JosephS wrote:
> Was the Protestant Reformation really a
> true reform? Actually not.



We Presbyterians have not finished reforming, we are still at it.
Reforming is a kind of evolution, or one might say growth. Not all
denominations are embalmed by tradition, some are still alive and
changing.

((( 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. )))

In article , Tracy Hall says...
>

[snip]

>>How can anyone believe He "did not operate as God" after seeing the
>resurrection
>>of Lazarus?
>
>Moses also commanded the sea;

A miracle, certainly, but small compared with raising a man from the dead.

> Elijah also raised the dead;

A greater miracle than Moses's, but _still_ not as great as Christs: For Elijah
tried and failed, and succeeded only on the third(?) try. Besides, even more
important for this thread, Elijah did NOT claim to do this by his own power: he
explicitly called on God to raise the child from the dead.

But compare that with Christ's words:


"I go to awaken him out of sleep (John 11:11)

and:

"Lazarus, come forth!" (John 11:43)

The difference is clear enough to me: Christ did it by His own power.



> 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.

But I just _showed_ you the difference between Christ's mighty acts and all
these. Christ alone acted in His OWN name.

> 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.

You are confusing two very different passages.

> 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.

But you show the very clear difference between your 'take' and Scripture, by
insisting on the word 'disguise'. Scripture never called it that! Why can't you
take the time out to figure out why? Why must you insist on the infallibility of
your own 'take' instead?

>Unlike the prodigal son, he did not spend one cent of
>his divine inheritance before His time.

But why do you think acting by His divine power is "spending His divine
inheritance"??

> He finally invoked the genes
>inherited from His Father when He raised *Himself* from the dead.