-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 00:04:26 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Sonship
John wrote: > Actually, he first brings up the fact that > Jesus (the Word) IS GOD !!! > ... I do see a heavy emphasis before and > after the statement in v 14 that Jesus is God. We all agree with this, John. The question is, was he "Jesus" or "Christ" or "The Son" prior to his being born of Mary? Eternal Sonship is my only concern, here. John wrote: > Placing Him in (eis) the bosom of the Father demands > an intimate incorporation of the two - the Father nad > the unique Son. Yes, they were intimately incorporated, but were they father and unique son?
When you write "they were intimately incorporated," who are "they" if not Father and Son?
You are begging the question now... circular reasoning... a tautology.
I do not assume my own conclusion regarding the eternal Sonship of the Christ. But nice try. David Miller wrote: > This clearly refers to his unique birth, John wrote: > I do not know why you say this. "clearly refers" > means to me that this is the opinion of theologians, > students and scholars. No, it means that the inference is very clear if you just read the context and try real hard not to read your own personal ideas into the text. Often, theologians, students, and scholars jump on the popular bandwagon and do not always exegete passages properly. I had NO OPINION when I entered my study on this subject.
John wrote: > If Jesus is the eternal Son, "begotten" simply cannot > refer to the virgin birth. Why not? Even if you insist on circular reasoning and having your conclusion before you have developed the evidence and logic to get there,
Speaking of tautological -- the above is the perfect example thereof -- and it is even getting boring.
there is nothing about his being a Son that would insist that "monogenes"
cannot refer to his divine birth. You leave off "eternal" in the above and then make your point. What is it called in formal logic
when one omits part of the questioned equation and then proceeds with his argument? I have a word for it,
but it is only a construction term. I believe there to be a difference between "son" and "eternal Son."
A "son" is born into that relationship/existence. An eternal Son only CONTINUES to be a son. Monogenes has nothing to do with Christ becoming the Son of God if He is the eternal son. I do not offer that last
statement as proof, David. I understand that the offer of "proof" is critical to my statement. But
it is true, nonetheless, that IF Christ is the Eternal Son, he was su ch before the virgin birth.
Please note that this exact same word "monogenes" translated here as "only begotten" is used in Heb. 11:17 in reference to Isaac. I hope my comments make you study. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "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.
