On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:36:35 -0500 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
I usually glaze over with the long posts (I have innumerable interruptions each minute), but I'm glad I stuck this one out. We see things similarly, even though we get to the end through different mindsets.Thank you for the time you spen[d/t] here. -- sladeGlad to see John has a fan in you Slade, However this is a sanitized version of what both he and I sen t to the list and I have not seen my replies to John here even though I sent this post through twice. What happened to it? Do you have the ability to moderate before it reaches the list or is this some fluke? Should I send it again or will you allow only one side of this debate? judytNo, Judy, the problem is the balance between personal bias and objectivity.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, 27 December, 2004 16.00
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Idioms and Figures of Speech
At least two things are wrong, here. First, John 17 is a conversation between the Son and His Father " ............Father .. glorify you Son " (words found in verse ONE.) Reading in balance and context, you say. Amen, I say. The CONTEXT is established in verse one. Everything we read in this passage has to do with the intimate relationship between the Father and the Son. THAT is the context. It never changes, in this chapter, and is confirmed in vv.11, 21, 24 and 25. Nothing about prophet or king.
Secondly, verse three, is only the second sentence (NASV) of this prayer record. In the first sentence, Jesus requests glorification as the Son from the Father. In the very next sentence, He, the Son of course, makes clear His role in the presentation of "eternal life." It is the result of knowing both God and Jesus -- the Father and the Son as per what is referred to IN THE PRECEDING BREATH. You go outside the text and drag in prophet and king -- for what reason? Before you do such, there must be a reason why you cannot allow verse one to be the contextual statement. You go outside the text for your "context." I go to the preceding breath !!! You can give no reason for this change.
Now, your comments here, have some credibility. You are making an argument that Christ and His disciples are not of this world for the very same reasons. That is legitimate, I suppose. But so is my point. I say, Christ is not of this world because he is God. The disciples are not of this world because of their attachment to Him.
Unless you can give us a reason for saying that Christ speaks as the Son in verse one, but not as the Son in verse three -- I will ignore your comment above. To think that He was sent as a prophet but popped out as the Son is akin to Ooops Theology, is it not? Again, you have no reason for ignoring the context established in verse one.
Huh ?? !! Provers 8 has nothing to do with this passage (John 17:24) and you wonder why you are criticized for proof-texting. But, Judy, this is not even good proof-texting. Seriously. Now, before you quote a responce out of Habakkak or where ever -- think about the actual words of this verse: it begins with that danged old word, Father. You want context, there it is. And here is the important aspect of that verse (for the sake of this discussion -- ready?) ----------------------------------------------"Father .... you have loved me before the foundations of the world. "
Judy - the point of Luke's genealogy is to evidence that Jesus is "the son of God." "Begotten" is not in view, here, nor is it referenced by Luke at all. That is not to say that it is not so -- only that this is not Luke's point. One of the greatest illustrations I have ever heard, in the pulpit, was the word for word quote of this genealogy. The preachers voice got more placid as he proceded, more placid as the congregation fell asleep. And then, suddenly, BAM , "son of God" is spoken. You realize, even suddenly, that it is not the genealogy that is the point, but the fact that Christ is the SON OF GOD. The genealogy transcends recorded time. The lesson is obvious and supportive of the eternal Sonship of Christ.
Judy -- a rather ill timed request. After last week's lesson in life, I have decided to never allow the subject to take a left turn. This is what you are attempting to do above. None of it is challenged by me, certainly. And the fact that "Son" is not on this list proves absolutely nothing. God to the Old Testament and find "Jesus" in the text ------ anywhere. I give you a passage in Romans and you counter by a) ignoring the Romans passage and b) you present a scripture lesson that is right on but with no purpose to our discussion.
Can't be a father, Judy, without a son. And what does Eph 1:3,4 say? "Blessed be the God and Father OF our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world ............... "
Did you even read this passage before responding?
Well, apparently you can use THAT word and I can't. But more importantly, Judy, Jeus Christ is the Son of God. Clearly that is the thinking of Paul who wrote this passage AND the preceding Ephesian's passage. It you think it important that this does not reference Jesus Christ, the Son of God, be my guest. But you ignore the fact that That Paul uses "Jesus Chrsit" as synonymous with "Son". The thought of Philip 2 begins in verse one, of course, and continues through verse eleven, Judy. And in verse eleven, you are going to find that pesky word "Father." So, you tell me why "Jesus Christ" in this passages cannot possibly mean Son.
Circular logic, Judy. The fact of the matter is this: the context of verse 17 ("He is before all things ...") is the realtionship of the "Father" (ver. 12) and the "Son" verse 13. Give me a textual and grammatical reason for thinking the context changes. I need a reason - not an expressed bias.
Here's the verse -- " ... in theese last days [God] has spoken to us IN HIS SON, whom (the Son) He (God) appointed heir of all things, through whom (the Son) also He (God) made the world" (thus, I might add, the wording, "Let us make man in our image .....") Who's doing the twist, Judy.
I thought Bill was referring to YOUR USE of "word," not the biblical dynamic "Word" of much of the biblical message. But Bill is fully capable on his own. And why do you quote Bill against me? Is it because I am so easily influenced by the Liberal Cartel [sp] found here on TT. You know, there is Jonathan, Bill, Lance and poor old John Smithson? Whatever.
Lets see what this passage actually says, Judy. [there I go quoting the biblical message again -- kind a irritaten, ain't it) I John 1:1-2. "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life (Judy wants the Word of Life to be the pre-existing Son -- clearly not in line with this passage - they saw and handled JESUS , or was it the "Word of Life" or, hey, maybe they are the same thing -- you think? ) and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father (that would be ............... THE SON) -- what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ."
Only the antiChrist refuses to confess that Jesus, the Son of God, the creator of all things, God, the Word of Life [all terms used by John in his writings to refer to his Lord and Savior] came in the flesh. Now, if you want to argue that "flesh and body are not somehow related -- go ahead, but don't expect this Disciple to join you. Is this Dake's opinion. If so, get rid of him in a hurry --
John
