THINK ORANGE -- FOR JD with an important note on I John 4:2
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 02:53:57 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 12/25/2004 8:38:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:jt: Why would you think such a thing John when Jesus demonstrated the "fullness of the Spirit" during His earthly
jd: As I see it, the Spirit working in my sense of understanding as surely as in yours, we have, we have a prophesy that describes the coming God Almighty into our world. In our world, this incarnation will mirror the essence of God AS
HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN. Disagree? I am sure you do.
ministry - Is this what you are saying? Is the "essence of God" the same as the "fullness of the Spirit of God?"
jd: My words above are very important. The incarnation will mirror the essence of God as He has always existed .............. you question this statement. In the incarnation, the Christ brings all that is God into our world. God is a communal essence, the father, son and holy spirit and perhaps even more. All that is God accompanies or is a part of the incarnate Christ. He brings this Spiritual Circumstance (the Godhead) with Him.
jt: What about he happening that you call "kenosis?" Scripture tells me that he emptied Himself of the glory He had with the father before taking upon Himself the likeness of man.
Yes it does.
In the Spiritual realm, the lines of existence are not ones of demarcation; rather, they are fetters that tie each to the other in an intimacy that is beyond our comprehension.
Nothing has changed except that He appears incarnate.
jt: I believe the "beyond our comprehension" part but not the fetters - that word in itself belongs to the other kingdom.
What? It is an English word that includes the idea of "confinement." The Plurality of God involves manifestations that are inextribably joined and, even, defined, by the Others. The "other kingdom" has nothing to do with my definitions, Judy.
nullifying the character of God in Community and insisting that Jesus is both the Father and the Son (Prince of Peace). I believe that what is true of the Son before the incarnation (Is 9:6), was true of all Manifestations ... a very real difficulty for the average saint.
jd: On earth, lines separate - for my thinking and in this case, the heavenly realm works very differently. As you well know, the Jesus-Only sect uses Is 9:6 as a key passage,
jt: I'm not up on Jesus-Only theology or the God of Community theology either for that matter. My desire is to understand what God is saying on His terms.
Ditto
Do you see saints on a sliding scale John?
Sliding scale ??? Ye who are spiritual, help those who are weak; babes; you are yet carnal; Lord I believe, help me in my unbelief; Romans 7:24 -- and so on. If this is what you have in mind, the answer is yes.
jd: If Jesus is the Son, he is not the Father. If Jesus is the Son, he is not the Spirit (yet, Paul confuses the two in II Cor. 3:18 and Isa 9:6 furthers this "confusion".) That is how our earthly mind thinks. As a Gentile Saint, I see the mix and do not allow it to be a problem.
jt: So Paul is fallible, the scriptures are fallible, earthly minded saints are fallible, but the "God in Community sect" are the ones with the truth?
And what does your question have to do my comment?
jt:I am an "average saint" who doesn't see it that way John. I see the will of God (The Father); the Word of God who speaks the will into existence; and the Spirit of God; who carries out both word and will. They are of in one accord since God is One.
jd: When God says, "let us make man ............," we have the Father, the Almighty God, the Prince of Peace and the Counselor being involved in the creation wonder.
"Average" in my post has more to do with "a larger number of ..." than anything. Your views certainly do not represent commonly held beliefs. That does not make them wrong, of course. The reaminder of the above I agree with, but with come qualification regarding that last sentence. It is true as far as it goes.
Christ , in the incarnation, empties himself of this Spiritual Communion and becomes quite distinct.
jt: Scripture says He emptied Himself of the Glory He had with the Father and you translate that "Spiritual Communion?"
You are correct !!
jt: But the latter is part of the holy write and the former I have only seen in theological discussions and assertions.jd: Essence and fullness of the Spirit ............ hmmmmm. The later is a part of the former, I would say.
So what? "Sliding scale" is not found in holy writ, either.
jt: I think it is important to say what scripture says
jd: You seem to think it important that the Son of God be a creation of The God as some moment in time. If your theory is correct, what do we have?
jd: Ah, so you admit to a higher authority. Great. We agree.
jt: When have I denied a "higher authority?" and why do you now think we agree?
Why do we need to discuss this? I certainly have not said anything for which you need to be countering. "I think it is important to say what scripture says " is something you wrote with which I agree, As you placed it in your response, it seemed that you were accusing me of less. But that was the old me. The new me sees you making a positve assertion abour yourself, without any negative tones directed to me. I was just agreeing>
about the Son of God and this is that his physical body was created at a point in time. (Hebrews 10:5)
jd: Is that what we talking about? The incarnation took place with the birth of Christ. I thought we disagreed on whether Christ, as Son, existed prior to this incarnation.
jt: We do disagree on His existence "as Son" However he was present at the beginning with the Father (John 1:1)
If I am reading John, and I have met and listened to this Jesus Christ, I would understand that John is speaking of He who claimed to be the Son of God. The conclusion, the Son and the Father have always been, would be (and is) a conclusion forced upon me if I am a believer. I John 4:2 puts my belief in these words: By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. This passage assumes the pre-existence of Jesus Christ (the Son of God), pronouncing in assumption that He who was not flesh, became flesh. Further, this belief is not negotiable.
jd: In Is 9:6, we believe that the Christ is presented in these terms -- as a Father, as a Counselor [indeed, an horoable profession, even if I do say so myself], a Prince of Peace and a Mighty God. Sooooooooooooo, all that happen one day, long ago, in manger near Bethlehem? The Father had a beginning on that day? The Mighty God?
jt: Of course not - the incarnation of one member of the Godhead took place on that day in a manger in Bethlehem
Do you miss my point intentionally? Is 9:6, you claim, lists redemptive names to be applied to Christ (or, the Son of God). Father is one of them. You have given no explanation from your point of view; I have. I will be more than happy to restate.
jd: God Almighty has not always been The Counselor or the Prince of Peace? Only if you believe these statements are TITLES EARNED BY GOD via obedience to prophetical vision.
jt: The Counselor and Prince of Peace are two prophetic/redemptive names of Christ - there are more.
More? Yes there are, Judy. "Eternal Father" is one. I am confident in my understanding of how this can be. Have you given an explanation from your point of view. If so, please repost.
jd: These are much more than names, Judy. "Dad" is a name I respond to because that is who I am!!! Christ the Father (Is 9:6) ???? When was that a redemptive name of Christ? It is only here. What must we conclude? The intimacy of the Godhead results in a shared experience, a shared nature and share existence without loosing the idea of plurality.
jt: The term 'everlasting Father' in Isa 9:6 is only a problem to those who are trying to make the Word of God into an eternal Son. The scripture is a prophecy concerning the coming of Christ as Messiah.
Not a problem to me. That last sentence above, how does that solve the "problem" of the Son being called "Ethernal Father?" You seem to offer it as a solution or some kind of consideration. I see nothing. Help please.
jt: Excuse me John? God has at least nine "Redemptive Names" or titles - and you are right that he does not change and it is not part of my belief that he does. This must be what you think I believe only.jd: There are no titles for God -------------- only realities. The coming of the Christ does not change anything about God. You are persistent in arguing that "God changes not." Well, this erronious teaching of yours clearly presents an impossible change for God --- unless, of course, you no longer believe that Christ is the Great God Almighty.
Name one that does not describe a reality of the Divine Dimension?
John
