|
You are not producing anything here Lance - just
alluding to things I can't recall. You need to produce the "so
called"
evidence along with my "unsound" understanding.
The only issue I remember DavidM "patiently" trying to walk me
through
is something that is more in his field of biology ie
his belief that Jesus had a fallen Adamic nature just like ours. I say
He
did not and that he is unique in being the ONLY
begotten of the Father. David agrees with the ONLY begotten part..
so
what we disagree on is minimal and he died on the cross
without sin. Can you think of anything else?
I don't believe I've ever seen you respond, since
my appearance on TT, to ANYONE'S BIBLICAL EVIDENCE that
ran counter to your own. Why? I've no idea! IMO,
SOME, of that which ran counter to your understanding was SOUND while your
understanding was UNSOUND. I've seen David exhibit remarkable patience
while walking you through something a step at a time. How did it end up?
Pretty much where it was to begin with. Why? I've no idea!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 06, 2006 07:38
Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as
the incarnate God
Why should I pay any more mind to you than I do to
SNL Lance? You give your opinion which is all you seem
to have to hang on to. If you can show me
evidence by God's Word that what I presently believe is wrong then
I
will give serious consideration to your counter
points. So far all you have produced is opinions, yours and
those
of others. Yes .. scripture is to be
understood in the light of All other scripture so that there are no
contradictions
and you don't have to explain away or cut out
anything - jt
NOTHING, Judy, is so unless it stands in the
light of ALL scripture. You do understand, do you not, that that includes
what YOU SAY, do you not?
'Nonsense' you say? John/Bill hold more
understanding of the scriptures in their pinky finger that you ever will
should you live for another 1,000 years.
You, Judy, need more understandintg that
comes by the Holy Spirit than comes by the 'rationalizing' of your own
mind. No matter what DM suggests by his various references to 'inspired'
readings of scripture, neither you nor he read scripture infallibly. Get
over the 'idolotry' of your interpretation.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 06, 2006 06:48
Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ
as the incarnate God
Hello Bill. thanks for the post and the thoughts.
Apparently, I missed reading the last sentence or two
below, just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley.
Dean, I believe there is a Father, a Son and a Holy
Spirit. The Spirit expresses the will of the Father and
the Son. You do not know anything
about Barth, nor do you care but, his view is something that I
fully agree with -- and, I came to my
understanding before I read Barth. The personality of God
is seen in the two. The activity of God is seen in the
third. I have been in discussion with some
Unitarians. These men (there are three of them)
believe that God and the Father are one and the same to the exclusion
of all other considerations. Christ pre-existed the virgin
birth only as the "Plan." So your scriptures where of some
importance to me. I skipped the part of your post
that set us at odds. But, there it
is. I am interested in your answer to Bill's question,
as well.
There it is - the theology of Barth. Just
because it came to you before you read him does not mean it is so
unless
it stands in the light of ALL
scripture.
Another point that I did not include in my post is this: if
Christ had a pre-existence as something or someone other than the Son
of God, then His sonship is an action of
adoption.
Nonsense. He was the pre-existent Word
or Wisdom of God for whom God provided a body. In Luke 24:44 He
tells ppl that he has been written about in the law of Moses, the
Prophets, and the Psalms. Other than the prophecy in Isa 9
- "Unto us a child is born" where do you find an "eternal Son" in all
of the OT?
It makes no differenc to me whether He was born and this
"begetting" made Him the Son -- such begetting is
only a form of adoption, if Christ pre-existed that birth as something
other than the Son. We have Andy Taylor and He
is predestined to become Andy Smithson. There is no
way in which he can become a Smithson except through some form of
adoption and we know this because he has a prior existence as
someone other than Andy Smithson. There is no "becoming"
when it comes to the Sonship of Christ because there is no hint of
adoption in His regard. If He is alive and well and
not the Son, His becoming is adoptive. Ok --
I'll stop repeating myself. I think this is a strong
point. jd
You need "understanding" which comes by way
of the Holy Spirit, rather than Barthian "rationalizing"
JD
From:
"Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Dean. I moved your
post up in its entirety below. The question I am having
difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly
you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in
understanding your point of contention.
I very
much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see
below), with a possible exception over the wording in his
fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a
term which can mean "only unique," and therefore
has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a
reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other
than that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very
well-stated.
But then when I read your post, I find
myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to
cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your
problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my
confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this
time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very
much appreciated.
Thanks,
Bill
cd:Also consider these words of Jesus
I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending,
saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the
Almighty. (Rev 1:8)
...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev
1:11)
I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18)
John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week
ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time
without end-I can only solve this by a comparison of eternity to a
circle.. How about a universe that has no end-goes on forever and
ever and if it does end what is there at that end? A wall?
And what is on the other side of that wall or is the dept of
that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to think of one being
who are three-but if I consider my self more then one my
understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and spirit-this
is how I am created in the image of one who is a spirit, who came in
the body and has /is a eternal soul. Three parts of the whole. Take
a whole pie , cut it into three equal slices and taste each slice.
How are they different? They taste, look ,and smell the same but are
different slices-yet they are the same. That being said I simple
view Christ as God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem
solved-for me. You on the other hand are a d ifferently matter
entirely:-) So here is another type of similar
theory/thinking.
John Wesley wrote:
Joh 10:30 - I and the Father are one - Not by consent of will
only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This
word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one -
This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never
did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one
_expression_ of himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as
this and other expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak.
Therefore if he was not God he must have been the vilest of men.
Adam Clark wrote:
Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one -
If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said these
words without being guilty of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that
Christ does not say, I and My Father, which my our translation very
improperly supplies, and which in this place would have conveyed a
widely different meaning: for then it would imply that the human
nature of Christ, of which alone, I conceive, God is ever said to be
the Father in Scripture, was equal to the Most High: but he says,
speaking then as God over all, I and The Father, e?? ?a? ?? pat??
e?? esµe? - the Creator of all things, the Judge
of all men, the Father of the spirits of all flesh - are One, One in
nature, One in all the attributes of Godhead, and One in all the
operations of those attributes: and so it is evident the Jews
understood him. See Joh_17:11, Joh_17:22.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 05,
2006 10:39 AM
Subject: FW: Re: [TruthTalk]
Christ as the incarnate God
Dean Moore
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 1/5/2006 12:18:07 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Christ as the incarnate God
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 1/5/2006 9:48:58 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Christ as the incarnate God
1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name
for Jesus. Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew
gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic
definition, if you will -----------
God with us. This single sentence should end the
controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow
their bias.
2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ
reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only
the representative of God, there would be no value in
having drawn all things, on the earth and in the heavens unto
Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to
the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not
forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the
body of His flesh.
3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son
shared the glory of the Father before the
foundations of the world, estalishing His eternity as
the Son.
4. In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a
term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do
with the birth or appointment of Christ, there is no
biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God.
He is, therefore, the eternal Son, never
becoming -- always being.
5. John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos
and Jesus, the Son, are one and the same: "He was
in the world (incarnation !!) and the world was made by
Him and the world did not know Him."
6. Matt 16:16 has Peter confessing that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of the living God," a wonderful
statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the
Christ , the Holy Representative of the living
God."
Hoping to help.
jd
cd:Also consider these words of Jesus
I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the
ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is
to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8)
...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the
last...(Rev 1:11)
I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18)
John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week
ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity
is-as time without end-I can only solve this by a comparison
of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that has no
end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what
is there at that end? A wall? And what is on the
other side of that wall or is the dept of that wall non
ending?So it is hard for me to think of one being who are
three-but if I consider my self more then one my
understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and
spirit-this is how I am created in the image of one who is a
spirit, who came in the body and has /is a eternal soul. Three
parts of the whole. Take a whole pie , cut it into three equal
slices and taste each slice. How are they different? They
taste, look ,and smell the same but are different slices-yet
they are the same. That being said I simple view Christ as
God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem solved-for me. You
on the other hand are a d ifferently matter entirely:-) So
here is another type of similar theory/thinking.
John Wesley wrote:
Joh 10:30 - I and the Father are one - Not by consent
of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of
nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the
plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving
the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from
the beginning of the world, use any one _expression_ of himself,
which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other
expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore
if he was not God he must have been the vilest of men.
Adam Clark wrote:
Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are
one - If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have
said these words without being guilty of blasphemy? It is
worthy of remark that Christ does not say, I and My Father,
which my our translation very improperly supplies, and which
in this place would have conveyed a widely different meaning:
for then it would imply that the human nature of Christ, of
which alone, I conceive, God is ever said to be the Father in
Scripture, was equal to the Most High: but he says, speaking
then as God over all, I and The Father, e?? ?a? ??
pat?? e?? esµe? - the Creator of all
things, the Judge of all men, the Father of the spirits of all
flesh - are One, One in nature, One in all the attributes of
Godhead, and One in all the operations of those attributes:
and so it is evident the Jews understood him. See
Joh_17:11, Joh_17:22.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous
content by Plains.Net,
and is
believed to be clean.
|
