- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2013,09:16) 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?
There are 208 verses with that word owlam.Yes there are a few verses that imply “a long time”; however, the overwhelming majority of uses of this word mean forever, eternity, everlasting, and permanent.
Even so, if we take it has “long ago”, we are still left with..
Jesus, whose GOING FORTH (not origins) are from long ago.
This in no way refutes my point!! BUT, since we also know that God is eternal, and we know that God foreknew Jesus before the foundation of the earth, it would not be against scripture to say that God's plan to send Jesus has been “from eternity.” This is in perfect harmony with the scripture.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2013,09:20) 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.
I think you need to reread Luke 1:17 again.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.”John the baptist was not literally Elijah.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 22 2013,09:24) 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?
No t8. I am only saying that “form or image of God” in no way implies any essence/being at all.An image is a reflection. We are to reflect God. We do not, but that is what God designed us to do.
God created us with the ability to reason, love, have authority over the earth.
But, again, in no way does “image/form of God” imply a being itself/himself. And thus, Paul was not talking about Jesus existing in one essence before being changed into another essence, unless of course you think a servant also has an essence? Of course it doesn't. It is a role. The servant has the same essence as the ruler, right? So, let's not change the meaning just so we can say Jesus existed as something else.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 22 2013,09:37) 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.”.
Once again, Jesus did come from God.And many were “sent by God” but they did not exist in heaven as different beings before being sent. So, why must you change it for Jesus?
And, don't get me started about bad translations. We have already discussed that. You can believe, if you want, that Jesus was there, but that does not change the fact that those verses were translated by trinitarians who believe that Jesus is God. It does not change the fact that it could have also been translated as “For him (or because of him) all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made”.
For surely, the world would not have been made without God's foreknowledge of Jesus and the sacrifice that He would make for humanity.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 22 2013,09:43) 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.
From what I have seen so far, it is you and Mike that need to change words in order to “prove your point.”In fact the only time when I need to “reinterpret” a word is when I see that it means something different in Hebrew/Greek.
Additionally, one must consider how the Jewish writers spoke. Did they personify inanimate objects? Did they speak of all good things coming from heaven? Did they talk about things existing with God (as in “in God's mind/plan) as being from eternity?
Yes, Yes, and Yes.
Something else to consider.
We know/believe, hopefully, that the Jewish people are God's chosen people. We know/believe that God revealed Himself to them. We know/believe that the Jews are only blinded by God to the fact that Jesus was the Messiah.
BUT..that is not to say that they do not know a Messiah is coming. They just “missed it” due to being blinded. Now, what do the Jewish people think about the Messiah? They believe that He will be a man..an anointed man. That is what Messiah means in Hebrew, anointed.
Let's apply the same argument to yourselves as we do to trinitarians. Where was the argument in the Bible that “no, no, no, the Messiah is actually a preexistent being”?
Again, we argue to trinitarians that the trinity is not true because the Jewish people believe in one God. Well, they, the Jews that have the truth, also believe that the Messiah will be a man, not a preexistent being. The Jewish people do not even believe in preexistent beings!!
Again, this proves nothing, but it is something for you to consider, especially since we apply the same argument to trinitarians.
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 21 2013,21:05) I understand what you are saying completely..I just disagree!!
That statement right there takes a BIG load off, jb.Now you only have to tell me WHY you think Paul would summarize the important events of Jesus' existence, putting SOME OF THEM in order, and others OUT OF ORDER.
1. WHY do you think he would do such a thing?
2. And is it even remotely possible that you are mistaken, and Paul actually put everything in verses 6-11 in perfect chronological order?
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 21 2013,21:05) The whole point is you are saying that “he was rich” but then he “became” poor!!
No. I am saying that at a time in the past when he WAS rich, he worked side by side with the poor.Your example makes no comment whatsoever about whether John became poor later on, or remains wealthy to this very day.
Instead, your example only tells us that while John WAS rich at some time in the past, he DID work with poor people.
Surely you can see this, right?
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 21 2013,21:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2013,08:08)
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.
I believe that Paul was talking about Jesus' whole life to death here on earth!!
Phew! That took a long time.So you think the whole thing reflects Jesus' existence on earth, right? And that means that even from Paul's perspective as he wrote those words, all these things had already happened, right?
And since that is the case, it is not an “alteration” to the message to translate “existing” in the past tense, as at least 8 English translations do. To do so is not “changing the words”, as you put it, any more than, say, John 14:9, where virtually every English translation has “Have I been with you for such a long time”, when the Greek actually has the present tense “I am with you for such a long time”.
Only, in the case of 14:9, we in English wouldn't ever say, “Am I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip?” We know “Have I been” is meant.
In the case of Phil 2, however, we in English CAN say, “Mike, although running as fast as he could, did not win the race.” We CAN say, “John, although being wealthy, worked with the poor.”
We can say it this way in English even though we all know that Mike “was running” a race that he did not win; and John “was wealthy” when he worked with the poor.
In other words, we still today in English sometimes use a present tense word to convey an action that happened in the past.
Those present tense words, IN AND OF THEMSELVES, say nothing about the current state of the person. We must decide that by context alone. For example, the fact that Mike DIDN'T win the race tells us the race is over, and chances are that Mike isn't STILL running to win that race that is already over. But we don't KNOW that for sure, because the present tense “running” doesn't comment on what's happened since. I suppose Mike could still be running even now, still trying to finish a race that is already over. Or the comment could have been said immediately after the winner won the race, in which case it is likely that Mike IS still running to finish the race, even though the winner has already passed the finish line.
Likewise, the fact that John was wealthy WHEN he worked with the poor doesn't speak one way or the other about whether John is still wealthy. We cannot garner that information from the words, “who, being wealthy, worked with the poor”. We can only garner the fact that WHEN John WORKED (past tense) with the poor, he was at that time wealthy.
Do you understand those things?
If so, then you'll also realize that “who, existing in the form of God, DIDN'T (past tense) consider equality with God something to be grasped”, doesn't speak one way or the other about whether or not Jesus is STILL “in the form of God”. We can only garner from those words that Jesus, at some point in the past when he was existing in the form of God, didn't consider equality with God something to be grasped.
Did he cease being in the form of God? Does he continue on in that form to this very day? Only the CONTEXT will tell us these things – if we're lucky. But the present tense word “existing” tells us NOTHING about it. Nor does translating it as “existed” necessarily imply that Jesus ever stopped existing in the form of God. It only speaks about things he did at a time WHEN he was existing in the form of God. It says NOTHING about whether or not he still exists in that form today.
So you can't claim that I “change the words” to make it seem as if Jesus stopped existing in the form of God. The word “existing” – whether it is translated as “existing”, “was existing”, or “existed” – is not what affects whether or not Jesus stopped existing in the form of God. Only the CONTEXT can tell us that.
So the bottom line of this whole thing – based on your own comment above – is that you believe Paul was talking about a time when Jesus WAS on earth, existing in the form of God, then died, then was exalted to the highest place.
In other words, you agree with Kerwin and Marty that Paul was speaking of a time when Jesus was existing in the image of God as a HUMAN BEING on earth, then died, then was exalted.
And that tells me that you DO indeed understand that “existing” can faithfully be translated as “was existing”, or “existed” – because ALL OF US agree that Paul was talking about a time in the past when Jesus was existing in the form of God.
So from now on, I REJECT any further comments about how it can't possibly be translated as “was existing” or “existed” – because those comments are not based on any factual evidence or rules of grammar. And I REJECT any further comments about how I have to “change the words” to make it come out my way, because we ALL agree that Paul was talking about things that happened IN THE PAST – even from his own perspective.
And that leaves us with this:
1. Have in you the mind that WAS in Jesus……….
2. Who didn't consider (past tense) equality with God something to be grasped…………
3. But [INSTEAD] emptied (past tense) himself………..
4. And was made (past tense) in the likeness of a human being.
How does one who doesn't even yet exist EMPTY HIMSELF? How does one who hasn't yet been made in the likeness of a human being NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD SOMETHING TO BE GRASPED? How does he consider anything at all, if he doesn't yet exist?
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 21 2013,21:22) 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 forgot a line.Actually, he emptied himself, took on the role of a servant, and was made in the likeness of a human being.
That last one's a little tricky for someone who was already existing in the likeness of a human being when he emptied himself and took on the role of a servant………. don't you think?
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 21 2013,21:29) Jesus, whose GOING FORTH (not origins) are from long ago.
Well, I'm glad that you at least have come to know that “owlam” doesn't mean “from eternity”. We did a thread about this a couple of years ago. A lot of us did some research into it, and it seems that the Hebrew culture didn't even have a word for “eternity”, because they didn't have a concept of eternity.In the future, when you read about “eternity” in the Bible, reference the NWT. They have translated all instances correctly.
As for “origins”, you can't really make the claim “not origins”, because you don't know for sure. You can claim that you don't WANT to understand that Hebrew word as “origins”, but you can't claim it doesn't actually refer to Jesus' origins.
So if I read you correctly, your stance is that Jesus' goings forth were from long ago, but “goings forth” refers to when Jehovah started thinking about Jesus, or whatever…….. and not to Jesus actually physically doing anything. Is that right?
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 21 2013,21:33) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2013,09:20)
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 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.”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.
Luke 1:17
“And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias………….”John the baptist was not literally Elijah.
Luke 1:17 NRSV ©
With the spirit and power of Elijah he will go before him……….jb,
In an earlier post, you said, “Elijah will come again, but it will not be until the end.”
1. When Elijah does come, will he come with the spirit and power of Elijah?
2. Or more to the point, is there any reason to think he wouldn't come with the spirit and power of Elijah, since he will BE Elijah?
3. If he comes again as a human being, will it be a case of someone who already existed as a human being, and then in heaven, and then as a human being a second time?
Now, re-read the NRSV version of Luke 1:17 above, and add that teaching to the scriptures I listed in the quote box above.
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 21 2013,21:52) From what I have seen so far, it is you and Mike that need to change words in order to “prove your point.”
Rejected!
BTW, were you ever going to tell me why you think Paul would summarize the important events of Jesus' life, but only put SOME OF THEM in chronological order?
Would YOU ever do that if asked to summarize the important events of a person's life?
I really want desperately to know WHY you believe Paul would only write some of the things in Phil 2:6-11 in order, and then whack out the order of other things.
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,15:22) BUT, PAUL does not include in that order, Jesus ceasing to be “in the form of God” which is what you claim!!
I cannot see where this means 'image'. Can you help me?
Although I have no real reason for this not to mean 'image', I just can't see where it means that.Form/nature/external appearance/: “morphe”
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:“Image: eikon”
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,15:42) But, again, in no way does “image/form of God” imply a being itself/himself.
But an image of God can only be applied to a being.
I know that there was an image of Baal, but surely an image of God who is the God of the living is a living being too. Or can there be an image of God that is not a being?If not, then you could argue that the image of God (Jesus) is not a being.
So if he existed in the form of God, then he EXISTED in that form. It is what it is. Unless of course the translation is incorrect.
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,15:22) BUT, PAUL does not include in that order, Jesus ceasing to be “in the form of God” which is what you claim!!
That is true. But then again, if I existed as a New Zealander, emptied myself or gave up the right of New Zealand citizenship, to became an American, then that would well mean that I have ceased to be a New Zealander legally.Chronologically speaking to say that he emptied himself right after he existed in the form of God, is one way to get that concept across. I mean it strongly suggests that he emptied himself of what was just mentioned, otherwise if emptying yourself stands alone, (no particular order), then it has no real meaning at all.
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 20 2013,23:44) 1) It says “no man” has seen God “except” Jesus..right? So, it is saying Jesus is that MAN who saw God!
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.Maybe I am getting a bit too picky with this, but:
It still says that no man has seen God. But the son has declared him. Son doesn't always imply a man as the angels are called sons of God, and we will be like the angels and be called sons.
It doesn't say only one man has seen God.
It also doesn't say that no man has seen God except for one man.It says no man has seen God. And you say that Jesus is and has always been a man for the full term of his existence.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2013,15:35) Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 21 2013,21:05) I understand what you are saying completely..I just disagree!!
That statement right there takes a BIG load off, jb.Now you only have to tell me WHY you think Paul would summarize the important events of Jesus' existence, putting SOME OF THEM in order, and others OUT OF ORDER.
1. WHY do you think he would do such a thing?
I have already stated that what I think about this.Quote 2. And is it even remotely possible that you are mistaken, and Paul actually put everything in verses 6-11 in perfect chronological order? Yes..and it is equally possible that you are the one that is wrong!! I have always been honest enough to admit that I could be wrong. I do not believe that I have heard that statement from you or t8; and yet, it is my integrity being questioned?
We must be VERY careful about what we are dogmatic about!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2013,15:38) Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 21 2013,21:05) The whole point is you are saying that “he was rich” but then he “became” poor!!
No. I am saying that at a time in the past when he WAS rich, he worked side by side with the poor.Your example makes no comment whatsoever about whether John became poor later on, or remains wealthy to this very day.
Instead, your example only tells us that while John WAS rich at some time in the past, he DID work with poor people.
Surely you can see this, right?
WRONG..You and t8 really need to reread your posts and mine.YOU said you believe that..
Jesus EXISTED in the form of God (as in He gave up this form in order to change into a man)
Jesus emptied himself (and then)
took on the form of a servant (without explaining to me WHAT the form of a servant is..since according to you it has an essence.)
Was made a man (in order that would mean a “change” from a servant, right?)
My example was meant to be clear for you, but you still do not see it.
Your belief is..
John WAS rich (but gave up his riches and became poor)
but made himself of no reputation, working beside the poor.My belief is..
John BEING rich (as in, he did NOT stop being rich. He just decided to work beside the poor.)
but made himself of no reputation, working beside the poor.Do you NOT see the difference here? One claims that he gave up being rich (and thus WAS rich) while the other claims that he did not give up being rich (thus, John BEING rich).
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2013,16:40) I believe that Paul was talking about Jesus' whole life to death here on earth!![/quote]
Phew! That took a long time.So you think the whole thing reflects Jesus' existence on earth, right? And that means that even from Paul's perspective as he wrote those words, all these things had already happened, right?
…..
How does one who doesn't even yet exist EMPTY HIMSELF? How does one who hasn't yet been made in the likeness of a human being NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD SOMETHING TO BE GRASPED? How does he consider anything at all, if he doesn't yet exist?
This was a big post..so I shortened it.You really are missing the point. You believe that Jesus stopped being in the form of God in order to take on the form of a servant.
My example and yours are two different things.
You want Jesus to have changed from being in the form of God from verse 6 on.
The fact is He did not. I know that He did not because Paul tells me that “Jesus BEING in the form of God.”
It is a past event. But, Paul makes it a point to say “being”. Why? I believe that he does it so that we will understand that he never “changed” from being “in the form of God.”
So, why do YOU think that Paul says “being” and not “existed” or “was”?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
