I agree that if a passage cannot make sense literally, then we should consider figurative or allegorical interpretations, but I see no reason not to take Psalm 2:7 literally, exactly as it is written. You apparently perceive problems with the passage that I do not.
BT: That is correct :>) ---------------------------------------------- The word "son" here in this verse seems to refer specifically to his earthly > experience here on earth as the son of God. Do you see it differently? BT: What I see in Heb 5.8 is that his "suffering" started the moment he became flesh -- always a Son, the suffering Son in flesh; for he did not need to learn obedience until that time which he took upon himself the flesh of Adam. ---------------------------------------------- > I am glad he sees a "new dimension" being experienced here. This is exactly > what I perceive, and what I think Judy perceives by speaking of Christ > "emptying himself" when he became flesh. If the crux of the difference > between us is this, then we really just have a semantic difference. I would > not use the term son for this earlier dimension whereas you would create > labels for different kinds of sons, such as the "pre-existent son" versus > "incarnate son," etc. BT: Wonderful, it sounds as though we are coming to consensus. Indeed his taking on of flesh is a significant dimensional change, having been spirit only prior to this. ------------------------------------------------ Is the phrase, "this day I have begotten you" the > common legal terminology used to announce the arrival of a son? BT: Yes, and evidently a resurrected son as well (see Acts 13.33). ------------------------------------------ Your reference to Lane indicated that there > was more than simply a pronouncement happening at these times. He seems to > speak of an actual change in relationship. Do you agree with that aspect of > what you quoted for us? BT: I am not sure what you are designating here. I agree that the son of God had never taken on Adamic human flesh prior to the incarnation. That event certainly called forth a change in the way humanity, in Christ's body, related with and to God. ------------------------------------------- > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > "On this day" then is not a statement in reference to > > a point in time which introduced the "Son's" ontological > > existence, > > Nobody has argued this at all. The son had ontological existence from all > eternity. We all agree on this. The question is whether or not he was > known as the son of God prior to his incarnation, or whether he was simply > known as God or as the Logos of God? Does the idea of "son of God" have > root in his incarnation or in his past eternal existence as Deity? BT: I believe I have written enough at this juncture for you to begin to see why I see the significance of an eternal Father/Son relationship. If you are willing to concur that that is the kind of relationship the Father and The Word had throughout, then I fail to see your hang up with calling it a Father/Son relationship. ------------------------------------------- > >From your perspective, was this "legal designation" made in eternity past, > or was it first made when the Logos became flesh and dwelt among men? BT: The believe the designation was made on several ocassions throughout the Son's earthly presence. I also believe it applies to eternity past in that the word "begotten" means in part "not made." ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
