Proclaimer Mikeboll64 vs JB2U

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2013,01:41)

“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?

My point is that Jesus being called “from heaven” does not mean that He HAD to literally come “from heaven” as a preexistent being.

Quote

Instead, it matches something that WAS in heaven, but then came FROM heaven TO earth.

Agreed?

Like I said, I do NOT believe that the bread was IN HEAVEN before it was on earth. So, I have to say “no” to this question.

July 7, 2013 at 1:33 pm#350048

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2013,01:49)

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.

Thank you. Like I said, I have NO agenda other than knowing the truth!!

If I ever “miss” a question. Please reask it and I will answer!!

July 7, 2013 at 2:03 pm#350050

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2013,02:30)

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?

I would not really say that we are “in the form of a man” while in the womb.

Would you?

July 7, 2013 at 2:07 pm#350051

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2013,02:34)

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.

No, I think you misread what I wrote.

Jesus NEVER emptied himself of being sinless. BUT, IN SPITE OF BEING SINLESS..He did not seek to be equal with God..

BUT..ACCEPTED His assignment, HUMBLED HIMSELF (He did not go around pointing out how great and sinless He was) and EMPTIED Himself of HIS thoughts, HIS will..so that He could be FILLED with God's thoughts, God's desires!

July 7, 2013 at 2:13 pm#350052

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2013,02:37)

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.

I disagree..

The point WAS..EVEN THOUGH He was “in the form of God” He STILL humbled himself, made himself of no reputation (notice that He called Himself “son of man” NOT “son of God” WHY? Because He Humbled Himself..and WHEN did He do this..30!!)

Again, the “emptied himself” part is ONLY talking about emptying himself of HIS will.

July 7, 2013 at 2:34 pm#350054

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2013,03:11)

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.

Well my point is..you both seem to think that Jesus created the world. And we know that God said He spoke the world into existence; so, I assume that you both believe that He was really saying that He spoke through His “word”, Jesus. Right? Whereas, I believe that God spoke and it was!! Nothing more to it!! When He needed/was ready for His Messiah to come into the world..He spoke Him into existence, too.

Quote

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.

I believe that God MADE Jesus aware as He “grew in wisdom and favor of God.” Jesus also read the scriptures and saw HIMSELF written about over and over in the OT. Think of it this way, IF I never met/knew my father and I found 20 letters written to my mother about how much he loved me, wouldn't I read these and feel loved? I believe it was the same with Jesus.

Quote

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?

I BELIEVE because Jesus was given the same FREE WILL that we, including Adam, were given!! God saw that Jesus would do the “right” thing and loved Him for it. Now, at some point before creation, God saw all this and as He was “seeing it” Jesus grew in favor with God. We are now in “our time” post creation and scripture tells us how Jesus increased in favor with God. It is hard to understand the “all knowing” mind of God, but scripture tries to put it into our way of thinking; and so, it says that He grew in favor with God..as He was doing the right thing!! It makes perfect sense to me!!

Quote

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.

I think I have explained my thinking on this. For God, it was all kind of instantaneous, but there was a point that He saw the world created, the fall of man, the rise of men like abraham, noah, david, and even Jesus. Now, all of this happened for Him in an instant, but when He saw that Jesus would be born and give his life as the perfect sacrifice, Jesus grew in favor with God. And thus, God went ahead and created the world. Again, it makes perfect sense to me.

July 7, 2013 at 2:41 pm#350055

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2013,03:18)

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.

In both cases we are STILL talking about the Greek word “di” being translated as “through” instead of “because of”.

If we substitute the words it 1) still makes perfect sense and 2) does not make the Bible contradict itself when God says that He ALONE created the world or that He SPOKE it into existence!!

Colossians 1:16
For because of 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 because of 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, because of whom all things came and because of whom we live.

AND..I can agree with the above..It IS “because of” Jesus that God created all things..and it IS “because of” Jesus that I will live eternally!!

July 7, 2013 at 2:47 pm#350056

Participant

I really appreciate you guys taking this “walk” with me. I really pray that God puts it on our hearts as to who is correct.

Just for my clarification..

Who do EACH OF YOU think Jesus was PRIOR to being born?

Now, I know that He wasn't God.
I know that He wasn't an angel, so says scripture.
He was EXALTED higher than the angels because of His obedience; so, that means IF he existed prior to His birth, then, at that point, he MUST have been LOWER than the angels.

SO..What was He in his “preexistence”?

July 7, 2013 at 6:14 pm#350063

Blocked

Quote (jb2u @ July 07 2013,07:32)

My point is that Jesus being called “from heaven” does not mean that He HAD to literally come “from heaven” as a preexistent being.

Hi jb,

These are the two scriptures you listed before:

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.

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.

Although these scriptures don't explicitly say “from heaven “, they will work as examples. The question is: What is the ORIGIN of “every perfect gift” in 1:17, and “pure wisdom” in 3:17?

Because that is the point of 1 Cor 15:47: The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven.

What was the ORIGIN of the first man? From dust you were made, and to the dust you will return. (Gen 3:19)

And what was the ORIGIN of the second man? For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. (John 6:38)

This is Paul's point, jb. He is contrasting the ORIGINS of the first Adam and last Adam.

I did a word search of “from heaven” in the NIV and KJV Bibles. You can see the 126 results for yourself on
this site.

In which of those 126 times does the phrase “from heaven” NOT refer to something that ORIGINATED in heaven and came to the earth? (Pay special attention to Isaiah 14:12, where the concept of “FROM heaven TO earth” isn't just implied, but specifically stated. Also consider that Satan fell like lightning FROM heaven TO the earth.)

Quote (jb2u @ July 07 2013,07:32)

Like I said, I do NOT believe that the bread was IN HEAVEN before it was on earth. So, I have to say “no” to this question.

Why don't you believe the bread literally came from heaven? Have scientists ever discovered this manna substance in the thousands of years since the exodus? Isn't manna also called “the food of angels” in Psalm 78:25? Didn't God and Jesus both say this bread was from heaven?

Why then would you take it upon yourself to just up and decide that this manna WASN'T from heaven? I don't get it.

July 7, 2013 at 6:30 pm#350064

Blocked

Quote (jb2u @ July 07 2013,07:13)

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.”

WHO created your son?

Deuteronomy 32:6
Is he not your father, your creator? He has made you and established you.

Malachi 2:10
Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?

Nehemiah 9:6
Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein……..

Acts 4:24
“Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.

And if God ALONE did not create your son, then you place yourself in the very awkward position of claiming that you and God are “co-creators” of the life your son possesses.

I know you don't believe that. Isn't it better to understand it as God ALONE created your son through you and your wife?

He who creates is one, and he through whom the thing is created is another. – Tertullian

The one THROUGH WHOM the thing was created is by no means the one who actually created it.

t8 and I don't believe Jesus CREATED one single thing. We believe that God ALONE, and BY HIMSELF created ALL THINGS. But we believe that He did this THROUGH many vessels, including Jesus, Adam, Noah, your parents, and yourself.

July 7, 2013 at 6:48 pm#350065

Blocked

Quote (jb2u @ July 07 2013,08:03)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2013,02:30)

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

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

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?

I would not really say that we are “in the form of a man” while in the womb.

Would you?

Look at the quote box above, jb. Notice your own words, “AFTER HIS BIRTH”. Compare that with the following quote that you made two pages ago. Again, notice your own words, “AFTER HIS BIRTH”:

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

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

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.

1. You have to decide whether you're going to claim that Jesus only existed in the form of God WHILE HE WAS IN THE WOMB, or if “in the form of God” also applies to “after his birth”.

2. The Greek word used is “anthropos”, which means “human being”. So you still need to explain how a person who was originally made in the likeness of a human being could later BE MADE in the likeness of a human being.

IE: If the “existing in the form of God” part refers to when Jesus was already a human being, how could he then empty himself and BE MADE in the likeness of a human being?

July 7, 2013 at 6:52 pm#350066

Blocked

Quote (jb2u @ July 07 2013,08:07)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2013,02:34)

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.

No, I think you misread what I wrote.

Jesus NEVER emptied himself of being sinless.

So then we agree that “in the form of God” DOESN'T refer to “being sinless”. Because whatever “form of God” means, we know that Jesus emptied himself of this form, and took on the form of a servant, right?

July 7, 2013 at 7:11 pm#350068

Blocked

Quote (jb2u @ July 07 2013,08:41)

Colossians 1:16
For because of 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 because of him and for him.

From Dictionary.com:
Synonyms:
accordingly, and so, consequently, ergo, for, for this reason, forasmuch as, hence, in consequence, in that event, inasmuch as, on account of , on the grounds, since, so, then, thence, therefrom, thereupon, thus, to that end, whence, wherefore

Isn't saying all things were created “on account of” and “for” him a little redundant?

I agree that the Greek word “dia” can mean “on account of”, or “because of”. But consider that in the KJV, the word is translated as “by” or “through” (which are synonyms) 329 times, compared to the 52 times they render it as “because”.

“Through” is the first, and most used, definition of the word. So while you do have a legitimate argument for “on account of”, it is a relatively weak one when you consider these things:

1. Colossians 1:16 would be redundant in saying all things were created both “for” and “because of” Jesus.

2. John 1:3 eliminates the confusion by saying “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”

3. It's hard for me to imagine that all things were made “FOR”, or “ON ACCOUNT OF” Jesus, if Jesus wasn't even around to experience millions of those things that were created “FOR” him. For example, in what way were dinosaurs created “FOR” Jesus?

4. It is NOT a contradiction to say that God ALONE and BY HIMSELF created all things through Jesus. So the claim that “on account of” is a better translation, because it eliminates a contradiction, is unfounded.

July 7, 2013 at 7:29 pm#350070

Blocked

Quote (jb2u @ July 07 2013,08:47)

I really appreciate you guys taking this “walk” with me. I really pray that God puts it on our hearts as to who is correct.

Just for my clarification..

Who do EACH OF YOU think Jesus was PRIOR to being born?

1. Now, I know that He wasn't God.

2. I know that He wasn't an angel, so says scripture.

3. He was EXALTED higher than the angels because of His obedience; so, that means IF he existed prior to His birth, then, at that point, he MUST have been LOWER than the angels.

4. SO..What was He in his “preexistence”?

1. Agreed.

2. Scripture really doesn't say such a thing, but that's for a different discussion. (Remember that the Greek word “aggelos” and the Hebrew word “malawk” simply mean “messenger”. So to say Jesus wasn't an “aggelos” of God is to say Jesus wasn't a “messenger” of God. And the English word “angel” simply refers to a SPIRIT messenger of God, which Jesus most definitely is according to Rev 1:1.)

3. Hebrews 1:4
So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

This doesn't say he WASN'T already superior to the other spirit messengers of God before he was made in the likeness of a human being. It says he became MORE superior to them.

In my understanding, the angels are part of the “all things” that were made through him, which makes him superior to them. And even in your understanding, the angels are a part of the all things that were made FOR him, which would still make him superior to them.

4. He was the firstborn Son of God. (Col 1:15) He was the beginning of the creation by God. (Rev 3:14)

I believe Jesus was the first spirit son God ever created, the one through whom all the other spirit sons were subsequently created. So the short answer would be: “He was firstborn of the myriads of spirit sons of God before being made in the likeness of a human being.”

July 8, 2013 at 10:19 pm#350218

Participant

Quote (jb2u @ July 08 2013,00:13)

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!

Alone doesn't mean alone in existence, you would have to read too much into the text to say it meant that. The only way it could absolutely say alone in existence is to actually add the word existence. It simply means that he alone made all things, i.e., no one else made all things. So the Word that was with God can be there at this point.

The idea that God made all things alone has to fit with the reality that we have children and Eve was made made from Adam, men cloning animals, the Nephilim, and men creating babies inside test tubes.

Take the Revelation of Jesus Christ as an example.

The revelation came from God and not another. Then God gave the revelation to his son, who gave it to the angel, who gave it to John. This doesn't mean that God did not give the revelation alone because there were agents or messengers involved. This would be true as long as the messengers did not add or take away from the words which ironically enough is part of the instruction of that revelation.

I am convinced that one can make all things alone and still do that through others/agents without there being a contradiction.

Regarding creating our children, I do not believe that we create our children. By an act of our will, yes we decide when we want children, and even then, it is still up to him. We do not create them, God creates them alone and his creative process involves other agents.

Imagine if Job said to God, “consider my children, were you there when I created them”. I mean, that would be the exact opposite message we get from the dialog between God and Job. In reality God could have said to Job, “did you create your children”?

July 8, 2013 at 10:22 pm#350219

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2013,04:49)

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.

This is how I always imagined discussions taking place here. But that was not to be the case. So it is finally good to see it happening.

I would love it if everyone were as honest as jb2u has been so far. How much further would our discovery of truth be if everyone here was like this.

July 8, 2013 at 10:28 pm#350220

Participant

Quote (jb2u @ July 08 2013,03:13)

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!

I believe God did it, not Jesus.

But he did it through Jesus and for him.

How? I don't know I wasn't there.

There was a time when I was too young to know how God created me. And I am too young to know how God made all things through Jesus Christ.

July 8, 2013 at 10:39 pm#350221

Participant

Quote (jb2u @ July 08 2013,03:27)

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

Colossians 1:16
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.

I haven't got time to dissect this verse now, but on the outset, it says, 'through him and for him'. If 'through him' means 'on account of him', then what does 'for him' mean?

July 14, 2013 at 4:34 pm#350747

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2013,05:14)

These are the two scriptures you listed before:

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.

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.

Because that is the point of 1 Cor 15:47: The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven.

What was the ORIGIN of the first man? From dust you were made, and to the dust you will return. (Gen 3:19)

And what was the ORIGIN of the second man? For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. (John 6:38)

This is Paul's point, jb. He is contrasting the ORIGINS of the first Adam and last Adam.

I did a word search of “from heaven” in the NIV and KJV Bibles. You can see the 126 results for yourself on
this site.

Sorry..I've been working.

OK..
I disagree that the concept of 1 Cor 15:47 is the same as Cor 1:17 or Cor 3:17.

If you look, you will find the verses surrounding 1 Cor 15:47 speak about the resurrection of Jesus and of US!!

Now, IF we look at the true meaning of verse 47, what we find is that Paul is saying Adam was made a living soul and Jesus was MADE a life-giving spirit. It does NOT say he was “made a life-giving spirit.” It says that He was “made into” a life-giving spirit.

The question is..WHEN was Jesus “made a life-giving spirit”? It was AFTER His resurrection!! I think if you read it in the Greek you will see this.

Again, I do believe that Jesus is “from heaven” just NOT in the same sense as you both do!!

Quote

Why then would you take it upon yourself to just up and decide that this manna WASN'T from heaven? I don't get it.

I think it was a miracle. Just like the fish multiplying, I do NOT believe that the fish literally came from heaven, but they were PROVIDED from heaven for sure!!

July 14, 2013 at 4:43 pm#350749