Re: [TruthTalk] Seeming inconsistancy

[Lance Muir]

So Judy, you had to wait for this to commence identifying 'holes'? Just acknowledge the truthfulness of this and, we'll move on. Why do I ask? IMO you've no idea at all what this 'incarnational system' is and, you breathed a sigh of relief at my having provided you with an opening.   Look Judy, I'm quite prepared to move on should you wish not to speak of this further. However, when you villify something that is important to me and, with such certainty on your part, I assume you've actually got something to say. IFF you do not then, kindly refrain from so speaking.    ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: June 20, 2005 08:49 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Seeming inconsistancy First hole Lance, you will not find an "eternally preexisting SON" in scripture.  He is the Word of God ie "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God"  In Proverbs He is the Wisdom of God .. and in other places "the angel of His Presence"  He was the Rock that followed Israel in the Wilderness and no mention of Him being the "eternal preexisting son" there. So who declared this to be so?  At the end in the book of Revelation He is called the Lamb and The Word.  So the root of this belief is in rcc creeds.  jt   On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:40:51 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The Son of God, eternally preexisting, took on, via an act of the Holy Spirit in His mother, Mary (virginal conception) humanity so as to Redeem us. Now, if not true, that's what I'd call 'science fiction'! From: Terry Clifton Lance Muir wrote: Earth to Terry:It is no more GOOFY than the Christian understanding of the Incarnation.That (the Incarnation) were it not real and absolutely true is the stuff of science fiction. ================================================================ If you would give me your definition of incarnation, I might be able to grasp what you are saying. Terry