To: William Terrell
I've never found anything wrong with that explanation. There's a song that speaks to "Mercy's face pressed against the veil" and I'm in agreement with the poetic truth it (the song) presents.
Yet literal truth is plain spoken in this case. We don't know what was seen when the veil was torn ... probably at the moment that the horns were blowing outside. Toss in an eclipse, an earthquake and the dead coming out of their tombs to be seen by many and it was something that made an impression, to be sure.
But since it was His death that predicated the tearing of the veil and since He wasindeed is stilla son of Israel, it isn't all that out there to say that His death on the cross would have required some suitable expression of grief on the part of the Father.
After all, to whatever degree there was even a momentary separation between them (as many reasonably postulate): it would have been mutual.
posted on 11/12/2006 8:56:49 AM PST
But, then, the Father sent His Son to die in just this manner. My understanding is that Jesus was to experience all man's fallibilities, including separation from the Father in Hell, then ascended to the Father.
As was offered earlier, separation from The Father would be and is Hell.
posted on 11/12/2006 9:23:51 AM PST
by William Terrell
(Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson