On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:58:58 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
As I see it, the Spirit working in my sense of understanding as surely as in yours, we have, we have a prophesy that describes the coming God Almighty into our world. In our world, this incarnation will mirror the essence of God ASHE HAS ALWAYS BEEN. Disagree? I am sure you do.
jt: Why would you think such a thing John when Jesus demonstrated the "fullness of the Spirit" during His earthlyministry - Is this what you are saying? Is the "essence of God" the same as the "fullness of the Spirit of God?"You seem to think it important that the Son of God be a creation of The God as some moment in time. If your theory is correct, what do we have?jt: I think it is important to say what scripture says about the Son of God and this is that his physical body was created at a point in time. (Hebrews 10:5)In Is 9:6, we believe that the Christ is presented in these terms -- as a Father, as a Counselor [indeed, an horoable profession, even if I do say so myself], a Prince of Peace and a Mighty God. Sooooooooooooo, all that happen one day, long ago, in manger near Bethlehem? The Father had a beginning on that day? The Mighty God?
jt: The incarnation of one member of the Godhead took place in that manger in BethlehemAgain, my point exactly.
God Almighty has not always been The Counselor or the Prince of Peace? Only if you believe these statements are TITLES EARNED BY GOD via obedience to prophetical vision.jt: The Counselor and Prince of Peace are two prophetic/redemptive names of Christ - there are more.
There are no titles for God -------------- only realities. The coming of the Christ does not change anything about God. You are persistent in arguing that "God changes not." Well, this erronious teaching of yours clearly presents an impossible change for God --- unless, of course, you no longer believe that Christ is the Great God Almighty.jt: God does not change and it is not part of my belief that he does. This must be what you think I believe.
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.
You write as if I am saying something different. It is, in fact, my point exactly. The apostle John presents what has ALWAYS been true -- Christ as the Word. The plurality of God IS eternal and still speaks from heaven to the same degree that same has been presented before the worlds were [compare this thought with what the Son says to the Father in John 17.]
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.What I am saying is this,
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
