Proclaimer Mikeboll64 vs JB2U

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,05:56)

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.

owlam in scripture means forever, everlasting, perpetual.

Now..(according to the American Heritage Dictionary)
forever means eternally
everlasting means eternal
perpetual means eternity

So, I would conclude that owlam can mean eternity.

I would say Isa 60:15 means eternal
I would say Psalms 18:50 is for eternity
I would say Psalms 113:2 is definitely eternity.

And many more..

Now, I agree that there are verses where it also means an extended period of time. That is true; however, to say that it never means eternity would be incorrect.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,06:16)

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.

I have already agreed with you that, as I sit here at my computer, I can say “was existing.” We are talking about words put down on paper..in the PAST.

This in NO way means that Paul was confused when he used the word “existing.” You keep wanting to make the argument that today we can say “was existing” therefor, Paul could have used those words. It just does not work like that.

You see, when you ask, as you did, “what form was Jesus existing in when he did not consider equality..”

I can not intelligently say, “He existing in the form of God.”
Due to the nature of English grammar, I HAVE TO say, “He EXISTED or WAS EXISTING in the form of God.”
To which YOU say GOTTCHA!! “You said “was existing” John. I told you Paul meant “was existing.”

Do you not get that? Do not take my words, that I must use due to English rules of grammar and take it to mean that Paul meant “was existing.” Clearly, Paul says “existing”!!

Try to make your point without changing Paul's words.

Quote

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.

This is the problem. You do not even recognize that Jesus at all points was still in the “form of God.” If I, a sinful man, am in the image of God, then so was Jesus as He served others and even as He was nailed to the cross!!

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,06:22)

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?

I am not playing with words.

Elijah has never stopped existing!! He still exists. Just because you can not see him, does not mean that he does not exist!!

So, when he “comes back to earth”, he will not be a “preexistent being”. He will be the SAME being that has always existed!!

You, however, believe that Jesus existed before as some other being, yet identified even though we already have the revelation of Jesus Christ in our Bible, and then was CHANGED INTO another being. There just is NO SCRIPTURE to back up this belief. I believe that if there were, you would have already presented it.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,06:34)

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.

And.. at what point did Jesus empty Himself and become a servant? When did He leave His home of 30 years? When did He stop being a carpenter? When did He start speaking the words of God? When did He begin to perform miracles of God? (Hint: when did He start His ministry?)

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,06:36)

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?

It says no man has seen God EXCEPT Jesus!!

The Bible also says..

Romans 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

And yet it says..

Matthew 13:17
For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

And about Zacharias and Elizabeth..
Luke 1:6
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

This is not to say that the Bible contradicts itself. We just need to have understanding.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,06:55)

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?

I would not call translating the Bible accurately either a “beating dead horse” or “leverage.”

Paul either said “existing” or “was existing”. He did not say both.

You are saying that which Paul did not say and accusing ME of being wrong?

If Marty and Kerwin “acknowledged that” Paul states Jesus WAS existing in the form of God..then they are wrong, too.

[jb2u]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 23 2013,08:54)

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.

First, form = image. That is key.
Second, you have to tell me then, what is the “form” of a servant? I am unaware of a servant having an “essence.”
The same word used for “form of God” is used for “form of a servant.” So again, what “substance” is a servant?

Third, if Jesus went from “one form into another” or “from one being into another”, do you NOT think that Paul would have used the words “changed” or something along those lines?

Seriously, you both have completely ignored the scripture that I showed you earlier. The Gospels are not shy about saying how Jesus was “transformed” on the mountain.

Don't you think the NT would be full of verses speaking about Jesus' preexistence? Do you not think at least ONCE the word “preexist” would be in there..SOMEWHERE? Really?

I can have verses that elude to the fact that Jesus did not preexist.
You can have verses that elude to the fact that Jesus did preexist.

BUT..wouldn't you think it would be CLEAR if He, in fact, DID preexist? I certainly would think so!!

[jb2u]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 23 2013,09:02)

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.

It is BECAUSE He humbled Himself that He was EXALTED!!
I am “in the image of God.” Now, I can humble myself WITHOUT stopping to be “in the image of God.” Do you not understand that?

Adam was “in the image of God”, but instead of humbling himself, he sought to “be like God” by eating of the fruit!! Now, the second Adam was “in the image of God” after being made man, but He DID humble Himself and did NOT try to be equal with God.

Question: Was Adam “in the image of God” before being made a man? Think about it!!

Quote

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?

And yet..it would appear that it was ONLY after He started His ministry and God declared “this is My son” that the devil and the demons recognized Him!! Think about it!!

And what about the children that were ordered to be killed by Herod in Matt 2. Surely this was satan's plan, and yet, satan did not say, “Go to Joseph and Mary's..NO, NO, NO..he ordered ALL children 2 and under killed. Why? Because the devil did not know who the Messiah was until GOD revealed Him. Think about it!!

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,11:03)

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?

You are always right Mike.

I would even say that you are very wise.

Proverbs 9:8
Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

Do you love me Mike?

I only pray that you put as much thought into my words as I do yours!!

Proverbs 9:9
Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 24 2013,12:56)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,03:28) 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? 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.”

Okay.  Now tell me if there is a difference in MEANING between the following two statements:

1.  Obama, although he was existing as the President of the U.S., came under scrutiny concerning his U.S. citizenship.

2.  Obama, although existing as the President of the U.S., came under scrutiny concerning his U.S. citizenship.

Is there a difference in MEANING?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 24 2013,13:01)

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.

And do you agree with t8's logical point that the most likely thing he emptied himself of is the thing immediately aforementioned?

For example: Clark Kent, although existing in the form of Superman, emptied himself and took on the form of a regular old human being.

What did Clark Kent empty himself of, jb? (Hint: He traded in a higher form for a lower form.)

So while you say “role of a servant”, Paul said “form of a slave”.

1. Existing in a high form.

2. Emptied himself and took on a lower form.

It's not really that hard.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 24 2013,13:34)

This is the problem. You do not even recognize that Jesus at all points was still in the “form of God.”

The problem is that you don't recognize Paul was making a huge CONTRAST between the form of God and the form of a slave in this case.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 24 2013,13:39)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,06:22) 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? I am not playing with words.

Yes you are.

Does Elijah exist ON EARTH right now? YES or NO?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 24 2013,13:44)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2013,06:34) 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. And.. at what point did Jesus empty Himself and become a servant? When did He leave His home of 30 years? When did He stop being a carpenter? When did He start speaking the words of God? When did He begin to perform miracles of God? (Hint: when did He start His ministry?)

So Paul was telling us that in order for Jesus to begin his ministry, he emptied himself, took on the form of a slave, and was made in the likeness of a human being?

In what likeness did he exist prior to beginning his ministry?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 24 2013,13:59)

It says no man has seen God EXCEPT Jesus!!

No it doesn't. Jesus, as a man, said he HAD seen God. Yet we know from many scriptures that no man has EVER seen God.

That means Jesus didn't see God while he was a man.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 24 2013,14:04)

Paul either said “existing” or “was existing”. He did not say both. If Marty and Kerwin “acknowledged that” Paul states Jesus WAS existing in the form of God..then they are wrong, too.

John 14:9
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?”

Jesus actually said, “even after I AM among you such a long time”.  But based on the context of the statement as a whole, we know what Jesus meant, right?

Do you fault the translators who wrote “I have been” in that verse?  Do you accuse them of saying things Jesus DIDN'T say?

Probably not, because you know the MEANING of his words is “I have been”, right?

Now, look back to my two Obama statements I posted today.  Tell me if there is difference in the MEANING of the two statements.

The fact is that Marty and Kerwin have come to admit what is simple common sense earlier than you have.  I know you know it in your mind.  And I know you can't yet bring yourself to acknowledge it – even though you know it's true.

Maybe someday.

But for now, let's finally get to John 17:5………..

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

The obvious meaning of these words is that Jesus had glory in God's presence before the world began, and is asking to have that same glory restored to him again.

What's your twist……… I mean “take” on the matter?  

[mikeboll64]

Quote (942767 @ Sep. 22 2013,14:22)

Ok., Mike, I am wrong and you are right…………

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 24 2013,14:43)

You are always right Mike.

I'm saving those!      

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 25 2013,11:13)

Okay.  Now tell me if there is a difference in MEANING between the following two statements: 1.  Obama, although he was existing as the President of the U.S., came under scrutiny concerning his U.S. citizenship. 2.  Obama, although existing as the President of the U.S., came under scrutiny concerning his U.S. citizenship. Is there a difference in MEANING?

Yes, there is a difference!!

#1 means that Obama is no longer President.

#2 means that Obama is still president, but he came under scrutiny WHILE being president.

And yet, it is worth noting that in both cases..Obama was STILL president while under scrutiny. In none of the cases did he STOP being president while being under scrutiny.

The problem is..#2 is what Paul says in Phil 2. This means that Jesus was still in the form of God when He emptied Himself and took on the role of a servant.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 25 2013,11:19)

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 24 2013,13:01) 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. And do you agree with t8's logical point that the most likely thing he emptied himself of is the thing immediately aforementioned? For example:  Clark Kent, although existing in the form of Superman, emptied himself and took on the form of a regular old human being. What did Clark Kent empty himself of, jb?  (Hint:  He traded in a higher form for a lower form.) So while you say “role of a servant”, Paul said “form of a slave”. 1.  Existing in a high form. 2.  Emptied himself and took on a lower form. It's not really that hard.

Thank you Mike..you are getting there.

This is a PERFECT example.

Now, be honest, did Clark Kent ever really stop being Superman? Or, was he still Superman, but just humbled himself as Clark Kent?

And still, when did Jesus “become a servant”? It was when He started His ministry. Up until then, He was living HIS life. And then, He emptied Himself of HIS life, took on the role of servant, and did/said the acts/words of God!!

It's not really that hard at all!!

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 25 2013,11:38)

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 24 2013,13:34) This is the problem. You do not even recognize that Jesus at all points was still in the “form of God.” The problem is that you don't recognize Paul was making a huge CONTRAST between the form of God and the form of a slave in this case.

OF COURSE I do!! Paul made it clear. Taking on the form of a servant is what PROVED that He did not seek to be equal with God!! BUT..that does not mean that He stopped being in the form of God!!

You see, I too, can be in the image of God and take on the role of servant..OR..I can be in the image of God and serve myself..thus making myself “equal with God.” People all around us make themselves an idol!! God rewards the servants!! The least in this world will be the greatest in the Kingdom of God and the greatest in this world shall be the least!!

[Author]

Posts