That's fine JD
But you need to stop reading things into what ppl
say. I never called you a "false teacher" and I don't
have
any "John is a false teaching" thing going on - so that
accusation is just bald faced heresy. What I did say
is
that your statement was false (according to scripture)
- big difference since none of us knows every jot and
tittle -
well noone that I know of, we are all learners arn't
we? And hopefully all are well-meaning, even the most deceived
amongst us.
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:13:35 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy, I am going to return to this response this evening, when I have more time. I am about to leave for the shop. In my post, I speak of two passages of scripture that present God as Father while making the claim that "Father God" and "Son of God" are unique presentations of the N.T. You have "proven me wrong" by presenting THREE scriptures, not two. OK, so maybe I missed one. The fact of the matter is this ----------------- without the N.T. presentation, we know next to nothing about the concept of God as our personal Father and the Son of God as His eternal partner and our Savior. The Exodus 4 passage is, in fact, a very good passage of scripture as we seek to understand the Christ as the Israel of God !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank s for that reference. It had escaped me.Please give up on this "John is a false teacher" thing you have going on -- maybe I am mistaken, but that is it. Take a look at the underlined comment above and tell me, specifically, what is wrong about that statement. Why do we need the NT scriptures, Judy? You might answer that question, as well.Jd
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:10:02 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Back to the Garden
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 19:15:22 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Did you have a comment concerning the demonstrable use of the words/concepts "FAther" and "Son" as applied to the God the Old Testament. You seem to ignore this fact as you try to move away from the subject of this thread.I'm not ignoring anything JD and yes, what you believe is a mystery known only to yourself but your statement as follows is false: "Father God is an uniquely New Covenant presentation, as is the Son of God"God refers to Himself as a Father and Israel as his first born son - see Exodus 4:22,23 and Jeremiah 31:9 -The OT God is also the Father of all men Malachi 2:10. I know nothing of your theological gyrations, all I amsaying is that your stated belief above is false.Secondly, how do you understand the word "presentation?" Do you actually see a contraction in this post? Do you not understand what I believe? Jd
From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
But I thought you told me he was an "eternal Son" JD. How so? since both Father and Son are a uniquely New Covenant presentation IYO?By the way, Judy, T. I may have left off an important fact. A few days ago,I mentioned that "Father" was a NT presentation and you responded with a seemingcorrection, pointing to all those scriptures in Strong's with the word "father."If I did not make it clear,, I am doing so here - of the several hundred OLD TESTAMENTscriptures with the word "father," only two of them apply to God and neither has in mindthe New Covenant usage. Father God is an uniquely New Covenant presentation, as isthe Son of God .JD
