in John 14:17 where he talks to the disciples about "The Spirit of Truth who is WITH you but will be IN you" and - as for the Emmanuele/Incarnation issue. Same thing. In John 14:10 where Jesus plainly says that it is the Father who dwells IN him who does the works" So how does the Father dwell IN him? By the same process that He (Jesus) dwells in believers today. By the Spirit whom the world can not receive because it has neither seen him nor known him (John 14:17) On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:05:43 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are talking past each other Lance. I am not speaking of a godliness or holiness obtained by osmosis but one that is inward. A pure heart and unfeigned love. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:56:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. From: Judy Taylor DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Ever learning and never...etc. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 09:27 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Jesus addresses this in John 14:17 where he talks to the disciples about "The Spirit of Truth who is WITH you but will be IN you" and - as for the Emmanuele/Incarnation issue. Same thing. In John 14:10 where Jesus plainly says that it is the Father who dwells IN him who does the works" So how does the Father dwell IN him? By the same process that He (Jesus) dwells in believers today. By the Spirit whom the world can not receive because it has neither seen him nor known him (John 14:17) On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:05:43 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are talking past each other Lance. I am not speaking of a godliness or holiness obtained by osmosis but one that is inward. A pure heart and unfeigned love. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:56:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. From: Judy Taylor DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: Judy Taylor JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to s
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
As to the conclusion of your post, Judy..NO! Seriously, Judy, I can't see any point in repeating conversations (?). Persons have engaged you on these scriptures and this understanding of Jesus multitudinous times! Brighten the corner where you are, Judy. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 10:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God So what is it about these scriptures that I am misinterpreting Lance? There are others that say the Father is greater, the Father does the work, the words spoken by Jesus are those of the Father. If I am ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of Truth - what part of the Truth am I missing Lance? or Could it be possible that what you hold to as truth is in reality a mirage? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:12:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ever learning and never...etc. From: Judy Taylor Jesus addresses this in John 14:17 where he talks to the disciples about "The Spirit of Truth who is WITH you but will be IN you" and - as for the Emmanuele/Incarnation issue. Same thing. In John 14:10 where Jesus plainly says that it is the Father who dwells IN him who does the works" So how does the Father dwell IN him? By the same process that He (Jesus) dwells in believers today. By the Spirit whom the world can not receive because it has neither seen him nor known him (John 14:17) On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:05:43 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are talking past each other Lance. I am not speaking of a godliness or holiness obtained by osmosis but one that is inward. A pure heart and unfeigned love. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:56:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. From: Judy Taylor DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND. IMO, nothing and no onewill ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that. From: J
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 3:38:57 AM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts. Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley. cd: John what I meant by stating:" You on the other hand are a different matter entirely"in the last couple of sentences is that you view /search thing differently then I . I just accept things at some point in my search ESP when I realize there aresome things will never be understood while in this flesh.-you go deeper with the why/how -I think but realize I also searched this long and hard many times thur the years.I think I am saying I have rest with Christ being God you want more-make sense?
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
There have been no conversations where you have ever supplied any lucid reasons as to why scripture does not say what it quite obviously says... and I am speaking with you - not "persons" So tell me Lance, what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus? His own words describing his own ministry. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:31:03 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to the conclusion of your post, Judy..NO! Seriously, Judy, I can't see any point in repeating conversations (?). Persons have engaged you on these scriptures and this understanding of Jesus multitudinous times! Brighten the corner where you are, Judy. From: Judy Taylor So what is it about these scriptures that I am misinterpreting Lance? There are others that say the Father is greater, the Father does the work, the words spoken by Jesus are those of the Father. If I am ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of Truth - what part of the Truth am I missing Lance? or Could it be possible that what you hold to as truth is in reality a mirage? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:12:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ever learning and never...etc. From: Judy Taylor Jesus addresses this in John 14:17 where he talks to the disciples about "The Spirit of Truth who is WITH you but will be IN you" and - as for the Emmanuele/Incarnation issue. Same thing. In John 14:10 where Jesus plainly says that it is the Father who dwells IN him who does the works" So how does the Father dwell IN him? By the same process that He (Jesus) dwells in believers today. By the Spirit whom the world can not receive because it has neither seen him nor known him (John 14:17) On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:05:43 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are talking past each other Lance. I am not speaking of a godliness or holiness obtained by osmosis but one that is inward. A pure heart and unfeigned love. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:56:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. From: Judy Taylor DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea! From: Judy Taylor This is fine with me Lance. I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men. However, I would like those who criticize and accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else'sopinion to refute it. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Judy asks 'what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus', Lance? Lance answers 'Nothing whatsoever, Judy!' AND, Judy, when IMO the two (yours/His) are identical, I've no problem whatsoever in offering a resounding, AMEN! HOWEVER.. You're not into self flaggelation, are you? Why not just let it go? As Perry said of me recently, 'you're just blowing smoke'. IMO, I'm not but, I'm not disturbed to have people think I am. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 13:23 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God There have been no conversations where you have ever supplied any lucid reasons as to why scripture does not say what it quite obviously says... and I am speaking with you - not "persons" So tell me Lance, what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus? His own words describing his own ministry. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:31:03 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to the conclusion of your post, Judy..NO! Seriously, Judy, I can't see any point in repeating conversations (?). Persons have engaged you on these scriptures and this understanding of Jesus multitudinous times! Brighten the corner where you are, Judy. From: Judy Taylor So what is it about these scriptures that I am misinterpreting Lance? There are others that say the Father is greater, the Father does the work, the words spoken by Jesus are those of the Father. If I am ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of Truth - what part of the Truth am I missing Lance? or Could it be possible that what you hold to as truth is in reality a mirage? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:12:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ever learning and never...etc. From: Judy Taylor Jesus addresses this in John 14:17 where he talks to the disciples about "The Spirit of Truth who is WITH you but will be IN you" and - as for the Emmanuele/Incarnation issue. Same thing. In John 14:10 where Jesus plainly says that it is the Father who dwells IN him who does the works" So how does the Father dwell IN him? By the same process that He (Jesus) dwells in believers today. By the Spirit whom the world can not receive because it has neither seen him nor known him (John 14:17) On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:05:43 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are talking past each other Lance. I am not speaking of a godliness or holiness obtained by osmosis but one that is inward. A pure heart and unfeigned love. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:56:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. From: Judy Taylor DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. W
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
- Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 1:43:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Judy asks 'what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus', Lance? Lance answers 'Nothing whatsoever, Judy!' AND, Judy, when IMO the two (yours/His) are identical, I've no problem whatsoever in offering a resounding, AMEN! HOWEVER.. You're not into self flaggelation, are you? Why not just let it go? As Perry said of me recently, 'you're just blowing smoke'. IMO, I'm not but, I'm not disturbed to have people think I am. cd: Are you Lance not worried that you will lose creditability as a scholar of the bible and fail to convince others to listen to truth that comes from you-if those others think you are only blowing smoke-God may have given you the words to save a soul in Christ-shame to have that lost in the smoke?
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
IMO Dean, it is so much easier to speak with either a cultist or a non-believer than with Judy I never pass up an opportunity with either of these. I also speak, almost daily in our bookstore, with those espousing a variety of views on a number issues. I never sidestep any of them.I've never seen Judy budge a cm on any issue. I gave this 'blowing smoke' explanation to Perry with respect to engaging DM for the very same reason. You may come to whatever conclusion you wish as I simply don't have the energy to engage people who appear intractable. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 14:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 1:43:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Judy asks 'what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus', Lance? Lance answers 'Nothing whatsoever, Judy!' AND, Judy, when IMO the two (yours/His) are identical, I've no problem whatsoever in offering a resounding, AMEN! HOWEVER.. You're not into self flaggelation, are you? Why not just let it go? As Perry said of me recently, 'you're just blowing smoke'. IMO, I'm not but, I'm not disturbed to have people think I am. cd: Are you Lance not worried that you will lose creditability as a scholar of the bible and fail to convince others to listen to truth that comes from you-if those others think you are only blowing smoke-God may have given you the words to save a soul in Christ-shame to have that lost in the smoke?
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
- Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 3:18:54 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God IMO Dean, it is so much easier to speak with either a cultist or a non-believer than with Judy I never pass up an opportunity with either of these. I also speak, almost daily in our bookstore, with those espousing a variety of views on a number issues. I never sidestep any of them.I've never seen Judy budge a cm on any issue. I gave this 'blowing smoke' explanation to Perry with respect to engaging DM for the very same reason. You may come to whatever conclusion you wish as I simply don't have the energy to engage people who appear intractable. cd: Speaking of myself-for what that is worth-I have found that prayer helps as God has to impart wisdombut I have concluded thatHe doesn't force this wisdom on those who don't want it in the first place. Trying different approaches may also help-this seems to keep Satan on his toes-we wouldn't want him to become bored now would we:-)The hardest thing for any Christian to do is place self in the background as I find myself to have a false sense of importance and often become blind to someone more important-the other person-Jesus clearly kept that in proper perspective-may God help me do the same.. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 06, 2006 14:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 1:43:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Judy asks 'what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus', Lance? Lance answers 'Nothing whatsoever, Judy!' AND, Judy, when IMO the two (yours/His) are identical, I've no problem whatsoever in offering a resounding, AMEN! HOWEVER.. You're not into self flaggelation, are you? Why not just let it go? As Perry said of me recently, 'you're just blowing smoke'. IMO, I'm not but, I'm not disturbed to have people think I am. cd: Are you Lance not worried that you will lose creditability as a scholar of the bible and fail to convince others to listen to truth that comes from you-if those others think you are only blowing smoke-God may have given you the words to save a soul in Christ-shame to have that lost in the smoke?
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Oh, so other people's opinions don't bother you either and you don't mind the fact that this list which is titled Truth Talk has turned into an "opinion list"? Oh well!! Have it your way. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 13:42:51 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy asks 'what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus', Lance? Lance answers 'Nothing whatsoever, Judy!' AND, Judy, when IMO the two (yours/His) are identical, I've no problem whatsoever in offering a resounding, AMEN! HOWEVER.. You're not into self flaggelation, are you? Why not just let it go? As Perry said of me recently, 'you're just blowing smoke'. IMO, I'm not but, I'm not disturbed to have people think I am. From: Judy Taylor There have been no conversations where you have ever supplied any lucid reasons as to why scripture does not say what it quite obviously says... and I am speaking with you - not "persons" So tell me Lance, what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus? His own words describing his own ministry. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:31:03 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to the conclusion of your post, Judy..NO! Seriously, Judy, I can't see any point in repeating conversations (?). Persons have engaged you on these scriptures and this understanding of Jesus multitudinous times! Brighten the corner where you are, Judy. From: Judy Taylor So what is it about these scriptures that I am misinterpreting Lance? There are others that say the Father is greater, the Father does the work, the words spoken by Jesus are those of the Father. If I am ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of Truth - what part of the Truth am I missing Lance? or Could it be possible that what you hold to as truth is in reality a mirage? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:12:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ever learning and never...etc. From: Judy Taylor Jesus addresses this in John 14:17 where he talks to the disciples about "The Spirit of Truth who is WITH you but will be IN you" and - as for the Emmanuele/Incarnation issue. Same thing. In John 14:10 where Jesus plainly says that it is the Father who dwells IN him who does the works" So how does the Father dwell IN him? By the same process that He (Jesus) dwells in believers today. By the Spirit whom the world can not receive because it has neither seen him nor known him (John 14:17) On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:05:43 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We are talking past each other Lance. I am not speaking of a godliness or holiness obtained by osmosis but one that is inward. A pure heart and unfeigned love. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:56:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?. From: Judy Taylor DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration. Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness and holiness is an idol. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'. From: Judy Taylor Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion. Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Lord forbid! The blind leading the blind. Opinion then, is your forte because everyone has one even cultists and non-believers and a person's opinion would never be a Rock of offense. One would never be persecuted over that now would they? You have not seen me budge because I have as yet, no reason to let go of the certain for the obscure. Blowing smoke huh?? On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:18:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO Dean, it is so much easier to speak with either a cultist or a non-believer than with Judy I never pass up an opportunity with either of these. I also speak, almost daily in our bookstore, with those espousing a variety of views on a number issues. I never sidestep any of them.I've never seen Judy budge a cm on any issue. I gave this 'blowing smoke' explanation to Perry with respect to engaging DM for the very same reason. You may come to whatever conclusion you wish as I simply don't have the energy to engage people who appear intractable. From: Dean Moore Judy asks 'what is wrong with the scriptural understanding of Jesus', Lance? Lance answers 'Nothing whatsoever, Judy!' AND, Judy, when IMO the two (yours/His) are identical, I've no problem whatsoever in offering a resounding, AMEN! HOWEVER.. You're not into self flaggelation, are you? Why not just let it go? As Perry said of me recently, 'you're just blowing smoke'. IMO, I'm not but, I'm not disturbed to have people think I am. cd: Are you Lance not worried that you will lose creditability as a scholar of the bible and fail to convince others to listen to truth that comes from you-if those others think you are only blowing smoke-God may have given you the words to save a soul in Christ-shame to have that lost in the smoke?
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus. As I understand the textual consideration, the issue centers around eudokew and is translated "pleased God that .."A rather poor translation , I think. J.B. Lightfoot gives the word a nominative apppliance and seems to argue for the omission of the word "God" while arguing FOR the absolute use of (God's good purpose.) John puts his thinking cap on and comes up with this: To insert " .. the Father's pleasure" or ".appeared good to God .." or any such addition gives one the opportunity to misunderstand the the reference to "himself" as in "... He reconciled all things unto Himself ..." and argue that it appeared good to the Father to use Christ to reconcile all things unto the Father. If we omit what is , in fact omitted -- a specific reference to the (a) personhood of deity, then the passage reads "...it was the divine pleasure that all the fulness centered in Him (Jesus) and that in Him all things are reconciled unto Himself (Jesus.)" 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, establishing His eternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes his eternity as the Word of God. Aaaahhh, o.k. That is correct of course. I am out of time. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus. As I understand the textual consideration, the issue centers around eudokew and is translated "pleased God that .."A rather poor translation , I think. J.B. Lightfoot gives the word a nominative apppliance and seems to argue for the omission of the word "God" while arguing FOR the absolute use of (God's good purpose.) John puts his thinking cap on and comes up with this: To insert " .. the Father's pleasure" or ".appeared good to God .." or any such addition gives one the opportunity to misunderstand the the reference to "himself" as in "... He reconciled all things unto Himself ..." and argue that it appeared good to the Father to use Christ to reconcile all things unto the Father. If we omit what is , in fact omitted -- a specific reference to the (a) personhood of deity, then the passage reads "...it was the divine pleasure that all the fulness centered in Him (Jesus) and that in Him all things are reconciled unto Himself (Jesus.)" cd: You seem to be correct John as both Adam Clark and The Interlinear Bible agrees with you. But as Adam Clark shows in the below "the Fullness"mentioned are Godly attributes as Christ is one with God. Adam Clark wrote: Col 1:19 - For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell - As the words, the Father are not in the text, some have translated the verse thus: For in him it seemed right that all fullness should dwell; that is, that the majesty, power, and goodness of God should be manifested in and by Christ Jesus, and thus by him the Father reconciles all things to himself. The pµa, or fullness, must refer here to the Divine nature dwelling in the man Christ Jesus.
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
But as Adam Clark shows in the below "the Fullness"mentioned are Godly attributes as Christ is one with God. Hi, Dean. You seem to beadding a correction of sorts to what I said. I certainly believe Christ to be the Son of God and , thus, God. I hope you do not misunderstand my point. In the end, I believe that this verse is saying that Christ reconciled all things unto Himself -- proving that He is, indeed, God. Interesting quote from A Clark, however. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus. As I understand the textual consideration, the issue centers around eudokew and is translated "pleased God that .."A rather poor translation , I think. J.B. Lightfoot gives the word a nominative apppliance and seems to argue for the omission of the word "God" while arguing FOR the absolute use of (God's good purpose.) John puts his thinking cap on and comes up with this: To insert " .. the Father's pleasure" or ".appeared good to God .." or any such addition gives one the opportunity to misunderstand the the reference to "himself" as in "... He reconciled all things unto Himself ..." and argue that it appeared good to the Father to use Christ to reconcile all things unto the Father. If we omit what is , in fact omitted -- a specific reference to the (a) personhood of deity, then the passage reads "...it was the divine pleasure that all the fulness centered in Him (Jesus) and that in Him all things are reconciled unto Himself (Jesus.)" cd: You seem to be correct John as both Adam Clark and The Interlinear Bible agrees with you. But as Adam Clark shows in the below "the Fullness"mentioned are Godly attributes as Christ is one with God. Adam Clark wrote: Col 1:19 - For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell - As the words, the Father are not in the text, some have translated the verse thus: For in him it seemed right that all fullness should dwell; that is, that the majesty, power, and goodness of God should be manifested in and by Christ Jesus, and thus by him the Father reconciles all things to himself. The pµa, or fullness, must refer here to the Divine nature dwelling in the man Christ Jesus.
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Cool. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 7:01 AM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God cd: I believe the difficulties arise from you misconception that I am disagree with John's statements-I am not. I am/was attempting to add to what John had written-Giving him my point of view so to speak-for what that is worth :-) - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 11:23:46 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Hi Dean. I moved your post up in its entirety below.Thequestion I am having difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention. Ivery much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), witha possible exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can mean"only unique," and therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other than that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very well-stated. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill cd:Also consider these words of Jesus I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8) ...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11) I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18) John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time without end-I can only solve this by a comparison of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that has no end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what isthere at that end?A wall? And what is on the other side of that wall or is thedept of that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to thinkof one being who are three-but ifI consider my self more then one my understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and spirit-this is how I am created in the image of one who is a spirit, who came in the body and has /is a eternal soul. Three parts of the whole. Take a whole pie , cut it into three equal slices and taste each slice. How are they different? They taste, look ,and smell the same but are different slices-yet they are the same. That being said I simple view Christ as God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem solved-for me. You on the other hand are a d ifferently matter entirely:-) So here is another type of similar theory/thinking. John Wesley wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and the Father are one - Not by consent of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one _expression_ of himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore if he was not God he must have been the vilest of men. Adam Clark wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one - If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said these words without being guilty of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that Christ does not say, I and My Father, which my our translation very improperly supplies, and which in this place would have conveyed a widely different meaning: for then it would imply that the human nature of Christ, of which alone, I conceive, God is ever said to be the Father in Scripture, was equal to the Most High: but he says, speaking then as God over all, I and The Father, e?? ?a? ?? pat?? e?? esµe? - the Creator of all things, the Judge of all men, the Father of the spirits of all flesh - are One, One in nature, One in all the attributes of Godhead, and One in all the operations of those attributes: and so it is evident the Jews understood him. See Joh_17:11, Joh_17:22. - Orig
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God(to Dean)
Well, I am kind of liking the new Dean. Anyway -- maybe the difference is found in our function within the Body or just our personality make-up. I could have been quite the intellectual, I think, except that I was put into an Okies body !! I am as hick a looking guy as you will find. I write some of the big words and I understand most of what I read from the intellectual side of the room, but I seldom speak above a 10th grade level. and I absolutely love 'research" in the written word. We cannot, or shall I say, we dare not stop thinking. Our brains, Dean, were not made to justreceive. They were not made to thrill at the stagnent. For my money, the greatest question a student of the Message can ask -- over and over again - is "what if?" If you know greek, the big question is "what if this nuance was intended instead of that one?" But one can do much the same thing comparing the translations. If you are just looking for error - well, I guess that is easy to find. But sometimes, when comparing the translations, a thought goes roaring by because you were open to the text. If you don't reach out andgrab that moment of connectivity (just couln't come up with a better word, sorry) -- you miss some of the glory God intended as you study the Word. It is this kind of study that makes one a better communicator of God's word. It is this kind of study that reveals the Message to be God's Word !!! If we thrill at His presense, why not His Word ??? My Unitarian son was asking me the other day, "Do you believe in verbal plenary inspiration, Dad?" If I had said "yes," the fight would have been on. He's a lawyer , 38 years old and asharp son of a gun. So I said this: "What I believe, son, is the thrill I experience as I study this book and a truth jumps out and hitsmerightbetween the eyes !! The mesh that is one thought moving into another thought, expressed hundreds of years apart but making perfect sense as you read them together,well, that is all the "proof" of inspiration I need.When it is all said and done, The Bible is extemely important to me because it takes me from the center of my world and puts Another's opinion there - one that has been proven over the centuries." And so I study and share and my son nods his head And, hopefully Dad has scored one for th e Kipper !! No more noble an effort on my part than what you do with the Word in your world. Some of your methods are disagreeable to me. But you get this same thrill (I assume) not so much as you studybut as you reach out in ministry -- Street PreacherStyle. Our functions are different but the passion is of the same source. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/6/2006 3:38:57 AM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts. Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley. cd: John what I meant by stating:" You on the other hand are a different matter entirely"in the last couple of sentences is that you view /search thing differently then I . I just accept things at some point in my search ESP when I realize there aresome things will never be understood while in this flesh.-you go deeper with the why/how -I think but realize I also searched this long and hard many times thur the years.I think I am saying I have rest with Christ being God you want more-make sense?
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Awesome !! jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cd: Bill I will attempt to find areas of disagreement with John's posts as this is what I believe bothyou and John are both looking for in order to better distinguish the God head relationship and our responses. John please understand that this isn't an attack upon you belief-rather a polishing of that belief- if possible- as help was asked for. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 9:48:58 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. cd: On thisI am in total agreement John. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all things, on the earth and in the heavens unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. cd: On thisI am in agreement as Jesus flooded the earth and was the great" I Am" that Moses spoke to in the burning bush. Christ is also seen as the Captain of the Lord of Hostsin Joshua 5 :13-15. (Note that no Angelic being ever allowed this type of worshiping to happen due in my opinion to Godly fear). 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His eternity as the Son. cd: Again we agree. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. cd: There is a shade of disagreement here as I view Christ as taking on a subjective role while a man-with all the frailties of a man-while in the form of man.Yet not forgetting the Glory/ Honor he held with the Fatherbefore the foundation of the world.In that earthly form he showed strong tears and crying before God and was heard in that He feared God Hebrews 5:7. He is also shown as the Lord almighty in Rev 1:8 so the son ship role did/is/will end(ed) to total equality. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." cd: I agree with this towards a hint of the "word" of St. John1being more than just a son as 1;1 shows Christ's Deity as God. 6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy Representative of the living God." cd: On this I strongly agree as to be anything else-such as a prophet-is to make Christ a liar-for he said "I am" and the Jews clearly understood this to mean equal with God as they sought to killhim. King Nebuchadnezzar make this same claim and was struck withinsanity for 7 yrs. I hope I am not confusion anyone-if so push for the explanation. Bill if you were asking for something else or more please clarifly. Hoping to help. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 23:28:58 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8. Yes it is, the exact same wording is found in Isaiah 7:14. Emmanuel means "God with us" 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus. I wasn't reading the KJV JD, that time I was quoting fromthe NASV and the Amplified says the same thing. Jesus did not come to glorify himself. PS: I wouldn't take Lightfoots comments too seriously, apparently he was in cahoots with Westcott Hort. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, establishing His eternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes him in eternity as the Word of God rather than an "eternal son" Aaaahhh, o.k. That is correct of course. I am out of time. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 23:28:58 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men? Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.) 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) andsince the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here? It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8. Yes it is, the exact same wording is found in Isaiah 7:14. Immanuel means "God with us" Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !! 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF. Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ? Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus. I wasn't reading the KJV JD, that time I was quoting fromthe NASV and the Amplified says the same thing. Jesus did not come to glorify himself. I am saying that the words "God" or "Father" do not appear int he KJ greek text -- or any greek text. "Father" is an added word. PS: I wouldn't take Lightfoots comments too seriously, apparently he was in cahoots with Westcott Hort. Fine -- but I do take him seriously. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, establishing His eternity as the Son. John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes him in eternity as the Word of God rather than an "eternal son" Aaaahhh, o.k. That is correct of course. I am out of time. jd
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
cd: On this I strongly agree as to be anything else-such as a
prophet-is to make Christ a liar-for he said "I am" and the Jews clearly
understood this to mean equal with God as they sought to killhim.
King Nebuchadnezzar make this same claim and was struck withinsanity
for 7 yrs. I hope I am not confusion anyone-if so push for the explanation. Bill
if you were asking for something else or more please clarifly.
No, Dean, all is well. I had misunderstood your
intentions in that first post. Yours is good stuff --and helpful, too.
Thanks.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 6:55
PM
Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as
the incarnate God
Awesome !!
jd
--
Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cd: Bill I will attempt to find areas of disagreement
with John's posts as this is what I believe bothyou and John are both
looking for in order to better distinguish the God head relationship and our
responses. John please understand that this isn't an attack upon you
belief-rather a polishing of that belief- if possible- as help was asked
for.
But then when I read your post, I find
myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me
great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with
John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you
please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim
toward being more specific? It will be very much
appreciated.
Thanks,
Bill
From:
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 1/5/2006 9:48:58 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Christ as the incarnate God
1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for
Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us
the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you
will --- God with us.
This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course,
people will choose to follow their bias.
cd: On thisI am in total agreement
John.
2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ
reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the
representative of God, there would be no value in having
drawn all things, on the earth and in the heavens unto
Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the
deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that
the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His
flesh.
cd: On thisI am in agreement as Jesus flooded
the earth and was the great" I Am" that Moses spoke to in the
burning bush. Christ is also seen as the Captain of the Lord of
Hostsin Joshua 5 :13-15. (Note that no Angelic being
ever allowed this type of worshiping to happen due in my opinion
to Godly fear).
3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared
the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the
world, estalishing His eternity as the Son.
cd: Again we agree.
4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term
that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the
birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint
that Christ became the Son of God. He is,
therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming
-- always being.
cd: There is a shade of disagreement here as I view
Christ as taking on a subjective role while a man-with all the
frailties of a man-while in the form of man.Yet not
forgetting the Glory/ Honor he held with the Fatherbefore
the foundation of the world.In that earthly form he showed strong
tears and crying before God and was heard in that He
feared God Hebrews 5:7. He is also shown as the Lord
almighty in Rev 1:8 so the son ship role did/is/will end(ed) to
total equality.
5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
couple of thoughts, Dean. I do not think we disagree at all on point #4. The union that is the being we know as Jesus (Son of God, Son of Man) is not possible without the function of humility (Philip 2) and that is what you are talking bout at #4. You make a timely addition to what I said. I fully agree with you on this. Your comment at #5 -- could you explain this. I think I see your point, but not sure. At #6, there are those who believe that He was a son of God as we are. This confession of Peter's lays taht to rest because the confession and the truth of the confession are the product of revelation (flesh and blood has not revealed ..) If Jesus is only a son , revelation is not necessary. I beleive that "Son of God" meant that He was God. -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cd: On this I strongly agree as to be anything else-such as a prophet-is to make Christ a liar-for he said "I am" and the Jews clearly understood this to mean equal with God as they sought to killhim. King Nebuchadnezzar make this same claim and was struck withinsanity for 7 yrs. I hope I am not confusion anyone-if so push for the explanation. Bill if you were asking for something else or more please clarifly. No, Dean, all is well. I had misunderstood your intentions in that first post. Yours is good stuff --and helpful, too. Thanks. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 6:55 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Awesome !! jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cd: Bill I will attempt to find areas of disagreement with John's posts as this is what I believe bothyou and John are both looking for in order to better distinguish the God head relationship and our responses. John please understand that this isn't an attack upon you belief-rather a polishing of that belief- if possible- as help was asked for. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 9:48:58 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. cd: On thisI am in total agreement John. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all things, on the earth and in the heavens unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. cd: On thisI am in agreement as Jesus flooded the earth and was the great" I Am" that Moses spoke to in the burning bush. Christ is also seen as the Captain of the Lord of Hostsin Joshua 5 :13-15. (Note that no Angelic being ever allowed this type of worshiping to happen due in my opinion to Godly fear). 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His eternity as the Son. cd: Again we agree. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. cd: There is a shade of disagreement here as I view Christ as taking on a subjective role while a man-with all the frailties of a man-while in the form of man.Yet not forgetting the Glory/ Honor he held with the Fatherbefore the foundation of the world.In that earthly form he showed strong tears and crying before God and was heard in that He feared God Hebrews 5:7. He is also shown as the Lord almighty in Rev 1:8 so the son ship role did/is/will end(ed) to total equality. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." cd: I agree with this towards a hint of the "word" of St. John1being more than just a son as 1;
Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and the Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." 6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy Representative of the living God." Hoping to help. jd
FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] EarthLink Revolves Around You. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 12:18:07 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 9:48:58 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and the Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." 6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy Representative of the living God." Hoping to help. jd cd:Also consider these words of Jesus I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8) ...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11) I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18) John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time without end-I can only solve this by a comparison of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that has no end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what isthere at that end?A wall? And what is on the other side of that wall or is thedept of that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to thinkof one being who are three-but ifI consider my self more then one my understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and spirit-this is how I am created in the image of one who is a spirit, who came in the body and has /is a eternal soul. Three parts of the whole. Take a whole pie , cut it into three equal slices and taste each slice. How are they different? They taste, look ,and smell the same but are different slices-yet they are the same. That being said I simple view Christ as God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem solved-for me. You on the other hand are a d ifferently matter entirely:-) So here is another type of similar theory/thinking. John Wesley wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and the Father are one - Not by consent of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one _expression_ of himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore if he was not God he must have been the vilest of men. Adam Clark wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one - If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said these words without being guilty of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that Christ does not say, I and My Father, which my our translation very improperly supplies, and which in this place would have conveyed a widely different meaning: for then it would imply that the human nature of Christ, of which alone, I conceive, God is ever said to be the Father in Scripture, was equal to the Most High: but he says, speaking then as God over all, I and The Father, e?? ?a? ?? pat?? e?? esµe? - the Creator of all things, the Judge of all men, the Father of the spirits of all flesh - are One, One in nature, One in all the attributes of Godhead, and One in all the operations of those attributes: and so it is evident the Jews understood him. See Joh_17:11, Joh_17:22.
Re: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Wow. A very good post. Thanks jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] EarthLink Revolves Around You. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 12:18:07 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 9:48:58 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias. 2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. 3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the gloryof the Fatherbefore the foundations of the world, estalishing His evternity as the Son. 4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God. He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never becoming -- always being. 5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and the Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." 6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy Representative of the living God." Hoping to help. jd cd:Also consider these words of Jesus I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8) ...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11) I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18) John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time without end-I can only solve this by a comparison of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that has no end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what isthere at that end?A wall? And what is on the other side of that wall or is thedept of that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to thinkof one being who are three-but ifI consider my self more then one my understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and spirit-this is how I am created in the image of one who is a spirit, who came in the body and has /is a eternal soul. Three parts of the whole. Take a whole pie , cut it into three equal slices and taste each slice. How are they different? They taste, look ,and smell the same but are different slices-yet they are the same. That being said I simple view Christ as God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem solved-for me. You on the other hand are a d ifferently matter entirely:-) So here is another type of similar theory/thinking. John Wesley wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and the Father are one - Not by consent of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one _expression_ of himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore if he was not God he must have been the vilest of men. Adam Clark wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one - If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said these words without being guilty of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that Christ does not say, I and My Father, which my our translation very improperly supplies, and which in this place would have conveyed a widely different meaning: for then it would imply that the human nature of Christ, of which alone, I conceive, God is ever said to be the Father in Scripture, was equal to the Most High: but he says, speaking then as God over all, I and The Father, e?? ?a? ?? pat?? e?? esµe? - the Creator of all things, the Judge of all men, the Father of the spirits of all flesh - are One, One in nature, One in all the attributes of Godhead, and One in all the operations of those attributes: and so it is evident the Jews understood him. See Joh_17:11, Joh_17:22.
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God
Hi Dean. I moved your post up in its entirety below.Thequestion I am having difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention. Ivery much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), witha possible exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can mean"only unique," and therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other than that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very well-stated. But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Bill cd:Also consider these words of Jesus I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8) ...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11) I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18) John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time without end-I can only solve this by a comparison of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that has no end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what isthere at that end?A wall? And what is on the other side of that wall or is thedept of that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to thinkof one being who are three-but ifI consider my self more then one my understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and spirit-this is how I am created in the image of one who is a spirit, who came in the body and has /is a eternal soul. Three parts of the whole. Take a whole pie , cut it into three equal slices and taste each slice. How are they different? They taste, look ,and smell the same but are different slices-yet they are the same. That being said I simple view Christ as God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem solved-for me. You on the other hand are a d ifferently matter entirely:-) So here is another type of similar theory/thinking. John Wesley wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and the Father are one - Not by consent of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one _expression_ of himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore if he was not God he must have been the vilest of men. Adam Clark wrote: Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one - If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said these words without being guilty of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that Christ does not say, I and My Father, which my our translation very improperly supplies, and which in this place would have conveyed a widely different meaning: for then it would imply that the human nature of Christ, of which alone, I conceive, God is ever said to be the Father in Scripture, was equal to the Most High: but he says, speaking then as God over all, I and The Father, e?? ?a? ?? pat?? e?? esµe? - the Creator of all things, the Judge of all men, the Father of the spirits of all flesh - are One, One in nature, One in all the attributes of Godhead, and One in all the operations of those attributes: and so it is evident the Jews understood him. See Joh_17:11, Joh_17:22. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:39 AM Subject: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] EarthLink Revolves Around You. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 12:18:07 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 9:48:58 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God 1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will --- God with us. This single sentence should end
