Does God beget ?

   The compliant that Jesus Christ does not seem to be the Prince of Peace of Israel or their ruler is not reliable. God is still outworking His plan and their ability to recognize One who a present they reject.

 Israel also did not recognize Moses right away as their anointed and God sent savrior and leader. In fact they wanted to stone him.

   Moses was anointed and sent by God to deliver the people of Israel from Egypt and lead them to the good land. At one point the people associated with Korah, Abiram, and Dathan and about 200 men of renown accused Moses of failure. They actually insisted that Moses had brought them up out of the land of milk and honey (Egypt the place of their enslavement), to kill them in the wilderness.

  This rebellion and rejection of Moses did not render the fact that Moses was the sent deliverer from God null and void. They wanted to stone Moses and secure for themselves another leader. This did not make Moses not the anointed leader sent by God.

   A generation died in the wilderness and never saw the promise fulfilled of inheriting the good land. It was left to their children to enter in. This delay did not make Moses not the anointed deliverer sent by God for Israel.

  We may see that some aspects of Isaiah 9:6 are not practically worked out yet. And over those whom it is to apply may be in rebellion still. This does not make Christ not the Wonderful COunselor, the Mighty God, and the Eternal Father. Nor does this temprary rebellion render it not true that the government is on His shoulders.

  The Eternal Father has a long time to outwork in history His fully accomplished will. In the mean time the Son says:

 " All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age." (Matt.28:18-20)

   As we are moving towards the consummation of the age, we who have trusted in Christ preach His gospel, He is with us as Emmanuel - "God with us" all the days throughout the rolling centries. We preach the gospel to all the world.

  Israel may presently be in rebellion against her Messiah. That does not matter. In the consummation of the age the whole globe will be headed up in Christ including Israel His kinsmen according to the flesh.

  I think it is Islamispeace who complains of our praises of Christ amounting to "self-fulfilling prophecy."  He should realize that neither does his rejection of the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, and the Eternal Father amount to self fulfilling failure of the prophecy.

  Joseph also was lifted from a Hebrew slave to a ruler in Egypt. His father Jacob and his plotting and envious brothers were forced to come down from the famine and receive food from Joseph in Egypt. Joseph ruled over them in love and patience yet they did not even recognize him at the first. He disciplined them. He taught them some good lessons for betraying him to slavery in Egypt.

 In this period when Joseph's brothers did not recognize him as their brother God had Joseph sovereignly rule over them nevertheless. Their unrecognition did not make Joseph not their savior.

 I would advise readers not to listen to disbelief concerning Isaiah 9:6.  Rather than wait for the other person to do so, each of us should bring ourselves under the Wonderful Counselor Christ. Each of us should trust that God has come in a child and that the Father has come in the Son. We should believe and not count the rebellion and unbelief of others to make the prophecy not true.

It could only be true of Jesus Christ. What other child are we expecting who is the Mighty God Himself?  That is mighty to overcome the world, sin, and the grave. What other Son could we expect Who is the embodiment and expression of the Divine Eternal Father? 

�Now the Psalm 45 does allude to a marriage too. This is because from one angle God wishes to obtain sons through Jesus Christ the Son. But from another angle, this entity that God is working to create is a Bride and Wife for the Divine Person.�

What on earth are you talking about?  So now, Psalm 45 is referring to Christ�s wedding?  Before, you only emphasized verses 6 and 7, and completely ignored the rest of the Psalm!  Only after your argument was refuted did you consider the whole Psalm, and of course, you still maintain that it refers to Jesus!  You are just pulling stuff out of nowhere now, offering fanciful interpretations which have no basis. 

�The imagery of the queen looks at God's plan from another angle. He desires sons. He desires a Wife and Bride for the Son. That is a humanity which, through God's salvation, has been brought to a point that it corresponds to Christ in every way, except as one to be worshipped.�

How do you come to this conclusion?  What is written in the Psalm which talks about �another angle�?  What is written there that says that God �desires sons� or a bride for �the son�?  Nothing!  You simply choose to link the Psalm to something totally unrelated.  Isn�t it strange that Paul decided to quote two verses from the Psalm and left the rest in the air?  He wanted to emphasize those two verses only, just like the Gospel writers only emphasized certain verses from Isaiah while ignoring others.  It was all about desperately trying to �confirm� their beliefs, when really there was no confirmation.

�The Bible concludes with a marriage of Christ and the New Jerusalem as His Bride and Wife.�

Where does it do this? 

�All that you have said just goes to prove that Jesus was saying something GREATER than Jonah was here with Him.

 He did not say that Jonah was as great as He. He said what He is and what He accomplishes in His death and resurrection is GREATER than what Jonah went through in the belly of the fish.�

No, Jesus makes no reference that he was a �greater Jonah�.  The story of Jonah has no similarities or parallels with the story of Jesus.  How then can Jesus be a greater Jonah? 

�It is true that many many people had great names in the Old Testament.

  It is also true that in the whole Bible no one, but no one. LIVED up to His name as Jesus did.

 Therefore, they were pre-cursors. They were forerunners. They were pointers. Many of them were very good. But only the Son was qualified to accomplish eternal redemption.�

Nothing of what you said is confirmed in the Old Testament.  The names and titles that were given to those people were purely allegorical in nature, not literal.  So of course Hezekiah was not going to be perfect, even though he was called �Mighty God�.  That title was given to him because, according to the Old Testament, it was during Hezekiah�s reign that Sennacherib�s army was decimated and all 185,000 soldiers of the Assyrian army were killed:

�36 Then the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning�there were all the dead bodies! 37 So Sennacherib king of Assyria broke camp and withdrew. He returned to Nineveh and stayed there.� (Isaiah 37:36-37)

Having the title �Mighty God� did not make it incumbent upon Hezekiah to be perfect like God and all-powerful like God.  The title was allegorical, nothing more.  If such a title was ever applied to Jesus (which you have failed to demonstrate), it would have been allegorical as well.

�You cannot point to the well named people of the Old Testament and use that to water down the testimony of Jesus Christ.�

Sure I can.  I already did and then some!  Christ was no more than a man, a great man for sure, but a man nonetheless.  He did not consider himself God.

�His testimony is so glorious and so splendid that you cannot believe it. You trade the account of the Bible for fabrication and myths because the sheer glory of Christ seems to be too blinding for your religious mind.�

The Bible is a mix of fabrication and myths (with some truth here and there), written by those who blasphemed against the One God.  I don�t believe in the fabrications of men and I don�t follow them blindly (unlike you).

�How can you say Jesus did not die on the cross?  Do you realize that you cannot TAKE the splendour of His giving 1000% obedience to His Father.  He wanted nothing for Himself. He wanted EVERYTHING for the Father.�

We are not talking about his alleged death.  We are talking about the so-called validity of the Gospel claims that several specific Old Testament verses point to a divine Messiah.  I have shown you that those claims are not valid.

�For this reason His name is exalted by God above every name not only in this age but also in the age to come. And every knee will bow to Jesus and every tongue confess.�

You sound like you are just trying to keep yourself convinced of your blind faith.  Jesus will not avail you aught on the Day of Judgment, for he will bow to his Lord and testify against all who worshipped him.  Read the Holy Quran my man.

�You should begin by saying "Amen" to everything that is written in the New Testament. You should not trade the truth of this history for some religious ideas which you find more palatable.�

Let me make it crystal clear: There is a better chance of George Bush becoming a nun and retiring to a convent than me saying �Amen to everything that is written in the New Testament�!  And Bush will never be a nun!!  Lol!  I live in Islam and I will die in Islam, inshaAllah.

�And I would remind you that the Old Testament itself predicts that God would make a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). So why should I not refer to the New Testament which God promised to make?�

And where does it say in those passages that God will come down and die for everyone�s sins?  You continue to offer vague passages which offer nothing concrete.  Jeremiah speaks of a covenant in which God declares �I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.  I will be their God, and they will be my people.�  Since when do Christians (the so-called holders of the �New Covenant�) follow the law, which is the Law of Moses?  Since when is this �law in their minds and [written] on their hearts�? 

�But my dear Islamispeace, they may have not KNOWN that. Perhaps only vaguely did they know the whole counsel of God.�

And you do?  Please.  The fact that you can only offer a vague interpretation using words like �perhaps� shows that you cannot make a definitive link between what is written in the New Testament with what is written in the Old Testament, and neither could the authors of the New Testament.

�Here we see Jesus refering to such a Psalm of David ro prove that David was really speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ the Messiah to come:

  "Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus questioned them, Saying, What do you think concerning the Christ? Whose son is He? They said to Him, David's. He said to them, How then does David in spirit call Him Lord, saying,

'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies underneath You feet?'

 If then Dabid calls Him Lord, how is He his son? And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone from that day dare to question Him anymore." (Matt. 23:41-46).�

I think you mean Matthew 22, not 23.  Also, these are not the words of Jesus, but the words of the person who wrote the Gospel.  Referring to Psalm 110 is the same as referring to Psalm 45 or Isaiah 9.  It proves nothing once you consider the apparent link in context.  Does David calling the figure referred to in Psalm 110 �lord� mean that this figure was God?  Doesn�t the Psalm say �The LORD (meaning God) said to my Lord��?  Isn�t it obvious that if he was referring to the Messiah, he was clearly not saying that the Messiah was God?  Doesn�t David refer to Saul as �my lord the king� over and over again?  What does this mean?  Let us look at the relationship between David and Saul:

�8 Then David went out of the cave and called out to Saul, "My lord the king!" When Saul looked behind him, David bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.� (1 Samuel 24:8)

�17 Saul recognized David's voice and said, "Is that your voice, David my son?"
      David replied, "Yes it is, my lord the king." 18 And he added, "Why is my lord pursuing his servant? What have I done, and what wrong am I guilty of?� (1 Samuel 26:17-18)

Even David was called �my lord the king�:

�8 They brought the head of Ish-Bosheth to David at Hebron and said to the king, "Here is the head of Ish-Bosheth son of Saul, your enemy, who tried to take your life. This day the LORD has avenged my lord the king against Saul and his offspring."� (2 Samuel 4:7-9)

Does calling someone �lord� denote divinity to that person, as far as the Old Testament is concerned?  The answer is a resounding no.

 �No, they do prove very much. You are just closed minded to the new covenant which God promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 to give to the house of Israel.�

They prove very much if you are na�ve and blindly follow the misguided words of men.  There is nothing mentioned in the passages from Jeremiah which fit into the Christian understanding of the new Covenant. 

�And Jesus taught that He was that promised new covenant:

  "And He took a loaf and gave thanks, and He broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is My body which is being given for you; do this in rememberance of Me. And similarly the cup after they had dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant established in My blood, which is being poured out for you ..." (Luke 22:19,20)

  " ... Take, eat; this is My body. And He took a cup and gave thanks, and He gave it to them, saying,Drink of it, all of you. For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matt.26:26-28).�

It does not go unnoticed that once more, you attempt to link what is written in the New Testament with the Old Testament, by using circular reasoning.  You quote the Old Testament about some new Covenant, and then say that it was referring to Jesus because that is what the New Testament says, and therefore, Jesus must be the bringer of the new Covenant.  Furthermore, nothing is said in the passage from Jeremiah which would suggest God coming in the flesh.  That is just a Christian assumption, based on circular reasoning.

�I must quote with the Old Testament, even more the New Testament. For it is the new covenant. And we must "eat" Christ. We must ask Him to come into our heart. We must receive the Spirit of the incarnated, crucified, resurrected, and excalted Son of God.�

Ugh.  First, we are to be Christ�s �bride�, now we have to �eat� him?  What is with you and these metaphors? 

�The issue is that Jesus Christ cwntral figure in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament. He is seen in types, symbols, shadows, and forerunners in the Old Testament. And finally this One comes in the New Testament to establish the promised "new covenant" (Jeremiah 31:31-34) through His incarnation, life, death, resurrecion, exaltation, glorification and indwelling man as the life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45).�

You have failed to establish that your understanding of the Messiah�s status (that he was divine) is confirmed in the Old Testament.  See, while I do not consider the modern Old Testament to be the unaltered word of God, I still believe that it has some truth.  The same can be said of the Gospels.  One of these truths is the fact that the Old Testament points to a Messiah that is human, not divine.  Despite all the alterations made to it, the status of the Messiah is confirmed to be human.  Despite your greatest attempts, you have failed to provide concrete evidence that the Old Testament pointed to a divine Messiah, one who is God in flesh.  You have used prophecies quoted out of context and made fanciful interpretations with no basis to try and establish a link between the two texts and have failed. 

�I didn't see that you had that much to correct when I quoted Zechariah's prophecy showing that Jehovah of hosts was the Sent One and the Sender in Zech. 2:8-11.�

I must have missed this one.  It seems that you don�t do actual research concerning verses which you clearly do not understand.  I did not completely understand this verse until I did some research on it.  Zechariah 2 makes a reference to the �Shekhinah�, which is defined as �[t]he majestic presence or manifestation of God which has descended to "dwell" among men.� It plays an important role in the �Da Vinci Code�.  If you have ever read the book, you will know that it claims that the Holy of Holies in the Temple housed God and His female counterpart (Shekhinah).  Of course, from the Jewish perspective, this is nonsense.  In �The Da Vinci Code: The Jewish Perspective�, Rabbi Michael Skobac writes:

�[t]he foundational idea of Judaism�s Bible is the absolute Unity of God (Deuteronomy 6:4). The Shekhinah is not a goddess; it is a term for the Divine presence � the immanence of God in our world. Although the word as a noun never appears in the Hebrew Scriptures, its variant �v�shachanti� (and I will dwell) occurs numerous times describing the indwelling of God in the world.� 

So, you see, Zechariah 2 does not refer to God coming in the flesh, it refers to His presence among men.  Surely you don�t believe that Jesus was the Shekhinah?  In the Old Testament, the Shekhinah is mentioned in other verses as well, besides Zechariah 2:

�8 "Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. 9 Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.� (Exodus 25:8-9)

�9 Now let them put away from me their prostitution and the lifeless idols of their kings, and I will live among them forever.� (Ezekiel 43:9)

�3 This is what the LORD says: "I will return to Zion and dwell in Jerusalem. Then Jerusalem will be called the City of Truth, and the mountain of the LORD Almighty will be called the Holy Mountain."� (Zechariah 8:3)

�I will continue to quote the New Testament. So if you are expecting me not to you will be disappointed. And if you say that it proves nothing, I say that is your own unbelieving daydream. No disrespect intended though.�

The claim that it proves anything is the daydream.  You need not worry about insulting me.  I am sure we both have a mutual respect for each other.  It was already implied that there is no disrespect intended as we converse.

�If you could go back in time you could ASK Hezekiah himself if he was the Mighty God or the Eternal Father ...  he would probably laugh at you and say that he was not that effective.�

No, he would have understood, if we assume that what the Old Testament says is true, that to hold such a title was nothing more than an allegorical honor.  If you had asked him �well is it possible that Isaiah was referring to the divine Messiah� he probably would have thrown you in jail or had you executed for uttering blasphemies against the God of Israel.

�By the way, we ARE talking about Jesus Christ. He used the Old Testament quotations. But then again you reject Him. But if it was good enough for Him it is also for me. I am a follower of Jesus.�

See, that�s where you are wrong!  I don�t reject the blessed Jesus (pbuh)!  I believe he was a prophet of God!  But, as far as the myths go concerning him being God, I wholeheartedly reject them as blasphemy.  The New Testament does not contain his words, but the words of misguided men, who uttered blasphemies against God and His prophet.  So, you see, I am a follower of Jesus, because he was a follower of God. 

�Since it is apparent that Islamispeace refuses to consider what the New Testament says, my future replies to Islamispeace, if there are any, will not be for his sake. (Unless he opens up more to consider the words of Jesus and His apostles and the entire Bible.)�

Oh, don�t worry.  Your comments are not for anyone�s sake in this forum!!  In case you have not realized, this is an Islamic forum, not a Christian one!  Here, 95% of the members will disagree with you!  If you want to find someone who will agree with you, perhaps you should go to a Christian forum and post your articles there.  I am sure you will get a pat on the back from many like-minded individuals.  But, here, you will face criticism and questions, in a kind way of course.

�They will be for those reading along the discussion who have not adopted a strict rule that what the New Testament says (including the very words of Jesus) are not important.�

Well, that pretty much excludes everyone on this forum!  Hardly anyone here will agree with you that the New Testament is the unaltered, definitive word of God and that what it says about Jesus is the truth!  We follow the Holy Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), not the Gospel writers.

�So, Islamispeace, my future replies in response to what you write are mainly for the sake of those willing to consider the entire Bible.�

Then you should probably go to a Christian forum, lol.  You will not find anyone here who shares your passion for the Bible.

�The 45th Psalm is a praise of Christ the king. But He is typified by Solomon.�

No, it is simply a poetic reference to the king of Israel�s wedding.  The fact that it mentions �Ophir� means that the king was probably Solomon.  Ophir is mentioned in 1 Kings 9:28, when Solomon�s fleet brought back �420 talents of gold� to him.  Furthermore, the Jewish Encyclopedia states that Ophir was most probably a land in South Arabia, although some have claimed that it was in India.  Of course, we know that Jesus never went to Arabia or India.  These facts prove that Psalm 45 has nothing to do with Jesus (pbuh).

Also, how is Jesus, who is supposed to be �God�, typified in Solomon, a man whom the Old Testament claims worshipped idol gods at the behest of his wives?  This is what the Old Testament claims of his idolatry:

�3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.  5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech ^[a] the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.

 7 On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. 8 He did the same for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods.� (1 Kings 11:3-6)

How can you claim that Jesus is typified in a man who worshipped idols?  Of course, I do not believe that Solomon, the prophet of God, worshipped idols.  He was an upright, pious man who never would have dreamt of doing something so abhorrent in the eyes of the Lord. 

� That is all I will write about Christ in Psalm 45 in this post. But in all of these lovely virtues and righteous victories Christ obtains sons of God. And He obtains a Bride to be His "queen". She is composed of all of His redeemed, reenerated, sanctified, transformed, conformed, resurrected, and glorified believers. Who are individually virgin lovers to Him in a symbol and are collectively His Wife and Bride as the New Jerusalem city that CHrist will marry at the end of the Bible.�

 This is such nonsense.  Your interpretations are sillier than ever before.  The �queen� mentioned in Psalm 45 is Solomon�s wife, most probably Pharaoh�s daughter.  The �sons� are Solomon�s progeny. 

�Do not be bothered by Islamispeace's attempt to distract FROM Christ in Psalm 45 rather than to teach it properly as pointing absolutey TO Jesus Christ.�

Rather, do not be bothered by Jocko�s fanciful interpretations.  He tries to link anything which sounds like a reference to a �divine� Messiah, while ignoring the context and when he is refuted, he makes even more fanciful interpretations, with no basis.

�The oil of gladness signifies the compound Spirit of God. That oil made in the book of Exodus was a compound of subsances carefully measured out and combined together in Exodus 30:23-25. There is a great revelation to be seen in the manner in which this oil was made.�

Yes, and many people were �anointed� with this oil.  David was anointed by Samuel in 1 Samuel 16:13.  Solomon was anointed by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet in 1 Kings 1:39.  So, the reference to this oil in Psalm 45 does not prove that it was a direct reference to Jesus (pbuh).  It was a reference to Solomon (phuh), who had been anointed as king.

 �There were 500 shekels worth of flowing myrrh, a spice used in the burial of Jesus (John 19:39). These 500 shekels worth of myrrh sybolize the preciousness of the death of Christ (Rom. 8:6).�

On what do you base this?  Where does it say that the 500 shekels of myrrh symbolize the alleged death of Jesus?  Romans 8:6 mentions that the �mind of sinful man is death� and �the mind of controlled by the spirit is life and peace�.  There is nothing in the Bible which even remotely supports your premise.

�Then there were half so much worth of fragrant cinnamon, 250 shekels worth. The fragrant cinnamon signifies the effectiveness of the death of Christ. Because He died for us His death can effectively kill off many evil things in our nature (Rom. 8:13).

 Then there was compounded into the compound 250 shekels worth in weight of fragrant calamus. This fragrant calamus was a reed that grew upward in a marsh or muddy place. This calamus reed signifies the  precious resurrection of Christ from the whole muddy and marshy realm of death (Eph .2:6, Col. 3:1; 1 Peter 1:3).�

Again, nothing concrete, only vague statements.  How do you conclude that cinnamon signifies anything related to Jesus or that calamus signifies his alleged resurrection?  This is just incoherent rambling.  

�Then there was added to the compound 500 shekels worth in weight of cassia. This spice was used in ancient times to repel insects and snakes. It signifies the power of Christ's resurrection (Phil. 3:10). The power of His resurrection repels the demons and evil spirits signified by snakes and insects that the spice of cassia kept away.�

Can you provide evidence that cassia was used to repel insects and snakes? Many historians, like Herodotus and Pliny, mention cassia in their writings, and none of them mention that it was used to repel insects and snakes.  Can you also provide evidence that insects and snakes were used as symbols of demons and evil spirits.  I can understand a snake representing the devil, but I have never heard insects representing demons.

 �We see in this compound so far three units of 500. But the middle unit is broken into two parts of 250 each. Notice:

  500 shekels in weight of myrrh    -    one unit

  250 shekels in weight of cinnimon - one half unit

  250 shekels in weight of calamus - one half unit

  500 shekels in weight of cassia  - one unit.

That is three units of 500 hundred. Yet the middle unit is split into two parts. The revelation here is that the compound signifies the Triune God - the Trinity. But the Second Person of the Trinity is split into two because the Son of God died on the cross and was "split" in death.�

This is hilarious!  All this is based on baseless claims, nothing concrete!  You also forget the �hin of olive oil�!  What does that represent and why is not included in the
�trinity�?  Why is this not part of your �analysis� of the significance of the anointing oil?

�Now there is more. The number four represents the creatures of God - the creation of God (as in Ezekiel 1:5).�

What are you talking about!?  Ezekiel 1:5 does not say that the number four represents God�s creation.  It is talking about a vision Ezekiel had, similar to Revelation.  Here is what it says:

�2 On the fifth of the month�it was the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin- 3 the word of the LORD came to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, ^[b] by the Kebar River in the land of the Babylonians. ^[c] There the hand of the LORD was upon him.

 4 I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north�an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal, 5 and in the fire was what looked like four living creatures. In appearance their form was that of a man, 6 but each of them had four faces and four wings. 7 Their legs were straight; their feet were like those of a calf and gleamed like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides they had the hands of a man. All four of them had faces and wings, 9 and their wings touched one another. Each one went straight ahead; they did not turn as they moved.� (Ezekiel 1:2-9)

All it says was that Ezekiel saw �four living creatures�, not that the number �4� represents God�s creation.  Why do you even bother to quote the Old Testament?  You can�t even quote it correctly.

�Now the eternal Spirit of God is represented by the olive oil. The olive oil was the base of the compound. The four spices were compounded into the olive oil as the base. This base is the Spirit of God that was seen in Genesis 1:2 before the Son was incarnated into a man. The eternal Spirit had only the divinity of God. He is the base.�

Genesis 1:2 says no such thing.  Here is what it really says:

� 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 2 Now the earth was ^[a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning�the first day.�

�Since the number four signifies the creatures (Exek. 1:5), of which man is the head (Gen. 1:26), and then number one signifes the unique God (Deut. 4:35; 1 Tim. 3:5), the four spices signify the humanity of Christ in God's creation. The Son of God came as a man. And man is an item of the creation of God.�

The number �4� does not represent �the creatures�.  1 Timothy 3:5 does not talk about God.  Here is what it says:

�5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)�

�In Psalm 45 this anointing oil of exultant joy was poured out upon the precious and victorious King above His companions. Since Christ is the source of the four spices He is the chief one to enjoy the holy anointing which is also given to His companions. All this points to the eternal purpose of God dispensing Himself in Christ through the Holy Spirit into man.�

Christ was not the source of the four spices.  That was just your baseless claim.   

�Isn't this marvelous? What a revelation of Christ and His work is seen in Psalm 45 and in Exodus 30.�

Marvelous?  This is nonsense!  Please don�t be offended, but you are blowing hot air.  I don�t know what person would buy your argument.  I am extremely interested to know what the other Christians on this forum think of all this.  Mauri, Tom?  Any comments? 

Islamispeace,

You may not care sir but I care with respect to your long post with all those Bible verses. Others may not think its a bother but I find it bothersome that since we are commencing in discussion, to post a long post such as the one you did previously. How can I in reviewing your post comment on something so lengthy? Posts that long I simply scroll past them without reading them. Seriously consider shortening your post to just opinions rather than post a 3 page diatribe of nothing but Bible verses mixed with personal opinions.

 Israfil,

    There are more matters posted up wanting a reply than I have the time to speak to. I am kind of selecting here and there ones I want to address.

Regardless of your explanation, according to the Bible there was a time Jesus did not exist at least physically. So I don't know how the authors of the Bible can explain how the Son was eternal. Perhpas they would say the Son was eternal spiritually or somehow. Regardless, in matters of daletics you cannot answer the criticism on how unequal the relationship between Father[God] and Son[Jesus] is. The Father begets and the Son is begotten how is the son eternal when part of the Son's attribute is to be the begotten?

   I cannot explain how the Son of God could be eternally begotten.

  That matter at this time is too difficult for me. But you must notice that when the wise men came to Jerusalem seeking a "born king" the scholars of the Hebrew Bible knew exactly what passage of prophecy would indicate His place of birth. In doing so they also quoted the prophet Micah that this child was from everlasting:

 ' And when Herod the king heard this, he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him. And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.

And they said to him, In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written through the prophet: "And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah ... out of you shall come forth a Ruler, One who will shepherd My people Israel." '

 The next portion of Micah's prophecy which Matthew did not quote says:

 "He who is Ruler in Israel; And His goings forth are from ancient times, From the days of eternity" (Micah 5:2c)

  The one born in Bethlehem has His goings forth from days of eternity. So the Son of God before incarnation was eternal.

 This of course agrees with Isaiah's prophecy on a two line approach:

 1.) The child born is the Mighty God.

 2.) The Son given is the Eternal Father.

 Both are miracles.  I am limited indeed to explain a miracle. The One whose goings forth are from days of eternity was born the King of Israel in Bethlehem.