It's difficult to argue otherwise. Abraham had died, the Prophets had died, past tense, yet Jesus says Abraham rejoiced in the prospect of seeing Jesus’ day.
On the face of it, how else would one interpret it other than as past tense without doing greater violence to what Jesus said.
I would have to ask if there something in the account that would lead me to think that some other tense would be a better fit and the answer is ‘no’.
Psalms chapter 2.
“For one, verse 7 makes no sense in that context (remember also this is supposed to be David's writing): “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son...” Who is saying this? Jesus?”
It makes perfect sense given the Hebrew usage at 2 Sam. 7:14.
Here God says of Solomon, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son.”
Wasn't Solomon and every other male, a Son?
At Psalm 2:7 it is David speaking and it is prophetic of the Christ, Jesus, and I suspect most Christians would agree to that.
Christ like? Of course it is! Christ is going to “shepherd the nations with an iron rod”.
“The Creed leaves no doubt that it had to be the Holy Spirit (”he spoke through the Prophets”).”
I'll hold off on that till Catholics comment on it. Had to be?
I think the implication was Abraham's resurrection. Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew after all.
Other than that, your reasoning seems fair, but we don't know what was going through the head of the one who wrote those verses. Something convoluted, for sure.
I'll hold off on that till Catholics comment on it. Had to be?
I was raised Eastern Orthodox. I have as much to say about it as any Latin. They recite it every now and then; the Orthodox recite the Creed every Sunday.