Preexistence

[terraricca]

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 28 2012,17:35)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 28 2012,12:45) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 28 2012,09:40) F Quote terraricca, It is quite obvious from my previous posts that I most certainly do believe that Yahshua existed and it is quite obvious from your previous posts that you can not even form an intelligible English sentence. if you would as truthful as i am in written English you would be better of in Gods truth than you are now , terraricca, You would be better off if you would just shut your pie hole!   Hi T. In between eating pies, keep preaching the truth about Yahshua.

t8

thanks

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 28 2012,10:22)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 28 2012,16:45) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 28 2012,09:40) F Quote terraricca, It is quite obvious from my previous posts that I most certainly do believe that Yahshua existed and it is quite obvious from your previous posts that you can not even form an intelligible English sentence. if you would as truthful as i am in written English you would be better of in Gods truth than you are now , terraricca, You would be better off if you would just shut your pie hole!   F if you keep this up I will hit you with your white cane

terraricca,

I don't have a white cane.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 28 2012,10:28)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 28 2012,13:06) Mike, Scripture clearly teaches that Yahshua existed here on earth as a man. Nowhere in Scripture does it ever teach that Yahshua emptied himself of being a “God” in a previous existence and made himself into the likeness of a man. As to your “”Haggai” question”, it makes no sense at all! Word it any way you want Frank, but you know full well that Paul taught that although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. A thorn in the side of your doctrine. And truth will win Frank. You can't change reality.

t8,

Scripture clearly teaches that Yahshua existed here on earth as a man. Nowhere in Scripture does it ever teach that Yahshua emptied himself of being a “God” in a previous existence and made himself into the likeness of a man.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 27 2012,17:20)

Mike, I have never said “Phil 2 explains EXACTLY what say no scripture teaches.”

I never claimed you did say it. You claim that no scripture teaches Jesus existed before being a man. And I said that Phil 2 teaches EXACTLY what you say no scripture teaches.

Phil 2 DOES teach that Jesus was existing as something other than a man before being made into a man.

What prophesied, Frank? The PERSON who was CALLED BY THE NAME “HAGGAI”? Or a feast? Which one, Frank?

(Surely you can't think a feast prophesied to the Jews, can you? Why not just answer the question, Frank?)

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 28 2012,10:33)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 28 2012,12:44) Mike, Yahshua existed here on earth as a man. See how you used the word existed? Yet it says, “WHO although HE EXISTED in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied HIMSELF, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men”. The ironic thing here is that the only time EXISTED is used in this particular text is when it says that he EXISTED IN THE FORM OF GOD. It actually doesn't say that he EXISTED as a man although I am not arguing that he didn't. We all know he was a man. Deep down you know this scripture infringes your view. Are you brave enough to face up to the obvious?  I will let you into a little secret. It is less scary to change than to go to the living God with a legacy of false teaching Frank.

t8,

Yahshua existed here on earth as a man.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 28 2012,10:45)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 27 2012,17:20) Mike, I have never said “Phil 2 explains EXACTLY what say no scripture teaches.” I never claimed you did say it.  You claim that no scripture teaches Jesus existed before being a man.  And I said that Phil 2 teaches EXACTLY what you say no scripture teaches. Phil 2 DOES teach that Jesus was existing as something other than a man before being made into a man. What prophesied, Frank?  The PERSON who was CALLED BY THE NAME “HAGGAI”?  Or a feast?  Which one, Frank? (Surely you can't think a feast prophesied to the Jews, can you?  Why not just answer the question, Frank?)

Mike,

Nowhere in Scripture does it ever teach that Yahshua existed before being a man.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

IS PHILIPPIANS 2:5-9
ABOUT A PRE-EXISTENT BEING?
Ray Faircloth
“Inevitably, those who begin their exegesis of this hymn with the assumption that
it concerns a pre-existent divine being tend towards a docetic interpretation of
these lines.” Jerome Murphy O’Connor. Renowned Catholic Biblical Scholar.
PHILIPPIANS 2:5-9 is best read from a word for word Greek interlinear
translation. Because of a docetic and often trinitarian pre-existence bias, our
current translations do not accurately express the thoughts of these verses. Of
course, some translations are better than others and all render many parts of
these texts accurately.
The Kingdom Interlinear word for word of the NWT reads :
“This be you minding in you which also in Christ Jesus, who in form of God
existing not snatching he considered the to be equal (things) to God, but himself
he emptied form of slave having taken, in likeness of men having become; and
to fashion having been found as man he made lowly himself having become
obedient to death.”
The literal English form becomes:
“Let this mental attitude be in you which is also in Christ Jesus, who existing in
the form of God gave no consideration to a snatching [grasping], that he should
be equal to God, but he emptied himself having taken a slave's form, having
become in the likeness of men. Having been found in fashion as man, he
humbled himself and became obedient to death.”
Young's Literal Translation reads :
“For let this mind be in you that is also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of
God….but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness
of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man “
THE SUBJECT OF PHILIPPIANS 2:5-9 IS THE HUMAN MESSIAH
Verse 5 says “Let this mental attitude be in you which is also in Christ (Messiah)
Jesus…” So the subject of these verses is not a pre-existent archangel or
heavenly being but the historical human Messiah Jesus who came into
existence at his birth (Luke 1:35, 2:11). It is as renowned biblical scholar Jerome
Murphy O’Connor notes that “Since the hymn deals with Christ in his concrete
terrestrial condition, one should begin with the working hypothesis that the
author views Christ as man,…The anthropology of Wisdom provides an
appropriate background on the assumption that the author of the hymn was
thinking of Christ as man.” Also Associate Professor of NT Rodney Decker states
regarding Philippians 2 that “The context shows that it was only as man that
Christ emptied himself” Further to thisJames Mackey directs us to “the fact that
the subject of the hymn is specifically named as Messiah Jesus, a man like
ourselves…”
Phil 2:5-9 is now generally recognized by bible scholars as a poem that was
probably drawn from Isaiah 53 'the suffering servant who 'poured out his soul to
the death' vs 12. It is not a theological treatise.
The context is: “but in humility of mind…let this mind be in you that is also in
Christ Jesus.” (vss 3-5). So the subject is not about a change of Jesus'
essence or nature neither does it concern a pre-birth time for Jesus.
ADAM CHRISTOLOGY IN CONTRAST TO
THE GNOSTIC REDEEMER MYTH
James Dunn on pages 125 and 126 of Christology in the Making informs us that
“these passages were written in the middle of the first century, and the most
obvious and really clear meaning is the Adam theology and christology
widespread in earliest Christianity. In short, Adam Christology provides not only
a plausible context of thought for Phil 2:6-11 but also the most plausible
context of thought. Alternative explanations in terms of a Gnostic or proto-
Gnostic Primal Man speculation are not only unnecessary but also
unconvincing…we have uncovered no real evidence that the concept of a
heavenly archetype of Adam had developed beyond that of a Platonic idea by the
time of Paul – no real evidence, in other words, of an already established belief in
a heavenly first man who became the redeemer of Adam’s offspring”
Further confirmation of this understanding is given by Karl-Josef Kuschel who
says: “So this text would have been a piece of Adam Christology, of the kind
that also emerges in other contexts in the New Testament. It would be a further
example of the widespread two stage Christology of the earliest Jewish-
Christian communities…and thus would not be in the context of mythical
tradition, but of Old Testament tradition. So there is no question here of a preexistent
heavenly figure. Rather Christ is the great contrasting figure to Adam.”
p251 of ‘Born Before All Time’
NOT A PAST TENSE 'WAS IN THE FORM OF GOD'
In vs 6 of the Greek, Jesus is described as “existing (being ) in the form of
God.” It does not say 'was', 'was existing' or 'existed'. 'Being' is used in Young's
Literal, KJV, NKJV, NJB and NIV
'Being is a present participle and doesn't define any particular time. Therefore,
pre-existence is not being spoken of here.' Karl-Josef Kuschel. Examples are:
“being a prophet” (Acts 2:30) “If you being a Jew”. (Gal 2:14). These do not mean
being so before birth or ceasing to be so.
'MORPHE' HAS A WIDE SPAN OF MEANINGS
By Koine times 'morphe' had come to have the meaning of “station in life, a
position one holds, one's rank. And that is an approximation of morphe in this
context [Phil 2]” 'The practical use of the Greek New Testament.' p 84 Kenneth
Wuest.
The context confirms this understanding because 'being a slave' is per se, a
matter of STATUS rank, or position.
In modern English the word metamorphosis can involve the change in
appearance of a person e.g. weight-loss, or a change in a person’s character or
function. But they are still a human and they have not undergone a change to a
radically different substance.
'Morphe' does not carry the thought of change in the metaphysical sense i.e.
the substance or essence of something
The contrast is:
'Being in the morphe of God' = 'an expression of divinity' Bauer's Greek
Lexicon
'Being in the morphe of a slave' = 'an expression of servility; ” ” “
Additionally : morphe
= 'the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision ; the external
appearance'. Thayer
= 'external appearance'. Gerhard Kittel's Theological Dictionary of NT
= 'outward appearance'. Walter Bauer's Greek Lexicon
'Morphe' and 'eikon' (image) are near synonyms. F.W.Eltester has shown that
'eikon' and 'morphe' are used as interchangeable terms in the LXX. “The
absolute fidelity of Christ justified the choice of an alternative term (morphe rather
than eikon), and permitted the contrast between morphe theou and morphe
doulou.” Jerome Murphy O’Connor.
So Jesus' “being in the image / form of God” means that, as the human
Messiah, he was the visible image of God, having divine status. As Son of God
he had the right to function as God as had the rulers in Israel who functioned
as 'gods' (Ps 82:6 ; John 10:34). Eg “See I have made you [ Moses ] God to
Pharaoh” Ex 7:1. Also in Mark 2:7 the scribes state : “who can forgive sins
except one, God ?” Yet this authority was delegated to Jesus by God as vs 10
says “But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins
upon the earth.” Jesus was also granted authority to raise the dead. (John 5:21).
Further, “all judgment has been entrusted to the Son” (John 5:22,23). Therefore
he functions as God but is not of God's essence or substance.
Note: To convey the idea of 'essential nature' one would have to use the word
'eidos' not 'morphe'
WHY DID JESUS NOT GRASP AT EQUALITY WITH GOD?
Jesus “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped (harpagmos).”
“something that was not possessed and so grasped at, or something already
possessed and so grasped retentively (the ambiguity of harpagmos)” P116 of
‘Christology in the Making’.
Satan offered Jesus “all the Kingdoms of the world” in exchange for Satan
worship. Yet Jesus refused; thereby refusing to grasp for an equality with God
in respect to world rulership that was his by right but only when given by God
at the appropriate juncture in His purpose. Similarly, Satan told Eve that she
could 'be like God' – having the same status as God because of the premature
and inappropriate acquisition of power through knowledge. Genesis 3:5. After
Adam's sin God said “the man has become like one of us in knowing good and
evil” 3:22. This was a snatching at equality with God in respect to knowledge
prematurely and offered by Satan rather than God.
The notes on this verse in the New American Bible say “Many see an allusion to
the Genesis story: Unlike Adam, Jesus, though… in the form of God, did not
reach out for equality with God, in contrast to the first Adam.
Theologian Karl-Joseph Kuschel similarly explains that this “hymn does not
speak of the pre-existence of Christ at all….but in good Jewish fashion as the
counterpart of Adam…His sinless condition gave him the right to be treated as if
he were God.”
James Mackey states that ”there is scarcely enough difference between the
Greek words eikon and morphe to prevent us from seeing in the Genesis
creation and garden stories the source of our two phrases: man created in God’s
image and likeness and grasping after some status of equality with God
(‘become like one of us’, ‘be like God’).
WHAT DOES 'EMPTIED HIMSELF' MEAN?
It is often stated that Jesus emptied himself of himself or of his ‘divinity
’(Trinitarian) or ‘god-form’ (Arian) as if this were his essence. But as discussed
above the ‘form’ (morphe) is synonymous with image (eikon) and has the 1st
century Koine meaning of ‘status’ which is why Paul gives the comparison with
“form of a slave” and not ‘form of a man’. The phrase “form of a slave” makes no
reference to one’s essence or essential being but of one’s lowly status. Adam
being in the image of God certainly was not of God’s essential being. A basic
difference in Jewish thinking and Greek thinking of the time was that Jews
thought in terms of ‘FUNCTION’ and would use a great deal of metaphorical
language; whereas Greeks thought more in terms of essence or substance, that
is ontologically (substance)or metaphysically. Many scholars have now
recognized this difference and have adjusted their interpretations accordingly.
The phrase “emptied himself” (Greek 'ekenosen') is also translated as: “but
made himself of no reputation” KJV, NKJ. or “but made himself nothing” ESV,
NIV. It is a parallel thought to “poured out his soul to the death” Isaiah 53:12. “
'kenos' — divested himself of his prestige or privileges. Phil 2:7…An early
Christian confession holds that the kenosis is not the incarnation but the cross [
Isa 53:12 ] .” Bauer's Greek Lexicon of NT Literature.
This was a matter of self-renunciation by Jesus including divesting himself of his
right to incorruptibility that was his because of his sinless condition.
WHEN DID JESUS 'EMPTY HIMSELF'?
The NWT of verse 7 “emptied himself and took a slave's form” gives the
incorrect impression that he emptied himself first and then became a slave;
whereas, the Greek grammatical structure is: “himself he emptied form of slave
having taken”. This shows that Jesus emptied himself because he had already
or at that point in time “taken a slave's form”. Also the word 'and' as used in the
NWT changes the correct order of events; yet this word does not exist in the
Greek and is not implied as Ernst Lohmeyer states. The correct structure also fits
with the context, giving the meaning that Jesus, having become slave-like then
immediately began emptying (daily sacrificing) himself.
Lohmeyer's translation reads : “but sacrificed himself having taken the form of a
slave”
The 'sacrificing' would have been Jesus' entire life course leading to his death.
“In this case the aorist 'ekenosen' (he emptied himself) does not refer to a
single moment of 'incarnation' but the completeness of a series of repeated
acts; his earthly life, looked at as a whole, was an unfailing process of selfemptying.”
A.H. McNeile. former Regius Professor of Divinity.
“We have here an “emptying” related directly to the terrestrial condition of
Christ…” Jerome Murphy O’Connor.
Therefore in his life course Jesus (Messiah-the man) laid aside such rightful
dignity, prerogatives, privileges, and rulership; humbling himself to live a life of
servitude which ended with his death. Would the Philippians be asked to copy
the impossible example of emptying themselves of their essence? Rather, they
were to 'empty' themselves of their contentious, egotistical and selfish nature and
imitate Jesus' lifetime example of humility and self-sacrifice. Paul does not
appeal to us to be like an archangel or heavenly being. He appeals to us to be
humble servants as humans. Additional context is shown when he says in
Philippians 2:17 :”I (Paul) am being poured out like a drink offering upon the
sacrifice and public service to which faith has led you.” Yet Paul's essence was
not poured out.
From 1860, a Lutheran theologian – Gotfried Thomasius began what has now
developed into the false doctrine of kenosis i.e. that Christ emptied himself of
his essence. This seems to be the first time that Philippians 2:7 was
applied in this way. It appears that the main reason for the development of this
doctrine by trinitarians was to explain how Jesus could be God and man without
postulating two centres of consciousness as in the doctrine of the hypostatic
union.
The New International Dictionary of NT Words asks: “Does Phil 2:7 really imply
kenoticism ?
Neither the Gospels nor Phil 2 presents the picture of the abandonment of any
divine attributes” Phil 2:7 does, however, show Jesus accepting the status and
role of a servant. (Mark 10:45; Luke 22: 27; John 13:3-16; 15:20). This dictionary
does, however, show belief in pre-existence, but for other reasons.
WHAT DOES 'TAKING THE FORM OF A BOND-SERVANT' MEAN?
All heavenly beings, including the archangel Michael, have always been servants
of God. So this passage cannot apply to any heavenly being who supposedly
became the human baby Jesus. That is, it does not refer to any change from
‘spirit’ to ‘flesh and blood’. Rather “Taking the form of a bond-servant” means
‘Taking the status of a bond-servant’ with the attitude of mind (vs 5) or disposition
of a servant. So Jesus, although being the Messiah, took on the status of fallen
mankind and did not take up his rights and privileges as Messiah but was
servant-like. There is no thought here of changing into the substance of a
human; neither is any location change indicated; but the simple accepting of a
lowly status by one who by right has a high status.
A growing number of theologians are seeing this passage as being not about
pre-existence but being expressed within the confines of a two stage christology:
1) Jesus is born and lives his life in humility until death. 2) He is resurrected and
exalted.
So Jesus' “having become in the likeness of men” means that he grew up to be
a man just as other men do. The phrase is effectively saying ‘having grown up to
become a man’ Luke 2:40. It is “Not by becoming a man from being something
else (no one can do that), but by becoming fully and completely human.” 'The
Human Face of God
'. p88. J.A.T Robinson. Also “Luther….recognized…. that
Christ had to become a person through the normal process of maturation and
moral growth.” p 79. ibid.
As a MORTAL it is impossible that Jesus had previously existed as an
IMMORTAL i.e.as an angel or heavenly being (Luke 20:36). However Jesus was
only like other men; and not the same as them because they needed to be
reconciled to God, whereas he did not.
Again the phrase about Jesus’ “having been found in fashion (schema) as (a)
man.” has no metaphysical meaning. Similar to morphe ‘schema’ means: 1) the
generally recognized state or form in which something appears, outward
appearance, form or shape. And 2) the functional aspect of something., way of
life, of things; ‘this world in its present form is passing away’ 1 Cor 7:31” Bauer’s
Lexicon. Yet the world of mankind will not have a change of the physical
substance of which it is made but of its character and manner of operation. The
Diaglott renders this as “and being in condition as a man” and REB renders it as
“sharing the human lot.”
So according to Dunn it means that “Christ is being evaluated as Adam – as
representative man, as one with fallen man.” (the 'a' does not apply). Further,
Lohmeyer renders vs 8 “and [though] being found as Son of Man..” This verse is
alternatively rendered as: “having been found in the human scheme of things” or
as “having been found in the human condition.”
Possibly this refers to the time that Jesus came to manhood at about 30 years of
age and then presented himself for a baptism that led to his full servant-hood – a
life of sacrifice.
A PARAPHRASE BASED ON JEREMIAS’
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE PHILIPPIANS HYMN
Strophe I: As the Righteous Man par excellence Christ was the perfect image
of God. He was totally what God intended man to be. His sinless condition gave
him the right to be treated as if he were god, that is, to enjoy the incorruptibility in
which Adam was created. This right, however, he did not use to his own
advantage, but he gave himself over to the consequences of a mode of existence
that was not his by accepting the condition of a slave which involved suffering
and death,
Strophe II: Though in his human nature Christ was identical with other men,
he in fact differed from them because, unlike them, he had no need to be
reconciled with God. Nonetheless, he humbled himself in obedience and
accepted death.
Strophe III: Therefore, God exalted him above all the just who were promised
a kingdom, and transferred to him the title and the authority that had hitherto
been God’s alone. He is the Kyrios whom every voice must confess and to whom
every knee must bow.”
Jerome Murphy O’Connor.
THE CONCLUSIONS OF LEADING BIBLE SCHOLARS
REGARDING PHILIPPIANS 2
“From this fact that the Jewish rather than Hellenistic syncretism may be the key
to understanding the Philippians hymn, present day exegetes have drawn the
radically opposite conclusion that the Philippians hymn does not speak of the
pre-existence of Christ at all.”
Karl-Josef Kuschel p250 “Born Before All Time”
”The picture is not of a celestial figure lowering himself to become a man, to be
exalted still higher than he was before. Rather, it is that the entire fullness of God
was enabled…to find embodiment in one who was completely one of us as any
other descendant of Abraham.”
J A T Robinson. p166 “The Human Face of God”
“The fact that in the context of the hymn in the actual epistle there is no mention
at all of this anonymous divine figure who becomes man…”
James P. Mackey. p52 ” The Christian Experience of God as Trinity.”
“But of pre-existence and equality of being with God we cannot discover any
trace in Paul's letters” Bas van Iersel, p45.'Son of God in the New Testament.'
“Philippians 2:6 is primarily concerned with making statements about high status
and by no means necessarily concerned with pre-existence.” Klaus Berger.
Heidelberg exegete.
“No pre-existence of Christ before the world with an independent significance
can be recognized even in Phil. 2.” Anton Vogtle. Freiburg exegete.
“Moreover it can readily be seen that the outline of thought in the Philippian hymn
fully matches the two-stage Christology evident elsewhere in first generation
Christianity. – free acceptance of man’s lot followed out to death, and exaltation
to the status of Lord over all.”
James Dunn. p115. Christology in the Making.
Recommended reading.
Christology in the Making. James Dunn. Professor of Divinity at the University of
Durham.
Born Before all Time. Karl Joseph Kuschel. Catholic theologian at the University
of Tubingen.
The Human Face of God. John A.T Robinson. Leading Protestant theologian in
the UK
The Christian Experience of God as Trinity. James P. Mackey. Professor of
Divinity.
Christological Anthropology in Phil.,II, 6-11.
Jerome Murphy O’Connor.Renowned Catholic Exegete

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 27 2012,17:47)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 28 2012,10:45) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 27 2012,17:20) Mike, I have never said “Phil 2 explains EXACTLY what say no scripture teaches.” I never claimed you did say it.  You claim that no scripture teaches Jesus existed before being a man.  And I said that Phil 2 teaches EXACTLY what you say no scripture teaches. Phil 2 DOES teach that Jesus was existing as something other than a man before being made into a man. What prophesied, Frank?  The PERSON who was CALLED BY THE NAME “HAGGAI”?  Or a feast?  Which one, Frank? (Surely you can't think a feast prophesied to the Jews, can you?  Why not just answer the question, Frank?) Mike, Nowhere in Scripture does it ever teach that Yahshua existed before being a man.

Phil 2 is one of many scriptures that teach it.  

Frank, do you believe Jesus existed as a man before being made into a man?  YES or NO?

(Please answer the bolded question above also.)

[terraricca]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 28 2012,17:42)

Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 28 2012,10:22) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 28 2012,16:45) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 28 2012,09:40) F Quote terraricca, It is quite obvious from my previous posts that I most certainly do believe that Yahshua existed and it is quite obvious from your previous posts that you can not even form an intelligible English sentence. if you would as truthful as i am in written English you would be better of in Gods truth than you are now , terraricca, You would be better off if you would just shut your pie hole!   F if you keep this up I will hit you with your white cane       terraricca, I don't have a white cane.

F

you should get one it would guide you

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 28 2012,10:57)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 27 2012,17:47) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 28 2012,10:45) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 27 2012,17:20) Mike, I have never said “Phil 2 explains EXACTLY what say no scripture teaches.” I never claimed you did say it.  You claim that no scripture teaches Jesus existed before being a man.  And I said that Phil 2 teaches EXACTLY what you say no scripture teaches. Phil 2 DOES teach that Jesus was existing as something other than a man before being made into a man. What prophesied, Frank?  The PERSON who was CALLED BY THE NAME “HAGGAI”?  Or a feast?  Which one, Frank? (Surely you can't think a feast prophesied to the Jews, can you?  Why not just answer the question, Frank?) Mike, Nowhere in Scripture does it ever teach that Yahshua existed before being a man. Phil 2 is one of many scriptures that teach it.   Frank, do you believe Jesus existed as a man before being made into a man?  YES or NO? (Please answer the bolded question above also.)

Mike,

I believe that I have clearly made known in all of my previous post here that I do not believe Yahshua pre-existed his birth? What part of what I have always made clearly known on this forum do you not understand?

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 28 2012,11:02)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 28 2012,17:42) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 28 2012,10:22) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 28 2012,16:45) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 28 2012,09:40) F Quote terraricca, It is quite obvious from my previous posts that I most certainly do believe that Yahshua existed and it is quite obvious from your previous posts that you can not even form an intelligible English sentence. if you would as truthful as i am in written English you would be better of in Gods truth than you are now , terraricca, You would be better off if you would just shut your pie hole!   F if you keep this up I will hit you with your white cane       terraricca, I don't have a white cane. F you should get one it would guide you

terraricca,

You needed an edit option to type in all that? !!!

[NickHassan]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 28 2012,10:47)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 28 2012,10:45) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 27 2012,17:20) Mike, I have never said “Phil 2 explains EXACTLY what say no scripture teaches.” I never claimed you did say it.  You claim that no scripture teaches Jesus existed before being a man.  And I said that Phil 2 teaches EXACTLY what you say no scripture teaches. Phil 2 DOES teach that Jesus was existing as something other than a man before being made into a man. What prophesied, Frank?  The PERSON who was CALLED BY THE NAME “HAGGAI”?  Or a feast?  Which one, Frank? (Surely you can't think a feast prophesied to the Jews, can you?  Why not just answer the question, Frank?) Mike, Nowhere in Scripture does it ever teach that Yahshua existed before being a man.

Hi Frank,
Quite right.
He was born in Bethlehem.
But the Word did and he is now one with the Word in God.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 27 2012,18:14)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 28 2012,10:57) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 27 2012,17:47) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 28 2012,10:45) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 27 2012,17:20) Mike, I have never said “Phil 2 explains EXACTLY what say no scripture teaches.” I never claimed you did say it.  You claim that no scripture teaches Jesus existed before being a man.  And I said that Phil 2 teaches EXACTLY what you say no scripture teaches. Phil 2 DOES teach that Jesus was existing as something other than a man before being made into a man. What prophesied, Frank?  The PERSON who was CALLED BY THE NAME “HAGGAI”?  Or a feast?  Which one, Frank? (Surely you can't think a feast prophesied to the Jews, can you?  Why not just answer the question, Frank?) Mike, Nowhere in Scripture does it ever teach that Yahshua existed before being a man. Phil 2 is one of many scriptures that teach it.   Frank, do you believe Jesus existed as a man before being made into a man?  YES or NO? (Please answer the bolded question above also.) Mike, I believe that I have clearly made known in all of my previous post here that I do not believe Yahshua pre-existed his birth? What part of what I have always made clearly known on this forum do you not understand?

Frank, do you believe Jesus existed as a man before being made into a man? YES or NO?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 27 2012,18:18)

Hi Frank, Quite right.

Scripturally wrong, Nick. SOMEONE existed in the form of God before being made into a human being. Who was that someone? What does the scripture say?

[Frank4YAHWEH]

THE TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION

There are several phrases in the Philippians 2:5-8 passage that Trinitarians view as proof that Jesus was God in heaven and that JWs view as proof that Jesus was a spirit being from heaven. A typical translation of these verses is:

“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he existed (or “was existing”) in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

TRINITARIAN AND JW ASSUMPTIONS

1. That, by tradition, the passage refers to a Jesus in heaven.

2. The passage refers to a Jesus in heaven because of the past tense “he existed” or “was existing.”

3. That the phrase “form (Gk. morphe) of God” means essence and therefore Jesus was of the same essence as God. Or in the standard Trinitarian view the phrase “form of God” means that Jesus was one essence with God the Father.

4. In the kenotic view Jesus either, in heaven, “emptied himself” of his essence or he, in heaven, “emptied himself” of the privileges he had there.

5. The phrases “being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man…” mean that Jesus was changed in essence from a spirit being into a human.

BRIEF CORRECTION

1. The passage does not say anything about heaven or a past life for Jesus; but rather it refers to “Christ” – “the Son of God” a title he bore only from his birth (Ps 2:7; Luke 1: 32, 35 and Matt. 1:18

2. Even if this translation was correct it need only refer to Jesus’ earthly life now past. However, this phrase is properly translated as “who being” and therefore showing the present participle and not a past tense.

3. The Greek word morphe, in fact, refers to outward appearance and refers to a visible Jesus and therefore not to an invisible Jesus in heaven. Furthermore, “form of God” is contrasted not with ‘form of a man’ but with “form of a slave” – a reference to one’s status or image.

4. The grammar of this phrase is: “…he emptied himself having taken the form of a slave…” Because “form of a slave” is a visible outward appearance Jesus would already (“having taken”) behuman when he emptied or poured out himself. So heaven is not the location where any such emptying took place. Rather, this phrase shows that Jesus made sacrifices throughout his life and finally sacrificed his life (Isaiah 53:12).

5. The word for word reading is: “in likeness of men having become; and to fashion having been found as man…” The context of verses 5-7b puts this phrase only as far back in time

as sometime after Jesus’ birth. As one having willingly taken the form of a slave Jesus took the place of sinful men (Rom. 8:3b, 2 Cor. 5:21). So the likeness here is not a reference to transferring into the physical substance of humankind; but rather of “having become an image of (sinful) humanity” although he wasn’t in himself sinful (1 Pet. 2:22).

The Renowned Catholic biblical scholar Jerome Murphy O’Connor observed that:

Inevitably, those who begin their exegesis of this hymn with the assumption that it concerns a pre-existent divine being tend towards a docetic interpretation of these lines.

A basic difference in Jewish thinking and Greek thinking of the time was that Jews thought in terms of function and would use a great deal of metaphorical language; whereas Greeks thought more in terms of essence or substance, that is ontologically (substance) or metaphysically. Many scholars have now recognized this difference and have adjusted their interpretations accordingly.

BETTER READING OF THE GREEK

Philippians 2:5-9 is best read first from a word for word Greek interlinear translation. Because of a docetic and often Trinitarian pre-existence bias, our current translations do not accurately express the thoughts of these verses. Of course, some translations are better than others and all render many parts of these texts accurately.

The Kingdom Interlinear word for word of the NWT reads:

This be you minding in you which also in Christ Jesus, who in form of God existing not snatching he considered the to be equal (things) to God, but himself he emptied form of slave having taken, in likeness of men having become; and to fashion having been found as man he made lowly himself having become obedient to death.

The literal English form becomes:

Let this thinking be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who existing in the form of God did not consider to be equal to God a thing to be grasped (on to), but he poured out himself having taken the form of a slave, having become in the likeness of men. Having been found in fashion as man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death.

Young’s Literal Translation reads:

For let this mind be in you that is also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God, but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man.

Scholar based Translation:

5 Let each of you adopt this way of thinking, which also was the way of thinking adopted by Messiah Jesus, 6 who being in the perfect visible image{status}of God,did not consider equality with God a thing to be exploited, 7 but he poured himself out, having taken the visible image{status} of a slave, having become in the likeness of men.

THE SUBJECT OF PHILIPPIANS 2:5-9 IS THE HUMAN MESSIAH

Verse 5 says: “Let each of you adopt this way of thinking, which also was the way of thinking adopted by Christ [Messiah]Jesus”

So the subject of these verses is not a pre-existent archangel or heavenly being or ‘God the Son’ but the historical human Messiah Jesus – “For there is…one mediator…a man, Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5) who came into existence at his birth (Luke 1:35, 2:11). It is as O’Connor notes that:

Since the hymn deals with Christ in his concrete terrestrial condition, one should begin with the working hypothesis that the author views Christ as man…The anthropology of Wisdom provides an appropriate background on the assumption that the author of the hymn was thinking of Christ as man.

Also Associate Professor of NT Rodney Decker states regarding Philippians 2 that: “The context shows that it was only as man that Christ emptied himself.”

To this James Mackey adds: “the fact that the subject of the hymn is specifically named as Messiah Jesus, a man like ourselves…”

Furthermore, the Greek term morphe refers to what is seen, so from the beginning the passage is speaking of the fully human visible Jesus.

The CONTEXT is: “but in humility of mind…let this mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus” (verses 3-5). So the subject is not about a change of Jesus’ essence or nature neither does it concern a pre-conception time for Jesus

ADAM CHRISTOLOGY IN CONTRAST TO THE GNOSTIC REDEEMER MYTH

Philippians 2:5-9 is now generally recognized by Bible scholars as a psalm/hymn that was probably drawn from Isaiah 53 concerning “the suffering servant” who “poured out his soul to the death” (verse 12). It is not a theological treatise.

Concerning Philippians Karl-Josef Kuschel informs us that:

So this text would have been a piece of Adam christology, of the kind that also emerges in other contexts in the New Testament. It would be a further example of the widespread two stage christology of the earliest Jewish-Christian communities…and thus would not be in the context of mythical tradition, but of Old Testament tradition. So there is no question here of a pre-existent heavenly figure. Rather Christ is the great contrasting figur
e to Adam. Born Before All Time, p. 251.

In his paper Trinity and Incarnation: In Search of Contemporary Orthodoxy Colin Brown gives his understanding that:

the point of the hymn is not a comparison between Christ’s pre-existent state as the divine son in glory and his state of humiliation as a servant. Rather, it is a comparison between Christ and Adam in which the term “form of God” is the equivalent of saying “Image of God

Further confirmation of this James Dunn informs us that:

these passages were written in the middle of the first century, and the most obvious and really clear meaning is the Adam theology and christology widespread in earliest Christianity. In short, Adam christology provides not only a plausible context of thought for Phil 2:6-11 but also the most plausible context of thought. Alternative explanations in terms of a Gnostic or proto-Gnostic Primal Man speculation are not only unnecessary but also unconvincing…we have uncovered no real evidence that the concept of a heavenly archetype of Adam had developed beyond that of a Platonic idea by the time of Paul – no real evidence, in other words, of an already established belief in a heavenly first man who became the redeemer of Adam’s offspring.

Christology in Making pp. 125,126.

NOTE:

Two stage Christology means that there was no pre-existent life but only:

1) Jesus was born and lived his life in humility until death.

2) He was resurrected and exalted.

NOT A PAST TENSE “WAS IN THE FORM OF GOD”

In verse 6 of the Greek, Jesus is described as “existing (being) in the form of God.” It does not say was, was existing or existed. “Being” is used in Young’s Literal, KJV, NKJV, NJB and NIV.

Kuschel states that the word “being (hypachon)”: “is a present participle; i.e. it does not define any particular time.” Born Before All Time, p. 258.

Examples are: “being a prophet” (Acts 2:30); “If you being a Jew” (Gal. 2:14). These do not mean being so before birth or ceasing to be so.

THE MEANING OF ‘MORPHE’

Kenneth Wuest shows that by Koine Greek times morphe had come to have the meaning of:

…station in life, a position one holds, one’s rank. And that is an approximation of morphe in this context [Phil 2]. The Practical use of the Greek New Testament, p. 84.

The context confirms this understanding because being a slave is per se, a matter of status, rank, or position. In modern English the word metamorphosis can involve the change in appearance of a person e.g. weight-loss, or a change in a person’s character or function. But they are still a human and they have not undergone a change to a radically different substance. So morphe is here not being used in the Greek philosophical sense and therefore does not carry the thought of change in the ontological sense i.e. the substance or essence of something.

The contrast is:

Being in the morphe of God is an expression of divinity. Bauer’s Gk/Eng Lexicon.

Being in the morphe of a slave is an expression of servility. ” ” “

Additionally morphe: = the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance. Thayer.

= external appearance. Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of NT.

= outward appearance. Walter Bauer’s Greek Lexicon.

Morphe and eikon (image) are near synonyms. F.W. Eltester has shown that eikon and morphe are used as interchangeable terms in the Septuagint. Commenting on the contrast between “form of God” (morphe theou) and “form of a slave” (morphe doulou)Jerome

Murphy O’Connor notes that:

The absolute fidelity of Christ justified the choice of an alternative term (morphe rather than eikon), and permitted the contrast between morphe theou and morphe doulou.

So, rather than interpreting morphe in Greek philosophical terms, Jesus’ “being in the image/form of God” means that, as the human Messiah, he was the visible imageof God, having divine status. As Son of God he had the right to function as God as had the rulers in Israel who functioned as gods (Psalm 82:6; John 10:34) e.g. “See I have made you [Moses] God to Pharaoh” (Ex. 7:1). Also the scribes state: “who can forgive sins except one, God?”(Mark 2:7). Yet, as Jesus said this authority was delegated to him by God:

“Butthat you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins upon the earth.”(Mark 2:10).

Jesus was also granted authority to raise the dead (John 5:21). Further:“all judgment has been entrusted to the Son” (John 5:22, 23). Therefore he functions as God but is not of God’s essence or substance.

NOTE: To convey the idea of essential nature one would have to use the word eidos rather than morphe.

THE ATTITUDE OF CHRIST CONTRASTED WITH THAT OF ADAM

Jesus did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped onto (Gk. harpagmos).

James Dunn notes the alternatives as being:

something that was not possessed and so grasped at, or something already possessed and so grasped retentively (the ambiguity of harpagmos).

Christology in the Making, p. 116.

ADAM GRASPED FOR EQUALITY WITH GOD

Satan told Eve that she could “be like God”—having the same status as God because of the premature and inappropriate acquisition of power through knowledge (Genesis 3:5). After Adam’s sin God said “the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil” (3:22). This was a snatching at equality with God in respect to knowledge prematurely, yet offered by Satan rather than God. Yet God denied Adam the prize of immortality by denying them further access to the tree of life.

JESUS DID NOT EXPLOIT HIS EQUALITY WITH GOD

In contrast with Adam, Jesus, through his humility, did not exploit his privileges as being the Lord Messiah. So it would seem that harpagmos in this instance is best expressed as in the NRSV:

“…who, though he was in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited.”

This presents the phrase “he was in the form {status} of God” as meaning “being equal with God.”

Karl-Joseph Kuschel similarly explains:

That the Philippianshymn does not speak of the pre-existence of Christ at all … but in good Jewish fashion as the counterpart of Adam … His sinless condition gave him the right to be treated as if he were God. Born Before All Time, pp. 250-252.

James Mackey states that:

there is scarcely enough difference between the Greek words eikon and morphe to prevent us from seeing in the Genesis creation and garden stories the source of our two phrases: man created in God’s image and likeness and grasping after some status of equality with God (‘become like one of us’, ‘be like God’).

The Christian experience of God as Trinity, p.272.

WHAT DOES “EMPTIED HIMSELF” MEAN? THE DOCTRINE OF KENOSIS

From 1860, a Lutheran theologian – Gotfried Thomasius began what has now developed into the false DOCTRINE OF KENOSIS i.e. that Christ emptied himself of his essence. This seems to be the first time that Philippians 2:7 was applied in this way. It appears that the main reason for the development of this doctrine by some Trinitarians was to explain how Jesus could be God and man without postulating two centres of consciousness as in the doctrine of the hypostatic union.

DID JESUS EMPTY HIMSELF OF HIS DIVINITY OR ‘GOD-FORM’

The New International Dictionary of NT Words asks:

Does Phil 2:7 really imply kenoticism? Neither the Gospels nor Phil 2 presents the picture of the abandonment of any divine attributes.

This dictionary does, however, show belief in pre-existence, but for other reasons. Nevertheless Philippians 2:7 does show Jesus accepting the status and role of a servant. (Mark 10:45; Luke 22:27; John 13:3-16 and 15:20). So does this mean that Jesus emptied himself of himself or of his ‘diety/divinity’ (Trinitarian) or ‘god-form’ (JW)
as if this were his essence? If he did empty himself of these attributes then we must ask:

1. How were the cosmic functions of the 2nd Person of the Trinity or the Archangel Michael maintained during his earthly sojourn?

2. How can one lay aside ones qualities, abilities, power, and knowledge and still be the same person? Michael could no longer be Michael

Colin Brown states that:

.”… In short, the emptying of Phil 2:6 does not seem to me to have anything to do with a supposed metaphysical change of states, but has everything to do with the life of servanthood.

BETTER TRANSLATION CONTEXTUALLY

The phrase“emptied himself” (Greek ekenosen) is also translated as: “but made himself of no reputation” KJV, NKJ.

However, Grant Osborne professor of New Testament points out that:

There is no (genitive of) context given for the “emptying,” and it is better in this light to recognize the intransitive nature of the verb. In the semantic range another use fits the context better, to “pour out” or “make himself nothing.” This fits the transition from “did not consider the equality a thing to be grasped” to “took on the form of a servant” as well as the parallelism with “humbled” in verse 8. A proper regard for context removes the necessity of debating with the Kenotic school on their own grounds.

The Hermeneutical Spiral, p. 75.

So ekenosen is more correctly translated as “but made himself nothing” ESV, NIV, NLT or “but made himself as nothing” BBE. It is a parallel thought to “poured out his soul to the death” (Isaiah 53:12). Bauer’s Gk/Eng Lexicon of NT Literature says that: “An early Christian confession holds that the kenosis is not the incarnation but the cross (Isaiah 53:12).” This was a matter of self-renunciation by Jesus including divesting himself of his right to immortality/incorruptibility, something that was his because of his sinless condition. Paul was imitating Jesus’ example when he said:

“I did not run or labor for nothing (Gk. kenon)” (Phil. 2:16 NIV).

WHEN DID JESUS “MAKE HIMSELF AS NOTHING?”

The NWT of verse 7 “emptied himself and took a slave’s form” gives the incorrect impression that he emptied himself first and then became a slave; whereas, the Greek grammatical structure is: “himself he emptied form of slave having taken.” This shows that Jesus emptied himself because he had already or at that point in time “taken a slave’s form.” Also the word and as used in the NWT changes the correct order of events; yet this word does not occur in the Greek text and is not implied as Ernst Lohmeyer states. The correct structure also fits with the context, giving the meaning that Jesus, having become slave-like then immediately began emptying (daily sacrificing) himself.

Lohmeyer’s translation reads:

“…but sacrificed himself having taken the form of a slave.”

The sacrificing would have been Jesus’ entire life course leading to his death.

As A.H. McNeile former Regius Professor of Divinity expresses it:

In this case the aorist ‘ekenosen’ (he emptied himself) does not refer to a single moment of ‘incarnation’ but the completeness of a series of repeated acts; his earthly life, looked at as a whole, was an unfailing process of self-emptying.

Or from Jerome Murphy O’Connor: “We have here an ‘emptying’ related directly to the terrestrial condition of Christ…”

Therefore, in his life course Jesus [Messiah-the man] laid aside such rightful dignity, prerogatives (immortality), privileges, and rulership; humbling himself to live a life of servitude which ended with his death. Would the Philippians be asked to copy the impossible example of emptying themselves of their essence? Rather, they were to “empty” themselves of their contentious, egotistical and selfish nature and imitate Jesus’ lifetime example of humility and self-sacrifice. Paul does not appeal to us to be like an archangel or heavenly being. He appeals to us to be humble servants as humans. Additional context is shown when he says:

“I (Paul) am being poured out like a drink offering upon the sacrifice and public service to which faith has led you” (Phil. 2:17).

Certainly Paul’s essence was not poured out.

WHAT DOES “TAKING THE FORM OF A SLAVE” MEAN?

All heavenly beings, including the archangel Michael, have always been servants of God. So this passage cannot apply to any heavenly being who supposedly became the human baby Jesus. That is, it does not refer to any change from spirit substance to flesh and blood. Rather, for Jesus “taking the form of a slave” means taking the status of a slave with the attitude of mind (verse 5) or disposition of a servant. So Jesus, although being the Messiah,

took onthe status of fallen mankind to become a servant of mankind and did not take up his rights and privileges as Messiah. There is no thought here of changing into the substance of a human; neither is any location change indicated; but the simple acceptance of a lowly status by one who, by right, has a high status. A growing number of theologians are viewing this passage as being not about pre-existence but being expressed within the confines of a two stage Christology. So Jesus’ “having become in the likeness of men” means that he grew up to be a man just as sinful men do. The phrase is effectively saying having grown up to become a man as other men are (Luke 2:40).

It is as J.A.T Robinson in The Human Face of God states:

Not by becoming a man from being something else (no one can do that), but by becoming fully and completely human. p. 88.

Also Robinson notes that: “Luther…recognized…that Christ had to become a person through the normal process of maturation and moral growth, p. 79.

As a mortal it is impossible that Jesus had previously existed as an immortal i.e. as an angel or heavenly being (Luke 20:36). However, Jesus was only like other men and not the same as them because they needed to be reconciled to God, whereas he did not. Again the phrase about Jesus’ “having been found in fashion (schema) as (a) man.” has no metaphysical meaning. Similar to morphe schema means:

1) the generally recognized state or form in which something appears, outward appearance, form or shape. And 2) the functional aspect of something, way of life, of things; ‘this world in its present form is passing away’ (1 Cor. 7:31) Bauer’s Lexicon.

Yet the world of mankind will not have a change of the physical substance of which it is made, but rather of its character and manner of operation. The Diaglott renders this as “and being in condition as a man” and REB renders it as “sharing the human lot.” So according to Dunn it means that: “Christ is being evaluated as Adam – as representative man, as one with fallen man.” (the ‘a’ does not apply).

Further, Lohmeyer renders verse 8: “and [though] being found as Son of Man.” This verse is alternatively rendered as: “…having been found in the human scheme of things” or as “having been found in the human condition.” Possibly this refers to the time that Jesus came to manhood at about 30 years of age and then presented himself for a baptism that led to his full servant-hood – a life of sacrifice.

ERNST LOHMEYER RECOGNIZED THE ORIGINAL HYMN AS BEING OF TWO STROPHES OF 3-LINE STANZAS

6 [The one] existing in the form of God

considered it not plunder

to be like God,

7 but sacrificed himself,

having taken the form of a slave,

having become an image of humanity;

and [though] being found “as Son of Man”

8 he humbled himself,

having become obedient unto death

[death on a cross]. (Paul’s added comment)

9 And therefore God exalted him highly

and bestowed on him

the name above every name,

10 that in the name of Jesus

every knee should bow

in heaven, earth, and the
underworld,

11 and every tongue acclaim:

“Jesus Christ is Lord”

to the glory of God, the Father.

TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY ON PHILIPPIANS 2:1-11

“1 So if there is any encouragement in Messiah, if any consolation of love, if any sharing in spirit, if any affection and compassions, 2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full harmony, and of one mind. 3 Do nothing out of selfish rivalry or empty conceit, but in humility consider others more important than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look out not only for your own interests, but also for the interests of others.

The Self-Sacrificing Choice Made by Messiah – Ultimate Example of Humility

5 Let each of you adopt this way of thinking, which also was the way of thinking adopted by Messiah Jesus,

6 who being in the perfect visible image{status}of God [as Adam was], did not consider equality [representatively] with God a thing to be exploited,

7 but he poured himself out [a life of self-sacrifice: 2:17 and Isa 53:12],having taken the visible image{status} of a slave [like Adam after his fall into sin], having become in the likeness of men .

So having been identified as [representative] man, 8 he humbled himself [becoming the sin offering] and became obedient to death—even to death on a cross.

9 For this reason,God highly exalted him [as the Last Adam] and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus the Messiah is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

THE CONCLUSIONS OF LEADING BIBLE SCHOLARS REGARDING PHILIPPIANS TWO

“Several scholars have noted that “form of God” may be the equivalent of “image of God.” Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, J.D.G. Dunn, and others have suggested (in my judgment rightly) that the work is not about pre-existence and postexistence, but about the contrast between Christ and Adam.” Professor Colin Brown in his paper: Kyrios Jesus Revisited

“From this fact that the Jewish rather than Hellenistic syncretism may be the key to understanding the Philippians hymn, present day exegetes have drawn the radically opposite conclusion that the Philippians hymn does not speak of the pre-existence of Christ at all.”

Karl-Josef Kuschel. Born Before All Time? p. 250.

“The fact that in the context of the hymn in the actual epistle there is no mention at all of this anonymous divine figure who becomes man”

James P. Mackey. The Christian Experience of God as Trinity, p. 52.

“The picture is not of a celestial figure lowering himself to become a man, to be exalted still higher than he was before. Rather, it is that the entire fullness of God was enabled…to find embodiment in one who was completely one of us as any other descendant of Abraham”

J. A. T. Robinson. The Human Face of God, p.166.

“But of pre-existence and equality of being with God we cannot discover any trace in Paul’s letters.”Bas van Iersel. Son of God in the New Testament, p. 45.

“Philippians 2:6 is primarily concerned with making statements about high status and by no means necessarily concerned with pre-existence.”

Klaus Berger. Heidelberg Protestant exegete

“No pre-existence of Christ before the world with an independent significance can be recognized even in Phil. 2.” Anton Vogtle. Freiburg exegete

“Moreover it can readily be seen that the outline of thought in the Philippian hymn fully matches the two-stage Christology evident elsewhere in first generation Christianity – free acceptance of man’s lot followed out to death, and exaltation to the status of Lord over all”

James Dunn. Christology in the Making, p. 115.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 28 2012,11:19)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 27 2012,18:14) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 28 2012,10:57) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 27 2012,17:47) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 28 2012,10:45) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 27 2012,17:20) Mike, I have never said “Phil 2 explains EXACTLY what say no scripture teaches.” I never claimed you did say it.  You claim that no scripture teaches Jesus existed before being a man.  And I said that Phil 2 teaches EXACTLY what you say no scripture teaches. Phil 2 DOES teach that Jesus was existing as something other than a man before being made into a man. What prophesied, Frank?  The PERSON who was CALLED BY THE NAME “HAGGAI”?  Or a feast?  Which one, Frank? (Surely you can't think a feast prophesied to the Jews, can you?  Why not just answer the question, Frank?) Mike, Nowhere in Scripture does it ever teach that Yahshua existed before being a man. Phil 2 is one of many scriptures that teach it.   Frank, do you believe Jesus existed as a man before being made into a man?  YES or NO? (Please answer the bolded question above also.) Mike, I believe that I have clearly made known in all of my previous post here that I do not believe Yahshua pre-existed his birth? What part of what I have always made clearly known on this forum do you not understand?   Frank, do you believe Jesus existed as a man before being made into a man?  YES or NO?

Mike,

I believe that I have made it quite clear that I do not believe Yahshua pre-existed his birth here on earth as a man. What part of this do you not understand?

[NickHassan]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 28 2012,11:20)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 27 2012,18:18) Hi Frank, Quite right. Scripturally wrong, Nick.  SOMEONE existed in the form of God before being made into a human being.  Who was that someone?  What does the scripture say?

Hi MB,
The Spirit of CHRIST was in the form of God.
Jesus CHRIST is the same yesterday, today and forever

[Frank4YAHWEH]

WHAT DOES PRE-HUMAN EXISTENCE REALLY MEAN?
In philosophical ideas the concept of the pre-human existence of a spirit person in heaven
with an intangible body who later became the human embryo that was Jesus in Mary’s womb
has been proposed to mean either that:
1. The whole spirit person was transferred completely and directly into the womb of
Mary. Or
2. The whole spirit person was changed directly into a human embryo in Mary’s
womb. Or
3. The personality of the spirit person was transferred directly into the human embryo.
Or
4. The life or intangible life-force of the spirit person was transferred directly into the
human embryo.
ANALYSING JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES’ TEACHING
OF A PRE-HUMAN JESUS
Jehovah’s Witnesses and the various Bible Student groups teach that Jesus, on earth, was
fully human and was the equal of the pristine Adam. This teaching means that he was not a
hybrid – part human/part spirit creature. Yet these denominations also teach that Jesus had a
pre-human existence, having been created as a spirit before the Genesis creation. Then at the
time of Jesus’ conception the spirit creature’s life was transferred to Mary’s womb. The Bible
Student groups generally do not accept the Jehovah’s Witnesses teaching that Jesus was
previously the archangel Michael; but nevertheless they believe that he previously was a spirit
person existing in heaven. However, the same reasoning applies in both camps and in support
of such teaching appeal is made to Philippians 2 and the concept of kenosis whereby a spirit
person completely emptied himself of himself and entered Mary’s womb. (This teaching is a
form of Arianism).
NOTE: The concept of Kenosis is also appealed to by many Trinitarians. Please see STUDY 15 which
shows that Philippians 2 does not teach any ontological emptying by Jesus of his essence.
In analysing the four proposals stated at the beginning it is evident that:
#1 If the whole spirit person had been transferred completely and directly into the womb
of Mary it would create a physical hybrid i.e. part spirit person/part human and is the very
Gnostic teaching which early Christianity slaved to keep out of the congregation; yet it
reappeared in the form of the later speculations in Trinitarianism whereby a proposed ‘God
the Son’ entered Mary’s womb and was born as Jesus – a being who was a God/man. If this
concept were applied to Michael the archangel it would result in an angel/man.
#2 If the whole spirit person had been changed completely into a human embryo in
Mary’s womb then a fully human Jesus would be the result. However, such a change would:
 Be a Greek philosophical speculation which has also been used by science fiction writers.
 Break God’s law for there being no crossing of the barriers of the species i.e. everything as
being kept “according to its kind” (Gen. 1:21, 24).
 Preclude any past connection with the previous life regarding character, accumulated
knowledge, wisdom, and powers because Jesus would go through the stages from embryo
1
to child etc. So we must ask: At what point in his life would Jesus have acquired such
abilities? However, the Bible provides no hint of any time when he gained these, only that
God did miraculous works through him (Acts 2:22, 23; 10:38; John 5:19, 14:10b). In other
words Jesus never, at any time, intrinsically had any super powers or abilities. So this
proposal would be a pointless exercise and Jehovah may just as well have directly made
another Adam from the dust of the ground.
#3 If the life as the personality of the spirit person had been transferred directly into the
human embryo, then a hybrid human Jesus would still be the result, because of his having the
character, accumulated knowledge, wisdom, and abilities of the super-powerful spirit person.
But this concept would mean that:
 Personality is something separate from body? But is one’s body only the external and the
personality only the internal part of a person? Such an idea smacks of the pagan Greek
concept of the inner person as being a separate soul.
 Such a person would, in some sense, be superhuman and therefore not really a human.
#4 If the life as the intangible life-force of the spirit person had been transferred directly
into the human embryo, then, in biblical terms, an impossible scenario arises because life or
life-force is impersonal and pervades all of living creation. So there could be no transferral
of the intangible life-force of any specific spirit person, which leaves the creation of a Jesus
who is fully and purely human with no connection to any past life.
FOLLOWING THE LOGIC OF WBTS TEACHING
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society appears to have presented very little reasoning on
what the concept of a pre-human Jesus must mean or how such a concept really works. Their
Bible encyclopaedia Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 2, p. 56 speaks of: “the transferral of the life
of his first-born son from the spirit realm to earth.” Additionally they teach that:
1. Spirit persons have bodies:
“the bodies of spirit persons (God, Christ, the angels) are glorious”
Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1 p.348.
2. The soul (the whole person) = body + spirit.
3. Spirit = life, life force or life principle all of which are impersonal. See Insight on the
Scriptures Vol. 2, p. 246, sub-heading ‘Organism.’
Yet the WBTS also teaches that only the archangel Michael’s life was transferred to Mary’s
womb. So because they teach that creatures in heaven have spiritual bodies [albeit intangible]
we must ask what does such transferral of life mean? Was the spirit person’s body also
transferred or was it left lifeless in heaven?
MICHAEL REALLY GOES OUT OF EXISTENCE.
If only the archangel Michael’s or other spirit person’s life was transferred to Mary’s
womb by being separated from his body, then his lifeless spirit body would be left in
heaven. He would no longer be a soul (whole person). His person would have ceased
existence when his body and life were separated.
NO PERSONALITY IS TRANSFERRED TO MARY
If only the archangel Michael’s or other spirit person’s life was transferred to Mary’s
womb, it would mean that an impersonal force would have come from heaven and into
Mary so that no personality from Michael could be present in Mary’s womb because life
2
NO PRE-HUMAN EXISTENCE
(spirit) is impersonal. Yet the WBTS maintains the contradictory position that:
the child retained identity as the same person who had resided in heaven as the
Word…and that he was a genuine descendant of David.
This proposition, that clearly contradicts the above WBTS teachings, creates for them the
impossible situation that Jesus would have been genetically entirely from Mary and
nothing to do with the characteristics/personality of the archangel Michael. It would also
mean that Michael’s impersonal life force simply and impossibly used Jesus’ body as a
carrier for 33 years until Jesus was killed.
THE PRE-HUMAN EXISTENCE OF A PERSON IS ILLOGICAL
Because no one can exist before they exist it is posited that Michael gave up who he was to
become a human. However, no one can give up who they are and continue to be the same
person. So the connection with Michael is completely lost. Again, such ideas only originate in
Greek mythology.
JESUS WOULD HAVE BEEN EITHER A HYBRID OR A SPIRIT IN HUMAN FORM
For Jesus to have been 100% human neither the ‘life’ nor the personality nor the complete
spirit creature could be part of his constitution and so no spirit creature or his ‘life’ or
personality could have been transferred to Mary’s womb; otherwise, he would indeed have
been either a hybrid or entirely a spirit having taken on human form. These factors make the
whole concept taught by these denomin
ations impossible. In fact, although denied by the
WBTS and the Bible Students organizations, the concept of a pre-human existence or what is
commonly called pre-existence really would require the creation of a single person having two
natures—human and spirit and therefore being a hybrid.
THE PROBLEM OF TWO NATURES
To deal with the problem of two natures Trinitarians teach that God the Son assumed
impersonal human nature so that Jesus is called man in the generic sense but not a
man. Although denied, a similar problem logically arises for those with the Arian
teaching (substitute God the Son for Archangel/Spirit). To deal with this problem appeal is
made to the Doctrine of Kenosis concerning the supposed emptying out of the essence and
nature of a spirit creature. This doctrine is unsupportable for a number of reasons explained
in STUDY 15. Technically: A spirit creature genetically combined with Mary’s egg =
a hybrid. This is similar to a Nephilim which is the product of angelic/human sexual union
(Gen. 6:1-4) and therefore not a genuine human. He would be neither human nor spirit and
could not be the equal of the pristine Adam. Furthermore, if the impossibility of the
life i.e. the personality could have been transferred to the embryo in Mary’s womb then again
jesus would have been a hybrid. If Jesus had really been a previously existing spirit person it
would seem utterly pointless for him to have divested himself of all the wisdom and
knowledge inherently associated with his ability as agent of the Genesis creation and then
have to acquire some of it again. The Scriptures clearly show Jesus as having to acquire
wisdom:
 “Jesus went on growing in wisdom and physical growth and in favor with God and
men” (Luke 2:52).
A being that looks like a man, but has a pre-existent pre-human mind with pre-human
memories and character attributes, is fundamentally different to all other men. Of course, no
3
embryo or baby could cope with such a full knowledge and wisdom that any spirit being has.
So it seems pointless to transfer an angel’s life into a human womb. In such an imagined
transfer Michael evidently would have brought nothing of himself into Mary’s womb, so
there was no retaining of Michael’s (or other spirit person’s) personal identity. In
reality Jesus built his entire character as the man Jesus so as to establish himself in God’s
favour! Such character development could not in any way connect to that of an angel/spirit
being because Jesus was developing within the human framework.
Furthermore, there is no Scripture which states that Jehovah revealed to Jesus that he had
previously existed before becoming human.
NOTE: In reality the phrase pre-human existence of Jesus makes no sense because one is either human
or not. This false concept is better expressed as: the non-human origin of Jesus.
ANALOGY
As an analogy consider that if someone removes a car engine from say a Nissan Micra
and has it fitted into a Rolls Royce does one still have a genuine Rolls Royce? Absolutely not!!
It is a very substandard hybrid Rolls Royce/Micra. So if a powerful spirit creature existed in
heaven and then was transferred to the womb of a human woman, he still carries with him the
spirit equivalent of DNA which is then hybridized with human genetics and so is sub-standard
in all respects rather than his being the perfect human that is detailed in the Scriptures. It is
no good for Jehovah’s Witnesses to claim that they view Jesus as 100% human because that
does not fit with their presentation of a scenario in which a pre-existent spirit is reformed in
the womb of a human. Again please note the impossibility of transferring a personality
without its body.
SMACKS OF PAGANISM
However, the Scriptures show that Jesus did not have two natures, therefore making it
impossible for him to have had a pre-human existence unless we say that an entire spirit
person was transferred directly into Mary’s womb with no connection being made with
any of her genetic material. If so, then Mary would simply have been a surrogate rather than
Jesus’ real mother and Jesus would have been fully spirit but changed into human form and
so have been an incarnation. Such a concept, found within the rejected Greek Gnostic
teaching of the second century, smacks of paganism inasmuch as it is associated with the idea
of pre-existing souls commonly found also in Buddhism and Hinduism.
JESUS WAS NOT TRANSFERRED – HE WAS BEGOTTEN
In the case of a so-called pre-human Jesus the human nature must have come from the
human Davidic line through Mary’s chromosomes, and the second nature must have come
supposedly by the transfer of something of an existing spirit creature implanted in Mary by
God. So clearly the teaching that Jesus was 100% human and yet had a pre-human existence
is contradictory; and more importantly, such a supposed transferring of an already existing
person goes beyond the description of the origin of Jesus in Luke and Matthew or, in fact, any
Scripture. Nowhere do the Scriptures speak of any transfer of a life form into Mary’s womb.
Rather Matthew 1:20 speaks of “that which was begotten (generated) in her.” To generate
something means to bring it into existence.
THE GENUINE 100% HUMANITY OF JESUS
The teaching that a pre-existing person called the Word or Michael was implanted in
Mary’s womb, rather than human male genetics created miraculously by God, would mean
that Jesus could not be fully human. The Scriptures make it clear that holy spirit
4
NO PRE-HUMAN EXISTENCE
“overshadowed” Mary to produce this second human “Son of God”:
 “But Mary said to the angel: “How is this to be, since I am having no intercourse with a
man?” In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the
Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy,
God’s Son” (Luke 1:34, 35).
 “…since the ‘young children’ are sharers of blood and flesh (mortal human nature) he
[Jesus] also similarly partook of the same things … he was obliged to become like his
brothers in all respects” (Heb. 2:14, 17).
Catholic writer Thomas Hart states:
Christ both divine and human makes genuine humanity impossible…if there are
two natures in him, it is clear which will dominate and Jesus becomes immediately very
different from us…what kind of temptation is this?
Professor of theology John Knox comments:
the assertion of Christ’s pre-existence, placed a strain, so to speak, upon the
humanity of Jesus which it was unable to bear…it is simply incredible that a divine
person should have become a fully and normal human person—that is, if he was also
to continue to be, in his essential identity, the same person.
The Humanity and Divinity of Christ
NO PART OF JESUS WAS A SPIRIT BEING
 “…persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh (Gk en sarki). This is the
deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 7).
In promoting the humanity of Jesus, John’s statement was to counter the false teaching of
Gnostic docetism which taught that Jesus only seemed to be human and that as a spirit he
came into a human body rather than coming as a human.
THE DESCENDANT FROM DAVID OR THE PERSON FROM HEAVEN
— BUT NOT BOTH
The two natures teaching and the incarnation teaching are totally at odds with the
Scriptures because Jesus is shown to be a lineal descendant of Abraham and David
(Matt.1:1) and so having genetics transmitted from them to Mary; otherwise Jesus would not
have been a descendant of David because of being not from the human gene pool.
Furthermore, the scriptural fact remains that Jesus has a single nature—human, partly from
the female genetics of Mary and partly from male genetics provided by the “power of the Most
High.” Only a combin
ation of female and male human genetics can produce a
human.
Although we do not have detailed information to explain how the begetting of Jesus took
place we do know that “power of the Most High will overshadow you [Mary]” (Luke 1:35). In
this statement there is no mention of the transfer of another entity into Mary’s womb.
However, if we imagine that it had been actually possible for the real disembodied
personality or life-force of Michael to be transferred to Mary’s womb and to have been
combined with the Davidic genetics in one of Mary’s eggs, then Jesus would have been a
hybrid who was half human and half archangel. Such a concept does not fit with the biblical
data.
5
ADAM AS A TYPE OF JESUS
Jesus was the equivalent “of Adam, who is a type of him that was to come” (Rom. 5:14
note KIT). As a mortal it is impossible that Jesus had previously existed as an immortal i.e.
as an angel or other spirit creature (Luke 20:36).
THE TEMPTATIONS
The Scriptures show that, when being tested, Jesus had no supernatural advantage over
any other human; yet this is exactly what he would have had if he had previously been a spirit
person. However, Jesus was:
 “…one who has been tested in all respects like ourselves, but without sin” (Heb. 4:15).
If Jesus had any recollection of a previous life as the agent of the Genesis creation it would
have rendered his temptation virtually futile. To put Jesus in such a position would
dramatically detract from his superb achievement in having been tested and yet not sinned.
THE DISCIPLES POSE NO EXCITED QUESTIONS ABOUT
PRIOR LIFE IN HEAVEN
If, in fact, Jesus was telling his disciples that his previous residence was heaven with
God and all the angels why do the Scriptures not record a vast array of questions from the
disciples as to what it was like in heaven and what angels are really like and indeed what God
is really like. Instead, the writers made much of the fact that, after resurrection, Jesus went to
heaven to sit at God’s right hand.
JESUS WAS 100% HUMAN AFTER HIS RESURRECTION
 “…he [God] has set a day…to judge the inhabited earth by a man whom he has appointed”
(Acts 17:31).
 “…Jesus…a man having been attested to you” (Acts 2:22 UBS).
 “There is one mediator…a man Christ Jesus” (1Tim. 2:5).
 “…resurrection is also through a man” (1 Cor. 15:21).
 “The first man Adam” (1 Cor. 15: 45).
The term Adam is with reference to mankind and implies that “the last Adam” is also fully
human, albeit glorified and immortal.
THE NATURAL BODY EXISTED BEFORE THE SPIRITUAL BODY
 “The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Nevertheless the first is not that which is spiritual but that which is natural (soulical KIT)”
(1 Cor. 15:45, 46).
Indeed, Adam (“the first…that which is natural”) came into existence before Jesus (“the
spiritual”). So Adam existed prior to Jesus in any literal form. For Jesus to be the last Adam
he clearly must have his entire origin in the human gene pool, being no hybrid and so making
him as entirely human as Adam was.
THERE WAS NEVER ANY ISSUE OVER A PRE-HUMAN JESUS
IN THE FIRST CENTURY
Whenever there is a change of highly significant beliefs or procedures controversy is
inevitable. This was true in the 1st century during the transition period from Judaism to
6
NO PRE-HUMAN EXISTENCE
Christianity when there were indeed a number of major teachings and practices that changed.
Some of these issues caused controversies among Christians themselves and some of these
issues led to persecution of Christians by the Jewish leaders. So did the issue of a pre-existent
Jesus fall into either of these categories?
· Was there, in the biblical record any issue among Christians over whether or not Jesus had
been the archangel Michael who then was transferred into Mary’s womb?
· Was this, according to the biblical record, a teaching that was preached so that there would
be discontent and even persecution of Christians by the Jewish leadership who were
expecting a Messiah entirely from the human gene pool i.e. one descended from Abraham
through David?
· Was this a teaching that was preached only to the Gentiles who would be more receptive to
the Platonic concept of pre-existence
THE MAIN FIRST CENTURY CONTROVERSIES AMONG CHRISTIANS
1. The accepting of Gentile Christians as now being the people of God along with Jewish
Christians (Gal. 2:11-14).
2. Gentile believers not being required to keep the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:23-29).
3. Jewish Christians not being required to keep the Mosaic Law (Col. 2:16, 17; Heb 10:10).
4. Correct usage of the Gifts of the spirit (1 Cor. 12-14).
5. Orderliness at meetings (1 Cor.14:34-40; 1Tim. 2:8-15).
6. The respectful celebrating of the Lord’s Evening Meal (1 Cor. 11).
However, it is evident that the controversies of the 1st century Christian Congregation never
involved whether or not Jesus had previously been Michael the archangel or any other spirit
person. Was this because the Jewish Christians expected a Messiah who had pre-existed and
therefore it was not an issue for any of them? No. The Jews of the 1st century did not believe in
a coming Messiah who pre-existed himself i.e. one who had previously been a different
creature in heaven, but rather one who was fully part of humanity. They expected a Messiah
entirely from the human gene pool i.e. one descended from Abraham through David? (Please
see STUDIES 13 and 14). Furthermore, almost all leading scholars agree that the concept of preexistence
was entirely of pagan Greek origin and not taught in the Hebrew Scriptures.
ISSUES BRINGING PERSECUTION FROM THE JEWISH LEADERSHIP
1. The resurrection of Jesus as proclaimed by Peter and John (Acts 4:2; 5:28).
2. That Jesus would destroy the temple and “alter the customs which Moses handed down to
us” as supposedly proclaimed by Stephen (Acts 6:14; 7:54-58).
3. That Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God as proclaimed by Paul (Acts 9:20-22). (Acts
9:23-25).
4. For Paul’s bringing a Gentile [Trophimus from Ephesus] into the inner courts of the
Temple in Jerusalem (Acts 21:28-29).
5. For Paul’s preaching that Jesus had died and was now alive” (Acts 25:18-19).
7
As can be seen from this list the Christian teaching issues concerning Jesus which brought
down the wrath of the Jewish religious leaders concerned the claim that he is the Messiah
and that he was resurrected. If the earliest Christians had preached about a pre-existent
Messiah they would have been severely persecuted by the Jewish leadership for preaching a
significantly distorted version of the coming Messiah. However, the record shows that the
earliest Christians were never persecuted over this subject and so showing how very unlikely it
was that they ever believed in a pre-existent Jesus.
ISSUES BRINGING PERSECUTION BY GENTILES
1. The advocating of “customs that are not lawful for us [in Philippi] as Romans to accept or
practice” (Acts 16:21) by Paul and Silas.
2. The proclaiming that Jesus, as the Messiah, had to die and rise from the dead (Acts 17:3)
[Paul and Silas in Thessalonica].
3. An accusation that Christians [in Thessalonica] were “acting against the decrees of Caesar,
saying that there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:7).
4. For Paul’s teaching that idols were not really gods (Acts 19:26) and so causing the crowds
to chant for many hours: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians.”
Not once were the earliest Christians accused by Gentiles of teaching that Jesus was actually
God’s agent for the creation of the universe. (Please see STUDIES 10 and 11). In fact, there is
nothing in the biblical record, particularly in Acts, of the preaching by 1st century Christians
that the archangel Michael had descended into Mar
y’s womb. (Please see STUDIES 15 and 16).
THERE NEVER WAS AN ISSUE OVER A PRE-EXISTENT MESSIAH IN THE 1st CENTURY
All of this is evidence that the earliest Christians never changed their view away from the
biblical and Jewish statements concerning the coming human Messiah as one who would be
descended from Abraham and in the line of David i.e. entirely within the human gene pool.
Indeed it would be strange if Christians had engaged in the above controversies and put up
with persecution over the above listed issues and yet never engaged in a controversy or
suffered any persecution because of Christian acceptance of a teaching that Messiah had now
been revealed as being the archangel Michael descended from heaven through Mary’s womb.
Such a major issue would surely have brought controversy if it really had been taught.
A MID-2ND CENTURY ISSUE
The first century Middle Platonic philosopher NUMENIUS introduced the idea of a 2nd
transcendental entity between the Supreme Being and the universe. The Christian
philosopher Justin Martyr first used the word pre-existence with reference to Jesus in about
150 C.E. However, Justin had been thoroughly schooled in the Greek philosophical thinking of
his day, including the thoughts of Numenius whose ideas he found attractive. So JUSTIN
applied Numenius’ ideas to Jesus, speaking of him as an “arithmetically second God” saying:
There is and there is said to be another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all
things; who is also called an Angel, because he announces to all men whatsoever
the Maker of all things.
Justin also stated that:
…though I should not be able to prove his pre-existence…For some of our race, who
admit that he is the Christ, while holding him to be man of men; with whom I do not
agree.
8
NO PRE-HUMAN EXISTENCE
This shows that even by 150 C.E. the majority Christian view was that Jesus was not preexistent
but a “man of men.”
Catholic theologian Karl-Josef Kuschel shows this to be the first major step away from
biblical Christianity when he makes the comment that:
The Christology of Jewish Christianity which had been dominant for decades and
knew of no pre-existence Christology was increasingly swept aside and was finally
branded heretical.
Earlier the Apostle Paul had foretold that: “They will … wander off into myths.” (2 Tim. 4:3, 4
ESV). He also said at 2 Corinthians 11:4 that some would come “preaching another Jesus.”
From the above it is evident that neither Jesus nor the earliest Christians taught or
believed that Jesus was a pre-existent being.
FIRST STEP TOWARD THE TRINITY
Once some 2nd century Christians had accepted the concept of pre-existence with reference
to Jesus the next stage was that of making it an eternal pre-existence as taught by Origen later
in the second century, and finally into the full-blown Trinity in 481 C.E. and onward.
However, some Trinitarians try to teach that the doctrine of the Trinity was believed by the
earliest Christians. To show that this is not true one only has to consider all the above noted
controversial issues and the resulting persecutions.
SUMMARY
If one wishes to posit a Jesus who pre-existed then either:
1. Jesus was really a spirit creature clothed in an embryonic human body. He later, at his
death, left that human body and returned to heaven. Or:
2. Jesus was really a spirit being who had been reformed into an embryonic human and so
was a hybrid i.e. part man part spirit but not 100% man. At his resurrection he was then
reformed back into a spirit being. Or:
3. Jesus received the life or personality i.e. characteristics of a spirit being.
REASONS THESE ARE UNSCRIPTURAL POSITIONS
Scripturally Jesus is begotten in Mary’s womb. The term ‘begotten’ means that a new life
came into existence (Matt 1:18, 20; Luke 1:32, 35; Gal 4:4) and so pre-human existence is
impossible. So Jesus is always fully human both from birth and after his resurrection. Go as
‘Father’ begot a human son. Mary ‘conceived’ a child – she did not ‘receive’ a child.
In #1 Jesus is not human at all. It would amount to a transferring of a spirit life into Mary’s
womb rather than a begetting of a new human life. He would have retained all past knowledge
and qualities and so giving him a massive advantage when being tested.
In #2 Jesus would have been a hybrid who was part angel, part human i.e. having two natures
and being only half human. This, too, would amount to a transferring of a life into Mary’s
womb rather than a begetting of a new fully human life. As the growing child’s mind
developed he would have begun to recall all past knowledge and qualities and so giving him a
massive advantage when being tested and therefore he would not have been tested fairly as a
human.
9
In #3 Jesus was also a hybrid by virtue of his having such characteristics of the spirit being.
…………………………………
APPENDIX
THE SECOND MAN DID NOT EXIST UNTIL THE
RESURRECTION OF JESUS
 “The first man is out of the earth and made of dust; the second man (Gk anthropos) is
out of heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47).
First Corinthians 15:47 is often wrongly used in an attempt to prove a literal pre-existence of
Jesus. This is back-to-front reasoning because:
· The Scriptures never teach that, in about 2 B.C, a man (anthropos) came from heaven
into Mary’s womb.
· Jesus is “the man out of heaven”, the “spiritual” (V. 46), because of the resurrection
(vss.45-46), and therefore comes into being much later than at Jesus’ conception.
· Verse 47 is within a chapter that deals with Jesus’ future reign (verse 23-28) and with the
resurrection of Christians (verses 35-57) and where verse 49 states that “we shall bear the
image of the heavenly one” i.e. a future event. So these factors indicate that the event
when “the second man [will be] out of heaven” will occur when Jesus returns at his
parousia (Dan.7:13; Matt. 24:30, 26:64) after his wait at the right hand of God (Ps. 110:1)
“until the times of restoration” (Acts 3:2, 21).
These points are summed up by Professor Emeritus Gordon Fee:
Finally, for Paul now to refer to Christ’s pre-existence and incarnation would be to
contradict the very point just made in vv. 45-46, that the pneumatikos comes second.
The New International Commentary on the New Testament p.793.
By Raymond C. Faircloth
http://www.biblicaltruthseekers.co.uk

[NickHassan]

Hi Frank,
I doubt if many read your mountains of theology.
More words often make less truth

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 28 2012,12:03)

Hi Frank, I doubt if many read your mountains of theology. More words often make less truth

Nick,

Your “God” should have made you a so-called “Holy Bible” with less words to read and study then, right?

[Author]

Posts