> And He had one temptation that no other mortal ever had -- the
> temptation to invoke His divine half to escape the vicissitudes of
> mortality.
>
This would presume two consciences.  This would devalue the scriptural
declaration that He was tempted as we.  Rather, the kenosis was so
extensive that the Divine consciousness was never taken back up until
the Father again glorified Him.  The Logos operated under human
consciousness only.
>
> He told His apostles that if they had faith like a mustard seed, they
> could do greater miracles than He.

What is greater than raising the dead.  It was not meant "greater" as
in deed, but greater in that they were greater in number and would
reach out to the greater populous of the nations.

> He meant exactly what He said.

No one debates that point.  The point of debate is what He meant by
stating such.  Again, what greater miracle could be performed than
raising the dead?

> He
> did only what any mortal can do by faith in the Father.

No, again I have to disagree.  I would have to modify your statement in
qualifying man prior to the fall.  He was not encumbered by the
alienation from God, from men, from Himself as "mortal" men, ever since
the fall, are so encumbered.

> He lived
> completely as a mortal, keeping His divine powers in abeyance.  That
is
> why He is our perfect example, and why we are left without excuse.
He
> had access to "super powers" but never cheated.
>
This is something I often stumble over.  "Tempted as men."  Men are
tempted from within their inclination to sin.  Christ, being sinless
and not having any inclination other than to do the will of the Father,
never experienced the Rom 7 struggle.  In that God is omniscient, for
Him to take on humanity necessarily results in a distinction between
omniscient knowledge and experiential knowledge.  This is why only the
2nd Person of the God can be said to be both Mediator and Advocate.

With the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in every believer, perhaps it is
the Spirit who, through a quasi incarnation of the Church, knows by
experience the struggles that sinful men, who have been redeemed and
regenerated by God, experience.

I have no answer for this.  I believe it is something which He will
reveal in eternity.

> Faced with the bitter cup of our sins, His flesh wanted to shrink,
but
> His pure spirit cried "Father, Thy will be done."  The Lamb of God
came
> to our passover without blemish, the only one worthy to suffer for
> another's sins.  The Father withdrew, leaving Him alone, and Satan
> heaped upon him all our shame,

Satan?  I guess I missed that passage in Scripture.  And here all the
while I thought this was soley a work of God.  If it is God who
declares us righteous, it was also God who laid the sin of the world
upon His Son.  Satan isn't capable of such an act, being finite like
just you and I.  You seem to elevate his stature in must the same way
Sarah elevates Michael's stature in a mere angel being able to die for
the sins of the world.

> all our horror, all our guilt, all our
> pain.  He deserved none of it.  By inflicting his punishments on the
> only innocent *man*, Satan lost any claim on any man who would seek
> refuge in Christ.
>
"In Christ" concludes in

Rom. 8:33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one
who justifies;

> No man took His life from Him.  He could have yielded to the taunts
and
> come down from the cross.

Could He have?  Then you, at least theoretically, conclude that the
human nature He took on has equal power over Him to that of His divine
nature?  Strange.  This sounds a bit like the Monarchian position.

> But when it was finished, when He had
> perfected his mortal probation, he chose

"Chose?" I don't think so.  For Him to actually be faced with such a
choice would mean that He had already self-determined His inclination
toward that which was other than God's will.  Rather, He never changed
His original inclination therefore He never actually had to choose
because His inclination was always singular.  To "choose" implies two
natures, one being holy, the other being sinful.  "Chose" is a poor
discription of Christ's will.  It would be better stated that He never
self-determined to change His inclination.

> to obey the Father and yielded
> up His spirit.  The son of Mary was laid in the tomb.  Three days
later
> He invoked, for the first time, His divine birthright, and the Only
> Begotten of the Father rose from the tomb.
>
I think it is beyond us to be definite just what took place when.  You
are assuming that the external manifestation occured immediately at the
time of the inward re-establishment of His divine authority.

> At that moment He became perfect.

"Perfect" in Western definition is also a poor choice of wordage.
Better would be the word, "complete".  Granted, they mean essentially
the same thing, but the Western mind does imply a qualitative
difference between the two.

> Before his mission was complete, He
> told his disciples to become perfect, like His Father in Heaven.
After
> His resurrection he says to us, "as I and my Father are perfect."
>
But the Greek work can be translated "complete" as much as it can be
translated "perfect."  This is a false dicotomy you are presenting.

> That's my take on the matter, seen through a glass darkly.
>
That is why we all depend on the absolute nature of scripturalization
of God's revelation.  Any thing beyond that it a speculative mystery.

((( 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.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/8/05 6:38:10 PM ---