Judy, do you realize that you use "Berean" in a way not used in the biblical message while rejecting a word (trinity) that clearly presents the three manifestations of the Godhead. ? Why is it ok for you change the usage of a word but not ok for someone to use a word that is fully descriptive of the Godhead?
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:09:18 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Sonship
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 07:42:13 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
May I assume & ask the following, Judy"?1. Interpolations are OK (even necessary, occasionally) to make one's point insofar as they are 'warranted' ('w' would require some defining)2. Does the term 'Godhead' appear anywhere in the Bible?Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9 - wouldn't you think Paul would have used trinity because of the eternal sonship thingy?3. It was not/is not about you, Judy! You are writing and I am asking. The question is not generic but personal. Will you answer it, PERSONALLY?4. Do you ever employ nonbiblical terminology to make a biblical point?No; my belief is that His are the words with spirit and life. I may not use chapter and verse but when I want to make apoint I need to use His Words if I am wanting His results because these are the ones that don't fall to the ground or come back void..----- Original Message -----From: Judy TaylorSent: June 25, 2005 07:23Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal SonshipOn Sat, 25 Jun 2005 07:05:50 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:Jt says that nowhere in the Bible are we told (explicitly & in so many words) that the man Jesus has been a Son for all eternity.Jt:On Gen 1 God (the Word) why the interpolation?jt: To make my point as per John 1:1 lest you dogmatics insert "son"Judy's construct:God existed as One God but, in 'plurality' Father, Word, Spirit in eternity past until the Incarnation, at which time 'the word became flesh' and, we employ a 'new' construct; Father, Son, Spirit.jt: And for some we immediately transfer from a Godhead to a TrinityQuestion:Given your understandable appreciation for the KJV and your belief that when you (I do mean you, Judy) read this with the right heart/mind that you will not come to any fundamentally incorrect understanding of it's meaning then, it is impossible for you to have misapprehended the matter of 'eternal sonship' as outlined by BT. Is this correct?jt: Lance, since when is this all about me? I don't know what you, BT, Jonathan etc. are about or where you get your "insights" other than that you hold the writings of the so called Church Fathers in great esteen even though it is written " there is one mediator between God and man" I've seen former rc's delivered by that verse alone. Your 'eternal sonship' doctrine comes out of a leavened root.Question:Given your understandable appreciation for the text of Scripture (KJV), why is it that you ever employ non-biblical language descriptively of any truth found therein?jt: How do you know that I never do this?On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 00:05:00 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <wmtaylor@plains.net> writes:From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Bill wrote:
Paul states that the "beloved Son" is the creator of all things. You deny this
DM: I don't perceive Judy to be denying this. She is simply saying that at the time he created, the term "Logos" better applies to him than the term "son."BT: 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.jt: Once more - because at the time when Paul wrote the epistle to the Church at Colosse the Word or Logos was known as the Son.See John 1:1.
Bill wrote:
... your contention does not lie with me but the Apostle Paul. He is the one who contradicts you: "For by the beloved Son all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through the beloved Son and for the beloved Son." -- Colossians 1.16jt: Paul is not contradicting anything written in the rest of the Bible. Look at the scenario when the world were created in Genesis 1 and tell me if you see any mention of God having a son: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God (the Word) said, Let there be light and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness." Where is there any mention of "the son" here? This is a John 1:1 happening.
DM: Don't you think you are adding to God's Word here?BT: Not in the least.DM: What translation translates Col. 1:16 this way. I cannot find a single translation that matches up with you here. Surely this is the Bill Taylor translation (or should I say interpretation), is it not?BT: You are correct, David, in that this is my translation; however, 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 (if you insist I will demonstrate this to you through the translation of your choice), and this is especially true in Greek, where on many occasion the nominative is implied by the predicate. One of the first things that a student is taught in classes on exegesis and interpretation is to identify the antecedents in a passage; this so that the reader may know who is being spoken of. Sometimes this is an easy and elementary task; other times it becomes a very difficult procedure. Of course any time an antecedent is identified, it is open to interpretation; this because its initial identification involved an interpretive task. To me this p assage seems fairly straightforward and self-explanatory. The only difficult placement, in my opinion, is the intensive autos (himself) of verse 20 -- the question being, does it refer to the Father or the Son: "and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross." I interpret this to be a referent to the Father, but, as I say, that is open to interpretation.
DM: Something that would help me communicate with you is to hear you identify a few other terms and their applicability to the person Jesus Christ.BT: I will try to do this, David. My only concern is that on some of these the answer will raise a question of foreknowledge on the part of God. I don't really want to go into that too much here, simply because it involves a great deal of speculation and much more commitment than I have time to invest. I will also be treating "eternity" as if it is marked by time. I happen to think that there is time in eternity, i.e., points along the way; although Augustine would very emphatically disagree with me.
DM: 1. Is the term "Jesus" something applicable to this person prior to his being born of Mary?BT: At the point that sin entered the world, the Son was destined to be called Jesus.jt: The worlds were created long before the first Adam; so why does scripture call Him the lamb slain before the foundation of the world - why not the son?BT: He identifies himself as the ego eimi, the 'I AM,' which is roughly (and in its context) a Greek equivalent to the Hebrew covenant-keeping name of God -- YHWH (Yahweh or Jehovah). The name Yeshua means Yah Saves (or something similar). In my opinion, this name is applicable to the Son from the moment, at least (I will get to this below), that sin entered the world. Before there was sin, there may not have been a need for "salvation" (see immediately below). There is indication, however, that in eternity past God anticipated (here's the question of foreknowledge: Did he "anticipate" it or was it a fact by way of decree?) that sin would be an issue which would have to be addressed. Paul states in Ephesians that before the creation of the world ;the Father purposed to adopt sons and daughters "through Jesus Christ." David, this will probably involve one of those non sequiturs :>) but if he purpose to adopt us in "Jesus," then the very name of him through whom we would be adopted seems to imply at least a potential need for our salvation.jt: So does God knowing about it since before the foundation of the world make the Church an eternal Church and every individual an eternal individual?BT: Hence, it seems to me that the name Jesus can be considered applicable to this Son, not only before his birth, and not only from the introduction of sin into creation, but even back into eternity to that point when the Father purposed to adopt sons and daughters through this One whose name means Yah Saves.jt: God just forgot to put all this in His Word for thousands of years and called the Son the Word - so when was He begotten if not at the "incarnation?"
DM: 2. Is the term "Messiah" or "Christ" applicable to this person prior to his being born of Mary?BT: The same answer applies here in many of the same ways as it does to the name Jesus. The Father purposed to adopt us through the Christ, and this he did before the foundation of the world. I believe therefore that the Christ was destined (in fact predestined) to come to us in incarnate form; this from that point in eternity.jt: To me this appears to be massive presumption. You don't know who the Church consists of because only those called by the Father are able to come to Jesus and only those who come to Jesus know the Father. Yes the mystery of the Godhead has been revealed but nowhere in Old or New Testaments are we told that the man Jesus has been a son for all eternity.BT: Yes, I believe it is applicable. I also believe, however, as per acts 2.36 and Phil. 2.11, that because of sin and the need to purge it, the "Christ" had to die and rise anew before he could be fully equipped and qualified to function as such in that role.jt: So what equipment was he lacking?
DM: 3. Is the term "son of David" applicable to this person prior to his being born of Mary?BT: From the moment that the "Seed" passed through the loins of Jesse into David, the term is applicable, although this person did not become the "son of David" until his physical birth.jt: So you also include natural generation so it's not specifically spiritual seed as per "The Lord is that Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty?" Now it's really getting complicated.
