Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 07:20:17 -0800

So what is it about these scriptures that I am misinterpreting Lance?
There are others that say the Father is greater, the Father does the work, the words spoken by Jesus
are those of the Father.  If I am ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of Truth - what part of
the Truth am I missing Lance?  or  Could it be possible that what you hold to as truth is in reality a mirage?
 
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:12:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ever learning and never...............etc.
 
Jesus addresses this in John 14:17 where he talks to the disciples about "The Spirit of Truth who is WITH
you but will be IN you" and - as for the Emmanuele/Incarnation issue.  Same thing.  In John 14:10 where
Jesus plainly says that it is the Father who dwells IN him who does the works"  So how does the Father
dwell IN him?  By the same process that He (Jesus) dwells in believers today.  By the Spirit whom the
world can not receive because it has neither seen him nor known him (John 14:17)
 
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 09:05:43 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
We are talking past each other Lance. I am not speaking of a godliness or holiness obtained by osmosis
but one that is inward.  A pure heart and unfeigned love.
 
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:56:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
As to your last point, I totally and wholeheartedly concur. Do remember, won't you, that it is 'Emmanuel GOD with us'?.
 
DEAF goes both ways Lance and so does frustration.  Some refusing to dialogue when it is apparent there is
no agreement on this side with their idols and make no mistake, any doctrine not leading one toward godliness
and holiness is an idol.
 
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:36:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Like I've said this morning and, on many other occasions, others more competent than I have 'walked away' in frustration from 'dialogues of the deaf'.
 
Well then Lance, that is 'er - your opinion.
Why don't you just give it a try and see for once whether or not your opinion is correct?
 
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:57:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
IMO, it matters not a whit what they 'come up with', you will remain comfortably (intractably?) where you are right now! As on onlooker for a rather lengthy period of time, I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Why? I've no idea!
 
This is fine with me Lance.  I did not receive what you call my "doctrinal apprehension" that IYO is unsound
from men and so I don't expect to receive accolades from men.  However, I would like those who criticize and
accuse to come up with something other than their own or someone else's opinion to refute it.
 
 
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:06:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I do believe that many on TT believe your doctrinal apprehension of the Lord to be UNSOUND.
IMO, nothing and no one will ever facilitate your SOUND APPREHENSION of this particular Biblical Teaching. FWIW, I believe DM's position to be quite similar to your own so, you may take heart in that.
 
JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some
doctrine built by men?
 
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:48:56 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
 
Matthew did not come up with it JD; he only repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:6,7) and since the Holy Spirit is also God according to your trinitarian belief - what are you trying to say here?
 
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 thing, on the earth and in the heaves 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. 
 
Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF.
 
3.  John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the glory of the Father before the foundations of the world,  estalishing His evternity as the Son.  
 
John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which
establishes his eternity as the Word of God.
 
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. 
 
The word "begotten" means just what it says JD.  It is also used in Gen 5:4; Lev 18:11, Deu 23:8, John 1:14 and Acts 13:33. The meaning in these verses is plain.  It is a mystery to me why you would want to change it to "unique" unless it is to conform to some doctrine outside the scope of God's Word and the faith ONCE delivered to the saints.
 
5.  John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and the 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." 
 
What makes you think John 1 :10 references the "incarnation"?  John had just said "he is the light who gives light to every man" and long before any incarnation it is written "Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path"
Jesus is the Word spoken through the prophets and rejected by God's covenant people.
 
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." 
 
Christ?  Means "anointed one" JD. 
 
 
Hoping to help. 
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Reply via email to