I believe in the same thing Dean only I call it
the Godhead rather than "trinity" because Godhead
is what it is named in scripture. I don't deny
there is a Father, Word/Son, and Holy Spirit. judyt
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:59:26 -0500 "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Three in one? You have admitted to the idea of the Trinity, whether you intended to or not. jdcd: I may be missing something-I thought Judy believed in the Trinity John?From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I don't deny Christ is God any more than I deny the Holy Spirit is God or the Father is God JDHowever, you have to leave scripture as it is written rather than try and adjust it to suit doctrine.On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:19:36 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:It is never a mole hill to deny Christ as God !!jdFrom: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
JD, this is not worth any more bandwidth - you are making a mountain out of a molehill ... a little teeny molehillat that. Matthew was not being original here. So what if he defines the meaning of the name Emmanuel?A Hebrew reading Hebrew could have done it also during the time of Isaiah in 740BC.PS: I will overlook your outlandish assumptions with regard to my character and person. You just don'tknow about boundaries or decorum I guess ...On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:10:52 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Judy, here is the perfect example of what Lance has been telling you these past couple of days. Look at this exchanget:Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !!It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us and is there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came up with this revelation by himself.The fact that I am talking about the definition of Immanuel, the fact that I have repeated myself on that point, the fact that I have given the word "definition" in caps for the sake of emphasis coupled with the fact that you still missed what I said and inserted "revelation [by himself" in the place of "definition" is proof positive that you miss the meaning of posted message. Lance does not think you do this "on purpose." I do. I think you have a spirit of rebellion within, that you are nonetheless a child of God and a sister in Christ -- albeit a rebellious sister (at times.) And I say "rebelliious" because , in this case, you simply do not want to admit you are wrong. I beleive you see my point perfectly and Lance is not so sure that you do.You will find the DEFINITION for "Immanuel" presented in two places - a Hebrew or Greek dictionary (lexicon) and in Matthew 1:23 , written by Matthew. The Apostles is, indeed, giving us a "divinely stated defintioin." It is a definition that has no meaning without the corresponding reality -- Jesus IS God with us."You and DM change wording all the timeand then proceed as if saying something critical to the intitial discussion. Here , you have changed the specific "definition" to the more general "revelation." In your comment above, you admit "It may not be spelled out ...." AND THAT IS MY VERY POINT. It ISN'T spelled out anywhere except in Matthew 1:23 by Matthew. Period.jd-------------- Original message --------------
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 +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 repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 7:14) under the unction of the same Holy Spirit of course "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (God with us) (see Isa 9:6, Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3-5; Matt 1:22,23) AmplIt 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. Immanuel means "God with us"Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !!It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us andis there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came upwith this revelation by himself.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.Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ?I'm not into quibbling over Gk words JD; the meaning is more important to me and it is the Father all things were reconciled to at this point. This is repeated in Vs.22 "Yet now has (Christ the Messiah) reconciled (you to God) in the body of His flesh through death, in order to present you holy and faultless and irreproachable in His (the Father's) presence. (And this He will do) provided that you continue to stay with and in the faith (in Christ), well grounded and settled and steadfast, not shifting or moving away from the hope..."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 the same thing. Jesus did not come to glorify himself.I am saying that the words "God" or "Father" do not appear int he KJ greek text -- or any greek text. "Father" is an added word.PS: I wouldn't take Lightfoots comments too seriously, apparently he was in cahoots with Westcott & Hort.Fine -- but I do take him seriously.If you are allowing him to add and remove the words of scripture for you, then Oh well!! I would say you are begging to be confused.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" He wasn't the firstborn of all creation because He is and wasa member of the Godhead so He has always been. He is the firstborn of the NewCreation.
