Jesus, the tent?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Bro Shaw:
>.  He is both God and man; and
>whilst I believe in the evidence and distinction of natures within Him, I
>don't believe that we can make the Christ only a body.


Me:
 Bro Shaw, I also do not mean to be contentious with you or your view the
thought has occurred to me after reading Bro Reed, Bro Cary Robison, and
your post's, the question begs.  Why?  Why try and make the flesh more then
just what it was meant to be as Bro Reed stated?  Is it safe to try and
utilize a cornerstone of trinitiarianism to explain the Oneness of God?

Bro Robison:
>I agree, Bro. Shaw. Defining the Son as merely the body or flesh of Jesus
>does not do justice to the wondrous portrait of the Sonship painted in
>Scripture.

Me:
IMHO,  the Sonship and it's meaning and reliance is by *NO MEANS* deminished
by believing as Bro Reed does. (Bro Reed and I attend the same congregation)
 I see the dual nature reconciled when I understand the fact that prior to
the birth of Christ, God lacked the ability to understand the fullness of
man's plight. (as lamented by Job)  The great and GLORIOUS son, christ, Son
of Man, holy "thing" born of a woman.  When God finally became the thing
that Job so desired, the Daysmen, betwixt man and God, many things occurred
that had never occurred before.  God became a man and experienced all the
things that man had to experience and did so "yet without sin".  The Sonship
reconciled a great many things that separated, Man from God, and God from
Man, most of which was the saving of Humanity by the sacrifice of His flesh
on the cross.  It also helped God to understand more fully the plight man
was in because of the fleshly or carnal nature man must endure.  In this he
became our near kinsman in more then just a typification.

Yours truly, In Jesus

Jeff Wescott