Look at Eugene Peterson's translation of Colossians 1. (The Message)
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: June 25, 2005 08:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Sonship > Bill Taylor wrote: > > Why do you suppose then that Paul did not use > > the term Logos here? Instead he states that it > > was by and through "him" (the referent being > > "the beloved Son") that all things were created? > > It seems that something which does not appear > > to be an issue with Paul is having a very big deal > > made of it by you. > > I'm not making any big deal about this passage. You are. You brought Col. > 1:16 up and claimed that "the beloved Son" is what is being referenced. I'm > simply pointing out that this is not the case. > > He does not use the term "Logos" because he is leading the readers from this > person they know who brought them this kingdom to seeing him as the image of > the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature, and finally as the > Creator of all things, whether visible or invisible. His stress is not on > "eternal sonship" as you try to make it, nor on his being the logos per se > (syntax wise), but on his being before all things, the head of the body, the > beginning, the firstborn from the dead, etc. > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > it is not at all uncommon in the process of translation to sometimes > > supply the antecedent in a statement where only a pronoun stands > > in the text > > Fair enough, but this should be done sparingly lest the wrong antecedent is > used. Do you know any other translators who have translated the passage > this way? > > I have read all your comments about when certain terms apply to Jesus, and > for the most part, you see them as applying to him from eternity past. I > tend to have a different perspective initially, so your comments lead me to > think we are not really that far apart in our perspective. Mostly we have a > difference in how we apply terms to the Godhead. > > David Miller wrote: > >> 7. Is the term "everlasting Father" applicable to this person > >> prior to his being born of Mary? > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > No, I don't think so (a lot of certainty there, huh?). Allow me > > to explain. It is in the incarnate person of Jesus Christ, that > > the Son of God can be called the everlasting Father, and this > > by way of union, because in Christ the entire Godhead is > > represented via the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, which is the > > unity which makes God "one." Hence, the "eternal Father" is > > known and represented in and through the person of Jesus Christ. > > This is interesting to me that you single out this one term to make > inapplicable prior to his being born of Mary. Did his taking on this title > of everlasting father change who he was in the Godhead? If not, then why > would someone seeing the term son as referring to his incarnation have any > different effect? > > 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. ---------- "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.
