Whoa, back up. I never said I dispute the divinity of Christ. That divinity is assured since he is the only begotten of the Father. What I dispute is the notion that Jesus, the man, was God incarnate. There should be a distinction between Jesus, the man, Christ Jesus, the saviour, Christ, the divine sonship of all mankind, and God, the Father-Mother, divine Parent. I could expound more fully on this, but I detected by the sudden dearth of posts from the collective (in light of the rash of posts lately) that I might have put a few noses out of joint. I did address this in my apology, which I sincerely offer in the spirit of true brotherhood.
--On Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:59:51 Adrian Teo wrote: >Hello Guy, > >While I disagree strongly with Stuart's conclusions, I must say I am not >surprised. There are many intellectual Christians who believe, as Howard >does and has argued, that all matters of faith should be open to question >and reevaluation. Stuart is simply putting this belief into practice and >has, IMHO, presented a somewhat reasonable and plausible argument for >rejecting the divinity of Christ. This Arian argument is still very much >around today, and they are holding their ground quite well. The Scriptures >can be used to support both opposing arguments. We will continue to hear >these arguments brought up, continue to see denominations splitting up over >doctrinal disagreements, and continue to see fragmentation in the church as >long as people continue to boldly adopt this skeptical/critical approach to >Christianity. It is every man and woman for himself/herself. We each become >our final arbiter of truth. > >This is my observation of the state of affairs, and I've tried to describe >it as objectively as possible, given my limitations. It is not in any way >intended to offend or insult anyone, nor to accuse anyone of being >unChristian (unOrthodox perhaps), although we do need to define the >bounadries of Christianity, lest it becomes a menaingless concept. > >My two-cents worth. > >Adrian. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Guy Blanchet >To: stucandu@lycos.com >Cc: asa@calvin.edu >Sent: 3/2/2002 6:56 PM >Subject: Re: Virgin Birth > >Stuart d Kirkley a écrit: > >> -- >> >> On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:24:28 >> bivalve wrote: >> Even being born as the heir apparent to Caesar >> would have made the Creator physically dependent on others to feed >> and clean Him. >> >> I still, for the life of me, can not understand how people can >rationally state that Jesus was God incarnate. To me this is one of the >biggest stumbling blocks of theololgy which stems from and leads to a >narrowness of scriptural interpretation. If, as the Bible states clearly >many times, God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son >to be the Saviour of the world, reveals God as Parent and Son as >offspring, distinct and individual, how do you arrive at the idea that >Jesus was God???!! I just find it incredulous that well reasoned people >can actually hold to this doctrine. >> Sorry, I had to get that out. >> >> 2,000,000,000 Web Pages--you only need 1. Save time with My Lycos. >> http://my.lycos.com > >Mr Kirkley, > >Do you feel better now that you 'got it out'? So you're blown away by >the fact that well-reasoned people believe Jesus is God? Don't be. >Isaiah said these words about Jesus : "See, I lay in Zion a stone that >causes men to stumble, and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who >trusts in him will never be put to shame." The stone is Jesus and he >causes certain people to stumble. I also attract your attention to >these words from Paul in first Corinthians: "Has God not made foolish >the wisdom of the world.[...] For the foolishness of God is wiser than >man's wisdom, [...]." Mr. Kirkly, >be careful of worldly wisdom lest you stumble yourself. > > >GB > >
2,000,000,000 Web Pages--you only need 1. Save time with My Lycos. http://my.lycos.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 04 2002 - 02:40:10 EST