1. Is it possible to get a straight
answer, here? Do you believe that Christ was both Son and
Almighty God at the same time, here on earth -- a simple yes
or no is what I am looking for.
No. He took upon Himself a
body of flesh and as the "only begotten" son he walked this
earth. As the second Adam He represented God the
Father.
Right here,
in the above, you illustrate my concern for your
over-zealousness. You deny that Christ is God on earth
-- only tht he "represents" God on earth. You do not
separate "eternity" form "God." You separate the Son from God and,
thus, His eternal nature. He is not the eternal Son because
He is not the eternal God !!!!!!! I
am not going to argue this point. We have so little in common, at
this point, that there is not much to say except for me to encourage you
to actually read this fouth Gospel.
........... the very uniqueness of Christ as God is
one of the remarkable thems of this book. I am
serious -- take what you have written, in response
above -- and read/reread this Gospel of
John.
jt: What I
have written above is in line with the teaching of scripture JD.
Jesus did not come to earth to dazzle everyone with
God's glory. He emptied Himself. have you ever meditated
upon what this means? He looked like every other
person. Just like BTK - only difference is the source of their
power.
Do you
believe we (the Church) have been enabled to do the same works he did
and "greater?"
2. Are you aware
that the Apostle John made these statements about Christ in John
1:1-18???? Apparently you do not think Christ is word, life and
light? I mean, why in the name of reason would you disagree with
that? Is Christ word, life and light? Yes or
no.
Yes.
Let me
ask you JD, what exactly does the word "Christ" mean (in your own
words)?
Messiah
jt: Messiah is another
word. Come on - with all of your Greek and Hebrew study helps you
should be able to define
Christ.
3.
So, you deny that Jesus is the one
and only Son of God ?? Yes or no.
Yes.
My belief is that Jesus
is the "only begotten" which is an important distinction because God has
many sons.
Wow !! You take the Son of
God, who's very being radiates from the bosom of the
Father, making Him the uniques Son of God, and argue that because
we are adopted sons (and daughters) , we are the same as He is , in
terms of being sons of God. You accurately quote Strong's and
then ignore the implications of his definition
entirely by confusing "adoption" and "natural" (if you will)
sonship.
Impossible.
jt: I don't ignore anything JD - you
put totally new implications into Strongs definition. ONLY
BEGOTTEN means just that. Jesus is the only one who
became a son in that way, the rest are either created or adopted but
they are sons nontheless because scripture says so. When you say
that his VERY BEING radiates, it makes me think of those religious
pictures with the burning hearts that we used to see in Newfoundland in
the homes of rc folk who didn't know the Lord. JD that is very
religious.
4.
Tell me what John
1:14 is talking about, then.
John and the other disciples
beheld Him after the resurrection and before the ascension for 50 days
in a new and glorified body
And John makes no reference
to this at all. You go OUTSIDE the verse (1:14) to deny what the
verse itself says - tht Jesus came in the flesh and
revealed His flory !! The glory of this passage is the
same as the glory in 5: 44ff. --- and
5:44ff pictures the incarnate Christ ministering to those who will
listen, and speaking of this glory. Chapter 5:37 -47 is the
contextual statmen for 1:14.
jt: You don't know what John 1:14
refers to JD; scripture is like that, especially the OT prophetic
scriptures in Isaiah; they jump from one thing to another which is why
it is impossible to understand the volume of the book aside from divine
help. John 1:14 must be understood in the light of all other
scripture - not in the light of our perception of how the glory of God
might look in a flesh person.
Anyway - I can
tell you this -- absolutely no teacher in BSF would be
allowed to teach what you have written thus far in this post.
jt: What does BSF have to do with
what we are discussing on TT? I would rather you tell me what you
teach
or else give me a direct quote
from BSF that is footnoted.
5. Is the "Word" a description of His
divinity? In other words, is being The Word tantamount to
saying that He was God? Yes or no.
Yes
John 1:1 says "and the Word was God"
However he was not God the Father was he?
No, Judy, He was God the Son !!
- but you have denied that in His
earthly ministry, He was God at all !! Only that he
represented God. See, right here -- with this
statement - I think you actually beleive that He was God on
earth - it just doesn't work as you do battle with me at
this time. You contradict yourself within this very post
!! This is not about you being right and me being wrong
- about winning the argument. You've got yourself all
bunched up here -- and it has much less to do with what Judy
Taylor actually believes than it does with proving the resident heretic
wrong again (that
would be me).
jt: I have done no such thing JD. I
have said that during his earthly ministry he was not God Almighty; he
emptied himself and took upon himself the form of a servant even going
so far as to say the Father is greater than He. What I read you to
be saying is that he and the Father are one and the same through all
eternity including his earthly ministry which is not
accurate.
6.
I am
talking about the eternal Fatherhood of God - that specific
concept. Also, there is absolutely no rule in scripture that tells
us tht scripture is of no regard unless a thing is stated at least
twice. Are you telling me tht you believe that if God only
says is once, God is speaking here, that you are required to
pay Him heed until He gets around to stating it a second time?????
No
I am saying that it is
possible to misunderstand and wrest scripture to our own destruction and
that knowing who Jesus is is tantamount to walking with Him because His
sheep hear His voice. It is folly to make a doctrine out of one
scripture.
You conradcit
youself here, but more importantly, you have conviently left off my
challenge !!!!!! Prove or evidence the eternal Fatherhood of God
with OT scritpures. I have asked you to do this several
times, now and it doesn't get done. You believe it to be the
case ----------------- so prove it!!! Or
will you admit that Father and Son are two of several doctrines that are
uniquely New Covenant ? Nee I remind you that "Father" as in
"father God" is used no more than twice (that I could find) in the OT
and 278 times in the New !!!!!!!!!!
jt: Wait just one moment JD.
I had to be very patient and wait for days for you to come up with your
apologetic about the eternal sonship you are holding to and you still
haven't given me anything from the OT which Jesus says told of
him. This morning is the first time I have seen your challenge so
I would appreciate your giving me some of the same kind of
grace. We are going camping this morning. I don't know if the
campground has a computer hookup - if it does I will get back to you and
if not it will be Thursday.
7. I really do not care
about your analysis of their statements, Judy. Christ
Himself agreed with their premise. Do you deny that "Son of
God" as a claim makes Christ equal to "God?" Yes or
no.
No
As the son
he declared that the Father is greater than he (see John
14:28)
Whoa, there, Judy. Let
me get this right - and I am trying to uderstand --
you believe that Jesus IS the son, that this makes Him equal to God, but
as the Son, He is subordinate to the Father.
Correct?
jt: JD why make it so difficult.
I believe the man Jesus to be a flesh representation of the second
member of the Godhead which is God the Word and yes, as a servant/son
walking this earth in a flesh body he was subordinate to the Father and
the Father was "greater than he" Are you saying he was mistaken or
that he lied when he said so? After all he only said what he first
heard the Father say and his works were all
done
by the
Father.
8.
Do you believe that in
Christ, John and others behold the glory of
.......God? Yes or no.
Not the way
I think you mean
JD
My belief
is that they beheld the glory of God in him after the resurrection and
before the ascension but that it was not apparent other than in the
words he spoke before that
time.
9.
Judy -- do
you think verse 46 is a part of the same context as that of verse
44? Yes or no? (John
5:44)
No not in
your
Bible
John
5:44-46 is talking about ppl who are honoring themselves and each other
and don't seek the honor that comes from God alone. You know what
this is talking about JD - you see it in church circles all
the
time.
