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.
