Preexistence

[NickHassan]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 22 2007,19:26)

Hi Mandy, No problems. I didn't want the thread to fade out of sight, the way they sometimes do. I'm looking forward to engaging you on the issues. Blessings PS; the “incarnation” means that the Logos (who was in the form of God) emptied Himself, took on the form of a bond servant, and was found in the likeness of man.

Hi Is 1.18,
Your view of the so called incarnation is one of many.
J.Packer states
“”Here are two mysteries for the price of one–the plurality of persons within the unity of God, and the union of Godhead and manhood in the person of Jesus. …Nothing in fiction is so fantastic as is this truth of the Incarnation,” writes contemporary theologian J.I. Packer.[1] What is the Incarnation? It is simply what Packer refers to here as “the union of Godhead and manhood in the person of Jesus.” It is, I would venture to say, the greatest and most stunning miracle that has ever been or ever will be. It is also the answer to the most important and relevant question in the universe: “Who is Jesus Christ?” The answer revealed by the truth of the Incarnation is: Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man in one Person. In other words, He is God incarnate.”

It too does not read well with 2 Jn or 1 Jn4

[Not3in1]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 22 2007,19:57)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 22 2007,19:26) Hi Mandy, No problems. I didn't want the thread to fade out of sight, the way they sometimes do. I'm looking forward to engaging you on the issues. Blessings PS; the “incarnation” means that the Logos (who was in the form of God) emptied Himself, took on the form of a bond servant, and was found in the likeness of man.   Hi Is 1.18, Your view of the so called incarnation is one of many. J.Packer states “”Here are two mysteries for the price of one–the plurality of persons within the unity of God, and the union of Godhead and manhood in the person of Jesus. …Nothing in fiction is so fantastic as is this truth of the Incarnation,” writes contemporary theologian J.I. Packer.[1] What is the Incarnation? It is simply what Packer refers to here as “the union of Godhead and manhood in the person of Jesus.” It is, I would venture to say, the greatest and most stunning miracle that has ever been or ever will be. It is also the answer to the most important and relevant question in the universe: “Who is Jesus Christ?” The answer revealed by the truth of the Incarnation is: Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man in one Person. In other words, He is God incarnate.” It too does not read well with 2 Jn or 1 Jn4

Thanks for sharing this, Nick.

For me, to say that Jesus is God incarnate is to say too little of him……….

[Not3in1]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 21 2007,17:15)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 16 2007,18:33) Quote Are there explicit teachings of Jesus' preexistence? Yes. And one of them is Philippians 2:6-7. Not3, I thought we could start at Philippians 2:5-8 (since it's one of the plainest texts) and then move onto others. I gave a semantic range for “morphe”, if you like we could just use 'nature' which is not really contentious at all. Tell you what Not3, Greek words aside what do you think Phil 2:6-7 means in context? When in Jesus' natural life was He “in the form of God”? When did He take on the form of a bond servant? What did he empty Himself of? When was he “made in the likeness of man”? Also, here is what I believe to be a parallel verse to the Philippians passage: 2 Corinthians 8:9 9For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich. When in Yeshua's earthly life, and in what sense, was he “rich”, when did he become “poor”? If these passages do apply to the natural life of Yeshua then people like me need to know. We need to be corrected from scripture. Blessings Hello Not3, I'm still waiting for you to answer these questions. What is your understanding? Blessings

My understanding of the heavily quoted Phillipians passage:

Isaiah, you assert that the word “form,” which is the Greek word “morphe,” refers to Christ's inner nature as God – right? The NIV believes this so strongly that it reads, “…being in the very nature God.” I do not believe that “morphe” refers to an “inner essential nature.” Different lexicons have opposing viewpoints about the definition of “morphe.”

I'm new to this lexicon thing – it's cool.

Vine's Lexicon has under “form”: “properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual…ikt dos not include in itself anything 'acccidental' or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation.”

Using lexicons like Vines, Trinitarians boldly make the case that the “nature” underlying Jesus' human body was God. However, looking at the Critical Lexicon, “morphe” is given a one-word definition, “form.” Another lexicon by Walter Bauer has under “morphe,” “form, outward appearance, shape.” The Theological Dictionary of the NT has “form, external appearance.” Robert Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under “morphe,” “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.”

Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphe) of their parents, something easily noticed in every culture. Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make “morphe” refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says, “the distinction is rejected by many.”

So, this shows that scholars disagree about the use of the word “morphe” in Philippians.

However, other uses of “morphe” in the Bible support the position that morphe refers to outward appearance. Mark has a short reference to the well-known story in Luke 24 about jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared “in a different form (morphe)” to these two men so that they did not recognize him. This is very clear. Jesus did not have a different “essential nature” when he appeared to the two disciples – did he? He simply had a different outward appearance.

One more quick point about “morphe” before I have to go cook dinner (ha)…. If the point of the passage is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say it? Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make THAT point? This verse does not say, “Jesus, being God,” but rather, “being in the form of God.” Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

Jesus Christ is the outward appearance of God (as God's Son), so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Christ always did the Father's will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.

More later…..

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (kenrch @ May 30 2007,13:17)

Heb 4:15  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. If Jesus was a supernatural being more than any human walking the earth except for sin then His sacrifice is void.  Jesus himself was just as you and I except for sin.  All of the Father dwelt in Jesus that's why jesus said over and over that HE DOES NOTHING but He did and said what the Father told Him to do. Again we are forgiven of sin WE HAVE NO SIN we claim the sacrifice of Christ.  Other than the amount of the Holy Spirit we are the same as our elder Brother.  Satan has us deceived.  How could Jesus expect us to do greater works than He did if we think of ourselves as anything less that Christ.   Jesus is the Head of the body YES but His body is cripple thinking that “only Jesus could do that”.  Peter walked on water before the sacrifice of Christ.  When Jesus calmed the storm Jesus said “oh ye of little faith”.  Wasn't Jesus saying that the apostles could have calmed the storm if they believed. Jesus was the Son of man filled with the Spirit of God.  We are sons and daughters of man with some of the Spirit of God. Luk 10:21  In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. Sounds very familiar.  This happens daily now around the world.  The Holy Spirit surely is visting someone somewhere on the earth. Jesus in Himself could do nothing by His own admission. Again, I'm certainly not taking anything away from Jesus the only begotten.  But if we don't realize just who we are then how are we to perform the miracles He said we would.  Unless you believe what some believe, that miracles were just for the first century church. The Word preexisted in the mind of God and was manifested flesh. The only Son like that all other of God's children were concieved with a fleshly father.  For us it's all spiritual. Before Jesus all beings were created through the Son by the Father just as Light was created by the Father through the Word. IHN&L, Ken

kenrch> you are right, Jesus is our brother and was exactly like us. we need to exorcise our realation with the Father just like he did.

[GeneBalthrop]

to all > my take on Phil 2:6-7 is this .> Jesus who exists (present tense)in the form of God (as angles do or spirit being do even Like God does).

throught not to rob God to be made equal with God. the true text was to show Jesus did not try to take away from God any glory to show himself equal to God.

remenber when the spirit of God spoke through Jesus and said all who came before me were liars and thieves . that was God speaking through Jesus, but how were they liars and thieves ?.

By takeing credit for somthing that God was doing and many people still do that to day, when they have problems and pray and ask God for help and God does help them and others see it and show and give them praise in some way,they simply accept it, even though it was God who did it, not them.

and if that person allows it he is robbing God of glory he is a thief .

Jesus never did that He always gave God the credit and glory saying I have glorfied YOU on the earth. every merical that was done through Jesus was done by God not Him. Didn't he say the son of man could do nothing by himself.

God said I give (MY) glory to no MAN. remember when Jesus said Father glorify your name and the voice from heaven said I both Have and Will.

Yes Jesus never robbed God the Father to try to make himself equal with Him, this is what false teacher do Not Jesus.???

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 23 2007,12:14)

My understanding of the heavily quoted Phillipians passage:

Well, no….you actually gave me biblicalunitarian.com's understanding…..that's a little disappointing.

Not3, let's assume for a moment that you are correct when you assert “morphe” refers to external appearance – how does that fit the context of the passage? Was Paul teaching the readers that Jesus, while on earth, actually looked like God, physically? And that He emptied Himself of something and took on the 'physical appearance' (morphe is also used in v7) of a bondservant?

Seems completely implausible. Where was this described in the Gospels?

[Not3in1]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 24 2007,16:20)

Well, no….you actually gave me biblicalunitarian.com's understanding…..that's a little disappointing.

Isaiah, you asked for my understanding and this is my understanding. I have a huge library that I make use of when I need to. Would you like me to always let you know when I am quoting from a source? Do you? You have lengthly posts of which you quote from many sources, I'm sure. It is not a crime to use a source by which you have gained understanding. Folks quote from dictionaries, lexicons, and many Greek sources here, I have noticed. I will not apologize for sharing a view that I am in full agreement with.

[Not3in1]

And by the way, thank you for sharing the website of the of the BU's…….they are good people. I hope other's visiting here will take a moment to look at their doctrine and see for themselves that it lines up with scripture very nicely. As nicely as any other ideas that I have read here.

Isaiah, I am not here to convince you. I am not here for you to mock my contributions or understanding of the Word. I am here to share and to learn. Unlike many here, I do not have a degree in Theology or even a good working knowledge of the Greek. But what I do have is a love of God and his Son Jesus Christ. I see scripture very simply. And this little debate surrounding Philippians has shown my ignorance. That is perfectly OK with me. It's OK with me because I don't believe that most Christians who received Paul's letters were as smart as you, Isaiah. They were simple people – like me. The message is simple.

Was Jesus in the form of God? Yes. He was God's Son. He was God's exact representation. Did Jesus have the essential nature of God? You bet he did – he was his Son. Did Jesus use his privileges as God's Son? Nope. He wouldn't have even thought about it! That's just who my Lord is —- humble. He was/is God's Son, but he humbled himself and continued on just like you, Isaiah; that is, a man. He thought of you and of me, more than he thought of himself. And that is the main thrust of the passage. To humble ourselves and think of the other above ourselves. By the way, that includes exposing one another….
Have a great weekend, brother.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 24 2007,19:38)

Isaiah, I am not here to convince you.  I am not here for you to mock my contributions or understanding of the Word.  I am here to share and to learn.  Unlike many here, I do not have a degree in Theology or even a good working knowledge of the Greek.  But what I do have is a love of God and his Son Jesus Christ.

I haven't mocked you Not3.

Quote

I see scripture very simply.  And this little debate surrounding Philippians has shown my ignorance.  That is perfectly OK with me.  It's OK with me because I don't believe that most Christians who received Paul's letters were as smart as you, Isaiah.  They were simple people – like me.  The message is simple.

To the contrary Not3, I think their grasp of Greek would have far surpassed mine, otherwise they would not have been able to read the letter.

The nuances in the language would not have escaped their attention.

Quote

Was Jesus in the form of God?  Yes.  He was God's Son.  He was God's exact representation.  Did Jesus have the essential nature of God?  You bet he did – he was his Son.

Well since that nature was absolute divinity it stands to reason that Jesus was (and is) God too. It is nature that defines the being.

Quote

Did Jesus use his privileges as God's Son?  Nope.  He wouldn't have even thought about it!  That's just who my Lord is —- humble.  He was/is God's Son, but he humbled himself and continued on just like you, Isaiah; that is, a man.

Well it seems we agree here, although I would disagree with the inference that the humility was permanent. Jesus was made lower than the angels for a little while (Heb 2:9). He is the First and Last (Rev 1:17, 2:9), the Alpha and Omega (Rev 22:13), Not3. These are not a titles that someone would apply to themselves if in a humbled state. Nor would others designate them with titles like “Most High” (Dan 7:25), or “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36)….

Quote

He thought of you and of me, more than he thought of himself.  And that is the main thrust of the passage.  To humble ourselves and think of the other above ourselves.  By the way, that includes exposing one another…. Have a great weekend, brother.

Yes we agree that he humbled Himself, but how?….that's the issue here. Someone who existed in the essential nature of “God” and relinquished the privileges associated with this state to take on the lowly form (nature) of a human servant and suffer a horrific death is certainly humility in it's very essence. This type of sacrifice would make Christ the exemplar for us all to follow. But somone who looked like God and then changed appearance to look like a servant?…is this humility? I don't get it sister….

Blessings

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18,
You say
“Well since that nature was absolute divinity”

Are there natures that are not 'absolutely' divine?

And

“Well it seems we agree here, although I would disagree with the inference that the humility was permanent.”

Is humility a state or an attitude?
Matthew 18:4
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 14:11
For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
James 4:6
But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
1 Peter 5:5
Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble
James 4:10
Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
1 Peter 5:6
Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

[Not3in1]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 24 2007,20:06)

Well since that nature was absolute divinity it stands to reason that Jesus was (and is) God too. It is nature that defines the being.

Please refer to the CONCEPTION thread.

Jesus is a combination of his two parents. Jesus was truly conceived because the Word does not give us another definition of conception. The angel even declares to Mary that her relative is pregnant also.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 24 2007,20:06)

Well it seems we agree here, although I would disagree with the inference that the humility was permanent.

Jesus is God's Son. Indeed he is humble before his God. He is reigning and ruling for his Father for a time….but then he will turn everything over to his God once again [1 Cor. 15].

This is permanent humility – to let another who is greater rule above you.

God – Jesus' God – will be all in all.

Jesus is our prime example of what it means to be humble and put other's above ourselves.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 24 2007,20:06)

These are not a titles that someone would apply to themselves if in a humbled state.

Surely Jesus' God has glorified him for what he has done.  Surely the God of Jesus has given him all authority (we must not forget though, that this full authority is temporary!).  

Jesus is currently at the right hand of his God.  He is glorious.  He is ruling and reigning.  He is in heaven.  However, while he was on earth – he was humble.  He did not call himself anything other than the Son of Man and implied he was the Son of God.  He was not one for titles while on earth.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 24 2007,20:06)

Nor would others designate them with titles like “Most High” (Dan 7:25), or “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36)….

They would if it was prophetic like in Daniel. Or if it was referring to Jesus' exhaulted state like in Acts.

None of these titles were given to the man, Jesus.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 24 2007,20:06)

Yes we agree that he humbled Himself, but how?….that's the issue here. Someone who existed in the essential nature of “God” and relinquished the privileges associated with this state to take on the lowly form (nature) of a human servant and suffer a horrific death is certainly humility in it's very essence. This type of sacrifice would make Christ the exemplar for us all to follow. But somone who looked like God and then changed appearance to look like a servant?…is this humility? I don't get it sister….

Isaiah, I don't totally get it either!

But I do know that Jesus is God's Son. Therefore he shares God's essential nature/essence.

Jesus existed “with” the essential nature of God as “part” of who and what his was/is. That is the major difference between my Jesus and your Jesus. For it is impossible for your Jesus to empty himself and be humble when he IS God incarnate. It is not impossible, on the other hand, for God's literal Son to humble himself when he is the one and only Son to the one and only God!! He simply chose not to use his privileges. He emptied himself of the RIGHT to be a King on earth (this time around ) He will most assuredly claim that right the next time around. Praise God and worthy are you, Jesus!

Jesus told his disciples that he could call on his Father and have angels at his disposal (the only Son of God has this right and more) but he didn't use those rights, did he? That, my brother, is what Jesus emptied himself of. The right to be who he truly was on earth. But he'll get his time to be who he really is…….oh, yes!

[Not3in1]

Isaiah, I can't remember now – did I answer the questions you had? Oh, ya, there was one more about the verse “…..though he was rich yet was he made poor….” (not sure where that is just now).

Well, I would say that my answer is consistent with what I've been saying all along regarding Jesus' true conception and sonship: Jesus is the only begotten of God, himself! He is more than a prince of a King, he is God's personal, exact represenation and heir! As such, he was born rich in all things, just as a prince of a King would be considered “rich.”

Jesus was rich, yet he *became* poor for you and me. Meaning, as I have said before – he did not take advantage of his rights, instead he emptied himself of those God-given rights! Thank you, Jesus!

If I have missed any other questions you have asked of me, please let me know. Thanks, Isaiah!

[NickHassan]

Hi Not3,
I agree.
Is 1.18 said of Jesus
“Nor would others designate them with titles like “Most High” (Dan 7:25), or “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36)….
Dan 7.25 in context.
“21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

22Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

23Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

24And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

25And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

26But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

27And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. “

The Saints of the Most High are the saints of God, the Ancient of days.
Christ has indeed been made Lord of all.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 25 2007,08:07)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 24 2007,20:06) Well it seems we agree here, although I would disagree with the inference that the humility was permanent. Jesus is God's Son.  Indeed he is humble before his God.  He is reigning and ruling for his Father for a time….but then he will turn everything over to his God once again [1 Cor. 15]. This is permanent humility – to let another who is greater rule above you. God – Jesus' God – will be all in all.   Jesus is our prime example of what it means to be humble and put other's above ourselves.

Sorry, I was unclear in what I meant by humility, I was making reference exclusively of “kenoō” in Phil 2:7. I wasn't speaking of an attitude of humility….

Not3, how do you understand this verse?

Hebrews 2:9
9But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone

Did Jesus, the man, at one occupy a position that was higher than, or equal to, the angels?

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 25 2007,08:30)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 24 2007,20:06) Nor would others designate them with titles like “Most High” (Dan 7:25), or “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36)…. They would if it was prophetic like in Daniel.  Or if it was referring to Jesus' exhaulted state like in Acts. None of these titles were given to the man, Jesus.

That's besides the point, they were given to the resurrected Jesus (who remained a man). Did Jesus get an ontological upgrade after his death?

[Not3in1]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 26 2007,16:54)

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 25 2007,08:30) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 24 2007,20:06) Nor would others designate them with titles like “Most High” (Dan 7:25), or “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36)…. They would if it was prophetic like in Daniel.  Or if it was referring to Jesus' exhaulted state like in Acts. None of these titles were given to the man, Jesus. That's besides the point, they were given to the resurrected Jesus (who remained a man). Did Jesus get an ontological upgrade after his death?

Actually it isn't beside the point – it is the point!

While on earth, Jesus was not referred to as anything but the Son of Man and hoped to be the Messiah (which he agreed to with the Samaritan women by the well).

He WAS all of the wonderful things you say (Lord of Lords), but he emptied himself of those rights.

Now as the glorified Son at the Father's right hand, those rights are enjoyed.

[Author]

Posts