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? It IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..."
The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8.
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.
Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus.
As I understand the textual consideration, the issue centers around eudokew and is translated "pleased God that .." A rather poor translation , I think. J.B. Lightfoot gives the word a nominative apppliance and seems to argue for the omission of the word "God" while arguing FOR the absolute use of (God's good purpose.)
John puts his thinking cap on and comes up with this: To insert " .. the Father's pleasure...." or ".....appeared good to God .." or any such addition gives one the opportunity to misunderstand the the reference to "himself" as in "... He reconciled all things unto Himself ..." and argue that it appeared good to the Father to use Christ to reconcile all things unto the Father.
If we omit what is , in fact omitted -- a specific reference to the (a) personhood of deity, then the passage reads "...it was the divine pleasure that all the fulness centered in Him (Jesus) and that in Him all things are reconciled unto Himself (Jesus.)"
3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the glory of the Father before the foundations of the world, establishing His eternity 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.
Aaaahhh, o.k. That is correct of course.
I am out of time.
jd
