- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2013,10:28) …. 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?
Mike, please reread my post!!I did NOT say that Jesus can't say that He came “down from heaven” and “out from God.”
I said that He CAN say both..
I ended my post with..
So, where did Jesus come from?
(Hint: out from God and from heaven)Do you see it?
What I said was Jesus can NOT say He came “down from heaven” and “out from God” IF..do you see it..IF He was really a preexistent being that was not “in God” but rather “beside Him.”
Do you see the difference?
Again, Jesus can say “I came down from God” and “out from God” because He did..as God said..”My word will go out from my mouth..”
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2013,10:59) Micah shouldn't take too long, because facts are facts.
I agree!!The words “origins” are not in Hebrew.
and the word “eternity” is in Hebrew.Facts are facts indeed!!
So Micah actually says “His, Jesus', goings forth are from eternity!! (according to the words in HEBREW)
Quote 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. I see no chance of agreement, so we can agree to disagree for now. In the end, if one of us sees the others side, then that person will just have to admit that they were reading Phil 2 incorrectly. I know that I can, as I have already done so 😉
One more quick and curious thing about Phil 2.
I have asked before about a “preexistent” word not being used. I have also asked why it doesn't say that He was “transformed” or “turned into” or “change into” a man.
Do you remember me asking that?Anyway, Notice that Mark 9:2 and Matt 17:2, both say that Jesus was “transfigured” on the mountain.
Do you not find it odd that here it does mention a change?The word used is metemorphōthē which means “transformed.”
Just something for you both to consider. Peter, James, and John see Jesus changed into what He will become.
And yet, supposedly when it could/should properly be used in Phil 2, it is not there??Again, I am not trying to be argumentative with you guys. I want you both just to consider what I say. Maybe, just maybe, I am right!!
The most important thing is we keep the focus on understanding the truth of God's word. We can not let this divide us!!Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 20 2013,05:20) 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!
Instead of putting the burden of “maintaining a chronological order” on me, why not explain to us why YOU would think those events AREN'T in chronological order?Paul clearly starts with Jesus “existing”, right?
Then he moves on to Jesus “dying on a stake”, right?
Then he moves on to Jesus being “exalted” and “given a name” and “all knees bowing”, right?
Are these three things in chronological order? YES or NO?
As for your point that it says “existing” and not “existed”, this is a recent post from me in a different thread:
Quote I disagree with that, Marty. But it seems that you, Kerwin, t8, and I are all in agreement that “was existing”, or “existed”, is definitely implied in verse 6 – since the statement as a whole was describing past tense events. And since you, Kerwin, and the rest of the non-preexisters all believe that Paul was “looking back to the time of Jesus' ministry on the earth”, you guys shouldn't ever point out to us that “it doesn't say existed” – because even you guys understand that Paul was talking about PAST TENSE events, right?
I only mention this because whenever any of us use Phil 2 as a pre-existent proof, you guys don't really ever argue the validity of the point we're making, but instead always defer to the “it says existing – not existed” evasion. By doing that, you try to avoid addressing the actual point of Phil 2, which is that Jesus was existing in the form of God, but emptied himself and was made in the likeness of a human being.
So from now on, since ALL of us believe “was existing” is implied from the past tense form of the statement as a whole, we should never again have to have our Phil 2 arguments avoided by “it says existing – not existed”, right?
Good. That means we can move forward to the meat of Phil 2, instead of continually getting stalled by that “existing/existed” dodge.
jb, the point is that even in YOUR understanding, Paul was recounting the time when Jesus was existing in the “image” of God as a human being on earth, and then conveying all the subsequent things that happened to this human being on earth, right?
So even if you think Jesus was a human being on earth when he was “existing in the form of God”, you still have to understand that Paul was talking about PAST events, right?
So instead of using the “existing/existed” dodge to avoid the meat of Phil 2, tell me plain and simple if you believe that Paul was recounting PAST events by describing a time when Jesus was existing in the form of God as a man, then died on a stake, then was exalted to the highest place.
(And don't use the “he's still in the form of God” evasion, because the fact that he was existing in the form of God in the past says absolutely nothing about whether or not he ever lost that form of God. In other words, address the MEAT of the matter, and stop playing word games.)
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2013,04:44) Instead of putting the burden of “maintaining a chronological order” on me, why not explain to us why YOU would think those events AREN'T in chronological order? Paul clearly starts with Jesus “existing”, right?
Then he moves on to Jesus “dying on a stake”, right?
Then he moves on to Jesus being “exalted” and “given a name” and “all knees bowing”, right?
Are these three things in chronological order? YES or NO?
As for your point that it says “existing” and not “existed”, this is a recent post from me in a different thread:
Quote I disagree with that, Marty. But it seems that you, Kerwin, t8, and I are all in agreement that “was existing”, or “existed”, is definitely implied in verse 6 – since the statement as a whole was describing past tense events. And since you, Kerwin, and the rest of the non-preexisters all believe that Paul was “looking back to the time of Jesus' ministry on the earth”, you guys shouldn't ever point out to us that “it doesn't say existed” – because even you guys understand that Paul was talking about PAST TENSE events, right?
I only mention this because whenever any of us use Phil 2 as a pre-existent proof, you guys don't really ever argue the validity of the point we're making, but instead always defer to the “it says existing – not existed” evasion. By doing that, you try to avoid addressing the actual point of Phil 2, which is that Jesus was existing in the form of God, but emptied himself and was made in the likeness of a human being.
So from now on, since ALL of us believe “was existing” is implied from the past tense form of the statement as a whole, we should never again have to have our Phil 2 arguments avoided by “it says existing – not existed”, right?
Good. That means we can move forward to the meat of Phil 2, instead of continually getting stalled by that “existing/existed” dodge.
jb, the point is that even in YOUR understanding, Paul was recounting the time when Jesus was existing in the “image” of God as a human being on earth, and then conveying all the subsequent things that happened to this human being on earth, right?
So even if you think Jesus was a human being on earth when he was “existing in the form of God”, you still have to understand that Paul was talking about PAST events, right?
So instead of using the “existing/existed” dodge to avoid the meat of Phil 2, tell me plain and simple if you believe that Paul was recounting PAST events by describing a time when Jesus was existing in the form of God as a man, then died on a stake, then was exalted to the highest place.
(And don't use the “he's still in the form of God” evasion, because the fact that he was existing in the form of God in the past says absolutely nothing about whether or not he ever lost that form of God. In other words, address the MEAT of the matter, and stop playing word games.)
Existing means existing..period. It makes little difference if we are looking back now, today, and speak of those things as a past event.You can NOT say, “well, since today we can say “existed” means that Paul meant to say “existed.”
Here would be an example..
If it is written..
John being wealthy..
made himself of no reputation..
became a servant..
and worked beside the poor.Now, did John ever stop being wealthy? NO.
Can we TODAY say..”even though John WAS wealthy, he still worked beside the poor”? YES, but that does not mean..AT THAT TIME..John gave up being wealthy. How do we know? BECAUSE..it says “John BEING wealthy.”That is NOT a hard concept to understand!!
Let's not forget what PRECEDES, “which was also in Christ Jesus”. Come on, what precedes this statement?
Here it is..
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:So, Paul is saying “Hey people think like this”
YOU, being in the form of God, should not try to be equal with God, but should empty yourselves of your own desires, and take on the role of a servant, being made men.
And, knowing that you are men (and not God), humble yourselves, and become obedient to God, even to your death.
Quote And don't use the “he's still in the form of God” evasion.. evasion? Is that anything like evading the fact that it never says that Jesus was “transformed into” a man?
Or, is that anything like evading the fact that verse 8 restates verse 6-7, but in a different “order”?
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 21 2013,12:13) You can NOT say, “well, since today we can say “existed” means that Paul meant to say “existed.”
So the question is: Did Paul mean to say Jesus was existing in the form of God when he was a human being………… before dying and being exalted?What is your answer? Was the beginning of Paul's statement about when Jesus was existing in the image of God as a man on earth? YES or NO?
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 21 2013,12:13) Here would be an example.. If it is written..
John being wealthy..
made himself of no reputation..
became a servant..
and worked beside the poor.
That is a PERFECT example, jb. Here is the question: Since the writer is talking about a time when John made (past tense) himself of no reputation, and when he became (past tense) a servant, and when he worked (past tense) beside the poor………. then isn't it obvious that he was talking about the wealth John had in the PAST?Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 21 2013,12:13) Now, did John ever stop being wealthy? NO.
That is irrelevant to the point of the statement. The author doesn't say one way or another whether or not John is still wealthy. The point of the statement was that John, although being wealthy (in the past), worked side by side with the poor (in the past). The question of whether or not John remains wealthy to this very day is not addressed by that statement – which was solely about things that happened in John's past.Can't you see that? (Or is it that you won't see it?)
Let's say John is still wealthy to this very day. Does that change the fact that the statement was to convey how John, who was wealthy at that time, thought nothing of working side by side with the poor? NO!
Let's try it your way: John, who IS NOW wealthy, used to work beside the poor.
That conveys a meaning of a man who used to be poor and work beside the poor, but then became wealthy later on.
But the point in the original statement is meant to convey that even though John was wealthy a long time ago, he still thought nothing of working side by side with the poor.
jb, are you seriously not able to understand this? Your fellow non-preexisters Kerwin and Marty have accepted that “was existing” is implied in Phil 2, since the statement as a whole speaks of a time in the past when Jesus was existing in the form of God, but emptied himself and died on a stake. Why is it that you cannot also see this very easy thing?
Don't you think Paul was talking about a time when Jesus existed in the image of God as a man, and then died on a stake?
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 20 2013,05:44) 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?
So we can agree that Jesus is the only human being who was able to say, “I have seen God”, right?But we know that prophets of the OT saw God in visions, right? And we know that even John saw God in his revelation vision, before he wrote, “No man has seen God at any time“, right?
So by those things, we know that seeing God in a vision is not what was meant by “No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.”
If Jesus had only seen God in a vision, like Ezekiel, Daniel, and others before him, then he couldn't say that ONLY HE has seen the Father, right?
So……… do you think Jesus saw God with his human eyes when he was on earth?
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 20 2013,06:25) 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”?
He was in the form of God. Then he emptied himself and took on a DIFFERENT form – the form of a servant……… BY “in likeness of human beings being made”.Then he died on a stake. Then he was exalted to the highest place.
All things in chronological order.
jb, your answer to this question should end this once and for all……….
In your understanding, was Paul talking about the time when Jesus existed in the image of God as a human being on earth, before becoming obedient to death on a stake? YES or NO?
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 20 2013,06:25) “Purposely refuse”? I am not sure why you want to keep using such language with me.
It's because I KNOW for a fact that you ARE able to see what I'm saying. I KNOW for a fact that you CAN see how one could take “existing in the form of God” as something that happened BEFORE “being made in the likeness of a human being”.So you KNOW how easy this understanding of the words Paul wrote is, yet refuse to budge an inch.
I would take you more seriously if you would be honest and say, Yes Mike, I can EASILY see how you can understand those words that way.
But you pretend that the way I'm understanding the words is illogical – as if you can't even fathom how I could come to such a nonsensical conclusion.
Face it jb, the ONLY thing you are holding on to is your insistence that Paul, for some very odd reason, wrote SOME OF the events in Phil 2:6-11 out of order.
We know that only SOME OF them could be out of order, because “existing”, “dying on a stake”, and “being exalted” are all in order, right? So your whole stake is based on Paul conveying a summary of the existence of Jesus, and putting some of the events IN ORDER, and others OUT OF ORDER.
And I'm asking you to be honest and ACKNOWLEDGE this fact.
And also the fact that you truly KNOW how easy it is for ME to understand ALL of the words in chronological order – as logic would dictate in ANY summary of the events that make up a person's life.
I mean, if you were to give a brief summary of the highlights of Abraham Lincoln's life, wouldn't you put the important events of his life in chronological order? Or would list it like this: Lincoln was executed, freed the slaves, became the President of the U.S., and was born in Illinois? Of course you would list those events in the order they actually happened, and you KNOW it.
jb, what if I'm right, and the events of Phil 2:6-11 ARE all in chronological order? Would that then be proof to you that Jesus pre-existed in the form of God before being made in the likeness of a human being? YES or NO?
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 20 2013,06:34) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2013,10:02)
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.
Now, in the Hebrew manuscript..it says “eternity” which is owlam.
So, NOWHERE does it say “origins” or “from long ago” in the Hebrew manuscript.
Please read the scriptures listed in my quote above as examples.Tell me, in which one of them does the word “owlam” mean “eternity”.
In Isaiah 63:9, did Jehovah lift up Israel and carry them from eternity?
In verse 11, did the people recall the days of Moses and the Red Sea as being from eternity?
In Amos 9:11, was Jehovah going to restore the tent of David as it was from eternity?
In Micah 7:14, are the people to let their flocks feed in Bashan, as they have done from eternity?
In Malachi 3:4, will their offerings be pleasant to Jehovah, as they were from eternity?
jb, shall I go through the scriptures that have the word “miqqedem” for you as well? Or are you able to look up Neh 12:46; Pss 74:12; 77:11; Isa 45:21; 46:10 by yourself, to see that “miqqedem” doesn't mean “eternity” any more than “owlam” does?
So now that the SCRIPTURES have spoken on the matter, Micah 5:2 says that Jesus' “goings forth” are from days of old, from ancient times.
What does that mean to you, jb?
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 20 2013,06:43) The problem is..John did not “preexist” as Elijah.
Jesus clearly said that John is the Elijah who was to come. He said that Elijah did indeed come, but they did to him what they wanted. He said these things in reference to John the Baptist.Here are those scriptures again. Maybe you overlooked them in the last post.
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.”John the Baptist was Elijah, jb. Elijah lived as a human, then lived in heaven with God, then was conceived as a human a second time in the womb of Mary.
Nothing is impossible for God. He can indeed cause a person to exist in one form before existing in another. Just like we, who now exist in human form, can be BORN again in a spirit form. And this is true whether or not the words “pre-existed”, “transformed”, or “changed into a man” are used.
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 20 2013,23:20) 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.”
Man was created in the image of God. Is this talking of the flesh or the spirit of man. After all, God is not a man, but a spirit and we know we have a spirit and that we can have fellowship with God by being connected to him spirit to spirit.Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of GodSo in the context of this discussion, this doesn't negate that Jesus existed in the form of God (not as a being of flesh) before emptying himself and coming in the flesh.
Are you suggesting that the image of God or form of God implies human flesh?
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 20 2013,23:22) 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.
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.On the outset it is saying that he came from God and now he is here. Strange way to put it if he actually didn't come from God and then come to this world.
Surely saying something like “I was created in this world and God has chosen to send me and I have accepted” would relay your concept better.
And on the subject of being created, we are told the definition of what created means, “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made”. And in case you make the case that the Word is not referring to Jesus here, then may I remind you that the Book of John is a book about who Jesus is and we also have a second witness that says:
“but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.”.
In the end JB, anyone can cleverly discredit each of these verses given enough time and knowledge of other people's effort who do the same, but isn't it strange that you have to reinterpret so many verses? If Jesus did not indeed exist with the Father before the cosmos was created, why are there so many verses that you need to reinterpret. Surely if a concept didn't exist, there might be one or two verses that could be implied as saying as much, but not dozens.
I mean I think there are probably more scriptures that teach this than Jesus being a Nazarene, and yet no one tried to discredit that.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2013,07:42) Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 21 2013,12:13) You can NOT say, “well, since today we can say “existed” means that Paul meant to say “existed.”
So the question is: Did Paul mean to say Jesus was existing in the form of God when he was a human being………… before dying and being exalted?What is your answer? Was the beginning of Paul's statement about when Jesus was existing in the image of God as a man on earth? YES or NO?
Paul was talking about a point in time when Jesus was actually on this earth.And when speaking of that time, Paul said Jesus BEING in the form of God..
So, NO, Paul was NOT saying Jesus existed in the form of God BEFORE being made a man.
DO NOT change the words!! This is where you go off course.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2013,08:08) That is a PERFECT example, jb. Here is the question: Since the writer is talking about a time when John made (past tense) himself of no reputation, and when he became (past tense) a servant, and when he worked (past tense) beside the poor………. then isn't it obvious that he was talking about the wealth John had in the PAST?
As he is speaking TODAY, you could say he is talking about a wealth of the past, but that was NOT what Paul said.Quote Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 21 2013,12:13) Now, did John ever stop being wealthy? NO.
That is irrelevant to the point of the statement. The author doesn't say one way or another whether or not John is still wealthy. The point of the statement was that John, although being wealthy (in the past), worked side by side with the poor (in the past). The question of whether or not John remains wealthy to this very day is not addressed by that statement – which was solely about things that happened in John's past.Irrelevant? NOT AT ALL. The whole point is you are saying that “he was rich” but then he “became” poor!! That is exactly the opposite of what Paul and I have said!! Your claim is Jesus “WAS rich” but then “emptied himself” and “became a poor man.” Can you not see that?
Quote Can't you see that? (Or is it that you won't see it?) I see what you are trying to claim. I just disagree. There is a difference.
Quote Let's say John is still wealthy to this very day. Does that change the fact that the statement was to convey how John, who was wealthy at that time, thought nothing of working side by side with the poor? NO! Let's try it your way: John, who IS NOW wealthy, used to work beside the poor.
That conveys a meaning of a man who used to be poor and work beside the poor, but then became wealthy later on.
But the point in the original statement is meant to convey that even though John was wealthy a long time ago, he still thought nothing of working side by side with the poor.
Maybe you should reread my example.
Quote jb, are you seriously not able to understand this? Your fellow non-preexisters Kerwin and Marty have accepted that “was existing” is implied in Phil 2, since the statement as a whole speaks of a time in the past when Jesus was existing in the form of God, but emptied himself and died on a stake. Why is it that you cannot also see this very easy thing? Just because others have made a mistake does not mean I will do the same. Many make the mistake of using Phil 2 to “prove” the trinity. This does not mean that I am wrong for seeing it differently than they do. Right? I can “see” where they are misinterpreting it..just like I see how you are. I am not saying that I do not see where you are “coming from.” What I am saying is..I understand what you are saying completely..I just disagree!!
Quote Don't you think Paul was talking about a time when Jesus existed in the image of God as a man, and then died on a stake? I believe that Paul was talking about Jesus' whole life to death here on earth!! I KNOW Paul was telling us that we should have THIS mind that was ALSO in Jesus. I can NOT have that same mind IF I WAS NEVER A PREEXISTENT BEING!! That would be nonsense for Paul to tell me..John have this mind..you existed in the form of God as a preexistent being and you should empty yourself and become a servant, being made a man..
Come on Mike..can you really not read the context around Phil 2. It is not even about Jesus..it is about US and the mind that WE should have!! Reread it.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2013,08:17) Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 20 2013,05:44) 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?
So we can agree that Jesus is the only human being who was able to say, “I have seen God”, right?But we know that prophets of the OT saw God in visions, right? And we know that even John saw God in his revelation vision, before he wrote, “No man has seen God at any time“, right?
So by those things, we know that seeing God in a vision is not what was meant by “No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.”
If Jesus had only seen God in a vision, like Ezekiel, Daniel, and others before him, then he couldn't say that ONLY HE has seen the Father, right?
So……… do you think Jesus saw God with his human eyes when he was on earth?
I have already stated my belief on this.Yes, Jesus saw God while here on earth. In what way, I can not say.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2013,08:33) jb, your answer to this question should end this once and for all………. In your understanding, was Paul talking about the time when Jesus existed in the image of God as a human being on earth, before becoming obedient to death on a stake? YES or NO?
Yes. I, unlike you, do not believe that Jesus “existed” in any other “form”.“Form” of course means “image” which is not a being at all!! So, the fact that Paul says “form of God” and “form of a servant” does not in ANY WAY convey the meaning of Jesus changing from one BEING to another BEING!!
Maybe it is just that you misunderstand what the word “morphe” means? Again, it does not mean in any way a being or an essence. So, How do you make the leap to Paul saying that Jesus existed in one essence/being into another when that is NOT even what the word “morphe” means?
Think about it first!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2013,08:55) Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 20 2013,06:25) “Purposely refuse”? I am not sure why you want to keep using such language with me.
It's because I KNOW for a fact that you ARE able to see what I'm saying. I KNOW for a fact that you CAN see how one could take “existing in the form of God” as something that happened BEFORE “being made in the likeness of a human being”.So you KNOW how easy this understanding of the words Paul wrote is, yet refuse to budge an inch.
I would take you more seriously if you would be honest and say, Yes Mike, I can EASILY see how you can understand those words that way.
But you pretend that the way I'm understanding the words is illogical – as if you can't even fathom how I could come to such a nonsensical conclusion.
Face it jb, the ONLY thing you are holding on to is your insistence that Paul, for some very odd reason, wrote SOME OF the events in Phil 2:6-11 out of order.
We know that only SOME OF them could be out of order, because “existing”, “dying on a stake”, and “being exalted” are all in order, right? So your whole stake is based on Paul conveying a summary of the existence of Jesus, and putting some of the events IN ORDER, and others OUT OF ORDER.
And I'm asking you to be honest and ACKNOWLEDGE this fact.
And also the fact that you truly KNOW how easy it is for ME to understand ALL of the words in chronological order – as logic would dictate in ANY summary of the events that make up a person's life.
I mean, if you were to give a brief summary of the highlights of Abraham Lincoln's life, wouldn't you put the important events of his life in chronological order? Or would list it like this: Lincoln was executed, freed the slaves, became the President of the U.S., and was born in Illinois? Of course you would list those events in the order they actually happened, and you KNOW it.
jb, what if I'm right, and the events of Phil 2:6-11 ARE all in chronological order? Would that then be proof to you that Jesus pre-existed in the form of God before being made in the likeness of a human being? YES or NO?
I can see where you are coming from. I just disagree. There are verses where I can see where trinitarians are coming from, but I disagree and think they are just misinterpreting or taking out of context the scripture!!That being said..of course there is an order to Jesus being born, living, and crucified.
BUT, PAUL does not include in that order, Jesus ceasing to be “in the form of God” which is what you claim!!
Again, Jesus never stopped..BEING in the form of God, He ONLY did not try to be equal with God. As evidence by, He emptied Himself of His desires and took on the ROLE of a servant.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
