On Feb 8, 2005 at 6:06 a.m. Matthew Johnson wrote:

>>In article , Gemini Styles
says...
>>Some scholars believe that although Jesus was/is God and man
>>simultaneously, He did not operate as God on earth.

>Now what was _that_ supposed to mean?

>> I would like to know what everyone's take is regarding this matter?

>My take' is that the statement "did not operate as God" is _seriously_

>confused. As was pointed out long ago, it was not by His divinity that
He wept
>at the death of His friend, and it was not by His humanity that He
raised him
>Lazarus) from the dead.

>How can anyone believe He "did not operate as God" after seeing the
resurrection
>of Lazarus?

Moses also commanded the sea; Elijah also raised the dead; Hananiah,
Mishael, and Azariah were cast into the fiery furnace without singing a
hair. They did not operate "as God," but in God's name, as did the Son
of Man. Jesus invoked the same faith and the same power and told his
followers that by faith they could perform greater works than He --
except for the sign of Jonah. My take is that He did, in fact, live
and die in perfect disguise as a mortal, as the Son of Mary. Only
once, on the mount of transfiguration, did he break from disguise, and
he commanded Peter, James, and John to tell no man until after his
resurrection. Unlike the prodigal son, he did not spend one cent of
his divine inheritance before His time. He finally invoked the genes
inherited from His Father when He raised *Himself* from the dead.

Exodus 14, I Kings 17, Daniel 3, Hebrews 11, Matthew 17:1-9; 14-21,
Matthew 12:38-41; John 14:12-14, Hebrews 9:16

Tracy Hall
hthalljr'gmail'com

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

Note: This post uses 2 Peter 3 as its reference. I had assumed this
was actually Peter's letter, but then found a discussion saying some
early authorities don't believe Peter wrote this. Having read that I
now tend to agree. It seems that the writer's purpose was to do war
against Paul's error, and may have assumed Peter's identity just for
that reason. Nevertheless, I agree with his reason, whether or not
Peter actually wrote it.

But if Peter didn't write it then Peter didn't call Paul "beloved,"
nor his writings as "scripture," (both appear with some sarcasm). And
so we may have no other recorded thought from the apostles concerning
Paul or his message, except for Revelation to John, chapters 2-3. And
there is James discussion. And there are the actual words of Christ.


-- Does Grace Mean 'Long-Suffering' ? --

Some of you know I've questioned the method by whic