That is what I was saying. Thanks for the reveiw. JD
In a message dated 1/4/2005 12:01:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Izzy wrote to John:
>I cannot honestly make heads or tails of
>the meaning of what you wrote above.
I can't give you the full answer to your questions, but I can discern a
concise statement from what John wrote. If I'm wrong John, please correct
me in the spirit of meekness.
John seems to be saying that God exists outside of time. Therefore, if God
is a father, he has always been and will always be a father because there is
no time for him. Likewise, the son always was a son and always will be a
son, because time does not exist for him either.
So the difference in primary assumptions between John and Terry seems to be
that Terry assumes God exists within time (or at least is known to us within
our context of time) and John assumes that God exists outside of time
(without any possible reference to time).
Another difference in definition of terms might possibly exist. John seems
to be understanding eternal as focusing upon the idea of something
"unaffected by the passage of time" whereas others might be understanding
the word eternal to mean, "existing throughout all time, without beginning
or end."
Further elaboration in case you did not understand the sentence just
written:
----------------------------------
John seems to define the word "eternal" to mean existing outside of time.
Others might understand the word "eternal" to mean existing within time, but
having extended toward infinity in time past as well as will be extending
toward infinity in time future. John's perspective sees God as existing
along the entire time continuum AT THE SAME TIME, but others might view God
as existing along the entire length of the time continuum, but not at the
same time (in other words, they would perceive God to experience time the
same way that we do, with the exception that he never had a beginning and he
will never have an end).
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
