Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

Blocked

Hi Kathi,

You seem to be pretty sharp in the Greek language. I wonder if you could help with a Greek discrepancy that occured on this thread in the past.

It was claimed that in John 17:5, Jesus could not have been asking for the return of a glory he had in the past. It was reasoned that the word “echo” is in the imperfect tense, which refers to an ONGOING action, and therefore didn't refer to an action that had at one time ended.

I tried my best to explain that the imperfect tense does not prohibit an action from ever ending, but was a way of speaking. Ie: Instead of saying “they asked”, the imperfect would say “they KEPT ON ASKING”. It doesn't mean they are still to this day asking though.

I even pointed out Matthew 27:16, where the imperfect echo is also used. And I reasoned that if the imperfect tense prohibited the action from ending in the past, Barabbas would STILL TO THIS DAY be in Roman custody. But we know he was released instead of Jesus.

Here is the question I asked over and over:

Does the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 prohibit Jesus from asking for the return of a glory he had alongside God before the world was founded? YES or NO?

Perhaps you could share your thoughts on the matter to set the record straight?

Thanks for your time,
mike

September 20, 2011 at 4:44 am#258917

Lightenup

Participant

Mike,
This should help:

Imperfect Tense
The imperfect tense shows continuous or linear type of action just like the present tense. It always indicates an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time. It portrays the action as going on for some extended period of time in the past.
The idea of continual action in the past does not apply when the verb “to be” is in the imperfect tense. There it should be considered a simple action happening in past time, without regard to its “on-going” or “repeated happening” in the past.

For example: “For you were once darkness, but now light in the Lord.” Eph 5:8

from here:
http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/grkindex.htm

September 20, 2011 at 4:57 am#258918

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2011,16:50)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 19 2011,16:43)

I just received my copies of the NET BIBLE and a Greek and English of the NT,(by mail)

so I will have to look in to it ,

Happy reading!

yeah I will,

September 20, 2011 at 5:18 am#258921

Ed J

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2011,10:04)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 19 2011,16:46)

1) God's glory can't but God's word can; how do you know that?

2) Because God's glory was going to be seen in us. (Romans 8:18)

1. A regular old word of God doesn't become flesh either, Ed. The only way a “word” can BECOME flesh is if “Word” was the title of a BEING who became flesh. Besides, you think the Word of God is God's Holy Spirit. That Spirit can come to be IN flesh, but if the Holy Spirit BECAME flesh, it would no longer be spirit.

2. That still doesn't answer why, if it was GOD'S glory that was going to be seen in us, it would be refered to as the glory, NOT OF GOD, but as the glory of an ONLY BEGOTTEN OF God. Whether it was seen in only one person or a million people, according to you it was still GOD'S glory, and should have therefore been described as GOD'S glory – not as the glory of God's ONLY BEGOTTEN. Unless you think God is HIS OWN only begotten?

Hi Mike,

Both points you make are only YOUR opinions and your rudimentary logic; nothing to take to the bank!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

September 20, 2011 at 5:42 am#258923

Participant

Pierre,

Quote

it does not matter how God made his son as a human ,…

It matters if God changed his Jesus from some other being into a human being as Jesus can only be a descendant of David if his body side is a descended from King David. To change some other body into a genetic match of David’s genotype does not make such a child a descendent of David.

Quote

… what is important is that he is not from a human father, and so it is God that is his father ,right

Joseph is his human father since Joseph claimed him as his own. He is not Jesus’ biological sire as God created Jesus’ body from a part of Mary and breathed Jesus’ soul with its spirit into the body Jehovah had made for him.

A human biological sire is a sire because his sperm united with the egg of a human female. I doubt you believe that God’s sperm united with Mary’s egg to become a human/God crossbreed. I know scripture does not testify of that. So how do you think God replaces a human biological sire for Jesus?

Scripture speaks of God having children in three ways. The first way is creation, the second is by faith and/or by spirit, and the third is by the law. God sired Jesus in all three of those ways. I am confident that is all the ways and that any other way beyond those is adding to God’s word. If you have evidence otherwise then please show me what scripture literally speaks of any other way an individual is a child of God because I know of none.

September 20, 2011 at 6:20 am#258929

Participant

Mike,

Quote

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 19 2011,01:02)

Quote

1 Kings 2
King James Version (KJV)

4That the LORD may continue his word which he spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the throne of Israel.

As the above scripture testifies David believed in the Jesus that then existed in prophecy just as Isaac is a root and offspring of Abraham.

The above scripture does no such thing. Psalm 110 has David speaking about Jesus through God's Holy Spirit, but doesn't expand on what exactly David knew about the one he called his Lord.

I am not able to read your mind but perhaps you are being more literally minded than me.

1) This scripture is an account of David’s belief in the promise of God to place one of his children that walks before God in truth with all their heart and with all their soul on the throne forever.
2) The Messiah exists in this promise.
3) The Messiah would later come to exist in order to fulfill this promise as the already existent children proved not to be the promised one. This can be gleaned at Solomon’s dedication of the Temple if not earlier.
4) The Messiah would come to bear the name Jesus though that detail was not mentioned in that scripture. That comes from later passages.

Quote

And which scripture calls Isaac the root of Abraham?

My purpose for pointing out that Isaac is the root and offspring of Abraham was not a quote from scripture but was an example of how Jesus is the root of and offspring of David.

Quote

You are correct. But what I've been asking for is the scripture that says Jesus COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been a spirit son of God before he emptied himself and was made in the likeness of a human being.

I really don’t know what you mean by “emptied” which may be irrelevant since a being has two sides which are the inner and outer being.

I have previously and address once more why the body side of Jesus is not an outer angel. I have not addressed why the soul of Jesus is not an inner angel.

I must have missed it. Please post it again, along with your understanding of why it prohibits Jesus from being the first spirit son of God before he became flesh.

You already know what scriptures I wrote of so I will point out that a body that is transformed into a genotype is not a descendant of the forefather of that genotype just like I would not become Bill Gate’s son if my genotype was changed into his as he did not directly or indirectly sire me.

September 20, 2011 at 11:19 am#258956

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 20 2011,23:18)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2011,10:04)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 19 2011,16:46)

1) God's glory can't but God's word can; how do you know that?

2) Because God's glory was going to be seen in us. (Romans 8:18)

Hi Mike,

Both points you make are only YOUR opinions and your rudimentary logic; nothing to take to the bank!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

edj

just because you do not see true value ,does not mean that there is none ,

I think mike is right on 1 and 2

Pierre

September 20, 2011 at 11:24 am#258957

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 20 2011,23:42)

Pierre,

Quote

it does not matter how God made his son as a human ,…

Quote

… what is important is that he is not from a human father, and so it is God that is his father ,right

kerwin

Quote

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when;;; the sons of God;; came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

is this not contradict your claim ?

Pierre

September 20, 2011 at 2:11 pm#258975

Ed J

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 20 2011,16:42)

Pierre,

Hi Kerwin,

You see the Scriptures fractally, as we all should see them.
“The Word” begets us, just like “The Word” also begot Jesus.

Hebrews 7:28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but
The Word(TheSeed “IS” HolySpirit) of the oath, which was since the law,
maketh the Son(Jesus Christ), who is consecrated for evermore.

1Pet.1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by “The Word” of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Of his own will begat he us with “The Word” of truth,
that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

September 21, 2011 at 12:24 am#259018

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 19 2011,22:44)

Mike,
This should help:

For example: “For you were once darkness, but now light in the Lord.” Eph 5:8

from here:
http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/grkindex.htm

Thanks Kathi,

It is interesting that YOU would focus on and bold the words “in the past” just like I repeatedly did.

September 21, 2011 at 12:39 am#259019

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 20 2011,00:20)

My purpose for pointing out that Isaac is the root and offspring of Abraham was not a quote from scripture but was an example of how Jesus is the root of and offspring of David.

Well, if it's not scriptural that Isaac was the root of Abraham, then why would you claim it as fact? Isaac was the offspring of Abraham, never the root.

You point only draws more attention to the fact that Jesus was at once the Root AND the Offspring of David. One means “came after”, the other means “came before”.

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 20 2011,00:20)

Kerwin, why would you speak with feigned knowledge of things you couldn't possibly know? Once again, you are limiting what God can and can't do. Also, I DON'T know what scriptures you posted that FORBID Jesus from pre-existing his flesh. There aren't any in the whole of scripture, so you couldn't have possibly listed any before. But if you listed one you THINK forbids the pre-existence of Jesus, then I apparently overlooked it. Please post it again for me, so I can show you how it DOESN'T FORBID Jesus from pre-existing.

My question still remains unanswered on the debate thread.

mike

September 21, 2011 at 1:25 am#259021

Participant

Mike,

Quote

Well, if it's not scriptural that Isaac was the root of Abraham, then why would you claim it as fact? Isaac was the offspring of Abraham, never the root.

It is untrue to state that Isaac was not the root of Abraham’s faith as it is written that Abraham was credited with righteousness because he believed that he would sire Isaac in accordance with God’s word. So be careful what you write.

Quote

Kerwin, why would you speak with feigned knowledge of things you couldn't possibly know? Once again, you are limiting what God can and can't do.

You sound like a Trinitarian who responds to the contradictions in his own religious tenet and in doing so your God becomes a God of confusion. Either Jesus is the child of David’s body and therefore fulfills the Word of God or he is the Child of God’s body and does not fulfill God’s promise to David. I know which I believe.

September 21, 2011 at 1:32 am#259024

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 20 2011,20:11)

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 20 2011,16:42)

Pierre,

Hi Kerwin,

You see the Scriptures fractally, as we all should see them.
“The Word” begets us, just like “The Word” also begot Jesus.

1Pet.1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by “The Word” of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Of his own will begat he us with “The Word” of truth,
that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Ed,

I am unsure what you are getting at. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing. If the later then please make it more clear what the disagreement is.

September 21, 2011 at 1:44 am#259026

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 20 2011,17:24)

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 20 2011,23:42)

Pierre,

Quote

it does not matter how God made his son as a human ,…

Quote

… what is important is that he is not from a human father, and so it is God that is his father ,right

kerwin

Quote

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when;;; the sons of God;; came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

is this not contradict your claim ?

Pierre

Pierre,

It does not as the angels in general are the sons of God by creation and the angels of God are also his sons by his Spirit.

Look for a scripture that literally makes your point and not one you believe infers it.

September 21, 2011 at 2:15 am#259029

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 20 2011,19:25)

Kerwin, read very carefully what I write here: There is NO scripture that says Isaac was the “root” of Abraham, OR the “root of his faith”. The fact that Abraham had faith and believed that God would grant him a son in his old age came, NOT FROM THE UNBORN SON, but from Abraham himself. It was ABRAHAM who had faith. And his as yet UNNAMED son was not the “root” of that faith. He was yet to exist.

NOR does scripture say that Jesus was the Root of David's FAITH, Kerwin. It says that Jesus is the Root of DAVID – not his faith.

My God, man! Are you totally incapable of reading a sentence and taking it for what it says? Must you invent mysterious and abstract meanings to everything that was said in scripture?

If your Lord said, “I came down from heaven”, you immediately try to find ways to PRETEND he didn't really say what he clearly said. It boggles my mind. Instead of just taking the words of your Lord for what they taught, you must IMAGINE that he must have meant, “the thought of me in God's head came down from heaven”, or “the spirit inside me came down from heaven”, or some other lame attempt to AVOID the DIRECT and CLEARLY SPOKEN meaning of the words themselves.

It is YOU who needs to be careful what YOU write, Kerwin. Isaac was NEVER said, or even implied to be any “root” of Abraham. The “root” of someone comes BEFORE that someone. The “branch” or “offspring” comes AFTER that someone. This is just plain old common sense.

Do you ever sit back and just look at the scriptural teaching you've INVENTED with your mysterious, abstract rantings? You've come to a place where God has an only begotten that you don't even KNOW!

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 20 2011,19:25)

Either Jesus is the child of David’s body and therefore fulfills the Word of God or he is the Child of God’s body and does not fulfill God’s promise to David.

He is BOTH, Kerwin. He is the Offspring of David, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH – just like the scriptures say. He is the Root of David, according to creation, for David came THROUGH him, as did all other things – again, just like the scriptures say.

Read your Bible, Kerwin. Let your own mind just go out the window for a while – and try to understand the words as they are written – NOT HOW YOU WOULD LIKE THEM TO BE.

September 21, 2011 at 2:17 am#259030

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 20 2011,19:44)

Look for a scripture that literally makes your point and not one you believe infers it.

Apply those words to YOURSELF, Kerwin! Show me the scripture that LITERALLY says Jesus is the “root of David's faith”. Or one that says Issac is the root of Abraham in any way at all.

September 21, 2011 at 2:35 am#259034

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 21 2011,19:44)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 20 2011,17:24)

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 20 2011,23:42)

Pierre,

Quote

it does not matter how God made his son as a human ,…

Quote

… what is important is that he is not from a human father, and so it is God that is his father ,right

kerwin

Quote

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when;;; the sons of God;; came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

is this not contradict your claim ?

Pierre

Pierre,

It does not as the angels in general are the sons of God by creation and the angels of God are also his sons by his Spirit.

Look for a scripture that literally makes your point and not one you believe infers it.

Kerwin

Quote

It does not as the angels in general are the sons of God by creation and the angels of God are also his sons by his Spirit.

you are confused ,the angels are called sons of God so was Adam ,
but only Christ is called the son of man and son of God,

and as per revelation there only 144k that will be going and live there as spirit being and they will be called sons of God and brothers to Christ ,

Pierre

September 21, 2011 at 3:06 am#259038

Participant

Pierre,

Quote

you are confused ,the angels are called sons of God so was Adam ,
but only Christ is called the son of man and son of God,

You declare I am confused because I pointed out that the angels are the sons of God by his creation of them and that his angels are his sons by his spirit, as well as also challenging you to find a scripture that explicitly states they are his sons of the body. Interesting!

It is true that Adam as well as the angels are the sons of God through the act of creation. Are you implying that there are sons of man that are not also the sons of God by the act of creation? If not then what is your point?

September 21, 2011 at 3:25 am#259039

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 21 2011,08:17)

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 20 2011,19:44)

Look for a scripture that literally makes your point and not one you believe infers it.

Apply those words to YOURSELF, Kerwin! Show me the scripture that LITERALLY says Jesus is the “root of David's faith”. Or one that says Issac is the root of Abraham in any way at all.

Mike,

Luke 8:13 (King James Version)

13They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

Judge for yourself when David was promised that he would have a son to sit on his throne forever, did he have a root or no root?

When Isaac was promised that he would bear a son and by him become the father of many nations, did he have a root or no root?

I know what I believe in both those cases.

September 21, 2011 at 5:57 am#259043