Proclaimer Mikeboll64 vs JB2U

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ June 29 2013,13:13)

Agreed. And what is Jesus called..the SECOND Adam. 1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

You seem to agree with verse 45, but how about verse 47?

The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven.

Do you also agree that the second man was from heaven – as opposed to “from the dust of the earth”?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (jb2u @ June 30 2013,09:13)

I do not believe that the early fathers taught this, if of course we are referring to the Bible. The first created being was Adam; however, the first BORN of God was Jesus. Keep in mind, Adam was NOT born, he was created..so was EVE. So yes, the first born, Jesus, is VERY SPECIAL!!

Since I am referring to all the ages past and before creation itself, at some point there had to be someone exisiting with God as the first to be with God. Be that person an angel, son, man, or whatever. Such a being would have to have great authority (unless they fell) by reason of being the first. We see the same thing with Adam right. Due to being the first man, death came to all through one man only because he was the first man.

As for what the early fathers taught, (after the apostles we know of in scripture/next generation), we absolutely see that they taught that Jesus was the Word that was with God and that he was the first work of the Father. Of course it is possible that they all had it wrong, but this is what they believed and they were only a generation or two removed from the original apostles and disciples of Christ. I will quote some of their writings below, but I do not expect you to comment on what they say because that would require too much of your time. I only quote them to show what they believed back then, that is all.

Justin Martyr (ca. 150 A.D)
But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who gives Him the name. But these words, Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions. And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God’s ordering all things through Him; …….

For next to God, we worship and love the Word who is out of the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that, becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing…….

And God, the Father of the cosmos, who is the perfect intelligence, the truth. And the Word, being His Son, came to us, having put on flesh, revealing both himself and the Father, giving to us in himself resurrection from the dead, and eternal life afterwards. And this is Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. (On the Resurrection, 1)……

Tatian (165 A.D)
God was in the beginning, but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Word. For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary basis of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone, but inasmuch as He was all powerful, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things; with Him, by Word-power, the Word himself also, who was in Him, subsists. And by His simple will the Word sprang forth, and the Word, not coming forth in vain, became the firstbegotten work of the Father . Him [the Word] we know to be the Beginning of the world (cf. Rev. 3:14). But He came into being by participation, not by cutting off, for what is cut off is separated from the original substance, but that which comes by participation, making its choice of function, does not render him deficient from whom it is taken. For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Word, coming forth from the Word-Power of the Father, has not divested of the Word-Power Him who begat Him.

Athenagoras (ca. 175 A.D)
But the Son of God is the Word of the Father, in idea and in operation, for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of Spirit,…..

Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 175 A.D)
God made all things out of nothing, for nothing was coexisting with God, but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known, for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy, but He that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bosom, begat him, emitting him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by him He made all things. He [the Word] is called “the Beginning” [arche],1 because he rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by him. He,

The nature of the Son, which is nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One, is the most perfect, and most holy, and most powerful, and most noble, and most kingly, and most esteemed. This is the highest excellence, which orders all things in accordance with the Father’s will. (Stromata, Book VII, 2).

Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200)
Those, then, who choose to belong to him, are those who are perfected through faith. He, the Son, is, by the will of the Almighty Father, the cause of all good things….being, then, the Father’s power (Stromata, Book VII, 2).

The Son is the power of God, as being the Father’s most ancient Word before the making of all things. (Stromata, Book VII, 2).

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2013,07:29)

Quote (jb2u @ June 28 2013,15:44) This does not say, “He is my son.” It says, “He SHALL be my son, and I WILL be his father.” Hi jb, 2 Samuel 7:14 NET I will become his father and he will become my son. When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings. We must remember that these words were originally written about Solomon, and although they are later showed in the NT to have been prophetic about Christ, not everything fits exactly.  For example, when exactly did Christ “sin”?  When did God have to “correct him” with the rod of men? Also consider the following: Jeremiah 24 6 My eyes will watch over them for their good, and I will bring them back to this land…… 7 They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart. The fact that Jehovah said I WILL BE their God doesn't really mean that He had at any time ever STOPPED being their God, does it? But we can talk more about this later.  Right now, I accept your challenge……………….

Well, I disagree and agree. I agree that in one sense God is talking about Solomon, BUT we also KNOW that it is ultimately speaking of the coming Messiah.

Why? Because, God proclaims that his throne will be established forever. Now, was it forever with Solomon? No. But, with Jesus, it will be established forever!!

Next, God says..IF he commits sin, He will correct him. I do believe that Jesus was given free will, just like us. Jesus said that he could lay it down or carry out the will of God. That being said, Jesus CHOSE to do the will of God. And thus, He did not sin. However, He DID take on our sin and took upon Himself, God's wrath by the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by humans, so that we may be forgiven!! And so, that verse was a prophesy later filled by our promised Messiah and not some pre-existent being!!

About Jeremiah 24.
You may disagree, but this is speaking of a future prophesy yet to be fulfilled. The Jews are God's chosen people. They work under a different promise. They have been blinded for a purpose. At the end of the church age, God will send His two witnesses and “open their eyes” to the truth. I believe, that God wanted us to know that this is a future event and that is why He states..”they will” and “I will.”

I agree that there is MORE to scripture than just the tense in which a word is used. That being said, I believe that there is more evidence that points to a coming Messiah that is a man; and thus, did not pre-exist.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2013,07:34)

Okay, let's start with Phil 2, since t8 has already brought it up. 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, existing in the form of God,    did not consider equality with God something to be grasped; 7 rather, he made himself nothing    by taking the form of a servant,    being made in human likeness. To me and t8, this clearly teaches that Christ was existing in one form, but then emptied himself and was made in the likeness of a human being. How do you understand this passage?

It is important to note that..

“in the form of God” in Greek and
“in the image of God” in Hebrew is the same.

The point is..Adam was “in the image of God” and yet,
he DID seek to be equal to God. As the devil said by
eating the fruit, “you will be as God.”

And so, Adam “grasped at equality.” Whereas, Jesus, “being in the form of God” did not grasp, but instead..He emptied Himself of all of His wants and desires. He allowed God to work through His body. He spoke the words of God and God did miracles through Jesus. He became a servant of God.

Adam was created sinless. Jesus was born sinless.
Both were in the image of God.
One grasped at equality. One did not.
The first brought death. The second, because of His obedience, brought life!!

Look at verse 8..it simply restates, in a different order verse 7.
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2013,07:39)

Quote (jb2u @ June 29 2013,13:13) Agreed. And what is Jesus called..the SECOND Adam. 1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. You seem to agree with verse 45, but how about verse 47? The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven. Do you also agree that the second man was from heaven – as opposed to “from the dust of the earth”?

YES, we must understand that Jesus IS “from heaven” in the sense that God's Holy Spirit from heaven descended upon Mary and caused her to conceive a child. It was not an “earthly” conception. And so, we can literally say, “Jesus is from heaven.” I do not have a problem with that. I do have a problem when people say that He existed IN heaven prior to his birth.

God is Jesus' Father. Jesus, like Adam, did NOT have an earthly father!! That being said, Jesus was given the same free will that we all have. God knew that Jesus would be faithful even unto His death before He was ever born. And so, God loved Him before Jesus ever took His first breath.

My question is..where is the word preexist in the Bible as pertaining to Jesus? (and there is a greek word for preexist)
(I acknowledge that this does not either prove or disprove that he did not preexist, but it is something to think about!)

[jb2u]

Quote (t8 @ June 30 2013,11:20)

Justin Martyr (ca. 150 A.D) But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who gives Him the name. But these words, Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions. And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God’s ordering all things through Him; ……. For next to God, we worship and love the Word who is out of the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that, becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing……. And God, the Father of the cosmos, who is the perfect intelligence, the truth. And the Word, being His Son, came to us, having put on flesh, revealing both himself and the Father, giving to us in himself resurrection from the dead, and eternal life afterwards. And this is Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. (On the Resurrection, 1)……

I assume that you saw this on my debate with Kathi, but in case you missed it..

Now for those here that are my non-trinitarian brothers and sisters, I encourage you to pay close attention to what I have to say!! Once I started studying upon whether or not Jesus preexisted, and prayed intensely upon it, I started to see that scripture does not say that Jesus preexisted. It actually states the opposite!!

Now, the first person to come up with the idea of preexistence was Justin Martyr. I know that you believe that Jesus claimed it Himself, but we will get into the true scripture and context about that!!! Now, back to Justin Martyr, He lived from 100-160 AD. He is considered an “early church father.” He was a philosopher raised by pagan parents. What converted him to Christianity? Was it God? NO. Was it Jesus? NO…. It was the prophets that he fell in love with!!! Here is a quote by Justin…

“A fire was suddenly kindled in my soul. I fell in love with the prophets and these men who had loved Christ; I reflected on all their words and found that this philosophy alone was true and profitable. That is how and why I became a philosopher. And I wish that everyone felt the same way that I do.”

Now what did this man that believed in a preexistent Jesus believe about his own “theory”? Well let's take a sample from one of his own works, The Dialogue with Trypho…

“I know that the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race, who are ever unwilling to understand or to perform the[requirements] of God, but[ready to perform] those of your teachers, as God Himself declares. Now assuredly, Trypho,” I continued,”[the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father's will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and[nothing more] is proved[than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends,” I said, “of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have[now] the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself.”

This is NOT to say that other such “believers” of the trinity were not already spouting about a preexistent Jesus, as surely there were, but this is the earliest writing we have. However, notice that Martyr did NOT quote other “believers” works that “prove” a preexistent Jesus. He did not even quote scripture!! He declared that he could NOT prove that Jesus preexisted. He stated that he could only prove that Jesus was the Christ!!

NOW, I would think that IF he had some scriptural proof or at least some other prominent people to point to he would have brought it up. Would not you think so?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ June 30 2013,14:45)

Next, God says..IF he commits sin, He will correct him.

The Hebrew word (actually it's a spatial/temporal marker, not a “word”) used means “in”, “on”, “among”, and “when”.  It doesn't mean “if”.  

Genesis 2:4
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

The bolded words above reflect the same Hebrew “word”.  I believe translations of “if” in 2 Samuel 7:14 reflect the efforts of certain translators to avoid the thought that God would say “WHEN HE SINS” about Jesus.  But like I said, the verse was originally about Solomon (who did indeed sin), and only a part of it was later applied in the NT towards Jesus.  So if the “WHEN HE SINS” part doesn't apply to Jesus, then the “he WILL BE my son” doesn't necessarily have to fit to a “T” either.

I know this doesn't complete rebut your point, but as time goes on in this discussion, I believe the preponderance of evidence that Jesus did pre-exist will outweigh “he WILL BE my son” – by a landslide.

Quote (jb2u @ June 30 2013,14:45)

……we also KNOW that it is ultimately speaking of the coming Messiah. Why? Because, God proclaims that his throne will be established forever. Now, was it forever with Solomon? No.

The throne of David – the throne on which both Solomon and Jesus sat – is forever.  So yes, the throne on which Solomon sat was established by God to be an everlasting throne.

Quote (jb2u @ June 30 2013,14:45)

Next, God says..IF he commits sin, He will correct him.

See above.  “IF” is a faulty translation.

Quote (jb2u @ June 30 2013,14:45)

About Jeremiah 24. You may disagree, but this is speaking of a future prophesy yet to be fulfilled.

I do disagree.  In the context of the passage, Jehovah is clearly talking about the Jews who were currently exiled in Babylon.  He spoke about bringing those same exiled Jews back to Jerusalem, which He did through King Cyrus, Ezra, Nehemiah, etc.

The point is that Jehovah said, “I WILL BE their God”, but we know He never stopped being their God even during the 70 years they were exiled.

Quote (jb2u @ June 30 2013,14:45)

I believe that there is more evidence that points to a coming Messiah that is a man; and thus, did not pre-exist.

The Pharisees believed the same way.  That is why Jesus corrected this misunderstanding for them in Matthew 22:41-46. In fact, many of the NT writers corrected this false assumption in many ways in many verses. But those will undoubtedly come up as we progress.

I won't bring them up now, because I'm trying my best to keep my posts short and to the point, since I know you are answering to both me and t8 in this discussion.

peace,
mike

[Proclaimer]

No I didn't read that in your debate and your view has to be that these father's were wrong, which is possible of course. For assuredly, many of these fathers were quite clear on their position of Christ existing in the form God as the Word that was with God in the beginning.

And why am I not surprised, because this is the conclusion that both myself and Mike have come to from reading scriptures in English. And lest we blame English for creating a false understanding of Christ's origins, remember that English didn't exist and these guys were reading scripture in Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew.

As far as those particular words of Justin Martyr, I don't see him saying that Jesus is part of a Trinity. He is saying that Jesus pre-existed according to the testimony of the prophets, and that there are some who say that he is the Christ, but didn't pre-exist (as you say jb2u), but came into existence as a man with no existence before that. The point he makes is that he cannot prove that Jesus pre-existed, but he can prove that he is the Christ.

What I glean from this quote of Justin's is that people lived way back then like you and myself and Mike. And when Justin says, “being God, and was born a man by the Virgin”, he is not teaching the Trinity or that Jesus was God (YHWH) himself, but that he is teaching that Jesus existed as theos or with divine nature, or in the form of God as being like God, before coming in the flesh. Greek uses the word 'theos' qualitatively in a positive sense outside of being used as God himself or false gods.

Finally regarding the point as to what made Justin convert, I would have to say that what brings us to God is usually not love for God. Love is something that is earned or results from knowing someone. Most of the time, when someone comes to God it is because their understanding has been opened and from there, once we believe that God is knowable, you have the option to seek him and love him. This is how it was for me. I didn't convert because I loved God, I converted because I saw the truth and realised I needed the truth. From there we learn to love God by getting to know him. Remember, that he loved us first.

I see no difference with Justin Martyr. We all have different ways in which the truth becomes evident to us. For some it could be that prophecy made sense opening up the possibility that scripture is a true testimony which in turn points us to Christ, for others it is kind acts from Believers that made them think, they had an excellent spirit and wanting to possess this spirit themselves, and for another, it might be a sign to the individual regarding God's existence, power, mercy, love, etc.

In the end, I conclude that you do not agree with these father's understanding of scripture even though they read them in a different language to us. You have to admit that the fact that most English speakers understand many scriptures point to Jesus origins before being a man and these men came to the same conclusion while reading these same scriptures probably in the same language as the original tongue. Further, we know that this same debate existed back then according to Justin.

Unless you have something further to say on this, we can move on to the scriptures and leave the testimony of these fathers to rest, but keep it as a consideration hence forth.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (jb2u @ July 01 2013,11:14)

This is NOT to say that other such “believers” of the trinity were not already spouting about a preexistent Jesus, as surely there were, but this is the earliest writing we have. However, notice that Martyr did NOT quote other “believers” works that “prove” a preexistent Jesus. He did not even quote scripture!! He declared that he could NOT prove that Jesus preexisted. He stated that he could only prove that Jesus was the Christ!! NOW, I would think that IF he had some scriptural proof or at least some other prominent people to point to he would have brought it up. Would not you think so?

I just noticed your question, so will give a reply.

He says the following:

“For there are some, my friends,” I said, “of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have[now] the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself.”

So on one hand he says he can't prove it, but on the other he says that he puts no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself.

So clearly he is saying that your view is a human doctrine while the view that he holds is sourced from the prophets and from Christ (I think) himself.

So if he says he cannot prove it like he can prove that Jesus is the Christ, he still says that there is evidence of his view in scripture.

To me this is exactly the same conversation here. We agree that Jesus is the Christ because that is clear. As for the origins of the son, that is not so clear, hence why we are having a conversation about it. While you say there is no proof, like Justin, we believe scripture points to the origins of the son, but unlike Justin in this case, we will point out the scriptures that lead us to this understanding. Perhaps Justin's dialog was about Jesus being the Christ, and was not willing to show from the prophets and scripture as to why he believes the son existed as the Word before coming in the flesh.

Whatever the reason, it seems to me that Justin is saying that what is important is that Jesus is understood as being the Christ. Of course we are not debating that point here as we are in agreement.

Finally, I have to say that the origin of Yehsua is confusing to some degree because Christ is a mystery, the keyword here is 'mystery'. This mystery was hidden, but revealed to the saints. This mystery is Jesus Christ and the ages to come. A new Heaven and Earth with Christ and the saints.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ June 30 2013,15:08)

YES, we must understand that Jesus IS “from heaven” in the sense that God's Holy Spirit from heaven descended upon Mary and caused her to conceive a child. It was not an “earthly” conception………… God is Jesus' Father. Jesus, like Adam, did NOT have an earthly father!!

Why then don't we say Adam is “from heaven”? If they both did not have an earthly Father, but were produced directly by their heavenly Father, why does Paul DISTINGUISH the two in 1 Cor 15 by saying the first was of the dust of the earth, while the last was “from heaven”?

Something to think about.

Right now, I wish we could all leave this other stuff behind for a minute, and focus on Phil 2.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ June 30 2013,14:55)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2013,07:34) Okay, let's start with Phil 2, since t8 has already brought it up. 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, existing in the form of God,    did not consider equality with God something to be grasped; 7 rather, he made himself nothing    by taking the form of a servant,    being made in human likeness. To me and t8, this clearly teaches that Christ was existing in one form, but then emptied himself and was made in the likeness of a human being. How do you understand this passage? It is important to note that.. “in the form of God” in Greek and “in the image of God” in Hebrew is the same. The point is..Adam was “in the image of God” and yet, he DID seek to be equal to God.

Question:  Was Adam in the form/image of God BEFORE he was made in the likeness of a human being?

Because there is a clear chain of events that takes place in Phil 2:6-8.  They are as follows:

1.  Was existing in the form of God.
2.  Emptied himself.
3.  Was made in the likeness of a human being.
4.  After being made as a human being, humbled himself and suffered.
5.  Died on a stake.

Are you able to see this chain of events? Can you see how this is different than Adam, because Jesus was existing in the form of God BEFORE being made in the likeness of a human being?

[Proclaimer]

I strongly agree with what Mike says here. There is an order here and to take your view (jb2u), you have to agree with the order, except the first point, that he existed in the form of God.

It's like the order of headship between God and the woman. You can take that order of headship, but have to make an exception when it comes to Jesus.

I believe that headship is given to that whom you originate in. After all, we honour our parents as a commandment for this same reason. For a time, they are our head because they are our progenitor.

The head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ, the head of Christ is God.
God > Christ > Man > Woman

John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Colossians 1:16-17
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Given this alone, you at least have to admit as to why most believe that Jesus was the first born of all creation. I mean a simple read of the text strongly suggests such. This idea is not like the Trinity where you rely on outside understanding first. Rather it is just taking the text at face value.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (jb2u @ July 01 2013,10:55)

“in the form of God” in Greek and “in the image of God” in Hebrew is the same.

Thanks for that. I never made that connection. I will bear that in mind and look into it when I am led there.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (jb2u @ July 01 2013,10:55)

Adam was created sinless. Jesus was born sinless. Both were in the image of God. One grasped at equality. One did not. The first brought death. The second, because of His obedience, brought life!!

Another good point. Again I will look into it when the time is right. Usually when something like this is shown to me, I am led to that thing again in my dialog and associated research when responding to posts. I am sure I will look into this more deeply to see how it fits with the truth.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 01 2013,12:17)

Right now, I wish we could all leave this other stuff behind for a minute, and focus on Phil 2.

Fair enough.

I usually like to start a conversation as being wide and then hone in on the individual points later. That way you show the connection to begin with rather than debate each scripture with the other guy not being too sure of the connection sometimes.

I think I have given my contextual view on what these scriptures say. Now that I have painted the forest as I see it, I don't mind looking at each tree after that.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 01 2013,12:17)

Why then don't we say Adam is “from heaven”?  If they both did not have an earthly Father, but were produced directly by their heavenly Father, why does Paul DISTINGUISH the two in 1 Cor 15 by saying the first was of the dust of the earth, while the last was “from heaven”? Something to think about. Right now, I wish we could all leave this other stuff behind for a minute, and focus on Phil 2.

I COULD be wrong, BUT Paul could also be saying “from Heaven” because at the time of His writing..that is were Jesus was?

1 Corinthians 15:47
The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Also, just a thought, the Jews called/thought of all good things as being “from heaven.”

Really, Paul was just making a the same “themed” point that we find in the Bible repeatedly..
that first is the flesh and then the spirit..
we are born in sin and born again to forgiveness of sin..
the first adam brought death and the last adam brought life.

I think these are more acceptable explanations than to say that Jesus existed prior to His birth.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 01 2013,12:27)

Because there is a clear chain of events that takes place in Phil 2:6-8.  They are as follows: 1.  Was existing in the form of God. 2.  Emptied himself. 3.  Was made in the likeness of a human being. 4.  After being made as a human being, humbled himself and suffered. 5.  Died on a stake. Are you able to see this chain of events?  Can you see how this is different than Adam, because Jesus was existing in the form of God BEFORE being made in the likeness of a human being?

To me, verse 8 is a restatement of verse 6/7, just in a different order.

I see it more as..

1) He was created in the image of God. (in the womb)

2) He did not seek to be equal to God. (knowing that he was the son of God, he still did not seek to be equal)

3) But instead made himself of no reputation. (he did not seek to hold on to the status of being the son of God)

4) He took on the role of servant. (did God's will, not his own)

5) He was made in the likeness of man. (even though he was the son of God he was made like us. He gave up his status as Son of God.)

6) Being in the likeness of man, (now that he has accepted this assignment)

7) He humbled himself (did not have a feeling of superiority because he was the son of God).

8) Became obedient to God's will, even to his own death. (and carried out his mission)

Phil 2:6-8
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

So these events are almost simultaneous. In that sense, yes, Adam had a similar “set up,” BUT, he blew it at #2 when he sought to be equal with God.

[jb2u]

Quote (t8 @ July 01 2013,13:58)

I strongly agree with what Mike says here. There is an order here and to take your view (jb2u), you have to agree with the order, except the first point, that he existed in the form of God. It's like the order of headship between God and the woman. You can take that order of headship, but have to make an exception when it comes to Jesus. I believe that headship is given to that whom you originate in. After all, we honour our parents as a commandment for this same reason. For a time, they are our head because they are our progenitor. The head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ, the head of Christ is God. God > Christ > Man > Woman John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. Colossians 1:16-17 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Given this alone, you at least have to admit as to why most believe that Jesus was the first born of all creation. I mean a simple read of the text strongly suggests such. This idea is not like the Trinity where you rely on outside understanding first. Rather it is just taking the text at face value.

Well, as I said, nothing would have been created without God foreknowing that Jesus would complete what He was going to be created to do!!

Also, you have to keep in mind that Jesus is the first-born and first-fruits of the New Heaven and New Earth that are yet to be!! And thus, He IS the first born of the “born agains.”

John 1:3 restates my point. It is “through him” that all things were made and “without him” nothing would have been made!!

Colossians 1:16-17, again proves my point!! It states that all things were created “FOR him” and “through him.” Again, it was not created BY him..it was created FOR Him..For without God seeing that “through Christ” we would all be saved, God would NOT have created the world.

We have to understand that TO GOD Jesus did not have to already exist for Him to know Him, love Him, and create the world because of Him. God knew that “one day” His loving Son would be born to a virgin. He would be faithful and true. He would complete the mission. And, because of God's all knowing power, He went ahead and created this world. He let the Jews know that He was GOING to send a messiah. He would be one of them!!

[jb2u]

Why do you think that over and over the apostles refer to Jesus as “the man” and “this man”? And yet, they never talk about the preexistence of Jesus?

These verses explain how I see Jesus..
John 16:27-28
For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

John 17:8
For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

The Gospel makes it clear WHEN Jesus was begotten by the “GENESIS” of Jesus..
Matt 1:1
“..the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” (as promised, He would be “one of them” “from their bloodline.”)

Matt 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
(it does not say He was reincarnated, as it would be if He preexisted as “something else.”)

When Jesus was presented for circumcision, Simeon states..
Luke 2:30-31
For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people.

Now notice that he said “prepared.” He didn't say “made,” “created,” or “born” before the face of all people. No, it was with the FOREKNOWLEDGE of God that HE had a plan for salvation before creation!!

Act 2:22
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

1 Peter 20
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ July 03 2013,12:44)

I COULD be wrong, BUT Paul could also be saying “from Heaven” because at the time of His writing..that is were Jesus was?

Wouldn't “in heaven” fit that thought more accurately? Why “FROM heaven” then?

[Author]

Posts