Proclaimer Mikeboll64 vs JB2U

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ July 03 2013,13:15)

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)

When did parts 2, 3, and 4 take place, jb? When Jesus was still in the womb? Or after he was born?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (jb2u @ July 04 2013,09:15)

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)

Let me clarify. You are saying that existing in the form of God means being created in the image of God in the womb.

That means you existed in the form of God too.

Four yes/no questions for you.

Did you exist in the form of God?

Have you ever heard anyone say when talking about a baby in the womb that their child is existing in the form of God?

Is there anywhere else in scripture that says that anyone but Jesus existed in the form of God while talking of being in the womb?

Did he stop existing in the form of God when he was born?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (jb2u @ July 04 2013,10:47)

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?

Because it was Jesus coming in the flesh that opened the way for his death and salvation of those who dwell in flesh. The New Testament is fixated on salvation and God's plan. It has scant evidence of anything outside of the salvation of man. e.g., it mentions two angels by name (I think) and we learn very little about angels in the New Testament even knowing that they are like the stars in the sky. How much less than the mystery of God which is Christ and the new creation.

That said, what we do understand about Jesus is uttered by Jesus own mouth and spoken of here and there by the Apostles. John 1:1 we know that the Word became flesh and that the Word was WITH God. Even the second century fathers understood this to mean that the Word was begotten in the beginning and was alone with God before all creation. Then creation came through him or by him and for him.

Further it says that nothing came without coming in this way. All creation was made by God through Jesus Christ. All creation was made by God through the Word. It matters not if you put Jesus or the Word in that statement. Because they are the same.

And it is not as if there is just one or two difficult scriptures that could be interpreted either way. There are lots of other testimonies. “Before Abraham, I am”.

In the end, I feel that you need to try too hard to nullify all these references. Perhaps it is just easier to read it as it is stated.

And by the way, I think if you put as much work in denying that Jesus was the literal first born or was with God when he created the cosmos, then you could nullify any doctrine in scripture because the evidence is about the same in amount.

How many scriptures lead us to believe that Jesus is at the right hand of God for example. Could be less references there, and yet we do not question that.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2013,06:11)

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?

Well the short answer would be..Yes, “in heaven” would seem to fit; however, “from heaven” is how the Jews identify all good things as coming from.

We see this in James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

and James 3:17
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

I also do not believe that it “rained bread” FROM heaven. I think God provided the bread on the ground, but I really do not think that it rained down from heaven.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2013,06:13)

Quote (jb2u @ July 03 2013,13:15) 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) When did parts 2, 3, and 4 take place, jb?  When Jesus was still in the womb?  Or after he was born?

Again, I think it was a simultaneous decision that Jesus made..to do the will of God. This required Him to 1)not seek equality with God, 2) make himself of no reputation, and 3) take on the role of a servant.

I see “in the form of God” as “He was sinless.” Keep in mind that He HAD TO BE sinless in order to be the perfect sacrifice. And so, He had to be created “in the form of God.” Now, we KNOW that this is not talking about the literal “form of God as spirit” unless you also believe that the second line “form of a servant” also means that the servant has “a physical form” that is separate from the “physical form” of man.

The same word “morphe” is used for form of God and form of servant. So, if like I believe, it is only talking about “in what status/authority” that Jesus was in, then it makes sense..

He was in the status of God as “sinless” and given the authority of God (just like Moses to pharaoh), BUT He took upon Himself the status/authority of a servant.

All this, I'd say, happened after His birth except #1 because He was created a sinless man. We know that early on He had a lot of Biblical knowledge. We know that as a boy He was “about His Fathers business.” And so, I'd say the rest happened after His birth. Like I said, He made a conscious decision to not seek equality, empty Himself of His own desires, and allow His body and mind to be filled with the words and works of God.

[jb2u]

Quote (t8 @ July 05 2013,08:59)

Quote (jb2u @ July 04 2013,09:15) 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) Let me clarify. You are saying that existing in the form of God means being created in the image of God in the womb. That means you existed in the form of God too. Four yes/no questions for you. Did you exist in the form of God? Have you ever heard anyone say when talking about a baby in the womb that their child is existing in the form of God? Is there anywhere else in scripture that says that anyone but Jesus existed in the form of God while talking of being in the womb? Did he stop existing in the form of God when he was born?

Quote

Did you exist in the form of God?

Yes. We are all created in the image of God. I do not think that that verse is just about “the image of God”, but also about being sinless like God and having God's authority. In that respect, NO, I have never been “in the image of God”, but Jesus was. Like I said though, man is “in the image of God.”
Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
and James 3:9
Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

Quote

Have you ever heard anyone say when talking about a baby in the womb that their child is existing in the form of God?

NO

Quote

Is there anywhere else in scripture that says that anyone but Jesus existed in the form of God while talking of being in the womb?

No, not in the womb. But, then again, “in the form of God” could be talking about after His birth up until the time that He consciously accepted His mission.

Quote

Did he stop existing in the form of God when he was born?

NO. It NEVER says that He GAVE UP being “in the form of God.” It only states that even though He was in the form of God, He did not seek to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation..You see? No mention of giving up being “in the form of God.”

[jb2u]

Quote (t8 @ July 05 2013,09:15)

Quote (jb2u @ July 04 2013,10:47) 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? Because it was Jesus coming in the flesh that opened the way for his death and salvation of those who dwell in flesh. The New Testament is fixated on salvation and God's plan. It has scant evidence of anything outside of the salvation of man. e.g., it mentions two angels by name (I think) and we learn very little about angels in the New Testament even knowing that they are like the stars in the sky. How much less than the mystery of God which is Christ and the new creation. That said, what we do understand about Jesus is uttered by Jesus own mouth and spoken of here and there by the Apostles. John 1:1 we know that the Word became flesh and that the Word was WITH God. Even the second century fathers understood this to mean that the Word was begotten in the beginning and was alone with God before all creation. Then creation came through him or by him and for him. Further it says that nothing came without coming in this way. All creation was made by God through Jesus Christ. All creation was made by God through the Word. It matters not if you put Jesus or the Word in that statement. Because they are the same. And it is not as if there is just one or two difficult scriptures that could be interpreted either way. There are lots of other testimonies. “Before Abraham, I am”. In the end, I feel that you need to try too hard to nullify all these references. Perhaps it is just easier to read it as it is stated. And by the way, I think if you put as much work in denying that Jesus was the literal first born or was with God when he created the cosmos, then you could nullify any doctrine in scripture because the evidence is about the same in amount. How many scriptures lead us to believe that Jesus is at the right hand of God for example. Could be less references there, and yet we do not question that.

First, we HAVE TO understand that it says “the word” was with God and was God. It does NOT say that Jesus was with God and was God. The word..that was God..was His actual WORD. The same spoken word that created everything!! When God states in Genesis that He spoke and it was..I believe that is EXACTLY how it was!! Thus, His “word” that was in the beginning, was with Him and Was Him..and nothing was created without His spoken word.

Now, we then find out that His “word” was MADE flesh. That is when Jesus was created!!

I know that Jesus was not the “word” that created everything because 1) Jesus tells us that God created everything and 2) God tells us that He ALONE created everything.

Furthermore, if Jesus was the “word” in John 1:1, WHY did Jesus need to “grow in wisdom”? God's word IS wisdom!!

Luke 2:52
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Now consider, WHY would Jesus need to “grow in favor” with God? Surely, if He was the first born Son of all creation, He would already be “in favor”, right?

I already pointed out that scripture states that Jesus was “foreordained” not preexistent. 1 Peter 1:20

We know that scripture states that He was a Man, CHOSEN by God 1 Peter 1:20.

We know that scripture states that because of His OBEDIENCE (not because of a preexistence) God exalted him!! Phil 2:8-9

We know that in God's word comes “out of His mouth” and it will not return until it accomplishes what He sent it to do. This foretells of the Messiah's mission.
Isaiah 55:11
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

I put my questions in bold for you both

[jb2u]

Quote (t8 @ July 05 2013,09:15)

Further it says that nothing came without coming in this way. All creation was made by God through Jesus Christ. All creation was made by God through the Word. It matters not if you put Jesus or the Word in that statement. Because they are the same.

I disagree. First, God tells us that He ALONE created the world. I will take His word on that fact.

Second, NO, I do not believe that one can interchange Word and Jesus. The “word” BECAME Jesus..BUT Jesus was NOT the “word” from the beginning.

[Proclaimer]

Okay. Let's say you have a son. You might anyway.

Did you create your son?
No.

Did God create your son through you and your wife?

If so, then did God create alone in the sense that you understand. If not, then you need to adjust your understanding of 'He ALONE created the world'.

You can make the same argument with Eve. Did God create Eve. Did God create Eve through Adam?

So if the cosmos was created through Christ, then that is not a contradiction in terms.

[Proclaimer]

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ July 05 2013,06:37)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2013,06:11) 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? Well the short answer would be..Yes, “in heaven” would seem to fit; however, “from heaven” is how the Jews identify all good things as coming from. We see this in James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. and James 3:17  But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

Yeah, but in those scriptures you posted, the good thing came FROM heaven [to earth].

“FROM heaven” doesn't match something/someone currently being IN heaven.  Instead, it matches something that WAS in heaven, but then came FROM heaven TO earth.

Agreed?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ July 05 2013,06:37)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2013,06:11) 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? Well the short answer would be..Yes, “in heaven” would seem to fit;

jb,

I must say how refreshing it is to discuss scripture with a person who gives honest answers to honest questions.  Many would either ignore my point completely, or pretend that “from heaven” and “in heaven” mean the same thing – even though they know in their heart it doesn't.

With your answer above, you have not forsaken your understanding (for there are still many scriptures to be discussed), but have instead shown us all that you are an honest man – as opposed to a person who will bend truth and common sense, just to ensure that his doctrine prevails in the end.

Well done.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ July 05 2013,06:56)

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) All this, I'd say, happened after His birth except #1……………

This is the crux of Phil 2, IMO.  I can understand how someone who was existing in a form OTHER THAN a human being could be made into the likeness of a human being.  But I can see no way to explain how someone who was already a human being could subsequently be made into the likeness of a human being.  

For your understanding of Phil 2 to be realized, you need to be able to explain how a human being could “be made in the likeness of a human being”. Can you do that?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ July 05 2013,06:56)

I see “in the form of God” as “He was sinless.”

So he emptied himself of his sinless form and took on a sinful form instead?

That can't be right.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ July 05 2013,07:10)

It NEVER says that He GAVE UP being “in the form of God.”  It only states that even though He was in the form of God, He did not seek to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation..You see? No mention of giving up being “in the form of God.”

It says “emptied himself”, or “made himself of no reputation”.

These things are said in contrast to “existing in the form of God”, jb.

“Took on the form of a servant” is also in contrast to “was existing in the form of God”.

The idea is that he was not “in the form of God” at the same time he was “in the form of a servant”. The two are in opposition to each other.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ July 05 2013,07:40)

Furthermore, if Jesus was the “word” in John 1:1, WHY did Jesus need to “grow in wisdom”? God's word IS wisdom!!

The Greek word “logos” simply means “word”.  And just like with the English language, the word “word” means many things, and can metaphorically refer to even more things.

Jesus is called “the Word of God” because he is God's main spokesman.  The King of Abyssinia had a spokesman called Kal Hatze, which translated, means “the word of the king”.

That Jesus has the title “the Word of God” does not imply that Jesus was literally the word God spoke when He spoke things into creation.  “Logos” sometimes refers to words God spoke, sometimes to words spoken or written by men, and once in a while to the title of God's main spokesman, Jesus Christ.  Jesus being the Word (spokesman) of God does not equate him any word God literally spoke.

As for your question, we can only assume that after Jesus emptied himself and was made in the likeness of a human being, he was not at first aware of exactly who he was.  The scriptural evidence seems to indicate that Jesus became fully aware of who he was, and of the past life he had lived, when the Holy Spirit fell upon him without measure at his baptism.

Quote (jb2u @ July 05 2013,07:40)

Now consider, WHY would Jesus need to “grow in favor” with God? Surely, if He was the first born Son of all creation, He would already be “in favor”, right?

We could ask the same question of you, jb.  If God already knew Jesus in advance of directly creating him through Mary, why would Jesus need to grow in favor with God?

So even with your understanding that Jesus began his existence as a human being who was directly fathered by God Himself, the same question could be asked.

This is from your own statement of faith on page 2 of this thread:

“I believe that God, being omniscient, knew that He would need a “savior for humanity”, a “sacrificial lamb,” before He ever spoke the world into existence. And so, He went ahead and created this world that He knew would fall, and Jesus would save. Because of this, He has a special LOVE for Jesus!!”

See?  Even in your understanding, it's hard to see how Jesus could grow in favor with God, since God already knew what would happen before it happened.

It is a hard statement for either of us to adequately explain.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (t8 @ July 05 2013,08:18)

You can make the same argument with Eve. Did God create Eve. Did God create Eve through Adam?

Exactly. God ALONE and BY HIMSELF created me. But He did that through my parents, my grandparents, Noah, Adam, Eve, and Jesus.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (t8 @ July 05 2013,08:36)

but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. How can these 3 texts be nullified by the 'He ALONE created the world.' scripture when it can easily be pointed out that God certainly created many things through other things.

You forgot a couple.  

Colossians 1:16
For through 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.

1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Now that's five scriptures, without even adding in Proverbs 8.  

[jb2u]

Quote (t8 @ July 06 2013,01:18)

Okay. Let's say you have a son. You might anyway. Did you create your son? No. Did God create your son through you and your wife? If so, then did God create alone in the sense that you understand. If not, then you need to adjust your understanding of 'He ALONE created the world'. You can make the same argument with Eve. Did God create Eve. Did God create Eve through Adam? So if the cosmos was created through Christ, then that is not a contradiction in terms.

I really am not trying to be argumentative here, but..yes, I would say that my wife and I “created” my son. Ok, I would not use the word “create”, but it is what we did.

And No, I'd say God could say that He created my son, but I'm really not sure about Him saying “I alone created.” He HAS to be honest. And so, It was MY free will to have a son. It was MY DNA given by God to ME in order to create more of mankind.

I'd say..God created Eve. NOT through Adam, but just..God created Eve. He used a part of Adam, but God still did the creating nevertheless. Adam had NO ACTIVE part in the creation of Eve, as you believe that Jesus did in creating the
World. GOD says that HE ALONE stretches the heavens. Now, IF Jesus is the one that did this, I am not sure that God would say “I ALONE.” Alone means NO ONE else was there!

[jb2u]

Quote (t8 @ July 06 2013,01:36)

but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. How can these 3 texts be nullified by the 'He ALONE created the world.' scripture when it can easily be pointed out that God certainly created many things through other things. Even DNA is common. We have something like 40% DNA in common with a daffodil for example. God like any programmer I have met reuses his own code and creates things via processes, routines, and by using progenitors. All this does not do away with the idea that God created all things himself with no help from others. It's just that he created them through… When a couple have a baby to them it is a miracle. They are simply amazed at the child they hold in their arms. They didn't create their child even though it is because of them that they have a child. Likewise God made all things through Christ and for him. It is because of him but not actually him creating.

I have already talked about this before..
I am POSITIVE that trinitarians translated the Bible manuscripts.

NOW, the word used in these verses as “created by” or “through” is “DI” in Greek.

The word “Di” does mean “through” BUT..it ALSO means..
“on account of” “because of” “for the sake of”

What is my point? Well, if we assume that Jesus actually was the one that God used to physically create the world, then we are going to see the word “di” in the manuscript and interpret it as “by” or “through”. HOWEVER..IF we are NOT trinitarians and we do NOT believe that Jesus “preexisted” AND we KNOW that God said that HE ALONE created the world..then we would interpret this word as “because of.”

Consider the following two versions (both are correct in the interpretation of the Greek word, but the interpreter needs to decide which one is the correct meaning)

version 1 (believes Jesus did the creating)
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

version 2 (believes God did the creating)
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and because of him also he made the universe.

Quote

Likewise God made all things through Christ and for him. It is because of him but not actually him creating.

I am not sure WHY you say this. This is exactly what I am saying..God created the world BY HIMSELF, not Jesus, and HE did it FOR Jesus. If that is what you believe, then we are in agreement!!

[Author]

Posts