On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 23:28:58 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]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?Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.)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.Yes it is, the exact same wording is found in Isaiah 7:14. Emmanuel means "God with us"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.I wasn't reading the KJV JD, that time I was quoting from the NASV and the Amplified says thesame thing. Jesus did not come to glorify himself.PS: I wouldn't take Lightfoots comments too seriously, apparently he was in cahoots with Westcott & Hort.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 him in eternity as the Word of God rather than an "eternal son"Aaaahhh, o.k. That is correct of course.I am out of time.jd
