Awesome !!
jd
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cd: Bill I will attempt to find areas of disagreement with John's posts as this is what I believe both you and John are both looking for in order to better distinguish the God head relationship and our responses. John please understand that this isn't an attack upon you belief-rather a polishing of that belief- if possible- as help was asked for.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,BillSent: 1/5/2006 9:48:58 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God1. 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.cd: On this I am in total agreement John.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.cd: On this I am in agreement as Jesus flooded the earth and was the great" I Am" that Moses spoke to in the burning bush. Christ is also seen as the Captain of the Lord of Hosts in Joshua 5 :13-15. ( Note that no Angelic being ever allowed this type of worshiping to happen due in my opinion to Godly fear).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.cd: Again we agree.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.cd: There is a shade of disagreement here as I view Christ as taking on a subjective role while a man-with all the frailties of a man-while in the form of man. Yet not forgetting the Glory/ Honor he held with the Father before the foundation of the world.In that earthly form he showed strong tears and crying before God and was heard in that He feared God Hebrews 5:7. He is also shown as the Lord almighty in Rev 1:8 so the son ship role did/is/will end(ed) to total equality.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."cd: I agree with this towards a hint of the "word" of St. John1 being more than just a son as 1;1 shows Christ's Deity as God .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."cd: On this I strongly agree as to be anything else -such as a prophet-is to make Christ a liar-for he said "I am" and the Jews clearly understood this to mean equal with God as they sought to kill him. King Nebuchadnezzar make this same claim and was struck with insanity for 7 yrs. I hope I am not confusion anyone-if so push for the explanation. Bill if you were asking for something else or more please clarifly.Hoping to help.jd
