In article <093.50.19.05.328356000@srcbs.org>, ResLight says...
>
>
>
>"Matthew Johnson" wrote in message
>news:091.34.08.05.198799000@srcbs.org...
>>
>>
>> In article <090.53.09.05.929843000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Matthew Johnson makes an inane statement:
>>>
>>>>But JWs clearly equivocate on what "Jesus as Lord" means. Whereas you
>>>>and I
>>>>should agree: it means Lord GOD
>
>I am not with the JWs,

Theologically, you are. So what good does it do you to be "not with" them in
some other sense? None that I can see.

> but Jesus as Lord means that Jesus is the Lord made
>so by the only true God,

No, that is not what it means.

> not that Jesus is the God who made him "Lord."

Yes, it is. That is WHY it is so important to translate John 1:1 correctly, as:

In the beginning was the Word [indicating co-eternity]
And the Word was with God [indicating distinction]
And the Word WAS God [indicating idenity]

>Acts 2:36 - "Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God
>has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
>
>His being made Lord and Christ by his God does not make him the God who made
>him Lord and Christ.

But you are equivocating on the sense of 'made'. For clearly 'made' in Acts 2:36
does NOT refer to the Word, but to the _man_ Jesus Christ. But as man, He really
does have an origin, and as _man_ He really was _made_ "Lord and Christ". But He
was, by His divine nature, Lord already from all eternity. THAT is the
implication of the correct translation of John 1:1

[snip]


--
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( 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. )))

matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:


> "Professional leading question poser"? I don't think so. Not even
> after correcting the obvious typo. Chris Matthews is a professional
> at that. And not even you would be in a hurry to be considered of a
> class with him.

Right. My dad, who barely finished high school was constantly
telling his four sons, all of whom had IQ's above 140 (in the
old measuring) which one was smarter. We'd just shake our
heads. How can a guy who got kicked out of high school algebra
one think that he can judge the differences in intellegence of
four young men who aced Calculus without trying? He can't.

If Chris Matthews (whoever that is, some journalism major, I
guess) and I have a competit