[TruthTalk] Let's get clear on this one -- please

[Judy Taylor]

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> All the passages you shared are similar in this vein.  You appear to read into them your bias that the son was the son in eternity past.  You might be right, but the Bible does not seem to teach that, and I still can't get past Psalm 2:7, "this day have I begotten thee."  The strongest authority we have are some fourth century creeds.  Are they enough to establish the eternal sonship doctrine as true?   jt: I see from the teachings posted by Jonathan that there is no new scriptural evidence and that this "eternal sonship" doctrine came out of the RCC.  The fact that so many other heresies came out of this structure (such as "the professional priesthood" "transubstantiation" "the immaculate conception" "purgatory" "the Church as mother rather than bride" and  many others) along with the 12th Century Inquisition makes me wonder what the purpose or benefit of this doctrine might be.    Under the Old Covenant the second member of the Godhead was by no means a "static" eternal son.  He had many functions - So why do some find this "Eternal Sonship doctrine" important enough to fight over since there is no OT scriptural foundation to support it?  Also so far noone has responded to my question about why (under the Old Covenant) the second member of the Godhead or Trinity would be less and the first member 'greater'  These are some of the questions I am pondering. I'm always willing to change if anyone can show me by the scriptures where I am wrong.   Grace and Peace, Judyt