- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2013,16:49) 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?
Not really, you, yourself, said that you believe that “form of a servant” and “likeness of a man” go together.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2013,16:56) 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.
Reread my post. I said that the MAJORITY of the 208 occurrences of the word “owlam” means something along the lines of “eternity” such as everlasting, forever, permanent, etc. As in, there are more occurrences of the word meaning something along the lines of eternity than there are occurrences that mean “a long time.”BUT, because it is NOT worth arguing about due to it really does not change the fact that it does not say that Jesus preexisted, I decided to let you use the meaning of the word that YOU chose to give it.
Quote 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. The Hebrew word is “goings forth” not “origin” so YES, I can claim that the Hebrew word does NOT mean “origin.”
Quote 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? Yes..I believe JUST LIKE THE JEWISH PEOPLE DO, that God's plan existed “in eternity”, including His sending the Messiah.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2013,17:15) 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?
No..He will BE Elijah!!And..Jesus is the one that said Elijah will come IN THE END to restore all things!!
Quote 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? Again, since he IS Elijah..he will come in his own spirit..NOT the spirit OF himself!! Luke 1:17 is talking about JOHN though and NOT Elijah!!
Quote 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.
I do not believe that Elijah ever at any point stopped existing as Elijah. So, it will not be a preexistent being..It will be Elijah, just as he always was!!
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 22 2013,22:27) 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.
They both are reflections/images.They do not mean a “being”. It is a quality that a being has, but NOT a being.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 22 2013,22:34) 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.
Yes, BUT the BEING, Jesus existed “in the form of God” at the same time that He took on the “form of a servant.”We know this because Paul tells us that Jesus BEING in the form of God..took on the form of a servant.
You and Mike want to read it as..
Jesus WAS in the form of God..but changed into the form of a servant.I know Mike doesn't, but you, t8, really do not see the difference in the above two examples?
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 22 2013,22:42) 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.
The flaw in your example..is that you say “If I EXISTED as a New Zealander..”Show me where Paul says “Jesus WAS in the form of God, but changed into a man” and I will apologize now and end this debate!!
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 22 2013,23:15) 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.
It is not in John 1:18It is in John 6:46
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.But, then again, we would need to reconcile such passages as..
Genesis 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.Judges 13:22
And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.3 John 1:11
Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.Phil 2 is indeed a “difficult” text. I can not easily say why Paul wrote the way that he did. I can say that he NEVER says Jesus was “changed” into a man. You can, too, if you are honest.
I can say there are a lot of difficult text in the Bible.
So, when addressing the Philippians about how THEY should think, we are to believe that Paul has now changed the belief of the Jews that the Messiah will be a nonpreexistent man, and he did it in a passing verse? Really?
He does not go on to explain the nature of Jesus' preexistence. We know exactly what satan was before he became satan. And yet, you want me to believe that God's beloved Messiah does not get the same mention?
Are you telling me that Jesus, while on the cross Psalm 22, only goes back as far as to “when He was in the womb”. There is not a..”You were my God from the beginning of creation”? Really?
Again, did Jesus go by faith or sight? Jesus says that God gave Him hope while on His mother's breasts. Why would He need that if He was a preexistent being? Would He not KNOW and have NO need for hope? Surely, He wouldn't need “hope” if He already preexisted in heaven!!
Further, and more important, Jesus as well as the disciples NEVER say that Jesus “returns” or “goes back to” heaven!!
Why not? Jesus clearly says “I go to the Father”. Why not “I am returning to my Father”? That is a fair question!!
I understand that you have verses that would appear to suggest a possible “preexistence.” But, there are also verses that would appear to possibly suggest a “trinity.” There are also verses that appear/seem to contradict other verses, but we must look deeper for further/different meanings when this happens because we KNOW that God's word does not contradict itself or lie!!
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,09:06) Your belief is.. John WAS rich (but gave up his riches and became poor)
but made himself of no reputation, working beside the poor.
This is where you're slipping, jb.If I say, “John, although he was rich, worked with the poor”, the word “was” does NOT speak one way or the other about whether John later became poor, or remains rich to this very day. It ONLY says that John WAS rich AT THE TIME he worked with the poor.
My big post that you shortened was loaded with example after example of this very simple principal.
Let me try another:
Obama, although he was the President of the U.S., came under scrutiny concerning his U.S. citizenship.
Now please DIRECTLY answer this very simple question:
Does the fact that Obama WAS President WHEN he came under scrutiny say ANYTHING AT ALL about whether or not he is STILL the President to this very day? YES or NO?
Can you see it yet? Can you see that using the word “was” does NOT automatically mean that the person is no longer the thing that he WAS at some time in the past?
Can you see that saying John WAS rich WHEN he worked with the poor does NOT automatically mean John ever STOPPED being rich?
Can you SERIOUSLY not see this?
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 22 2013,05:42) 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.
Exactly, t8.What exactly did he “empty himself” of – if not for the thing that was immediately aforementioned?
You wouldn't start the Bible by saying, “In the beginning, God EMPTIED HIMSELF and created the heavens and the earth.” Everyone in creation would be wondering, “Emptied Himself of what?”
There has to be something previously mentioned that the person can empty himself of for “emptied himself” to have any meaning at all.
And in Phil 2, the ONLY thing previously mentioned is “existing in the form of God”.
Now, if you take “form of God” in CONTRAST to “form of a slave” (as any sensible person would in this context), then it isn't hard to see that Jesus was existing in a GREAT form, but then emptied himself (of this form, obviously) and took on a DIFFERENT, LOWER form.
But you are right that “emptied himself” has no meaning at all if there is nothing mentioned that he emptied himself of.
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,08:59) 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?
Which carries more weight? One who continually SAYS he would admit it when he is wrong? Or one whose track record SHOWS that he has admitted when he was wrong?You haven't been here that long, jb……… but both me and t8 have many times adjusted our understanding of scriptures because of something we've been shown on this very site.
We don't have to go around telling people we will admit it when we're wrong, because we have already showed them by actions that we will.
But since you are a newer member, I will tell you that I always immediately admit it when I'm proven wrong by scripture.
And I don't want to come right out and say I'm questioning your integrity, but you are showing me some things that make your continual claims that you WILL admit it when you're wrong seem like empty air. Sorry to say that, but I'm just being honest.
Like I said before, I would feel better about those claims from you if you would have come out and said things like:
1. Yes, I can EASILY see how you would interpret Phil 2 as saying Jesus was existing in one form, but then emptied himself and took on a lower form by being made in the likeness of a human being.
2. Yes, I can see that NORMALLY a person would summarize the events of someone's life in CHRONOLOGICAL order.
These are COMMON SENSE things that you are fighting against, jb. Your understanding of Phil 2 only works if Paul listed the events of Jesus' life out of order. And only if “form of God” is not listed in CONTRAST to “form of a slave”.
I want you to be honest and admit that there is LITTLE, if any, chance of these being the case.
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,09:27) Reread my post. I said that the MAJORITY of the 208 occurrences of the word “owlam” means something along the lines of “eternity” such as everlasting………….
Re-read MY post. The Hebrew word “owlam” NEVER means “from eternity”.In some cases, like Ps 90:2, we can imagine it means “from eternity”, because we all accept that Jehovah is indeed “from eternity”.
But like I said, read the NWT when in doubt:
Psalm 90:2 NWT
Before the mountains themselves were born, Or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, Even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God.So we can WANT to change it to “from everlasting to everlasting”, like many translations do in that verse, but the fact remains that “owlam” ALWAYS refers to the distant past or future.
If I am wrong, then please show me the scripture where “owlam” means “eternity”.
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,09:34) Again, since he IS Elijah..he will come in his own spirit..NOT the spirit OF himself!!
Doesn't “his own” mean the same thing as “of himself”?Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,09:34) I do not believe that Elijah ever at any point stopped existing as Elijah. So, it will not be a preexistent being..It will be Elijah, just as he always was!!
So when Elijah again comes to the earth, will he have pre-existed this second earthly appearance? YES or NO?Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,09:39) We know this because Paul tells us that Jesus BEING in the form of God..took on the form of a servant. You and Mike want to read it as..
Jesus WAS in the form of God..but changed into the form of a servant.I know Mike doesn't, but you, t8, really do not see the difference in the above two examples?
jb,Was Jesus existing in the form of God when he didn't consider equality with God something to be grasped? YES or NO?
I'll put it a different way: In what form WAS Jesus existing when he didn't (past tense) consider equality with God something to be grasped?
Here is something that came to me as I was contemplating Phil 2 and trying to figure out exactly what Paul meant by “likeness of man.”
We know that Paul believe that Jesus was very man. So, why would he say Jesus was “made in the LIKENESS of man”? This really was bothering me. Why not, Jesus was made a man?
Well, it came to me. You can reject this if you want.
Let's say that you are 100% right about Phil 2 being in chronological order. Could it not mean the following..
Jesus BEING in the form of God
did not try to be equal with God
but instead emptied Himself of His own wants/desires
and took on the form of a servant
and was made “in likeness to man.”Now, what could this mean..
How about..Jesus was created sinless (thus in the form of God)But, knowing this, He, unlike Adam, did not try to be equal with God.
But instead emptied Himself of His desires/wants (at age 30 maybe?)
AND, took on the form of a servant (began His ministry. This is the point in which He started doing God's works and speaking God's words. One would need to be a servant and empty themselves of their desires/plans in order to do this, right?)
AND THEN WAS MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF MAN (this one threw me, until I realized that, maybe, just maybe, this is the moment in which God gave Jesus the “ability to sin” and thus made Him in the likeness of us. What happened right after Jesus emptied Himself of His life/work/family and began His ministry as a servant of God and man? He was baptized and immediately was “tempted by satan” just like us!! We have no record of Jesus being tempted prior to this, now do we? And so, this still would make perfect sense of Phil 2.
We have further proof of what Paul meant by “likeness of man” when we read AGAIN, BY PAUL, in Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:That is very interesting to me. And, it still fits with what I believe was revealed to me. Paul was saying that at some point..AFTER Jesus emptied Himself of His own will and took on the role of a servant..He was then given the ability to sin, just like us. And, at that moment, He was tempted by satan.
And..finding Himself in the same fashion as us, He humbled Himself and became obedient, even to His death.
Again, you can reject this if you choose. But, it makes perfect sense to me and came to me, not through vanity or pride, but because I was really trying to figure out these verses.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,03:28) Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,09:06) Your belief is.. John WAS rich (but gave up his riches and became poor)
but made himself of no reputation, working beside the poor.
This is where you're slipping, jb.If I say, “John, although he was rich, worked with the poor”, the word “was” does NOT speak one way or the other about whether John later became poor, or remains rich to this very day. It ONLY says that John WAS rich AT THE TIME he worked with the poor.
My big post that you shortened was loaded with example after example of this very simple principal.
Let me try another:
Obama, although he was the President of the U.S., came under scrutiny concerning his U.S. citizenship.
Now please DIRECTLY answer this very simple question:
Does the fact that Obama WAS President WHEN he came under scrutiny say ANYTHING AT ALL about whether or not he is STILL the President to this very day? YES or NO?
Can you see it yet? Can you see that using the word “was” does NOT automatically mean that the person is no longer the thing that he WAS at some time in the past?
Can you see that saying John WAS rich WHEN he worked with the poor does NOT automatically mean John ever STOPPED being rich?
Can you SERIOUSLY not see this?
The point is YOU keep saying that PHIL 2 says..Jesus existed in the form of God and then changed into a servant.
However, it does not say that at all, point blank, period!!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,03:43) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 22 2013,05:42) 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.
Exactly, t8.What exactly did he “empty himself” of – if not for the thing that was immediately aforementioned?
You wouldn't start the Bible by saying, “In the beginning, God EMPTIED HIMSELF and created the heavens and the earth.” Everyone in creation would be wondering, “Emptied Himself of what?”
There has to be something previously mentioned that the person can empty himself of for “emptied himself” to have any meaning at all.
And in Phil 2, the ONLY thing previously mentioned is “existing in the form of God”.
Now, if you take “form of God” in CONTRAST to “form of a slave” (as any sensible person would in this context), then it isn't hard to see that Jesus was existing in a GREAT form, but then emptied himself (of this form, obviously) and took on a DIFFERENT, LOWER form.
But you are right that “emptied himself” has no meaning at all if there is nothing mentioned that he emptied himself of.
What he “emptied himself of” was His OWN desires, His OWN will, His OWN thoughts, etc.That much is pretty clear! Or, do you think the only thing that Jesus emptied Himself of was “His former being/body/essence”?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,04:01) Which carries more weight? One who continually SAYS he would admit it when he is wrong? Or one whose track record SHOWS that he has admitted when he was wrong? You haven't been here that long, jb……… but both me and t8 have many times adjusted our understanding of scriptures because of something we've been shown on this very site.
We don't have to go around telling people we will admit it when we're wrong, because we have already showed them by actions that we will.
But since you are a newer member, I will tell you that I always immediately admit it when I'm proven wrong by scripture.
And I don't want to come right out and say I'm questioning your integrity, but you are showing me some things that make your continual claims that you WILL admit it when you're wrong seem like empty air. Sorry to say that, but I'm just being honest.
Fair enough, but I already admitted that I, once believed, that Jesus preexisted. So, that shows a willingness to admit that I was wrong at one point in time.I realize that I am “a newer member” and thus this also means that I do not know you and t8, either. Right?
From what I have seen, in this thread, unless I admit that you are right, then I am being purposefully wrong, lying, or dishonest!!
I have not just said “yes” or “no”. I have given you guys my belief and backed it with evidence from the Bible!! I have given detailed answers and have answered all of your questions. I have also admitted that you could be right, but we are here to find the truth, not just to convince jb that He is wrong. Right?
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,09:53) It is not in John 1:18 It is in John 6:46
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Actually, it is a combination of them both, jb.If 1:18 says no man has seen God AT ANY TIME, and Jehovah Himself told Moses that no man can see Him and live, and 6:46 says that Jesus HAS seen God, there is only one conclusion. Jesus must have seen God BEFORE he became a man.
Don't be confused by scriptures that say Manoah and Jacob “saw God”. It is clear from scripture that angels are called gods, and it is equally clear that both Manoah and Jacob were seeing ANGELS when they said, “I have seen a god”. (The Manoah account is especially telling, for it says, Manoah realized that it was the angel of Jehovah. He said to his wife. “We have seen a god!”)
Judges 13:22 NET
Manoah said to his wife, “We will certainly die, because we have seen a supernatural being!”Judges 13:22 BBE ©
And Manoah said to his wife, Death will certainly be our fate, for it is a god whom we have seen.A few translations get it right on that one.
And Hosea 12:4 makes it clear that it was an angel that Jacob wrestled with, and not God Himself. Therefore, Jacob had seen “a god”, not “God”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
