What are you saying here JD? I've read it through
and was no more enlightened at the end than before I began.
What bothers you about Jesus the man being "begotten"
of the Father, rather than made like Adam or procreated
from two human beings like us?
Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he
had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the form
of a man?
Is your faith rooted in ontology?
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:49:51 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have read a number of articles concerning the Sonship of Christ as the result of some action associated with His incarnation.The Apostle John clearly understood Christ to be the Son of God and God at the same time.Those who disagree find the sonship established with His birth, others see it in His resurrection and still others see the sonship vested in the ascension. All of these considerations imply that there was a time when Christ was not the son of God. I might add that these very people believe that Christ was not Son of God at a time in history when God WAS the Father --- few argue that God was ever not the Father.If God has always been the Father but Christ's Sonship is not an extension of His eternal nature, then adoption is the only solution. The silliness that "begotten" has to do with "birthing" as opposed to "uniqueness" is at the center of this heresy.At this time of year, we celebrate much more than the birth of Christ. We , in fact, celebrate the coming of God into our world - or perhaps I should say "into His world." We have decided, each of us, to worship the man Jesus precisely because He was and is and will always be GOD.If God was completely folded into this man [Christ] then God acted as man to save man. There can be no eternal value in the salvation of man by man. There can be no demand to worship Christ for the same reason. But few make this argument. On the other hand, many argue that Christ emptied Himself of being God, took on our form, and became the savior of mankind. There is no difference between the first consideration and the second. There is no alternative (other than the heretical) to the notion that God in Christ experienced what seemed to an impossibility (for God) and died so that all might live. His death has eternal value because He is (and was) God. God dying for man when coupled with the resurrection and the ascension [ both functions of a LIVING God ] is one thing. Man dying for man is something else and far less profound.To change form as God , is reasonable. To cease to be God for some grand purpose or to become God when one is not God is to believe in that which cannot be. I cannot stop being who I am, in essence. And I cannot become what I am not. Neither can God, IMO, because of the ontology of the circumstance.the point is this: the Great God Almighty accomplished His mightiest work in an event that stripped Him of all that we would consider to be His essence !!! Only God could survive such an event. Hence, only God could actually save man -- and that was His intention from the beginning of the foundations of the world.Thank you JesusPastor Smithson
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
