- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Not3in1 @ May 31 2007,07:23) No doubt this commitment to keeping a low profile about his true identity is exactly what Philippians is referring to, and removes this section of scripture from the mystical clutches of “kenotic Christology”. This system belief, the handmaiden of “the incarnation,” teaches that Christ emptied himself of his “pre-incarnate divinity” before he was conceived. How much simpler it is to place these verses in the specific context of the witness of Christ's life as revealed in the gospels.
I don't know anything about “Kenotic Christology”, but my source for saying what I have is Philippians 2:5-11.Scripture is enough for me. Of course interpreting it is where we can err.
Hi:
If God wanted us to know that Jesus pre-existed his Virgin birth he would have told us that he did. He is not the author of confusion. Any way what matters, is that He loves us and gave his life for us as shown clearly in the scriptures so that we could be reconciled to God, and that he lives forever more to make intercession for us, and that by his shed blood we have forgiveness for sin.
God Bless
Quote (t8 @ May 30 2007,14:26) He didn't come to partake of flesh for flesh sake, but to destroy the works of the enemy.
Yes, this is precisely the point. Jesus came to destroy the works of the enemy. Could he have done that if he was, say, a pre-existent spirit son who was re-incarnated into flesh? My answer is no! Why? Because he would not be fully human then. He is an incarnation of a previous life. This would not be a human person. This would be a “person” who previously existed who put on flesh!Jesus came to destroy the works of the enemy. Could he have done that if he was literally God's Son? Absolutely! Why? Because he would be God's representative in the flesh (see the difference?). As such, he would possess the authority to take down God's enemy.
Otherwise, the enemy may say to the previously-lived-spirit-son, “Hey, who do you think you are? You can't touch me! You don't have any authority; why even the flesh that you are wearing is borrowed.” Whereas if the enemy met God's Son he might say, “Hey, don't torture me yet before me time…..send me into that herd of pigs over there – pleeeeze!”
God's literal Son can be a representative of his Father because (for lack of a better way to say this), he has his Father's blood flowing through his veins. Who can touch that?
If you have human nature that makes you human.
Your reason doesn't change that fact.
If Elijah came again in the flesh, he would still be a man.
It is written of Christ”
Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”Hi Not3,
The god of this world had a secure squatters kingdom established here among men with an order of authority down to the demons. Only God could break it down. God needed a vessel for His Spirit to do this work as He does not come to tiny earth. He found a willing servant in heaven, His monogenes Son, whao agreed to come knowing opf his future rewards, and He sent him here guiding his growth and at the age of 30 human years empowered him eternally to do this victorious work. We continue it till they return.Quote (942767 @ May 31 2007,10:05) Hi: If God wanted us to know that Jesus pre-existed his Virgin birth he would have told us that he did. He is not the author of confusion. Any way what matters, is that He loves us and gave his life for us as shown clearly in the scriptures so that we could be reconciled to God, and that he lives forever more to make intercession for us, and that by his shed blood we have forgiveness for sin.
God Bless
Hi 94.First off, we know that Christ is a hidden mystery that is revealed in the last days. So the clear teaching you speak of is perhaps not in order, rather a revelation of this.
Romans 16:25-27
25 Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,
26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him
27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.But there are many scriptures that teach he did or demonstrate that he did. These seem to be applicable to a mystery being revealed.
For a list of some of the more compelling revelations of Christ, go here:
https://heavennet.net/answers/answer31.htmI believe that Christ existed in heaven in glory with God before emptying himself of his glory and becoming a humble man. I also believe that he returned to the same glory he had before with God.
It is these and other scriptures that clinch it for me.
Also, where is it written that he didn't pre-exist? If you say that it should be a clear teaching, where is the clear teaching that says that he existed for the first time ever in the womb of Mary?
Quote (t8 @ May 30 2007,15:29) Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
The Father is the Ancient of Days, himself, whose origins are not even measurable. Jesus comes from such a Father. This does not mean that Jesus, himself, was alive during these “ancient times,” it only says that the one who comes out of Judah will have ancient origins. Anyway, this is my take. It certainly looks like it can lend itself to both your view and mine.Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 30 2007,15:50) Hi Not3,
The god of this world had a secure squatters kingdom established here among men with an order of authority down to the demons. Only God could break it down. God needed a vessel for His Spirit to do this work as He does not come to tiny earth. He found a willing servant in heaven, His monogenes Son, whao agreed to come knowing opf his future rewards, and He sent him here guiding his growth and at the age of 30 human years empowered him eternally to do this victorious work. We continue it till they return.
Nick, there is so much here in what you say that I am not even sure where to start. I'm a bit taken back because some of what you write sounds foreign to my ears. Meaning, I have not read this account in scripture.Jesus is a vessel as we are vessels for God's work. But it sounds like you are saying that Jesus is in fact “only” a “vessel” that God's Spirit lives in (meaning an incarnation?) Or do you mean to imply that Jesus is filled to the fullness of God's Spirit but remains his own person? I agree with the later.
In regards to “finding a willing servant in heaven” that looks a little like God was on a mission, possibly interviewing sons to see who would go. See, in Isaiah it says that God looked around and saw that there was NOONE, and so he worked salvation for himself. His “arm” (offspring) worked salvation FOR him. God had a literal Son who was born on earth. This sounds like the scriptures that I have read.
If the preexistent Jesus agreed to come to earth because of future rewards – well – that just makes it less special for me. He did it for the prizes and not for me?
Then God empowered him to do the work of the cross (so that in and of itself, in my opinion, robs Jesus of the honor of his sufferings and death for us on our behalf) and then Jesus got to be “exhaulted” back up to the very same place he left. This does not sound like the scriptures I read, I'm sorry. Maybe I'm missing something here?
Quote (t8 @ May 30 2007,15:56) I also believe that he returned to the same glory he had before with God.
Jesus went to the cross with the encouragement that glory would be his in the future. He was scared; he prayed and begged that the Father would find another way…… Who would do these things if they knew they were going right back up to be with God (a place he had been before)? Goodness, that doesn't require any faith, does it?Why sweat it, Jesus? Why worry? Why negotiate with your Father? It can only hurt for a while and then, boom! Your back with your Dad – where you were before.
What kind of reward would this be for Jesus? If God was looking around heaven, as Nick suggests, trying to find a son to go to earth…………he certainly would not have been successful by saying, “OK, any son that will go for me, will suffer and die and then as a reward he can come back up to the place he was before – who will go? Let me see some hands!” I don't think anyone would go, do you? In fact that is what God said in Isaiah……he looked around and there was noone to go for him.
Jesus didn't know what was ahead of him. He trusted his Father who told him he would be given the name above every name – he would be given everything if he would do this for him; if he would sacrifice his life. Here's the thing, it wouldn't be much of a sacrifice if Jesus just left his beautiful home in glory with the Father, came down only in guise as a man, did a job, and returned to his same position. I don't know, t8, that just doesn't sound right to me.
Hi not3,
He was given the kingdom.
He only asked to have the glory again.
Jn 17
1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Phil; 2
9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Dan7
13I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.14And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Yep. Something to ponder….. It's so late here, I better get some sleep. Thanks for the information and chat, Nick. I am hoping to learn by defending what I think I know (ha)
Have a good night.Quote (Not3in1 @ May 30 2007,06:24) Quote (t8 @ May 30 2007,15:29) Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
The Father is the Ancient of Days, himself, whose origins are not even measurable. Jesus comes from such a Father. This does not mean that Jesus, himself, was alive during these “ancient times,” it only says that the one who comes out of Judah will have ancient origins. Anyway, this is my take. It certainly looks like it can lend itself to both your view and mine.
AMEN! AMEN! Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 30 2007,00:29) Hi AP,
Number 1083
Transliteration:
gennesis {ghen'-nay-sis}
Word Origin:
from 1080
Part of Speech:
adjective
Usage in the KJV:
birth 2Total: 2
Definition:
begat, engendering
nativity, birth
Genesis means beginning as in e.g.
“In the Beginning“
And of course, Genesis deals with the beginning of the heavens & the earth, mankind, etc.(Mat 1:1) The book of the generation (genesis i.e. beginning) of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
(Mat 1:18) Now the birth (genesis i.e. beginning) of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
BTW FYI
Because of
(a) the obvious meaning of the word genesis; and
(b) the fact that Matthew uses this word twice to describe
the genesis i.e. beginning of Jesus the Christ [Matthew 1:1,18]
which of course contradicts trinitarian (as well as arian) preexistence/theology …Catholic scribes therefore added an extra 'n' to genesis in verse 18 in order to change
the context from beginning/origination to birth
Source: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehrman, (1993), p. 75-76;Like I said, FYI
Quote (Adam Pastor @ May 31 2007,03:22) Because of
(a) the obvious meaning of the word genesis; and
(b) the fact that Matthew uses this word twice to describe
the genesis i.e. beginning of Jesus the Christ [Matthew 1:1,18]
which of course contradicts trinitarian (as well as arian) preexistence/theology …Catholic scribes therefore added an extra 'n' to genesis in verse 18 in order to change
the context from beginning/origination to birth
Source: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehrman, (1993), p. 75-76;Like I said, FYI
Adam, interesting stuff! Thank you for adding this; I'll do some ivestigating on my own with this information.By the way, your Avatar (is that what our little pictures by our names are?) freaks me out a little bit – I like it
Feel free to jump in here anywhere, Adam. I know that you have studied some of the same authors and Unitarians that I have and have come to some of the same conclusions that I have. What I am trying to do by chatting with Nick and t8 is to see if what I adopted as truth can stand up under their truth (which is different than mine). So far, I feel like my truth is holding it's own. It's not about pride in being right, it's about knowing God and his Son – the who and the what. That is what I desire so badly in my inner most heart. To know him and his Son who he sent.
Have a good one, today! It's supposed to be 80 degrees here today.
Amen Not3in1
Your approach is correct!
When I came to the knowledge of scriptural unitarian truth; it amazed me how much of the Bible I can plainly read and let it speak for itself!Back in the day when I believed such things such as 'Jesus is Almighty GOD'; I had to do a lot of 'mental gymnastics'; a lot of eisegesis i.e. reading things INTO what the plain text of Scripture was saying as oppose to letting it speak for itself.
Now that mine eyes have been opened to the plain truth of subjects such as who GOD is, who Jesus is, and their Coming Kingdom;
I realize now just how much the Bible is indeed a literal unitarian book.
And that many times the plain meaning of the text is the best interpretation; noting that scripture does not contradict scripture; so one should use the plain-speaking verses to interpret the ones that have obscure or apparently-contradictory statements.And yes; now I find that when reasoning with trinitarians, oneness adherents and arians; just how much the 'truth' I have adhered to does indeed hold its own!
This does indeed give me confidence that I am on the right track.I have been perusing this forum for about 3 years now; and I have attempted to show those who have an arian view of preexistence (although they deny being Arians; just as the trinitarians deny being tritheists)
how Matthew and Luke simply have no concept that Jesus literally pre-existed his own conception. No! Both Matthew and Luke present the genesis/conception/birth of Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Mary, the son of GOD.Therefore, in light of this, John could not possibly be contradicting Matthew or Luke. John simply is using different language to describe a different context of the Messiah; i.e. that this man is the very wisdom and word/plan of GOD which was foreordained before the foundation of the world, embodied in flesh as a human being.
So that there is no confusion, John calls Jesus a man more than the other NT writers; and he gives his very reason for writing his gospel in John 20.31.
As I looked for other verification on the fact that it was customary for Jews to describe things that GOD had foreordained in His counsel as somehow therefore pre-existing in the mind of GOD.
I have discovered that in very similar language to the pre-existent language used in John …
the Jews in their writings/Pseudepigrapha spoke of these 7 things pre-existing the world: the Torah, repentance, the garden of eden, Topheth i.e. Gehenna fire, the throne of glory, the temple, and the name of the Messiah [Talmud, Pesachim 54a ] as being created before the world was created!
The Jews did not think that these 7 things were literally created in Heaven; rather these 7 things were planned/foreordained in GOD's plan before the creation of the world.The Jews therefore taught and spoke of ideal pre-existence; and John was a Jew writing to a Jewish audience; who were well acquainted with the idea that the Messiah pre-existed ideally/notionally
i.e. was foreordained before the foundation of the world.
[cp. 1 Peter 1.20]The Jews also spoke of Moses being prepared from the beginning of the world to be the mediator!
“For this is what the Lord of the world has decreed: He created the world on behalf of his people, but he did not make this purpose of creation known from the beginning of the world so that the nations might be found guilty . . . But He did design and devise me [Moses], who was prepared from the beginning of the world to be the mediator of the covenant”
(Testament of Moses, 1:13, 14).How much more then, could John speak of Jesus the Messiah; and just as the pre-NT Jews did not literally believe that Moses was literally in existence before the beginning of the world; neither did John think such a thing concerning Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah!
So John is not at odds with Matthew and Luke who have no knowledge of a literal pre-existence of the Messiah.
If any time you fancy some heavy reading concerning things which back up these claims; I recommend
1) James Dunn, Christology in the Making, the Second edition
Dunn shows many quotes from Jewish writings/Pseudepigrapha which have the word (logos) and the wisdom of GOD being personified as if they were actual persons in the presence of GOD; yet he goes on to show that this was not the intent of the Jewish writers! He shows that the pre-NT Jews did NOT believe that the word/logos or wisdom/sophia were literal pre-existing intermediary beings; but rather were ways of describing these attributes of the One GOD; and therefore used these literary devices such as personification to describe how GOD's spoken word & wisdom interact in the created world.This is the same kind of personification as seen in John 1:1-14
2) I also recommend (again, quite heavy theologically)
BORN BEFORE ALL TIME? The Dispute over Christ's Origin by Karl-Josef KuschelAgain, the author does a lot of research concerning the issues of the pre-existence of the Messiah.
PS
Oh! My Avatar is exactly my mirror-image!!
Hi AP,
I am surprised you would label some here as arian
or that you would promote yourself as the arbiter of truth for all
and try to show that it is only to be found in the myoptic biblical unitarian view.But then you have attacked John's writings before as corrupted by Alexandrian influence.
However arguing is not helpful as I do agree that
AS FAR AS OUR SALVATION IS CONCERNED THE ORIGINS OF CHRIST ARE RELATIVELY LESS IMPORTANT.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
