Proclaimer Mikeboll64 vs JB2U

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 10 2013,12:20)

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 07 2013,15:07)

Again, you keep having to change the sentence in order to make your point.

The difference is in your interpretation of Philippians 2.

I'm going to try to end this Phil 2 thing, once and for all………

This is the literal translation of the Greek words of verses 6 and 7:

who, in form of god existing, not something to be grasped esteemed it to be equal with god, but himself emptied, form of servant having taken, in likeness of men being made

(From here.)

Any way you slice it, Paul's words have Jesus existing in the form of God and emptying himself BEFORE “in likeness of men being made”.

We can move on from Phil 2 if you like, BUT..

you seem to agree/understand that “form of God” and “image of God” are the same thing; however, you then want to revert back to a meaning of “form of God” which means that Jesus existed previously in a different essence!

I do not really get it. The point is WE are ALL in the image of God and SHOULD empty ourselves and do God's will, just like Jesus did!!

There would be a point to be made..IF Paul had said that Jesus EXISTED in the form of God and then was transformed into man, but you have to change Paul's words in order to say that!!

September 19, 2013 at 9:59 am#358098

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 10 2013,12:51)

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 07 2013,15:43)

Matthew 1
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

The word here (generation) is an “origin” or “a beginning.” The same Hebrew equivalent word is found here

Micah 5:2 says that his origins are from “days of old, from ancient times”. And that was “days of old” from MICAH'S viewpoint.

No..reread Micah 5:2

What does it actually say!!

It NEVER says His “origins”.. it says “whose GOING FORTH was from long, the days of eternity.”

Now, that is different. We learn 2 things from Micah 5:2

1) He shall come “OUT OF THEE” (which is to say a) He has not yet came and b) it will be out of Bethlehem)

2) ONLY His “goings forth” will be “from eternity.” (NOW, this is tougher for you than me. Either, a) Jesus existed in eternity or b) The decree/plan from God to send Jesus as our savior is what existed in eternity. Which is it? Is Jesus an eternal being? OR, is it just like God said? My word (God's) will go forth out of my MOUTH and not return until it has accomplished that which I sent it to do!! Again, reread Micah. No where does it say His “origins” will from days of old, eternity. Read the passage in a direct Hebrew translation/analysis.

Quote

At any rate, Matthew is recording the fleshly genealogy of Jesus, which is attested by your second scripture:

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 07 2013,15:43)

Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

See that? ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, Jesus was of the seed of David.

jb, let's say my great grandpa's name was John. Could you imagine someone telling you that I was of the seed of John ACCORDING TO THE FLESH? Of course not.

Why then do you suppose Paul added the disclaimer “according to the flesh”? As opposed to what?

Well..read on and it tells you..He was the very seed of David by flesh and “And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:”

So what do we get out of this? He is the VERY SEED of David and, just like the angel Gabriel said, God's holy spirit came upon Mary causing the miracle of a virgin conception. Now, because this birth came from God and not by a man, I believe that Jesus was born sinless..unlike us. BUT..Jesus is still a being, with a beginning in Mary's womb!! If Jesus came “as a preexistent being transformed into Mary's womb” then there is NO NEED for “Mary's seed.” And thus, it is just an illusion that Jesus was “of the very seed of David” AS PROMISED.

Quote

As for Isaiah 49, I've never argued that Jesus wasn't formed in the womb of Mary. But the fact he was in no way prohibits him from existing in the form of God before he was formed in the womb of Mary.

True, but where does it say that He existed before he existed?

September 19, 2013 at 10:23 am#358103

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 10 2013,13:04)

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 07 2013,16:00)

One can ONLY be BORN of a woman!!

You sure?

Psalm 90:2 NIV ©
Before the mountains were born…………..

(BTW, the word is “yalad”, which is also the Hebrew word for “begotten”. Apparently it is not only humans who are “begotten” after all. Actually, the Hebrew word means “brought forth into existence”.)

Come on Mike..You KNOW that the Jews personify things that are inanimate objects right?? Or, are you truly waiting for the floods to clap THEIR HANDS or the trees to clap THEIR HANDS or the Hills to be JOYFUL or the mountains to SING? Psalm 98:8 , Isaiah 55:12

What better way to personify the mountains than by saying that they did something that they could NOT do because ONLY HUMANS..not preexistent beings, angels, or mountains can do!!

Even by your own admission..it means “brought forth INTO EXISTENCE” let me retype that..INTO EXISTENCE.

How can one exist BEFORE they exist? You must answer that!!

Quote

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 07 2013,16:00)

The fact that that word appears NO WHERE in the Bible should at least get you to stop and at least think about it.

Jesus hinted that John the Baptist was Elijah. I don't know if he meant it literally, but if he did, should we not believe him simply because John was never specifically said to have pre-existed his current flesh state?

Well..”if he did” then we should not; however, we are still left with assuming “if he did”.

That being said..what does the BIBLE actually say about John the baptist? Let's look at Luke 1:17
“And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

So..it is “in the spirit and power OF Elijah” and not literally Elijah himself who came as John the baptist!! Jesus does tell us that Elijah “will come” which is to say that He still has NOT!

Matt 17
10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?

11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.

12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

So, we STILL do not have a pre-existent being.

September 19, 2013 at 10:39 am#358105

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 10 2013,13:07)

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 07 2013,16:24)

Yes, BUT..God is not a location!! Jesus said He came out from God!! NOT out from heaven!! Think about exactly what it is that the scripture says!!

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.

Does that one fit your criteria? Think about exactly what it is that the scripture says!!

Again..

One can say I came “down from heaven” and “out from God” and BOTH would be correct.

HOWEVER..one can NOT say, I came “down from heaven” and “out from God” if they actually were a preexistent created being in heaven!

Do you see? For example..pay close attention here..

Let's say there is a Wal-Mart in Florida (God=Wal-Mart, Heaven=Florida).

I was in the Wal-Mart and drove to Georgia, got it?
Now, I stop and someone asks, “where did you come from?”

I CAN say..”I came from Wal-Mart” OR, equally correct, I can say “I came from Florida.”

BUT..If I was never actually in Wal-Mart..I can NOT say..”I came out of Wal-Mart.” It really is just that simple.

Understand? Because Jesus came “out from God”, who is in heaven, He can also say “I came down from heaven.”

But..if He existed as a being in heaven, He can not say that He came “out from God.” He CAN say that He came “down from heaven.” But to say He came “out from God” would be not really correct. And God Himself said that His word will go “out from His mouth.” And we know that Jesus is the word of God.

So, where did Jesus come from?
(Hint: out from God and from heaven)

September 19, 2013 at 11:40 am#358110

Participant

Sorry for not keeping up here.

Forgive me if this seems lame compared to what you might have already discussed.

But what is the form of God? My guess it is spirit. God is a spirit. Angels are spirits too and they are called sons.

Did Jesus exist in spirit form, partake of the flesh, then return to the glory that he had with the Father before the world began. Well it says he was made a little lower than the angels and angels are spirits, whereas he partook of the flesh.

When Jesus appeared to the disciples they thought he was a spirit, but he assured them he was not. “A spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” Following this, he ascended to Heaven.

Now our brother Paul writes regarding the body that first comes the flesh and then the spiritual body. We are further told that our lowly bodies will be transformed into a body like his. So that would have to mean Jesus now has a spiritual body if Paul was correct about what kind of body we will have.

So where am I going with this. Well if Jesus existed in the form of God, (spirit), came in the flesh, and received a spiritual body upon ascending into Heaven, then he certainly returned to the glory that he had with the Father before the world began. Of course the description of Jesus after the resurrection was quite different to that before he ascended but after rising from the dead. The former obviously looked like a body of flesh because when he spoke to some of the apostles they did not recognise him and neither did they think he was an angel or anything but a man initially. It wasn't until they knew it was Jesus that they thought maybe he was a spirit, not because of the way he looked but because he had died and was now walking with them.

So Jesus could well have existed in the form of God in spirit form or having a spiritual body and now exists in this form again. Or maybe he was a spirit and now has a spiritual body. The question is, did he exist in the form of God while he was a man who emptied himself. I think you are saying he did JB2U and Mike is saying no.

But I suppose this doesn't matter either way regarding the topic because the real question is did Jesus exist in the form of God prior to coming in the flesh. I take it that both of you believe that he is he existing in the form of God now?

Certainly Mike is right if you take the order of events that is given and preserve that order. But if the order doesn't matter, then that means that Mike may still be right and may not be. An obvious question arises at this stage. “Is everything else in that verse in order? If yes, then what is the chance that this one event is out of place while all the others are not. It could indicate strongly that if all else is in order, then that probably should be too.

If everything else is in order JB2U, then you should reconsider your position IMO even based on that. If not, then I don't think any of us can make more headway and should move on because there is much else to discuss.

BTW, Mike, I know you discussed much with JustAskin about the difference between a spiritual body and a spirit. What was the conclusion on that. I never followed that discussion so I don't know what you guys discussed.

September 19, 2013 at 11:50 am#358111

Participant

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 19 2013,22:39)

@ JB2U

Pre Nicene Creed quite a while before actually, many of the so-called second century fathers wrote that the first work of God was to birth the logos so that the logos was with him as another. Then God created all things through him and for him.

They think of it like a torch (fire) where the original torch lights another, without divesting the logos in the original.

Jesus taught us that he came from God, then said, and now I am here. If I said, I came from New Zealand, and now I am here (Israel) then that would be easy to understand. If Jesus said he came from God, and God dwell in Heaven, then perhaps this is why Jesus came from Heaven.

John 6:8
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

John 8:42 (English NIV)
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.

September 19, 2013 at 11:58 am#358114

Participant

@ JB2U

John 1:18 (English-KJV)
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

This verse is interesting. It says that only the son has seen the invisible God. So in your view, that means he can see or saw God while he was a man because he was only ever a man in your view. But scripture plainly states that no man has seen God at any time and can ever see God. Clearly a contradiction with your view.

For your reference to save you time, here are similar verses that differ slightly and paint a bigger picture on this.

1 John 4:12 (English-NIV)
No one has ever seen God; ….

1 Timothy 1:17 (English-NIV)
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.
Amen.

1 Timothy 6:15-16 (English-NIV)
15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

John 6:46 (English-NIV)
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

John 1:18 (English-KJV)
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

September 19, 2013 at 10:08 pm#358146

Blocked

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 19 2013,03:26)

There would be a point to be made..IF Paul had said that Jesus EXISTED in the form of God and then was transformed into man, but you have to change Paul's words in order to say that!!

That's pretty much EXACTLY what Paul said, jb.

But I posted the actual meaning of the Greek words, right? And the bottom line will always remain that Jesus EMPTIED HIMSELF……….. and was made in the likeness of a human being.

One must exist BEFORE being made in the likeness of a human being if he emptied himself before being made in the likeness of a human being.

Normal human beings have nothing to empty themselves of before they begin existing as human beings, right?

But Jesus emptied himself and was made in the likeness of a human being.

So even if you purposely refuse to see that Jesus was existing in one form before taking on a DIFFERENT form, you will never be able to run away from the fact that Jesus emptied himself before being made in the likeness of a human being.

September 19, 2013 at 11:02 pm#358156

Blocked

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 19 2013,03:59)

It NEVER says His “origins”.. it says “whose GOING FORTH was from long, the days of eternity.”

Okay. Looks like we'll put John 17:5 on the backburner for a while longer and discuss Micah 5:2.

Micah 5:2 NET Bible
……..from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf, one whose origins 4 are in the distant past. 5

Footnote #4:
Heb “his goings out.”

The term may refer to the ruler’s origins (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) or to his activities.

1. All the Bibles listed in this footnote – the ones that have “origins” in this verse – are TRINITARIAN sponsored translations. Despite the fact that these Trinitarians definitely don't WANT Jesus to “have origins”, they have nevertheless translated it as “origins” because they know that “brought forth” (yalad) is the Hebrew way to say someone was born, begotten, or caused to exist. It seems logical then, to them, that “goings forth” is simply the “ongoing” way to say the same thing. As in “he was brought forth a long time ago” versus “the bringing forth of him was from a long time ago”.

But we can keep it as “goings forth” for this discussion, if you'd like.

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 19 2013,03:59)

2) ONLY His “goings forth” will be “from eternity.”

Footnote #5 from the verse above:
Heb “from the past, from the days of antiquity.”

Elsewhere both phrases refer to the early periods in the history of the world or of the nation of Israel. For מִקֶּדֶם (miqqedem, “from the past”) see Neh 12:46; Pss 74:12; 77:11; Isa 45:21; 46:10.

For מִימֵי עוֹלָם (mimey ’olam, “from the days of antiquity”) see Isa 63:9, 11; Amos 9:11; Mic 7:14; Mal 3:4.

So you can see that these Hebrew words don't actually mean “from eternity”, like most Trinitarian translations would have you believe. The same words are used many times in scripture where they refer simply to ancient times.

You can compare the same translations listed in footnote #4 above, and see that not only do they all have “origins” in this verse, they also render the last part as “ancient times”, “distant past”, or something similar.

At any rate, can we both agree that Jesus' “goings forth” (origins/activities) were from “antiquity, from days of old”?

September 19, 2013 at 11:19 pm#358158

Blocked

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 19 2013,04:23)

How can one exist BEFORE they exist? You must answer that!!

You mean, How can someone exist IN ONE FORM before existing in a DIFFERENT FORM?

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 19 2013,04:23)

So..it is “in the spirit and power OF Elijah” and not literally Elijah himself who came as John the baptist!!

Malachi 4:5
“See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.

Matthew 17:10
The disciples asked him, “Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”

Matthew 11
11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist……..

14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.

15 Whoever has ears, let them hear.

Matthew 17:12
However, I say to you that Elijah has already come and they did not recognize him but did with him the things they wanted.”

So tell me, how could Elijah “exist” before “existing” as John the Baptist? Should we disbelieve the words of Jesus above simply because the word “pre-exist” is not used anywhere of John the Baptist?

The fact that Elijah was taken up to heaven years earlier proves to us that a being can exist in heaven BEFORE being conceived in the womb of a woman. It shows us that, in rare cases, the conception in the woman's womb isn't the beginning of the existence of that person. In rare cases, certain ones have existed in one form before existing in a different form.

“Let him who has ears listen!”

September 19, 2013 at 11:28 pm#358160

Blocked

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 19 2013,04:39)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 10 2013,13:07)

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 07 2013,16:24)

Yes, BUT..God is not a location!! Jesus said He came out from God!! NOT out from heaven!! Think about exactly what it is that the scripture says!!

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.

Does that one fit your criteria? Think about exactly what it is that the scripture says!!

Again..

One can say I came “down from heaven” and “out from God” and BOTH would be correct.

HOWEVER..one can NOT say, I came “down from heaven” and “out from God” if they actually were a preexistent created being in heaven!

Do you see? For example..pay close attention here..

Let's say there is a Wal-Mart in Florida (God=Wal-Mart, Heaven=Florida).

I was in the Wal-Mart and drove to Georgia, got it?
Now, I stop and someone asks, “where did you come from?”

I CAN say..”I came from Wal-Mart” OR, equally correct, I can say “I came from Florida.”

BUT..If I was never actually in Wal-Mart..I can NOT say..”I came out of Wal-Mart.” It really is just that simple.

Understand? Because Jesus came “out from God”, who is in heaven, He can also say “I came down from heaven.”

So, where did Jesus come from?
(Hint: out from God and from heaven)

I don't usually quote the other person's whole post, but I did this time because I was hoping you could explain any of the words you wrote that change the fact that Jesus directly and clearly said, “I came down from heaven.”

Your point that he cannot say he came down from heaven AND out from God doesn't make any sense to me.

1. Can “I came out from God” mean “I came out from the presence of God”?

2. Didn't everything that now exists originally come “out from God”?

Maybe I'm missing the point……. but I can't see one thing in that post that directly addresses the fact that Jesus clearly told the Jews, not only that he came down from heaven, but that some of those same Jews would see him ascend to where he was before. And in Acts 1, we have an account where some of those same Jews did in fact see him ascend to where he was before.

Please explain to me in a clear and concise manner WHY exactly the words, “I came down from heaven” DON'T mean that Jesus came down from heaven. Surely your sole reason can't be because he said elsewhere, “I came out from God”……….. can it?

September 19, 2013 at 11:59 pm#358162

Blocked

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 19 2013,05:40)

Sorry for not keeping up here.

Forgive me if this seems lame compared to what you might have already discussed.

But what is the form of God? My guess it is spirit. God is a spirit. Angels are spirits too and they are called sons.

The only other reason I ever quote another person's entire post is when the whole thing is perfectly brilliant!

Far from being “lame”, your post summed up what we both consider to be a very easy teaching of scripture. And you did it in a clear and precise, matter-of-fact manner.

The one point I'd like to see jb address is this one:

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 19 2013,05:40)

Certainly Mike is right if you take the order of events that is given and preserve that order.

An obvious question arises at this stage…… “Is everything else in that verse in order?”

The statement starts with “existing”, and ends with “death on a stake”. Surely the “existing” came BEFORE the “death on a stake”, right? So what exactly would cause anyone to see what falls between those two things as “out of chronological order”? Why start at the beginning, end at the end, but NOT put the rest of the stuff in progressive order? Who would ever do that?

You are also right that this Phil 2 debate has reached its end. I see “form of God, THEN emptied himself, THEN was made in the likeness of a human being”. It seems pretty straight-forward to me.

But if jb insists on seeing “existed as a human being, emptied himself, and was made in the likeness of a human being” as a normal way for someone to write a portion of someone else's history, then there is nothing more I can say to change his mind.

We have now inadvertently moved on to Micah 5 and John 6 anyway. Micah shouldn't take too long, because facts are facts. Only time will tell how long we're on John 6.

But I'm in no hurry. The only thing I want is some kind of CLOSURE on one scripture before moving on to other ones. If closure is impossible on Phil 2, then it's time to move on.

(BTW, JustAskin and I never came to an agreement on the spirit body discussion. But you have put it in your post the way I also understand it.)

September 20, 2013 at 12:12 am#358164

Participant

Cheers Mike.

September 20, 2013 at 12:14 am#358165

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Sep. 20 2013,03:35)

T8……It does not say Jesus seen God, it says the only begotten Son, “DECLARED” him, not he SEEN him. You can't see SPIRIT, except through the “MINDS EYE” . “God is a SPIRIT and those who Worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and truth” Jesus told us. Jesus never physically saw God nor will ever see him physically, nor has any Man seen God Physically, nor will ever Physically see him either.

John 6:46 (English-NIV)
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

My point still stands because no man has seen God (whether in the mind's eye or not). But the son has seen God (whether in the mind's eye or not).

So if the son is a mere man, then he cannot ever see God (whether in the mind's eye or not), and yet he has seen him and declares him totally contradicting the fact that NO MAN can see him (whether in the mind's eye or not).

September 20, 2013 at 11:20 am#358191

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 19 2013,22:40)

Sorry for not keeping up here.

Forgive me if this seems lame compared to what you might have already discussed.

But what is the form of God? My guess it is spirit. God is a spirit. Angels are spirits too and they are called sons.

……
If everything else is in order JB2U, then you should reconsider your position IMO even based on that. If not, then I don't think any of us can make more headway and should move on because there is much else to discuss.

…..

Welcome back.

You have posted a lot here. There is much I would like to say, but, to keep it somewhat focused, I will only say the following.

“from of God” EQUALS “image of God”

Mike acknowledged that fact, and then went on to imply that “form of God” meant that Jesus had a different ESSENCE then that of man.

NOW..if one UNDERSTANDS that “form of God” means the same as “image of God” then one will understand that it in NO WAY implies a different essence than man, seeing how we are ALL in the “image of God.”

Please, t8 reread my comments on this. Then, go to the Bible and reread the context around it. What is Paul saying? What message is God trying to give us?

The “form of God” does not mean that Jesus existed as a spirit any more than “image of God” means that WE existed as a spirit prior to our birth!!

For Mike to maintain a chronological order, he has to change the words “existing in the form of God” to “existed” in the form of God. WE, all three of us, tell trinitarians NOT to change words to suit our beliefs, and we should do the same!

Jesus was “in the form of God” at His beginning, on the cross, and today!!

We can move on for now. I would like to revisit this post later; although, I am sure we will get to some of what I want to say anyway.

September 20, 2013 at 11:22 am#358192

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 19 2013,22:50)

@ JB2U

They think of it like a torch (fire) where the original torch lights another, without divesting the logos in the original.

John 6:8
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

John 8:42 (English NIV)
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.

The problem is that He did not say that He came “from God.” What He said was that He came “out from God.”

There is a difference, if we choose to see it.

September 20, 2013 at 11:44 am#358193

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 19 2013,22:58)

@ JB2U

John 1:18 (English-KJV)
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18 only states that Jesus revealed/declared God. Surely this is true as we know Jesus spoke God's words and performed God's miracles. Jesus came to reveal God!

That being said..John 6:46
It does say that Jesus “has seen” God. Of this, we can agree.

Can we also agree on the other 2 things that this passage says and does not say..?

1) It says “no man” has seen God “except” Jesus..right? So, it is saying Jesus is that MAN who saw God!

2) It does not say that He saw God “in a previous life”. It does not say HOW He saw God. COULD it have been in a vision? Surely, God showed Jesus many things WHILE He was here on earth. I already stated that I believe God showed Jesus visions of what was to come while He was in the Garden and that is why, I believe, that Jesus was sweating blood and asking God if there was any other way.

So, can we agree that Jesus saw God, but it doesn't say that it was “first person” or “in a previous life” or “not in a vision”?

September 20, 2013 at 12:25 pm#358197

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2013,09:08)

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 19 2013,03:26)

There would be a point to be made..IF Paul had said that Jesus EXISTED in the form of God and then was transformed into man, but you have to change Paul's words in order to say that!!

That's pretty much EXACTLY what Paul said, jb.

NO..Paul said “existing” NOT “existed”!!

And..you can't have “pretty much” and “exactly” together!

Quote

But I posted the actual meaning of the Greek words, right? And the bottom line will always remain that Jesus EMPTIED HIMSELF……….. and was made in the likeness of a human being.

One must exist BEFORE being made in the likeness of a human being if he emptied himself before being made in the likeness of a human being.

Normal human beings have nothing to empty themselves of before they begin existing as human beings, right?

But Jesus emptied himself and was made in the likeness of a human being.

You have to also believe that Jesus completely forgot about His “previous life.” If not, you have to then believe that Jesus did not believe by faith but by sight, for He has seen all things from the beginning. It would not take any faith at all. It does not say, “Jesus volunteered.” Scripture says God chose Jesus!! God raised up a prophet, Jesus, and put His words in Jesus' mouth!! Jesus asked “if there was any other way.” He decided to do God's will, and yes, at some point on EARTH, Jesus could have followed His own will, but God knew before the foundation of the earth that Jesus would do the right thing!! I would like to think that is clear in scripture!!

Quote

“Purposely refuse”? I am not sure why you want to keep using such language with me. I told you from the beginning. I only want the truth to come to light. I pray daily about this. I believed that Jesus preexisted, but as I began to ask God for understanding, as I searched for the truth, I kept finding passages that, to me, showed that He did not preexist. I believe that God was giving me the understanding for which I asked. Now, you can say that I am wrong, but to say I am purposely wrong would not be a correct description of my character. I take seriously EVER word that I type here. If I lead someone to believe a lie, I truly fear God's judgement. This is why I pray daily about this subject and our discussion.

As far as “emptying himself” before being “made in the likeness of a human being”..
It actually says, IF you want to take it chronologically, He took on the “form of a servant” and “was made in the likeness of men.”

So..do you believe that He was first in the “form of God” then “in the form of a servant” AND THEN “in the form of man”?

And what about the wording “in the likeness of men.” Does that mean that He wasn't really a man? He was just in the “likeness of men”? OR..is it like many scholars, even trinitarian scholars, believe Paul wrote here in a poetic sense. Do not let the poetry fool you into seeing a chronological order. Also poetic structure would explain why there is a restatement at verse 8 that seems to contradict the “order” of verses 6 and 7.

That being said..this is what I believe..
I believe that Jesus was born in the image of God, just like us. He always exited in the form of God since conception, and that is why Paul does NOT put it in past tense. Jesus' whole life from conception to now has been “in the form of God.” Now, as a 1 year old or 2 year old..we know NOTHING. At some point, we begin to have self awareness. We learn “who we are.” I believe at around age 5 Jewish boys begin to learn the Torah. Now, Jesus is all in the Torah. Jesus LEARNED that He was the Messiah. He GREW in Wisdom!! He became for us the word of God!! At some point, when He was ABLE to, He humbled Himself. He took on the form of a servant and was obedient to God's will to His death, while having complete FAITH that God would raise Him from the dead!!

September 20, 2013 at 12:34 pm#358199

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2013,10:02)

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 19 2013,03:59)

It NEVER says His “origins”.. it says “whose GOING FORTH was from long, the days of eternity.”

Okay. Looks like we'll put John 17:5 on the backburner for a while longer and discuss Micah 5:2.

Micah 5:2 NET Bible
……..from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf, one whose origins 4 are in the distant past. 5

Footnote #4:
Heb “his goings out.”

The term may refer to the ruler’s origins (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) or to his activities.

But we can keep it as “goings forth” for this discussion, if you'd like.

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 19 2013,03:59)

2) ONLY His “goings forth” will be “from eternity.”

Footnote #5 from the verse above:
Heb “from the past, from the days of antiquity.”

Elsewhere both phrases refer to the early periods in the history of the world or of the nation of Israel. For מִקֶּדֶם (miqqedem, “from the past”) see Neh 12:46; Pss 74:12; 77:11; Isa 45:21; 46:10.

For מִימֵי עוֹלָם (mimey ’olam, “from the days of antiquity”) see Isa 63:9, 11; Amos 9:11; Mic 7:14; Mal 3:4.

At any rate, can we both agree that Jesus' “goings forth” (origins/activities) were from “antiquity, from days of old”?

I realize that some translations say “origins”. I also realize that some translations are wrong and that the translations are NOT inerrant..only the manuscripts are inerrant.

Now, in the Hebrew manuscript..

It says “goings forth” which is umowsaotaw.

and it says “eternity” which is owlam.

So, NOWHERE does it say “origins” or “from long ago” in the Hebrew manuscript.

That is really all I have to say about Micah 5:2

We can read it to say as it does that Jesus' “goings forth” have been from “eternity” OR..we can change the words to suit a belief that Jesus preexisted. Your choice?

September 20, 2013 at 12:43 pm#358201