Proclaimer Mikeboll64 vs JB2U

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 25 2013,11:40)

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

No!!

But..he still exists!! Therefor, when he comes back, it will not be a preexistent being..it will be the EXISTENT being..Elijah!!

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 25 2013,11:42)

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?

Did you not read my post?

He was made a man..not “in the likeness of man.”

You see, “in the likeness of man” only means that He then had the ability to sin. This happened just before His ministry started.

Before that, He was made in the form of God without sin or the ability to sin.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 25 2013,11:45)

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.

Yes it does!!

John 6:46 (KJV)
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

John 6:46 (AMP)
46 Which does not imply that anyone has seen the Father [not that anyone has ever seen Him] except He [Who was with the Father] Who comes from God; He [alone] has seen the Father.

John 6:46 (CEB)
46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God. He has seen the Father.

John 6:46 (ESV)
46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.

John 6:46 (AKJV)
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

John 6:46 (NIV)
46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

I could go on..this is one verse where it seems ALL the translations agree..they ALL say that no man has seen God EXCEPT Jesus!!

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 25 2013,11:56)

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.

You can keep trying to get me to “change my mind” by changing Paul's words..but I will just stick to Paul's actual words.

I will not be persuaded by repeated attempts to question my integrity. I will be persuaded by proof. The fact remains there is a difference between “exiting” and “existed/was existing”. This is a simple fact that YOU seem to have a hard time understanding!!

Quote

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?

We can start with what does this verse ACTUALLY say?

It does not say “give me BACK the glory I had with you.” That is what you are reading. And, IF it said that..I'd be convinced; however, what it actually says is “give me the glory I had with you before the world began.”

Now, Jesus KNEW the Bible. He knew it well. Jesus is ALL over the OT!! The love that our God had, before the foundation of the earth, for Jesus is ALL OVER the OT. So, Jesus NO DOUBT had glory with God before the world began..as the OT declares!! And, Jesus knew it!!

So, as Jesus completed “His mission”, He looked to heaven and said, “and NOW, Father, glorify me (not give me back glory, but GLORIFY me) in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.”

You see..it was WITH GOD that the glory existed. Jesus makes no claim of having that glory himself..as evidence by 1) He does not say give me BACK the glory and 2) He states “NOW” give me this glory..the glory that I had WITH YOU.

I know..I know..You will insist that it is saying “give me back” but it does not!! You will accuse ME of changing or reading into the verse, but you are the one adding “give me BACK the glory.”

Jesus also gave us glory before we were born..John 17:22
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Just like this example..
Revelation 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Revelation states that Jesus was “slain from the foundation of the world.” Now, would you not agree that Jesus was NOT slain from the foundation of the world in the literal sense!! BUT..He was slain from the foundation of the world in GOD's sense!! Just like Jesus was foreknown by God. Just like He gave Jesus glory before the world began!!

NOW, IF, to God, the Lamb had already been slain before the foundation of the world, and it is because of His obedience that He receives glory..would you not agree that this also means that the Lamb had glory with God before the world or the Lamb was born?

The word of God clearly states that Jesus was FOREKNOWN!! And, it was with this foreknowledge that the glory existed. But, we can go back and forth about this for awhile.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 27 2013,06:29)

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.

Why is that? Wasn't (past tense) Obama existing as President when he came (past tense) under that scrutiny?

The only truthful answer is: Yes, Obama was (past tense) existing as President when he came (past tense) under that scrutiny.

And my truthful answer above, although a statement concerning a time in Obama's PAST, doesn't say one single thing about whether or not Obama is STILL President, does it? YES or NO?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 27 2013,06:36)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 25 2013,11:19) Clark Kent, although existing in the form of Superman, emptied himself and took on the form of a regular old human being. 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?

The previous is a scene from a Superman movie where he gave up all his powers and became a regular old human being.

The following is a scene from that same movie that shows what happens in a fight after he gave up his powers.

So even though Superman is just a made up comic book figure, the analogy still works.  If, while existing in the form of Superman, he emptied himself and took on the form of a regular old human being, he stopped being “Superman”, because there was no longer anything “super” about him.

So I can honestly say:  Although existing (present tense word describing a past tense occurrence) in the form of Superman, he emptied himself, taking on the form of Clark Kent, being made in the likeness of a regular old human being.

And even though he was not technically “Superman” anymore, there still could be some things about him that were quite “super”.  Just like Jesus emptying himself of existing in the form of God doesn't mean that Jesus ceased to have any similarity with God at all.  He could still exist in the image of God, like all men do, without technically being “in the form of God”.  

If you can't see the major CONTRAST Paul was making between an existence in the form of God and an existence in the form of a slave, then you'll never understand that passage.  The same applies if you just REFUSE to see that contrast.

jb, half of me wants to just ignore your repeated attempts to “get out of” the TRUTHS that I'm conveying to you – because those little things don't even matter.  But the other half of me thinks it's important for you to know that I DO know what I'm saying, and can PROVE the things I say.

The only “important” thing you need to remember about Phil 2 is that Jesus was “existing” and “considering things” BEFORE he was “made in the likeness of a human being”.  And that means Jesus was existing as something other than a human being BEFORE he was made in the likeness of a human being.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 27 2013,06:41)

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

Taking on the form of a slave AS OPPOSED TO what, jb?  The word “CONTRAST” conveys something AS OPPOSED TO something else. So since you agree that Paul was making a CONTRAST between “form of God” and “form of a slave”, you must then agree that Jesus took on the form of a slave AS OPPOSED TO the form of God.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 27 2013,06:43)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 25 2013,11:40) Does Elijah exist ON EARTH right now?  YES or NO? No!!

Does Elijah exist in heaven right now? YES or NO?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 27 2013,06:47)

He was made a man..not “in the likeness of man.”

So although existing (present tense word conveying a past tense occurrence) in the form of a man, he hadn't yet been made in the LIKENESS of a man?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 27 2013,06:58)

John 6:46 (NIV) 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.   I could go on..this is one verse where it seems ALL the translations agree..they ALL say that no man has seen God EXCEPT Jesus!!

Okay…… honest mistake. You are highlighting the word “except”.

So in your understanding, Jesus was the only human being who had actually seen God WITH HIS HUMAN EYES, right? I had never considered that point – most likely because other scriptures prohibit it.

I always understood that to mean that Jesus had seen God BEFORE he was made in the likeness of a human being, thereby enabling him to say, at that time, that he was the only existing human being who HAD ever seen God.

My understanding is supported by many scriptures. Yours is prohibited by many, not the least of which is John 1:18 – which was written AFTER Jesus had existed as a human being. If Jesus had truly seen God WHEN HE WAS A HUMAN BEING, then John could hardly make the claim he made in 1:18, right?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 27 2013,08:06)

You can keep trying to get me to “change my mind” by changing Paul's words..but I will just stick to Paul's actual words. I will not be persuaded by repeated attempts to question my integrity. I will be persuaded by proof. The fact remains there is a difference between “exiting” and “existed/was existing”. This is a simple fact that YOU seem to have a hard time understanding!!

You will be persuaded by proof, huh?  Okay.  First of all, I'm not trying to get you to CHANGE the word “existing” to “existed”.  The word doesn't need to be CHANGED to “existed” in order to realize that the statement as a whole conveys a PAST occurrence, and “was existing” is implied from the rest of the statement.

But you want proof?  Okay.

2 Kings 5:21
When Naaman saw him running toward him, he got down from the chariot to meet him.

Did this happen in the past, jb?  YES.  Did it happen in the past even from the writer's perspective?  YES.  Yet the writer still uses the PRESENT TENSE word “running”.  Hmmmm…………  

Can we say that Naaman saw a man running toward him?  YES.

Can we say that Naaman saw a man who was running toward him?  YES.

Can we say that a man ran toward Naaman?  YES.  

(Please either CORRECT me on any of these three statements, or ACKNOWLEDGE that all three are proper grammar.  Because it doesn't really matter how the writer words it.  The fact remains that IN THE PAST, a man RAN toward Naaman, and IN THE PAST, Naaman SAW that man who WAS RUNNING toward him.)

I could list hundreds of similar scriptural examples, jb.  And I could go on for days listing my own examples, such as:

John, being of sound mind, left all his belongings to his sister before he died.  Doesn't that mean that John WAS of sound mind WHEN he left his belongings to his sister?  Of course it does.  And we can figure that out without ever CHANGING “being” to “was”.

Jim, acting like a fool, slapped Emma in the face.  Does this mean that Jim WAS ACTING like a fool WHEN he slapped Emma?  Does it mean that Jim ACTED like a fool WHEN he slapped Emma?  Of course it does.  And we can figure that out without ever CHANGING “acting” to “was acting” or “acted”.

George, sensing there was something wrong, left immediately.  Does this mean that George WAS SENSING that something was wrong?  Does it mean  George SENSED that something was wrong?  Of course it does.  And we can figure that out without ever CHANGING “sensing” to “was sensing” or “sensed”.

I could go on all day, jb.  I could search and find hundreds of examples just like this in the scriptures, and probably billions of them on the internet.

So I hope you can see that you don't have to CHANGE Paul's word from “existing” to “was existing” or “existed” in order to comprehend a PAST TENSE statement.

The teaching is that even though Jesus WAS existing in the form of God, he DIDN'T consider equality with God something to be grasped, but instead EMPTIED himself, TOOK the form of a slave, and WAS MADE in the likeness of a human being.  And that teaching remains the same, whether we word it using “existing”, “was existing”, or “existed”.  This is why you'll find all three of these wordings in various English translations.

I mean, look at verse 7, jb.  Does it really make a difference if we say “took the form of a slave”, “having taken the form of a slave”, or “taking the form of a slave”?

Does it make a difference if we say “being made in the likeness of men”, “was made in the likeness of men”, or “having been made in the likeness of men”?

Marty, Kerwin, and those English translators don't HAVE TO change the words, jb.  It's just that they have honestly come to terms with the fact that the statement as a whole recalls a past tense occurrence, whether we translate it as “existing”, “was existing”, or “existed”.  Or whether we translate as “taking the form of a slave”, “having taken the form of a slave”, or “took the form of a slave”.  

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 27 2013,08:06)

So, as Jesus completed “His mission”, He looked to heaven and said, “and NOW, Father, glorify me (not give me back glory, but GLORIFY me) in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” You see..it was WITH GOD that the glory existed. Jesus makes no claim of having that glory himself…..

Are you sure?  What do the words “I had” usually mean?  If the BEING Jesus Christ is talking about “the glory I HAD”, then it's logical that the BEING Jesus Christ is talking about a glory that the BEING Jesus Christ actually HAD at some point in the past.

(BTW, the actual tense is “I was having”, not “I had”.  Perhaps you can find some loophole in that.)

It seems you want to imagine Jesus was talking about a glory that GOD had, and was holding for Jesus.  But the words “I had” don't bear that out.

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 27 2013,08:06)

Revelation states that Jesus was “slain from the foundation of the world.”

That is a faulty translation, and makes no sense.

Revelation 13:8
NET ©
everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world 2  in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed.

NASB ©
everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

MSG ©
Everyone on earth whose name was not written from the world's foundation in the slaughtered Lamb's Book of Life will worship the Beast.

BBE ©
everyone whose name has not been from the first in the book of life of the Lamb who was put to death.

NRSV ©
everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered.

Footnote #2 in the NET translation above says:

The prepositional phrase “since the foundation of the world” is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, “the Lamb who was killed”, but it is more likely that the phrase “since the foundation of the world” modifies the verb “written” (as translated above).

Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase “written in the book of life since the foundation of the world” occurs with no ambiguity.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2013,04:22)

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 27 2013,06:29) 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. Why is that?  Wasn't (past tense) Obama existing as President when he came (past tense) under that scrutiny?   The only truthful answer is:  Yes, Obama was (past tense) existing as President when he came (past tense) under that scrutiny. And my truthful answer above, although a statement concerning a time in Obama's PAST, doesn't say one single thing about whether or not Obama is STILL President, does it?  YES or NO?

No.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2013,08:27)

So even though Superman is just a made up comic book figure, the analogy still works.  If, while existing in the form of Superman, he emptied himself and took on the form of a regular old human being, he stopped being “Superman”, because there was no longer anything “super” about him. So I can honestly say:  Although existing (present tense word describing a past tense occurrence) in the form of Superman, he emptied himself, taking on the form of Clark Kent, being made in the likeness of a regular old human being. And even though he was not technically “Superman” anymore, there still could be some things about him that were quite “super”.  Just like Jesus emptying himself of existing in the form of God doesn't mean that Jesus ceased to have any similarity with God at all.  He could still exist in the image of God, like all men do, without technically being “in the form of God”.

I am aware of that scene. I figured you would use that to “prove your point.” The only problem that I see is this..I would not say “he emptied himself, and took the form of a regular old human.”
I would say “superman gave up his powers and was CHANGED into a regular old human.” BUT..Paul never said anything even like that!!

The next problem that I see, other than the obvious lack of the word “change” or “transformed” or something at least along those lines, is the fact that you KNOW that “form of” and “image of” is the EXACT same thing!! Now, Jesus was the VERY image of God, so obviously, I'd say, He NEVER stopped being in the “form of God”, as you claim!!

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Hebrews 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

Furthermore, “emptying” does NOT equal “change”!! Therefore, just because Jesus “emptied Himself” does not mean that He stopped being “in the form of God.”

Also, you have yet to answer me EXACTLY WHAT is the “form of a servant.” (since YOU are implying that “form” equals “an essence.”)

Quote

If you can't see the major CONTRAST Paul was making between an existence in the form of God and an existence in the form of a slave, then you'll never understand that passage.  The same applies if you just REFUSE to see that contrast.

I DO see the contrast of which Paul speaks. Again, it is what PROVES that He did not seek to be equal with God. That is pretty simple!! But, to be fair, you do not think Paul is just telling us about a “contrast”. YOU think Paul is telling us about a chronological series of events..which is to say..YOU think Jesus was “in the form of God” and then “emptied Himself” and then “changed into the form of a servant” and was THEN “made a man.” So, first He “was a spirit,” then he was “whatever you think a servant is”, and then “a man.”

Quote

jb, half of me wants to just ignore your repeated attempts to “get out of” the TRUTHS that I'm conveying to you – because those little things don't even matter.  But the other half of me thinks it's important for you to know that I DO know what I'm saying, and can PROVE the things I say.

“Those little things” DO MATTER!! If you can see that MAYBE you are reading Phil 2 incorrectly, then MAYBE you can see that you are seeing Jesus' life incorrectly, too. I will say that, YES, this applies to me, too. So, it DOES matter!! BUT, I do think it is funny how sure you are about the truth that you have. It kind of reminds me of how sure the Jewish people are that Jesus is NOT the Messiah.

Quote

The only “important” thing you need to remember about Phil 2 is that Jesus was “existing” and “considering things” BEFORE he was “made in the likeness of a human being”.  And that means Jesus was existing as something other than a human being BEFORE he was made in the likeness of a human being.

UNLESS..you are just reading it incorrectly, right?

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2013,08:38)

Taking on the form of a slave AS OPPOSED TO what, jb?  The word “CONTRAST” conveys something AS OPPOSED TO something else.  So since you agree that Paul was making a CONTRAST between “form of God” and “form of a slave”, you must then agree that Jesus took on the form of a slave AS OPPOSED TO the form of God.

Quote

Taking on the form of a slave AS OPPOSED TO what, jb?

Taking on the form of a slave..AS OPPOSED TO..”being equal with God”!!

Existing in the form of God
did not try to be equal with God
BUT INSTEAD
emptied himself and took on the form of a servant

YOU SEE..you need to UNgroup them!!

Jesus NEVER stopped being “in the form of God” so let's group it like this..

Jesus, existing in the form of God

He did not try to be equal with God, but instead emptied himself and took on the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of man.

DO YOU SEE IT NOW?
The “BUT” does not go with “in the form of God”. Instead..it goes with “did not try to be equal with God.”

Again, we KNOW that Jesus was always in the image of God; therefore, He NEVER stopped being “in the form of God.”

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2013,08:39)

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 27 2013,06:43) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 25 2013,11:40) Does Elijah exist ON EARTH right now?  YES or NO? No!! Does Elijah exist in heaven right now?  YES or NO?

YES..I believe so.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2013,08:42)

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 27 2013,06:47) He was made a man..not “in the likeness of man.” So although existing (present tense word conveying a past tense occurrence) in the form of a man, he hadn't yet been made in the LIKENESS of a man?

He was not “in the form of man.”

While being a man..God had not yet made Him with the ability to sin. And so, at God's appointed time, Jesus was then made “in our likeness”, as in our ability to sin. Paul tells us that He was “made in the likeness of sinful flesh.”

Again, think about it first!! Jesus was NOT made in the “likeness of man.” Jesus was made a MAN!! There is a difference. What we need to ask..is “what does Paul mean when he says that Jesus was “made in the likeness of man.” I believe that the Bible tells us when we Paul tells us that “Jesus was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.” I think the fact that the Bible tells us when Jesus gets tempted is AFTER He starts His ministry and AFTER God declares Jesus “His Son.”

If Paul literally meant to say Jesus was made “in the likeness of man”, then that would mean that Jesus was not really a man; He was ONLY made “in our LIKENESS.” This would go against EVERYTHING that the Bible teaches us about Jesus!!

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2013,08:55)

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 27 2013,06:58) John 6:46 (NIV) 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.   I could go on..this is one verse where it seems ALL the translations agree..they ALL say that no man has seen God EXCEPT Jesus!! Okay…… honest mistake.  You are highlighting the word “except”. So in your understanding, Jesus was the only human being who had actually seen God WITH HIS HUMAN EYES, right?  I had never considered that point – most likely because other scriptures prohibit it. I always understood that to mean that Jesus had seen God BEFORE he was made in the likeness of a human being, thereby enabling him to say, at that time, that he was the only existing human being who HAD ever seen God.

I have already stated that it could have been in a vision. I can not tell you any more than you can tell me.

Quote

My understanding is supported by many scriptures.  Yours is prohibited by many, not the least of which is John 1:18 – which was written AFTER Jesus had existed as a human being.  If Jesus had truly seen God WHEN HE WAS A HUMAN BEING, then John could hardly make the claim he made in 1:18, right?

John can make the claim because John's Gospel states that “no man has seen God..EXCEPT Jesus.” So, in John 1:18, he could be just excluding Jesus, just like in John 6:46. After all, his audience was not Jesus it was..”all of us”; and, considering THAT context..John CAN say..NO MAN hath seen God, the only begotten Son, He has revealed Him.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2013,10:04)

You will be persuaded by proof, huh?  Okay.  First of all, I'm not trying to get you to CHANGE the word “existing” to “existed”.  The word doesn't need to be CHANGED to “existed” in order to realize that the statement as a whole conveys a PAST occurrence, and “was existing” is implied from the rest of the statement. But you want proof?  Okay. 2 Kings 5:21 When Naaman saw him running toward him, he got down from the chariot to meet him. Did this happen in the past, jb?  YES.  Did it happen in the past even from the writer's perspective?  YES.  Yet the writer still uses the PRESENT TENSE word “running”.  Hmmmm…………   Can we say that Naaman saw a man running toward him?  YES. Can we say that Naaman saw a man who was running toward him?  YES. Can we say that a man ran toward Naaman?  YES.   (Please either CORRECT me on any of these three statements, or ACKNOWLEDGE that all three are proper grammar.  Because it doesn't really matter how the writer words it.  The fact remains that IN THE PAST, a man RAN toward Naaman, and IN THE PAST, Naaman SAW that man who WAS RUNNING toward him.)

Quote

2 Kings 5:21 When Naaman saw him running toward him, he got down from the chariot to meet him.

Here is your FIRST mistake!!
Yes “running” is present tense, BUT “saw”, which is THE VERB is in past tense!!

One MUST say “running” in this sentence that YOU use to PROVE your point!!
Do you EVER say..”When Naaman saw him ran toward him, he got down from the chariot to meet him.”

Do you see how one MUST use “running” in that sentence?

NOW..could Paul say “Jesus was in the form of God” or “Jesus existed in the form of God, but then..”? The CLEAR answer is YES. The question is..why did he NOT say that? (because Jesus NEVER stopped being in the form of God..that is why!!)

Quote

I could list hundreds of similar scriptural examples, jb.  And I could go on for days listing my own examples, such as: John, being of sound mind, left all his belongings to his sister before he died.  Doesn't that mean that John WAS of sound mind WHEN he left his belongings to his sister?  Of course it does.  And we can figure that out without ever CHANGING “being” to “was”.

BUT..you have to admit that all of this happened WHILE he was STILL ALIVE..not dead, right?

Quote

Jim, acting like a fool, slapped Emma in the face.  Does this mean that Jim WAS ACTING like a fool WHEN he slapped Emma?  Does it mean that Jim ACTED like a fool WHEN he slapped Emma?  Of course it does.  And we can figure that out without ever CHANGING “acting” to “was acting” or “acted”.

And yet, Jim did all of this while still being a fool!! No change, right?

Quote

George, sensing there was something wrong, left immediately.  Does this mean that George WAS SENSING that something was wrong?  Does it mean  George SENSED that something was wrong?  Of course it does.  And we can figure that out without ever CHANGING “sensing” to “was sensing” or “sensed”.

Again, George did not “change”, right? He was still George!!

Quote

I could go on all day, jb.  I could search and find hundreds of examples just like this in the scriptures, and probably billions of them on the internet.

I am glad you are impressed by examples to prove your point. Now, give me ONE example where it says that Jesus was “changed” into a man!! (it can say was changed, changed, being changed, etc..I promise not to be picky!!)

Quote

So I hope you can see that you don't have to CHANGE Paul's word from “existing” to “was existing” or “existed” in order to comprehend a PAST TENSE statement. ……. Marty, Kerwin, and those English translators don't HAVE TO change the words, jb.  It's just that they have honestly come to terms with the fact that the statement as a whole recalls a past tense occurrence, whether we translate it as “existing”, “was existing”, or “existed”.  Or whether we translate as “taking the form of a slave”, “having taken the form of a slave”, or “took the form of a slave”.

OK, I will also accept “transformed, was transformed, being transformed,..”

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2013,10:26)

Are you sure?  What do the words “I had” usually mean?  If the BEING Jesus Christ is talking about “the glory I HAD”, then it's logical that the BEING Jesus Christ is talking about a glory that the BEING Jesus Christ actually HAD at some point in the past. (BTW, the actual tense is “I was having”, not “I had”.  Perhaps you can find some loophole in that.)

Well, IF Jesus said “give me the glory that I had” then you would have a point; HOWEVER,..Jesus actually says..”give me the glory that I had WITH YOU.”

Now, that is different. I know you will say, “Yes. He was “with God.” But, that is just how YOU are reading it. The glory that Jesus had existed WITH GOD. Now, I am not “just saying that.” I get my understanding from the fact that Jesus NEVER says “give me BACK the glory..”. Would it not make more sense for Him to say that, IF He in fact DID HAVE it in the beginning Himself? PLEASE ANSWER!!

Quote

It seems you want to imagine Jesus was talking about a glory that GOD had, and was holding for Jesus.  But the words “I had” don't bear that out.

Again, Jesus was foreknown and foreordained! It is not hard to believe that God did not also give Jesus glory before His birth!! I remind you that WE TOO were given glory BEFORE our birth. We, too, can say that we had glory with God before the world was created!! Does this mean that WE were there? NO, it just means that our glory resided with GOD!! Again, I urge you to just pray about it!!

Consider..
2 Timothy 1:9
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

By your understanding, does this mean that WE were actually there and given grace by God before the world began?
NO..of course not!! It just means that WITH GOD, we were given grace before the world began!! WE came thousands of years later!!

Quote

Quote (jb2u @ Sep. 27 2013,08:06) Revelation states that Jesus was “slain from the foundation of the world.” That is a faulty translation, and makes no sense. Revelation 13:8 NET © everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world 2  in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed. NASB © everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. MSG © Everyone on earth whose name was not written from the world's foundation in the slaughtered Lamb's Book of Life will worship the Beast. BBE © everyone whose name has not been from the first in the book of life of the Lamb who was put to death. NRSV © everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered.

It makes perfect sense if you stay away from certain..WRONG translations. It appears to me that you seem to change what version you like to quote from based on what point you are trying to make? Anyway, quoting from these translations does not change what the Greek manuscripts say.

Consider what the Bible has to say in OTHER verses..
Luke 11:50
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

SO..you think that, TO GOD, the “blood of the prophets was shed from the foundation of the world” but not that, TO GOD, THE LAMB..HIS LAMB “was slain from the foundation of the world”?

Ephesians 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

SO..you think that, TO GOD, “we were chosen before the foundation of the world,” but not that, TO GOD, THE LAMB..HIS LAMB “was slain from the foundation of the world”?

Hebrews 4:3
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

SO..it CLEARLY says that TO GOD “the works were finished from the foundation of the world.” Now, “the works” here, in context, is talking about..THE SLAYING OF THE LAMB!!

And yet, you question the meaning of Rev 13:8 as meaning “the lamb who was slain from the foundation of the earth” because of a few very misguided translations?

Hopefully Heb 4:3 has CLEARED UP for you this misinterpretation!! Of course certain people, trinitarians or “preexisters” would not want Rev 13:8 to mean what it says. God tells us that HE calls things that are not as if they WERE!

Romans 4:17
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Now, why does He do this? Well, the obvious answer is that HE lives “outside of time.” But, I believe that He lets us know that “He calls things that are not as if they were” so that we do NOT get thrown off by those verses in which “He is calling things that are not as IF they were.”
SADLY, though, many do still get thrown off!!

Quote

Footnote #2 in the NET translation above says: The prepositional phrase “since the foundation of the world” is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, “the Lamb who was killed”, but it is more likely that the phrase “since the foundation of the world” modifies the verb “written” (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase “written in the book of life since the foundation of the world” occurs with no ambiguity.

Well that is ONE version..BUT..
Barnes' Notes on the Bible..believes the meaning should be “the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
It states..The meaning here is, not that he was actually put to death “from the foundation of the world,” but that the intention to give him for a sacrifice was formed then, and that it was so certain that it might be spoken of as actually then occurring.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible..believes the meaning should be “the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
It states..But as Jesus Christ was in the Divine purpose appointed from the foundation of the world to redeem man by his blood, he therefore is, in a very eminent sense, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, i.e., from the creation.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible states..and he may be said to be “slain from the foundation of the world”;
in the decree and purpose of God, by which he was set forth, or foreappointed to be the propitiation for sin, and was foreordained, before the foundation of the world, to redeem his people by his blood, and in the promise of God immediately after the fall of man,..

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states..Lamb slain from the foundation of the world—The Greek order of words favors this translation. He was slain in the Father's eternal counsels: compare 1Pe 1:19, 20, virtually parallel.

Pulpit Commentary states..“The Lamb hath been slain from the foundation of the world,” because from “the foundation of the world” his death has been efficacious for the salvation of men; and because his death “was foreordained before the foundation of the world,” although manifest only in the last times. What was foreknown to and ordained by God is spoken of as having taken place.

So, yes, I believe that I have the correct understanding. Heb 1:3 confirms it!! I do not really put much faith in Bible commentaries; but, I do read them. Also, you provided a footnote from the NET translation. Of course, the fact is that it says “..the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

And why? Because all things TO GOD are before the foundation of the world, including His plan to send the Messiah, the temple, the Bible, us, and even Jesus. BUT..NONE of those things actually existed in substance BEFORE the foundation of the world!! God makes this clear when He tells us that HE calls things that are NOT as IF they were!!

I know this is a long post, but PLEASE read every word. I put a lot of my time into this discussion.

[Author]

Posts