I have done much on this point -- Sonship. Because you do not agree with my conclusions does not mean that I have not given biblical answer. Regarding DM -- I am very careful not to get upset with DM. I am also very careful to stay with what I know best -- biblical studies.
Jd
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:02:20 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Sonship
JD, you have yet to come up with your own homework proving the eternal sonship of Christ
so it remains an assumption or presumption - whatever. Why get upset with DM over it? Still waiting - jt.
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:48:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John wrote:
I do not assume my own conclusion regarding the eternal Sonship of the Christ.
John wrote:
I do not assume my own conclusion regarding the eternal Sonship of the Christ.
John wrote:
I had NO OPINION when I entered my study on this subject.
I had NO OPINION when I entered my study on this subject.
John wrote:
IF Christ is the Eternal Son, he was such before the virgin birth.
IF Christ is the Eternal Son, he was such before the virgin birth.
DM: A perfect example of a tautology. Where do we go from here?
JD: You tie three statements together, pretend that I ordered these thoughts and then, restate your insult. IT ALWAYS COMES DOWN TO this between you and me .. without exception. There is not one thing that is presumptive in the three unrelated (contextually) comments.....especially the last comment.
John wrote:
An eternal Son only CONTINUES to be a son.
An eternal Son only CONTINUES to be a son.
Bill Taylor seems to see something more than this. Did you read about how he thinks the phrase, "this day I have begotten you" applies to the ressurection?
JD: I do not read Bill as saying that before the resurrection, Christ was something other than the Son. David Miller.
