- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,04:16) 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”.
Well, I'd say forever, everlasting, permanent..ALL mean eternity.Eternity is without end..
I'd say forever is without end..
everlasting is without end..
permanent is without end..Maybe you have a different meaning of eternity.
But, whatever, it really is not worth arguing about.
It does not change the fact that scripture does not say Jesus existed in a preexistent life.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,04:28) 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”?
I would say there is a difference between..Elijah returning to earth..
and John the baptist coming in the spirit of Elijah.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,04:32) 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?
NO..because he never stopped existing.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,04:38) jb, Was Jesus existing in the form of God when he didn't consider equality with God something to be grasped? YES or NO?
This is a flawed question..Jesus NEVER grasped at being equal with God; so, to ask if Jesus was existing in the form of God before not doing something that He never did just does not make sense.
Quote 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? He was “in the form of God.”
Here are some questions for you to answer..
Was Jesus in the form of God while taken on the form of a servant?
Was Jesus in the form of God when He humbled Himself?
Was Jesus in the form of God while hanging on the cross?
I say..yes, yes, and yes. What say you?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,05:08) 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”.
This is my point Mike. You can not just take a verse and say..”see, it says this so that is it.” You have to look at the context of the verse.And, the context of Phil 2 is we should have THAT mind in us.
Not a mind of a preexistent being, but a mind of one willing to forsake themselves and serve God perfectly.
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,11:56) AND THEN WAS MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF MAN (this one threw me……..
I appreciate your openness and honesty in this post. But your own words say it all, jb. You have admitted that the words “and was made in the likeness of a human being” simply don't fit into your understanding that Jesus already was a human being at the time he emptied himself and was made in the likeness of a man..You are struggling with these words because you realize how ludicrous is would be to say a currently existing man was “made in the likeness of a human being”.
Yet that IS what the words say………. IF you believe Jesus was already existing as a man WHEN he was made in the likeness of a man.
So you are now going all over scriptures trying to find anything that might “explain away” those words for you.
Do you agree that the most sensible understanding of those words is that Jesus was existing in a form OTHER THAN a human being and then was made in the likeness of a human being?
Even if you don't accept that doctrine, surely you realize that this IS the most sensible understanding of the wording in Phil 2.
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,11:58) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,03:28)
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?
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!!
Please directly answer my question.Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,12:00) What he “emptied himself of” was His OWN desires, His OWN will, His OWN thoughts, etc.
Where in Phil 2 can we read that, jb?Where does it say that Jesus was filled with desires of his own, but emptied himself?
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,12:10) Well, I'd say forever, everlasting, permanent..ALL mean eternity.
I agree that all those things also mean “eternity”. What I'm trying to show you is that “owlam” never in scripture means any of them.English translators often render “owlam” as “everlasting” or whatever, but the word doesn't mean any of those things.
It isn't worth arguing about, but since it came up in this discussion, it is important that you show you are serious when you claim you'll admit when you're wrong.
Search the scriptures and tell me which time “owlam” means “from eternity”. Then tell me how you know that.
If you won't do that, then say, Thanks Mike. I wasn't aware that “owlam” doesn't really mean “from eternity”. Thank you for helping me to better understand scripture.
In that way, I'll begin to know that you are SERIOUS when you say you'll admit when you're wrong.
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,12:18) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) 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? He was “in the form of God.”
Do you see how the word “was”, that we BOTH used, applies? Do you see how that word, IN AND OF ITSELF, doesn't say one single thing about whether or not Jesus is still in the form of God?I hope you see it, because I've been trying for weeks to help you to see it.
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,12:18) Here are some questions for you to answer.. 1. Was Jesus in the form of God while taken on the form of a servant?
2. Was Jesus in the form of God when He humbled Himself?
3. Was Jesus in the form of God while hanging on the cross?
1. No. He WAS in the form of God, BUT THEN took on the form of a slave.2. No. He WAS in the form of God, BUT THEN emptied himself.
3. No. He had long since emptied himself and been made in the likeness of a human being.
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,12:13) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,04:32) 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?
NO..because he never stopped existing.
Now you're just playing with words, jb.When Elijah returns, WILL IT BE A CASE OF SOMEONE WHO HAD ALREADY EXISTED WITH GOD IN HEAVEN BEING SENT TO EXIST ON THE EARTH? YES or NO?
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,12:26) And, the context of Phil 2 is we should have THAT mind in us. Not a mind of a preexistent being, but a mind of one willing to forsake themselves and serve God perfectly.
I'm glad you brought that up again, since I forgot to go back and address it the last time.Leviticus 20:26
You must be holy because I, the LORD, am holy.Will you ask how we, as humans, are expected to be holy like God, a powerful spirit being, is holy? How can we be holy like God is holy, when He is so much better than us?
Your point that we can't have in us the mindset of a spirit son of God is moot. You have no logical reason to make such a claim.
The teaching in Phil 2 is that we also be willing to sacrifice the good life we have to do God's will by helping others.
Jesus was living high on the hog, but emptied himself and began a much lower existence as a servant to others. THIS is the mind we are also to have in us.
This “point” of yours needs no further discussion.
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,12:26) This is my point Mike. You can not just take a verse and say..”see, it says this so that is it.” You have to look at the context of the verse.
Okay. But now address the fact that no man has ever seen God at any time, yet Jesus said that he had seen God.He couldn't have seen God when he was a man, for John wrote that no man has seen God AFTER Jesus was a man.
So what choice does that leave us?
From another thread:
Quote (942767 @ Sep. 21 2013,19:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2013,15:17) So you realize that “was existing/existed” is implied from the past tense form of the rest of the statement, right? We agree that all the things Paul mentioned in verses 6-11 had already happened in the past, despite the fact Paul used the present tense word “existing”, right?
Yes, we have already stated that the Apostle Paul was looking back at the ministry of Jesus while he was here on earth.Marty and Kerwin are able to acknowledge that which is so obviously true. Are you ready to acknowledge it yet, jb?
Or will you keep trying to beat a dead horse because it is the only “leverage” you have?
Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 23 2013,03:35) 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.
But a being has a form and may also be an image of something.If HE existed in the form of God, then HE alone signifies existence and form means form/nature/external appearance according to the concordance I checked out at least. Does it matter if it didn't say being at all, because he existed in a form or certain nature that is theos still says what we are saying. I don't need the word 'being' as HE and FORM is enough.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,07:34) Jesus was living high on the hog, but emptied himself and began a much lower existence as a servant to others. THIS is the mind we are also to have in us. This “point” of yours needs no further discussion.
Further he humbled himself. That is the opposite of exalted.If it said he exalted himself, then we would assume that he started at a lower position, but for some reason, when it says that he humbled himself, it now suddenly doesn't infer that he started in a higher position.
But I will argue for JB2U for a sec and say that he probably would say (and might already have said) that he humbling himself refers only to the fact that he could have exalted himself, but chose instead to be humble.
The point I make is that both ideas could explain the fact that he humbled himself, so I don't see either as being conclusive proof for our positions. But certainly we need to look at this in the greater context, and I believe that context is that he existed in the form of God, emptied and humbled himself, became lower than the angels (in form), was obedient to God, died for our sins, rose from the dead, and was exhalted to the right hand of God, in the glory that he had with the Father before the world began.
In that context, it certainly looks to me that he humbled himself compared to his former nature/form/existence.
Further, even the devils recognises him as the son of God. Was this because they also had pre-existed too and recognised him because of that, or did they recognise him because of some spiritual anointing that can be seen by them, but not by our physical eyes?
Also from another thread:
Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Quote (942767 @ Sep. 22 2013,14:22) Ok., Mike, I am wrong and you are right…………
Now if everybody would just post these words the second they realize they are disagreeing with ME – things would go a lot more smoothly around here!
(Just kidding, of course!)What do ya say, jb? Sound good?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,05:44) Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,11:56) AND THEN WAS MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF MAN (this one threw me……..
I appreciate your openness and honesty in this post. But your own words say it all, jb. You have admitted that the words “and was made in the likeness of a human being” simply don't fit into your understanding that Jesus already was a human being at the time he emptied himself and was made in the likeness of a man..You are struggling with these words because you realize how ludicrous is would be to say a currently existing man was “made in the likeness of a human being”.
Yet that IS what the words say………. IF you believe Jesus was already existing as a man WHEN he was made in the likeness of a man.
So you are now going all over scriptures trying to find anything that might “explain away” those words for you.
FIRST of all, I did not say that I was “going all over scriptures trying to find anything that might “explain away” those words”. LET ME BE CLEAR..I was at the table eating my lunch. I was thinking about PHIL 2 when the idea came to me. So, NO, I was not searching and searching trying to prove myself right.Second, I was not trying to figure out “how he could have emptied himself BEFORE being made in the likeness of man.”
This shows that you either did not read fully what I wrote OR you just misread it…either way…let me clear it up for you!!I was trying to figure out why Paul says “in the likeness of man” and not “made a man.” Why? Because, I KNOW that Paul sees Jesus as fully human. So, in what way is Paul saying that Jesus was made “in the likeness of man”? To me, this has to have some meaning. I believe that God has revealed that answer to me.
Jesus had His own life. He was a carpenter. He had a family. I would suppose friends. And yet, He was yet “spreading the gospel.” He was not “revealing God.” BUT, at 30, He began His ministry. In order to do this, He quit being a carpenter. He left His family. According to Him, He didn't even have a place to lay His head. I would say that is “emptying Himself and becoming a servant.” BUT..He also had to be made “just like us” in the sense of having the ability to sin. And so, when He took up His ministry, emptied Himself, and became a servant, God then gave Him the ability to sin. After starting His ministry, the first thing that happens is that the devil tempts Him. Now, this is the first time we hear of Him being tempted by the devil.
I would hope that you would take the time to pray about this. It makes perfect sense to me.
Quote Do you agree that the most sensible understanding of those words is that Jesus was existing in a form OTHER THAN a human being and then was made in the likeness of a human being? Even if you don't accept that doctrine, surely you realize that this IS the most sensible understanding of the wording in Phil 2.
No. I think what has been revealed to me makes more sense.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,05:48) Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,11:58) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,03:28)
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?
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!!
Please directly answer my question.
You want me to answer a question just so you can go back and change the circumstance around Paul's words.Of course, the answer to your question is NO, but again that does not change the FACT that Paul says “existing” and not “was existing.”
You keep wanting to change Paul's words (God's words) and accuse me of being difficult for not “going along with it.”
It really doesn't make sense. Paul is telling you that Jesus never stopped being in the form of God. Paul never uses the words “and changed into” a servant.
And yet YOU say, “Jesus WAS existing in the form of God and then CHANGED into a servant.”
I, however, believe the words of Paul just the way they are, without having to change his words!!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,05:49) Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 22 2013,12:00) What he “emptied himself of” was His OWN desires, His OWN will, His OWN thoughts, etc.
Where in Phil 2 can we read that, jb?Where does it say that Jesus was filled with desires of his own, but emptied himself?
It doesn't say directly what He emptied Himself of, BUT we know it was in order to take on the role of a servant. I am pretty sure that common sense dictates that He had to empty Himself of His own will/desire/family in order to take on the role of servant and leave home, leave His job, leave His family, and allow Himself to be filled with God's words and God's actions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
