Re: [TruthTalk] Idioms and Figures of Speech

[Judy Taylor]

jt: Bill if you are going to quote me please be accurate what I was referring to is titles and what I said is: He is no longer Son of God, and/or Son of Man. He is now King of Kings and Lord of Lords, so why hold him hostage to the title of "Eternal Son"?   Note: I could go on to point out that the end of the book in Revelation he is called "Word of God" (Rev 19:13) "King of Kings" (Rev 19:16) "Alpha and Omega" (Rev 21:6) "God Almighty and the Lamb" (Rev 21:22) - and that the New Jerusalem or Holy City is illumined by the "Lamb" (Rev 21:23); so he is a combination of "Lamb-Savior-Sovereign" why lock Him into being an "Eternal Son" when this is not the teaching of scripture?       On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:53:57 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: JT wrote in reference to Jesus  -  "He is no longer Son of God," I am curious, David, and Izzy, and Terry: do you agree with this statement, as well?   Bill On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 21:10:06 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: John wrote: The Word of life and the Son of God are the same.   What is true of one is true of the other.  Because this is true, John speaks of them in the same equation, the same breath, in I John 1:1-3.    Jesus is the eternal life manifested to us by the Father.     Judy responds : Only after the incarnation and resurrection and John is not speaking of them in the same breath... Neither does Bill see them as the same thing, he does not see God's Word as a living thing - yesterday said " To deny the eternal Sonship of Christ and to set in his place a rationally-static "Word" doctrine, is to depersonalize the relationship most central to the heart of God: the Father-Son relationship" .   Judy, this is the second time you've mentioned this. I still don't have a clue as to what you think I've communicated here. I do see the Word and the Son as the same. It is you who says "they" (pl) are not.   jt: I say they are not because I believe we should use spiritual words to convey spiritual truths. With this in mind I don't see The Word of God  being called The Eternal Son of God anywhere in the Old Testament, do you?   I see the Word and the Son as eternally the same Person of the Trinity, although expressed in different language at different times, depending on the context and intent of the biblical authors (in conjunction with the Holy Spirit of course).    jt: You may see them as eternally the same Bill but the Holy Spirit who spoke through the prophets and inspired scripture apparently made a separation; if we were supposed to call them the same from the foundation of the world it would be written in scripture somewhere other than after the incarnation only.  Every mention of the Son in the OT is prophetic and is written in the future tense.   The Son and the Word are the same, Judy, and they shall remain so  -- even if someone tries to separate "them" (pl), making one eternal, the other not, and making the relationship the eternal one has with the "Father" into something other than a Father/Son relationship.   jt: I don't think anyone is saying that the second member of the Godhead has become temporal Bill.  However, He has moved on and so should we.  He is no longer Son of God, and Son of Man. He is now King of Kings and Lord of Lords, so why hold him hostage to the title of "Eternal Son"?   And so I still ask you: Who is this God who changes, and what then is that relationship which changes to become a Father/Son relationship?  Bill   jt: God's nature and character does not change ever - but now you are trying to box him into a corner. What about all of His Redemptive Names?  I guess Slade would call those "His functions"  Well becoming a Son and learning obedience by the things he suffered during that 33.1/2 years in time is/was one of the functions of the second member of the Godhead who is known as the Word of God, the Word of Truth, and/or the Word of Life.