- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2013,05:48) 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……………
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?
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 So you still need to explain how a person who was originally made in the likeness of a human being could later BE MADE in the likeness of a human being.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?
Jesus never “gave up” being in the form of God. That is NOT what the scripture says.We, too, are “in the image of God” (1 Cor 11:7). We have not given that up according to the word of God.
The point is..even though Jesus is in the form of God, He did not seek equality, but instead served God..even to the death.
Our problem is that even though we are “in the image of God” we do not serve God. We are not obedient to God. We make other things..money, tv, our job, even ourselves..to become our God.
To answer your question..how a human being could be made in the likeness of a human being? Well, I am human and God made me in the likeness of a human. Right?
Again, I believe that Jesus NEVER stopped being “in the form of God.” Also, He NEVER existed in another form.
How can someone exist before they exist?
1 Peter 1:20 tells us that Jesus was foreknown NOT pre-existent. (keeping in mind that there IS a word in Greek for preexist.)Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2013,05:52) 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?
I think a part of His “form of God” was His sinlessness.He did not empty Himself of some “nature” He emptied Himself of His will.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2013,06:11) 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, whereforeIsn'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.
Quote Isn't saying all things were created “on account of” and “for” him a little redundant? There are MANY redundant statements in the Bible!!
That being said, I see “because of” and “for” as two different things.“Because” God saw that Jesus would be obedient to the death, He created the world; thus, one can say “because of Jesus” God created the world.
One can also say because Jesus was obedient God went ahead and created the world “for Him.” After all, God will give all authority and judgement to Jesus, right?
And so, we can say, accurately, that God created the world because of and for Jesus without being “redundant.”
Let's not forget that Jesus did not take ANY credit for creation! (Matt 19:4, Mark 10:6, and Mark 13:19)
Don't forget, it was trinitarians that decided if “dia” meant “through” or “because of.” They believe that Jesus did the creation and so they interpreted those verses as “through” and sometimes “by.”
Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,10:34) It says that He was “made into” a life-giving spirit.
I agree that verse 45 doesn't speak of Jesus' ORIGINS as a spirit being. (It's good to know that you are not one of those who believe Jesus remains a human being in heaven.) But verse 47 clearly distinguishes the ORIGINS of the first man (from the dust of the earth) from the ORIGINS of the second man (from heaven).And it matches Jesus' own words, “I came down from heaven.”
Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,10:34) Again, I do believe that Jesus is “from heaven” just NOT in the same sense as you both do!
Okay……. but WHY? Why would you come up with a different, more abstract way of understanding “I came down from heaven” and “the second man was from heaven”? Why not just understand them with the most clear and obvious meaning of the words?Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,10:34) I think [the manna] 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!!
Again…….. WHY? When God gave them water from the rock, He never said that water was from heaven. When God multiplied the fish, it was never said that those fishes came from heaven. But in the case of the manna……….Exodus 16:4
Then the Lord said to Moses, “I will rain down bread from heaven for you.”John 6:31
“Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”The first quote was by God Himself. The second quote from our Lord Jesus Christ. They both said the bread was “from heaven”, so why should we doubt their words?
This one sums it up:
Nehemiah 9:15
In their hunger you gave them bread from heaven, and in their thirst you brought them water from the rock……..If you believe the water truly came from the rock, then why don't you believe the bread truly came from heaven?
Did you look at those verses I linked for you? Were you able to find an instance of “from heaven” where it did NOT involve something literally originating in heaven?
I just saw that you are still working on these posts. I will refrain from addressing your recent posts until you are done.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2013,06:29) 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.”
We know that God exalted Jesus to His right hand. Where was He before then as the one through whom all were created? I would say that would be a pretty high position.What Heb 1:4 says is that Jesus was MADE superior to the angels by God. Heb 1:6 says when Jesus was BORN into the world, God said let all the angels worship Him!!
You believe that Jesus is the first spirit son of God, but scripture tells us that when Jesus was born, God said let the angels worship Him.
If Adam was the first and Jesus was the last Adam, then WHO CAME FIRST?
Quote (t8 @ July 09 2013,09:19) 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”?
I agree that alone does not mean “no one else was there.” What I mean is alone means he did it “by himself.”Yes, I agree that He can have messengers, but He made it a point to say, “I alone created.” The angels were there but they had nothing to do with the creation.
We know that God used His wisdom to create the world.
And, we know that God put this wisdom IN Jesus.We know that God exalted someone “out of the people” NOT “out of heaven.”
Psalm 89:19
Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people.We know that God calls Jesus His servant.
Isaiah 52:13
Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.The Jews were looking for “a prophet” raised out of the line of Abraham to be their Messiah.
Deut 18:18, Acts 3:22, and Acts 7:37
They were not looking for a reincarnated being!!He was promised to be the seed of the woman (Gen 3:15, Gal 3:16-19)
Paul declares that Jesus is of the seed of David by BIRTH and declared the son of God by RESURRECTION. (Rom 1:1-3)
Quote (t8 @ July 09 2013,09:28) 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.
If we understand that “dia” can also mean “because of” or “for the sake of”, we can then say we understand what scripture means when it says “all things were created “dia” Jesus Christ.God wants us to know Him, and He wants us to know Jesus.
The Gospel tells us exactly what Jesus did for us; and thus, what it means that “all things are through Him.” We have eternal salvation THROUGH Jesus.Quote (t8 @ July 09 2013,09:39) 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?
Again, NOTHING would be or is to be that is not “through Christ.”Also, I believe that because God foreknew the future sacrifice of the obedient CHOSEN one out of the people, Jesus, that He created everything FOR Him. As a reward, God will give Jesus the ultimate kingdom!! It was created for Him indeed!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2013,04:40) I agree that verse 45 doesn't speak of Jesus' ORIGINS as a spirit being. (It's good to know that you are not one of those who believe Jesus remains a human being in heaven.) But verse 47 clearly distinguishes the ORIGINS of the first man (from the dust of the earth) from the ORIGINS of the second man (from heaven). And it matches Jesus' own words, “I came down from heaven.”
Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,10:34) Again, I do believe that Jesus is “from heaven” just NOT in the same sense as you both do!
Okay……. but WHY? Why would you come up with a different, more abstract way of understanding “I came down from heaven” and “the second man was from heaven”? Why not just understand them with the most clear and obvious meaning of the words?Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,10:34) I think [the manna] 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!!
Again…….. WHY? When God gave them water from the rock, He never said that water was from heaven. When God multiplied the fish, it was never said that those fishes came from heaven. But in the case of the manna……….Exodus 16:4
Then the Lord said to Moses, “I will rain down bread from heaven for you.”John 6:31
“Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”The first quote was by God Himself. The second quote from our Lord Jesus Christ. They both said the bread was “from heaven”, so why should we doubt their words?
This one sums it up:
Nehemiah 9:15
In their hunger you gave them bread from heaven, and in their thirst you brought them water from the rock……..If you believe the water truly came from the rock, then why don't you believe the bread truly came from heaven?
Did you look at those verses I linked for you? Were you able to find an instance of “from heaven” where it did NOT involve something literally originating in heaven?
I disagree. Verse 47 does not tell us of the “origins of the second Adam.” It tells us what he was made into!! Again, WHEN was He made into a life giving spirit? NOT when he was born.
He did NOT have the power to give life until AFTER His sacrifice!Quote Okay……. but WHY? Why would you come up with a different, more abstract way of understanding “I came down from heaven” and “the second man was from heaven”? Why not just understand them with the most clear and obvious meaning of the words? We have to “seek the true meaning” in scripture. We can not just casually read the Bible. All good things are from heaven. I already explained that the verse about “the second man was from heaven” does not imply that He preexisted in heaven as a spirit being, that would be reincarnation, which I reject.
Quote Again…….. WHY? When God gave them water from the rock, He never said that water was from heaven. When God multiplied the fish, it was never said that those fishes came from heaven. But in the case of the manna………. I concede that the manna could have literally rained down from heaven, but I do not see the point. God could have just as easily made it appear without having to transport it through space! So, YES, you could be right about it literally coming from heaven.
But, we also know that all good things are said to be “from heaven”; thus, it COULD also be correct to say that the manna and Jesus are “from heaven” in this sense, right?
Yes it says the bread came “from heaven” but I also know that Jesus is not literally the bread and the wine is not literally his blood. I do not have to literally drink of his blood or eat his flesh. And so, I know that just because the Bible states something does NOT always mean that it is literal. Agreed?
I am looking for PROOF that Jesus preexisted in heaven. I do not think saying He is “from heaven” is proof since I believe, as the Bible says, that all good things are “from heaven.”
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2013,04:43) I just saw that you are still working on these posts. I will refrain from addressing your recent posts until you are done.
Thank you. There was a lot to catch back up on, especially between this thread and the one with Kathi.Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,10:43) I agree with your concept; however, I believe that when God says that He spoke and it was..I believe that is HOW it happened.
I also agree with that. But consider:Hebrews 1
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 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.If verse 1 says God spoke to us THROUGH prophets, does it negate the fact that God is the one who did the speaking? Of course not.
And if verse 2 says God spoke to us THROUGH his Son, does it change the fact that it was God's messages we were hearing? Of course not.
So the fact that God chose to speak to us on earth THROUGH other vessels doesn't diminish the fact that it was God, ALONE AND BY HIMSELF, who was giving us those messages of life, right? (Otherwise, it would say “God AND the prophets spoke to us”, or “God AND Jesus spoke to us”, right?)
Therefore, there is no reason to think that God – ALONE AND BY HIMSELF – couldn't have also spoken all things into creation THROUGH HIS SON, right?
Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,10:43) Again, my God is powerful enough and honest enough that if He says, and He did, that he spoke everything into creation and that He did it alone..then I believe it!!
I believe it also. But I don't only believe the half of it. I also believe the parts that say He did it THROUGH our Lord Jesus Christ.Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,10:54) To answer your question..how a human being could be made in the likeness of a human being? Well, I am human and God made me in the likeness of a human. Right?
But were YOU existing in the form of God BEFORE you were made in the likeness of a human being?You seem to be purposely avoiding the clear chain of events described in Phil 2:6-8.
The following wording is from the NET Bible:
1. who though he existed in the form of God…….
Was this BEFORE or AFTER he was made in the likeness of a human being?
2. did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped……….
Was this BEFORE or AFTER he was made in the likeness of a human being?
3. but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature.
Section 3 details the conclusion. And it seems crystal clear to me that if sections 1 and 2 happened WHILE Jesus was already a human being, then the last part of section 3 wouldn't make a lick of sense.
So please answer the bolded parts, jb.
Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,11:25) Let's not forget that Jesus did not take ANY credit for creation! (Matt 19:4, Mark 10:6, and Mark 13:19)
You have to let that one go, jb. Neither t8 nor I believe Jesus created anything. We believe that God – ALONE AND BY HIMSELF – created all things.Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,11:25) And so, we can say, accurately, that God created the world because of and for Jesus without being “redundant.”
I disagree with that conclusion – but I do agree that redundancy is fairly common in scripture.I will move on to other points.
Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,11:45) What Heb 1:4 says is that Jesus was MADE superior to the angels by God.
Hebrews 1:4 NET
Thus he became so far better than the angels as he has inherited a name superior to theirs.You are ignoring the fact that it doesn't say he became better, but that he became SO MUCH BETTER. You won't ever be able to come to a truthful understanding if you ignore what the words really say.
Michael is an archangel, right? That means he is one of the “ruler angels” – which means he is superior to most of the other angels, right?
So let's imagine that God exalted Michael to His right hand. Could we then say, “Michael became so much better than the angels” WITHOUT implying that Michael was at one time LOWER than them? Of course we could.
Hebrews 1:4 does NOT imply, or even hint, that Jesus was lower than the angels before he was made in the likeness of a human being. You are reading that into the words.
Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,11:45) Heb 1:6 says when Jesus was BORN into the world, God said let all the angels worship Him!!
Hebrews 1:6 NET
But when he again brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all the angels of God worship him!”The Greek words could be understood as, “and again, when he brings…….”, or “when he again brings……”.
The first understanding doesn't sit well with Hebrews 2:7…….
You made him lower than the angels for a little while.
Nor does it sit well with Phil 2:10…………..
so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow – in heaven and on earth and under the earth –
So you can see that not only does Hebrews 1:6 NOT say anything about Jesus being originally born as a human being – it actually teaches that God will ONCE AGAIN send His firstborn into the world. And that clearly implies that God has already sent His firstborn into the world at least once before. And it would be hard for God to send His firstborn into the world if He didn't already have a firstborn to send into the world, right?
jb, I hope you are willing to adjust your understanding of the two verses you mentioned – now that you know they don't actually say what you claimed they did.
Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,11:45) If Adam was the first and Jesus was the last Adam, then WHO CAME FIRST?
If Jesus is both the Root and the Offspring of David, who came first?Of course the answer is that Jesus, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, came after Adam. But ask yourself why there even is such a phrase as “according to the flesh” in the case of Jesus.
Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,12:37) I disagree. Verse 47 does not tell us of the “origins of the second Adam.” It tells us what he was made into!!
Are we reading the same verse?
1 Corinthians 15:47 NET
The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven.Both bolded words are “ek” in Greek. They mean “out of” or “from”. Surely you don't deny that by “from the earth”, Paul means that the first man ORIGINATED from the earth, right? He came FROM dust, right?
So why then would you deny that the second man ORIGINATED from heaven? It means he came FROM heaven the same way the first man came FROM the dust of the earth. How are you missing this?
Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,12:37) We have to “seek the true meaning” in scripture. We can not just casually read the Bible.
How does understanding the clear words, I came down from heaven, as meaning Jesus literally came DOWN FROM heaven, like he said, constitute a failure on my part to “seek the true meaning in scripture”? If my Lord clearly, and without mincing words, says that he came down from heaven, am I not allowed to casually take him at his word?There was apparently no “hidden” or “secret” meaning to those words in the minds of the Jews to whom Jesus said them. For they asked, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”, right? They clearly understood his words, and took them at face value, right?
When Jesus said he saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven, do you take his words casually, at face value? Or do you go out of your way to FIND a secret, abstract thing those words could mean, because you personally don't want to believe that Satan literally fell from heaven itself? This is what I see you doing in th case of Jesus. It's clear that you don't want to take Jesus' claim that he came down from heaven at face value, and so have decided for personal reasons not to.
What are those reasons?
Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,12:37) I concede that the manna could have literally rained down from heaven, but I do not see the point.
Thank you for that concession.The point is that there is NO scriptural reason whatsoever to assume the manna DIDN'T literally come down from heaven – like God, Moses, and Jesus all said.
Likewise, there is no scriptural reason whatsoever to assume that JESUS didn't also literally come down from heaven – just like he said he did.
I suspect that since you don't want Jesus to have literally come down from heaven, you have convinced yourself that the manna didn't necessarily have to literally come down from heaven either…………. and in that way you had a “supporting scripture” or something.
Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,12:37) I am looking for PROOF that Jesus preexisted in heaven. I do not think saying He is “from heaven” is proof since I believe, as the Bible says, that all good things are “from heaven.”
Give us time, jb. We are only at the tip of the iceberg so far. There is much still to come.Also, Jesus didn't say he is “from heaven”. He explicitly said he CAME DOWN FROM heaven. That's quite a difference.
Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,12:14) …..God foreknew the future sacrifice of the obedient CHOSEN one out of the people, Jesus………..
What sacrifice, jb?Quote (jb2u @ July 15 2013,07:45) If Adam was the first and Jesus was the last Adam, then WHO CAME FIRST? Don't expect an answer here, just my 2 cents worth.
Adam means 'man', so yes he is the second Man in that respect. But we believe that he existed in the form of God first, and then came in the flesh. The idea of him coming in the flesh is an important issue due to this very thing being a way to detect the antichrist spirit.
If Jesus is not the firstborn of all creation, then you do not know who was the first to be with God? That must certainly lead you to think why the firstborn of all creation is not the most important after God himself. Especially given that the firstborn do have a special place with a birthright. Of course it can be lost and given to another. But technically speaking, the firstborn is blessed by birthright, so what about the firstborn of all creation. I would argue that it is Jesus as the Word of God.
Further, God sending the firstborn of all creation seems a much higher price for our salvation than one whom he created on the spot 2000 years ago. Did God pay the highest price or not. And if everything was made for him, then why was he not present for all the ages past, 14 billion years or whatever.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2013,16:02) How does understanding the clear words, I came down from heaven, as meaning Jesus literally came DOWN FROM heaven, like he said, constitute a failure on my part to “seek the true meaning in scripture”? If my Lord clearly, and without mincing words, says that he came down from heaven, am I not allowed to casually take him at his word?
John 3:12-15
12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven, the Son of Man.This seems to make the point that Jesus came from Heaven and went to Heaven. We all obviously believe that he went to Heaven, but what about coming from there.
Can we cherry pick what we want here and say that he went to Heaven, but didn't originate there.
Although I have to ask, what about Moses and Elijah?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2013,11:10) Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,10:43) I agree with your concept; however, I believe that when God says that He spoke and it was..I believe that is HOW it happened.
I also agree with that. But consider:Hebrews 1
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 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.If verse 1 says God spoke to us THROUGH prophets, does it negate the fact that God is the one who did the speaking? Of course not.
And if verse 2 says God spoke to us THROUGH his Son, does it change the fact that it was God's messages we were hearing? Of course not.
So the fact that God chose to speak to us on earth THROUGH other vessels doesn't diminish the fact that it was God, ALONE AND BY HIMSELF, who was giving us those messages of life, right? (Otherwise, it would say “God AND the prophets spoke to us”, or “God AND Jesus spoke to us”, right?)
Therefore, there is no reason to think that God – ALONE AND BY HIMSELF – couldn't have also spoken all things into creation THROUGH HIS SON, right?
Quote (jb2u @ July 14 2013,10:43) Again, my God is powerful enough and honest enough that if He says, and He did, that he spoke everything into creation and that He did it alone..then I believe it!!
I believe it also. But I don't only believe the half of it. I also believe the parts that say He did it THROUGH our Lord Jesus Christ.Quote Therefore, there is no reason to think that God – ALONE AND BY HIMSELF – couldn't have also spoken all things into creation THROUGH HIS SON, right? Well, I'd say NO because you have already quoted scripture where it says God only spoke to us IN THESE LAST DAYS through His Son. Also, when prophets speak they give credit to God, saying “so saith the Lord”, but we know that the prophet was the one who actually spoke the words. It was only God's message/words. God gives them credit for the words that they spoke even though it was a message from God, right? We know when it was the prophets speaking and when it was the word of God speaking, right? And so, I do not think that God would create the world literally through Jesus and not say “Was it not I who created the world through Jesus.” I do not think He would say, “I alone.”
Again, Jesus had a purpose. It was to be the Messiah.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
