On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 06:06:29 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do think this subject is extremely important. There are those who follow TT but never get involved. It is for their sake that rebuttal must be made. This teaching is so very wrong and needs to be confronted or challenged on every occasion it is introduced into the discussion forum.
Me? I would hang my hat on the scriptures in John that you (Bill) have already introduced. Judy is a great one for ignoring the challenge to reconcile her scriptures to those used against her. If there was no other passage other than that found in John 17, Christ speaking of the glory he had with the Father before the worlds were, the eternal sonship of the Christ would be established. The son manifest in the incarnation had a beginning -- I am speaking of the manifestation in the incarnation. The son's existence prior to this manifestation is clearly present in scripture and is a continuing thread throughout the Old Bible. If not, what is Is 9 all about. God HAS ALWAYS EXISTED IN COMMUNITY. He has always been The Father, The Counselor, The Prince of Peace, The Mighty God.jt: Isaiah 9:6 is prophetic John. It speaks of a coming event more than 700yrs before the incarnation. I challenge you to show me the Son's existence that you claim is so clearly presented and is a continuing thread throughout the Old Covenant scriptures.
Elohim -- a plural word spoken to lift up the Largeness of God, is, nonetheless (If one believes in the providential work of God in the writing and preservation of scripture), a word that indicates the plurality of God. This may not have been the intention of the ancient writer, but the door is opened to the notion of the plurality of God with the use of this word. Look at the phrase "Abraham and his seed ....;" if Paul does not tell us that Christ is this seed (Gal 3:16), we would not have that knowledge about the Abrahamic promise.jt: The plurality of God is eternal and still speaks from heaven. It is God the Father, God The Word, and God the Holy Spirit.
What I am saying is this, the biblical writer may have had one thing in mind, and only one thing, when he/she wrote the words, but their influence is not the only Influence in play -- there is the role that God played in the creation of scripture, as well. The Jewish writer could have honored the Magnificent God in any number of ways, but he chooses a word that, at the same time, allows for the notion of a Divine Fellowship, does he not? If we can establish this Divine Fellwoship, we must conclude that the Son is equally a part of this Community.jt: The scriptures were not written by the will of man. Holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21)
Grace to all
Peace you will find elsewhere
JD
