Preexistence

[942767]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2012,07:59)

Marty, It's interesting that you can admit Jesus was God's only begotten Son in this thread while denying it in the other thread.   But tell me, if the existing in the form of God was when Jesus was a human being, what does it mean that he was made into the likeness of a human being?

Hi Mike:

This is what I have stated in this thread and I have never denied this:

Quote

Jesus as God's Only Begotten Son and His Christ was sent by God

He was and is the “Only Son of God” to be Begotten by God in the womb a virgin, and there will never be another to be begotten by God in this way, but we who are born again Christians, have also been born of God, and so, that is what I have stated.

And you say:

Quote

But tell me, if the existing in the form of God was when Jesus was a human being, what does it mean that he was made into the likeness of a human being?

He was a human being but not just any ordinary human being. He was “the Christ, the Son of the Living God”, but although he was in the form of God in this position, the scripture that he did not use this fact to make himself a reputation, but he took the form of a bond servant. The Greek word for form in each case “in the form of God” and the “form a bond servant” is “morphe” () the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision).

Quote

Phl 2:5 ¶ Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: Phl 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant

He did not change from being a man here, but just willingly took upon himself the role of a servant which is defined:

Quote

1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition a) a slave b) metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men c) devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests 2) a servant, attendant

Quote

Phl 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

He was not just any ordinary man, He was the Son of the Loving God, but he identified himself with sinners. And this is what is meant by saying the phrase “and was made in the likeness of men”.

Quote

Hbr 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. Hbr 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Quote

Phl 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

“found in fashion as a man”

fashion = shema in greek

1) the habitus, as comprising everything in a person which strikes the senses, the figure, bearing, discourse, actions, manner of life etc.

This does not indicate that he pre-existed in some other state before he became a man, but shows the attitude of his mind. His humility is what this scripture is about.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike………. Where did i “EVER” say it was the FATHER that said that. It was Jesus saying that but the difference is I Believe what Jesus said YOU don't and there lies the problem with you. I knew your would not deal with what i quoted Jesus saying , Please give us your rendition of what i quoted if you can? It was not Jesus speaking through Jesus it was GOD the FATHER HIMSELF or don't you believe the FATHER WAS INDEED (IN) Christ Jesus speaking “through” HIM and directly at times as Jesus said He was (IN) HIM. This you can't understand “IT WILL NOT BE YOU SPEAKING BUT The Spirit Speaking (IN) you”. Why try to distort His word by changing subject Matter? A technique you always seem to use when confronted with a direct quote you can't understand or just do not want to acknowledge it as the truth.

Mike your problem is you simply do not understand what a SPIRIT is , if you could understand that you would have no problem with the words of Jesus, becasue it all makes sense if you understand what a SPIRIT really is. Rather you or anyone ease can't believe Jesus, that the FATHER was truly (IN) HIM doing the WORKS makes no difference to Me, it is your loss not mine or those that do understand it.

peace and love to you and yours……………………………………………………………….gene

[terraricca]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 10 2012,07:09)

Mike………. Where did i “EVER” say it was the FATHER that said that. It was Jesus saying that but the difference is I Believe what Jesus said YOU don't and there lies the problem with you. I knew your would not deal with what i quoted Jesus saying , Please give us your rendition of what i quoted if you can? It was not Jesus speaking through Jesus it was GOD the FATHER HIMSELF or don't you believe the FATHER WAS INDEED (IN) Christ Jesus speaking “through” HIM and directly at times as Jesus said He was (IN) HIM. This you can't understand “IT WILL NOT BE YOU SPEAKING BUT The Spirit Speaking (IN) you”. Why try to distort His word by changing subject Matter? A technique you always seem to use when confronted with a direct quote you can't understand or just do not want to acknowledge it as  the truth. Mike your problem is you simply do not understand what a SPIRIT is , if you could understand that you would have no problem with the words of Jesus, becasue it all makes sense if you understand what a SPIRIT really is. Rather you or anyone ease can't believe Jesus, that  the FATHER was truly (IN) HIM doing the WORKS makes no difference to Me, it is your loss not mine or those that do understand it. peace and love to you and yours……………………………………………………………….gene

gene

Quote

Group: Regular Members Posts: 8678 Joined: June 2007 Posted: July 10 2012,07:09 Mike………. Where did i “EVER” say it was the FATHER that said that. It was Jesus saying that but the difference is I Believe what Jesus said YOU don't and there lies the problem with you

well let see your argument under the light of scriptures without men interpretation to them ;

so you said ;

Quote

T8………That was GOD the FATHER (IN) Jesus Speaking (Through) him, (HIS WORDS). Do not Jesus say the FATHER “IN” ME HE doth the Works. and again Jesus said the words i am telling you are Spirit and “LIFE” , and again the word I am telling you are “NOT” My Words but the “WORDS” of Him who sent me. Making Jesus the “Words he was speaking is a false teaching.

so who his Christ

God is in him ,and works through him ,

[GeneBalthrop]

Terricca………..I tis not “WHO” is Christ , it is “WHAT” is CHRIST, Christ is the Anointing or CHRISTOS that was ON and IN Jesus (IT) was GOD the FATHER HIMSELF who through the ANOINTING was “REALLY” (IN) Jesus and was Speaking “THROUGH HIM and sometimes in the “FIRST PERSON” as i have brought out here many times. Some of the Things Jesus spoke it was NOT Jesus saying it , it was God the FATHER Speaking First person “Through Him. Once you come to see this Pierre, many scriptures will be opened up to you and all who understand this. God is SPIRIT and can Be(IN) anyone of US BY the CHRISTOS or anointing Spirit. Is that not what we were to supposed to have recieved after Baptism was it not the Gift of the Holy Spirit, is that not the SAME Spirit that Jesus was Anointed with?

peace and love to you and yours Pierre…………………………………………………………………gene

[Proclaimer]

Quote (942767 @ July 09 2012,15:53)

He was a human being but not just any ordinary human being. He was “the Christ, the Son of the Living God”, but although he was in the form of God in this position, the scripture that he did not use this fact to make himself a reputation, but he took the form of a bond servant. The Greek word for form in each case “in the form of God” and the “form a bond servant” is “morphe” () the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision).

Thanks for saying this clearly. I don't think anyone else has made this stance as clear as you have.

However, I have a question. Why does this particular view never quote the next part of the verse, “and was made in the likeness of men:”

Because that puts it into context and perhaps a context that this view is arguing against.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (942767 @ July 08 2012,19:53)

This is what I have stated in this thread and I have never denied this: “Jesus as God's Only Begotten Son and His Christ was sent by God”.

I think Ed will surely attest to the fact that you DID deny it when I point blank asked you if Jesus dwelled on earth as the only begotten Son of God, and you said, “No”.  I could pull up the post from the “Word” thread, but there's no use crying over spilled milk.  What's important is that we are both now in agreement with scripture that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.  

(I wouldn't have even commented on this, but the words you used in response to my quoted words made it seem like I was lying about what I said.)

Quote (942767 @ July 08 2012,19:53)

He was not just any ordinary man, He was the Son of the Loving God, but he identified himself with sinners. And this is what is meant by saying the phrase “and was made in the likeness of men”.

Marty, I thank you for your direct answer, weak though it may be.  Are you saying that Jesus was existing as a human being, but then “WAS MADE in the likeness of a human being”?

Does that truly make sense to you?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 09 2012,07:09)

Mike………. Where did i “EVER” say it was the FATHER that said that. It was Jesus saying that………..

Okay Gene.

I'm just clarifying for all that the Father didn't literally speak through the mouth of Jesus, but Jesus spoke the words that the Father taught him to speak. Many times, the words of Jesus were his own personal words, like the two instances I pointed out for you.

Now, I'm waiting for an answer to my question:

John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

Was this the Father speaking through Jesus? If not, then WHO came DOWN from heaven, and WHOSE will did that one come DOWN from heaven to do?

[terraricca]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 12 2012,08:38)

Terricca………..I tis not “WHO” is Christ , it is “WHAT” is CHRIST, Christ is the Anointing or CHRISTOS that was ON  and IN Jesus (IT) was GOD the FATHER HIMSELF who through the ANOINTING was “REALLY” (IN) Jesus and was Speaking “THROUGH HIM and sometimes in the “FIRST PERSON” as i have brought out here many times. Some of the Things Jesus spoke it was NOT Jesus saying it , it was God the FATHER Speaking First person “Through Him.  Once you come to see this Pierre,  many scriptures will be opened up to you and all who understand this. God is SPIRIT and can Be(IN) anyone of US BY the CHRISTOS or anointing Spirit. Is that not what we were to supposed to have recieved after Baptism was it not the Gift of the Holy Spirit, is that not the SAME Spirit that Jesus was Anointed with? peace and love to you and yours Pierre…………………………………………………………………gene

gene

I can drink from it ,and can store things in it ,it walks ,it talks ,I can see through it

WHAT IS IT

[942767]

Quote (t8 @ July 12 2012,09:52)

Quote (942767 @ July 09 2012,15:53) He was a human being but not just any ordinary human being.  He was “the Christ, the Son of the Living God”, but although he was in the form of God in this position, the scripture that he did not use this fact to make himself a reputation, but he took the form of a bond servant.  The Greek word for form in each case “in the form of God” and the “form a bond servant” is “morphe” () the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision). Thanks for saying this clearly. I don't think anyone else has made this stance as clear as you have. However, I have a question. Why does this particular view never quote the next part of the verse, “and was made in the likeness of men:” Because that puts it into context and perhaps a context that this view is arguing against.

Hi t8:

The subject of these scriptures is:

Quote

Phl 2:5 ¶ Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

And so, the scriptures that follow are speaking of the “state of mind” of Christ Jesus. He was Christ Jesus as a man. The subject does not change.

I did quote the part of the verse which states that he was made in the likeness of men and explained that although he was not born of the sperm of man but God was his Father, he did not let this fact separate him from them, but identified himself with them as being a man just like them.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[942767]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 12 2012,10:16)

Quote (942767 @ July 08 2012,19:53) This is what I have stated in this thread and I have never denied this: “Jesus as God's Only Begotten Son and His Christ was sent by God”. I think Ed will surely attest to the fact that you DID deny it when I point blank asked you if Jesus dwelled on earth as the only begotten Son of God, and you said, “No”.  I could pull up the post from the “Word” thread, but there's no use crying over spilled milk.  What's important is that we are both now in agreement with scripture that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.   (I wouldn't have even commented on this, but the words you used in response to my quoted words made it seem like I was lying about what I said.) Quote (942767 @ July 08 2012,19:53) He was not just any ordinary man, He was the Son of the Loving God, but he identified himself with sinners. And this is what is meant by saying the phrase “and was made in the likeness of men”. Marty, I thank you for your direct answer, weak though it may be.  Are you saying that Jesus was existing as a human being, but then “WAS MADE in the likeness of a human being”? Does that truly make sense to you?

Mike:

I have never denied that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God. I explained to Ed. why I answered “no” to your question.
Go back and read what I said.

And read what I have posted in reply to t8's post.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[mikeboll64]

Quote (942767 @ July 12 2012,20:43)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 12 2012,10:16) Quote (942767 @ July 08 2012,19:53) This is what I have stated in this thread and I have never denied this: “Jesus as God's Only Begotten Son and His Christ was sent by God”. I think Ed will surely attest to the fact that you DID deny it when I point blank asked you if Jesus dwelled on earth as the only begotten Son of God, and you said, “No”.  I could pull up the post from the “Word” thread, but there's no use crying over spilled milk.  What's important is that we are both now in agreement with scripture that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.   (I wouldn't have even commented on this, but the words you used in response to my quoted words made it seem like I was lying about what I said.) Quote (942767 @ July 08 2012,19:53) He was not just any ordinary man, He was the Son of the Loving God, but he identified himself with sinners. And this is what is meant by saying the phrase “and was made in the likeness of men”. Marty, I thank you for your direct answer, weak though it may be.  Are you saying that Jesus was existing as a human being, but then “WAS MADE in the likeness of a human being”? Does that truly make sense to you? Mike: I have never denied that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God.  I explained to Ed. why I answered “no” to your question. Go back and read what I said. And read what I have posted in reply to t8's post. Love in Christ, Marty

Quote

Mike: I have never denied that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God. I explained to Ed. why I answered “no” to your question. Go back and read what I said.

I did read what you said to Ed right after you wrote it. At first you denied it, Ed posted ” “, and you said that in hind sight, you realize you should have answered “YES” instead of “NO” to my question. Don't make ME out to be a liar just because YOU answered my question incorrectly and then corrected yourself later.

As far as what you said to t8:

Do you believe that Jesus was existing in the form of a human being, emptied himself, and was made into the likeness of a human being? YES or NO?

[942767]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2012,05:19)

Quote (942767 @ July 12 2012,20:43) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 12 2012,10:16) Quote (942767 @ July 08 2012,19:53) This is what I have stated in this thread and I have never denied this: “Jesus as God's Only Begotten Son and His Christ was sent by God”. I think Ed will surely attest to the fact that you DID deny it when I point blank asked you if Jesus dwelled on earth as the only begotten Son of God, and you said, “No”.  I could pull up the post from the “Word” thread, but there's no use crying over spilled milk.  What's important is that we are both now in agreement with scripture that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.   (I wouldn't have even commented on this, but the words you used in response to my quoted words made it seem like I was lying about what I said.) Quote (942767 @ July 08 2012,19:53) He was not just any ordinary man, He was the Son of the Loving God, but he identified himself with sinners. And this is what is meant by saying the phrase “and was made in the likeness of men”. Marty, I thank you for your direct answer, weak though it may be.  Are you saying that Jesus was existing as a human being, but then “WAS MADE in the likeness of a human being”? Does that truly make sense to you? Mike: I have never denied that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God.  I explained to Ed. why I answered “no” to your question. Go back and read what I said. And read what I have posted in reply to t8's post. Love in Christ, Marty Quote Mike: I have never denied that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God.  I explained to Ed. why I answered “no” to your question. Go back and read what I said. I did read what you said to Ed right after you wrote it.  At first you denied it, Ed posted ” “, and you said that in hind sight, you realize you should have answered “YES” instead of “NO” to my question.  Don't make ME out to be a liar just because YOU answered my question incorrectly and then corrected yourself later. As far as what you said to t8: Do you believe that Jesus was existing in the form of a human being, emptied himself, and was made into the likeness of a human being?  YES or NO?

Mike:

If you insist that I have denied that Jesus is the “Monogenes” Son of the Living God, yes, you are a liar.

I told you and Ed why I answered your question the way that I did. He is the “Monogenes Son of the Living God”, but he is not the only son of the Living God because we who are born again Christians are also born of God.

I answered t8's post. I am not going to .answer your question yes or no. Read what I said to t8 and if you disagree with what I said to him, let's discuss that.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[mikeboll64]

Here is he exact post from the “Word” thread, Marty:

Quote (942767 @ July 02 2012,19:52)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2012,08:48) Quote (942767 @ July 01 2012,16:23) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 02 2012,01:14) Quote (942767 @ June 30 2012,20:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2012,10:14) Marty, Is it scriptural that John the Baptist called Jesus “the Lamb of God” – even though Jesus wasn't literally a lamb?  YES or NO? Yes. Hi Marty, And is it scriptural that Jesus is called by the name “the Word of God” – even though he is not literally a spoke word from God?   YES or NO? Yes. And is it scriptural that, WHILE JESUS WAS ON EARTH, he was the only begotten Son of God?  YES or NO? No.

Can you see my question and your answer to it?  Am I a liar?

Here is what you said to t8:

Quote

I did quote the part of the verse which states that he was made in the likeness of men and explained that although he was not born of the sperm of man but God was his Father, he did not let this fact separate him from them, but identified himself with them as being a man just like them.

Are you saying:

A.  Jesus was not originally “in the likeness of a human being” when he was born by Mary?  YES or NO?

B.  You truly think the words “WAS MADE in the likeness of a human being” refer to Jesus “identifying himself with other men”? YES or NO?

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike……..Was ADAM a SON OF GOD, Created by God himself? So then Jesus was Not a MONO-GENES Son of GOD , while he was a “UNIQUELY” Born HUMAN Being he certainly is and was not the only son of God, Now or before His berth either as Scripture in many places testifies. You are confusing his status as the The “FIRST” and Only one “thus far” raised from the grave into the Kingdom of God from the Human race and Being Born “BY” God into that kingdom. with his coming into existence on this earth as a pure human being. The only Mono-genes that could be applied to his is resurrection thus far into the kingdom of God. Jesus in no way by countless scriptures is the “ONLY” SON of GOD>

Mike………..Jesus can claim to be ALPHA and OMEGA based on this principle also, He is the First from mankind born into the kingdom of God and the Last one born into it will be just like Him also, so in that sense it can be said he is both alpha and omega when it come to being Born into the Kingdom of God. But does that mean he is Alpha and Omega of all Creation that exists, No Not at all unless you make him a God as the Trinitarians do. Do you see my point Mike?

peace and lvoe to you and yours Brother………………………………………………..gene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 15 2012,10:45)

Mike……..Was ADAM a SON OF GOD, Created by God himself? So then Jesus was Not a MONO-GENES Son of GOD…………….

Gene,

Is it SCRIPTURAL that Jesus is the “only begotten Son of God”?

It certainly is scriptural, right?  It is apparently not for us to understand how God can have many sons, spiritual and fleshly, and yet Jesus is still the “only begotten” one.  I don't know how or why that is.  

It is like Paul mentioning in Gal 4:22 that Abraham had two sons, but then saying in Heb 11:17 that he was about to sacrifice his only begotten son.  One was the son of a promise, according to Paul, and so was his “only begotten” son in a way we can't fully understand.

Apparently Jesus, by being the very first being ever created, is God's Son in a way we can't fully understand and therefore called His “only begotten” Son.

I'm sure this has something to do with it:
John 10
35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

Jesus has apparently been set apart as God's very own, making him DIFFERENT from any other son God has. And just as Issac was different and was called Abraham's “only begotten”, Jesus is different and called God's “only begotten”.

peace,
mike

[942767]

Hi Mike:

I am aware of answering your question no, but if I went back and explained why I answered the way that I did, and corrected my answer, does that mean that I denied that Jesus is the “Monogenes” Son of God or does it mean that I made a mistake in answering your question?

And this is your accusation:

Quote

's interesting that you can admit Jesus was God's only begotten Son in this thread while denying it in the other thread.

And so, I do not deny that Jesus is the “Monogenes” Son of the Living God, and so, if you want to insist of accusing me of this, yes, you are a liar.

Actually, I answered this question in our conversation here:

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….st=4320

And you ask:

Quote

Are you saying: A. Jesus was not originally “in the likeness of a human being” when he was born by Mary? YES or NO? B. You truly think the words “WAS MADE in the likeness of a human being” refer to Jesus “identifying himself with other men”? YES or NO?

I can't just answer these question with a simple yes or no, becuase these scriptures are dealing with the attitude of mind of Christ Jesus while he was in his ministry on earth, and not from changing from of a being to another type of being. Of course, Jesus was born into this world a human being, but he was not an ordinary human being, he was “The Christ the Son of the Living God”.

The subject of the scriptures in Philippians 2:5-8 is this:

Quote

Phl 2:3 [Let] nothing [be done] through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Phl 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Phl 2:5 ¶ Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Love in Christ,
Marty

[mikeboll64]

Quote (942767 @ July 15 2012,13:11)

Of course, Jesus was born into this world a human being…………….

Marty,

I've seriously grown tired of this Phil 2 discussion we've had a dozen times.  If you think it makes sense that Jesus was a human being who was “existing in the form of God”, then have at it.  If you think Paul was teaching that a human being emptied himself and was “made in the likeness of a human being”, then I can't stop you.

To me, all of the non-preexister attempts to force clear scriptures into meaning something other than the obvious – usually with nonsensical results – clearly displays their desperation in dealing with scriptures that clearly teach the opposite of what their doctrine insists they must be teaching.

The bottom line is that you simply don't WANT Jesus to have pre-existed (for personal reasons), and are willing to come to nonsensical interpretations of the scriptures that teach he did.

Just always remember that, no matter how you pretty it up in your mind, you are understanding Phil 2 to be teaching that someone who ALREADY WAS a human being was made in the likeness of a human being. And if that truly makes sense in your mind, then I say your mind has been blinded.

peace,
mike

[942767]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2012,09:54)

Quote (942767 @ July 15 2012,13:11) Of course, Jesus was born into this world a human being……………. Marty, I've seriously grown tired of this Phil 2 discussion we've had a dozen times.  If you think it makes sense that Jesus was a human being who was “existing in the form of God”, then have at it.  If you think Paul was teaching that a human being emptied himself and was “made in the likeness of a human being”, then I can't stop you. To me, all of the non-preexister attempts to force clear scriptures into meaning something other than the obvious – usually with nonsensical results – clearly displays their desperation in dealing with scriptures that clearly teach the opposite of what their doctrine insists they must be teaching. The bottom line is that you simply don't WANT Jesus to have pre-existed (for personal reasons), and are willing to come to nonsensical interpretations of the scriptures that teach he did. Just always remember that, no matter how you pretty it up in your mind, you are understanding Phil 2 to be teaching that someone who ALREADY WAS a human being was made in the likeness of a human being.  And if that truly makes sense in your mind, then I say your mind has been blinded. peace, mike

Hi Mike:

Could it possibly be you who is in error? Paul is teaching the Philippian church about humility by using the life of Jesus Christ as an example for they and us to follow.

That is a bottom line.

No, I do not a personal issue with Jesus pre-existing, but I do not believe that he did, and I want to teach God's Word in truth.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[mikeboll64]

I'm in error?  YOU'RE the one insisting that someone who already was existing in the likeness of a human being was “made in the likenes of a human being”.    There are no two ways around it, Marty.  That is what you believe, no matter how you try to pretty it up.  And to me, that belief is utter nonsense.

And the humility Paul was teaching about Jesus is that he was existing as a powerful spirit being, second only to God.  Paul taught that Jesus didn't “rest on his laurels”, but instead allowed himself to be made as a much lower life form for the will of God and the benefit of us.

In your understanding, Jesus couldn't have “humbled himself” anyway, because in your understanding, Jesus was born to a poor family, was always poor, and therefore always humble.  In your understanding, Jesus had no “high place” to humble himself down from.  In fact, your understanding teaches quite the opposite.  Your teaching depicts a Jesus who was a regular old Joe, but then hit the jackpot of all jackpots when he became the ONE human being out of billions to whom God offered a trade:  One day of severe suffering for eternity at God's right hand.  My Jesus suffered humility – yours won the greatest lottery of all time.

But all that is neither here nor there. Just rememeber that your understanding of Phil 2 calls for someone who ALREADY WAS in the likeness of a human being to BE MADE in the likeness of a human being. If you're okay with that, who am I to judge?

[terraricca]

Quote (942767 @ July 16 2012,17:43)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2012,09:54) Quote (942767 @ July 15 2012,13:11) Of course, Jesus was born into this world a human being……………. Marty, I've seriously grown tired of this Phil 2 discussion we've had a dozen times.  If you think it makes sense that Jesus was a human being who was “existing in the form of God”, then have at it.  If you think Paul was teaching that a human being emptied himself and was “made in the likeness of a human being”, then I can't stop you. To me, all of the non-preexister attempts to force clear scriptures into meaning something other than the obvious – usually with nonsensical results – clearly displays their desperation in dealing with scriptures that clearly teach the opposite of what their doctrine insists they must be teaching. The bottom line is that you simply don't WANT Jesus to have pre-existed (for personal reasons), and are willing to come to nonsensical interpretations of the scriptures that teach he did. Just always remember that, no matter how you pretty it up in your mind, you are understanding Phil 2 to be teaching that someone who ALREADY WAS a human being was made in the likeness of a human being.  And if that truly makes sense in your mind, then I say your mind has been blinded. peace, mike Hi Mike: Could it possibly be you who is in error?  Paul is teaching the Philippian church about humility by using the life of Jesus Christ as an example for they and us to follow.   That is a bottom line. No, I do not a personal issue with Jesus pre-existing, but I do not believe that he did, and I want to teach God's Word in truth. Love in Christ, Marty

Marty

would you imply that Paul use lies in his description of Christ his Lord

[Author]

Posts