Proclaimer Mikeboll64 vs JB2U

[Proclaimer]

Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 03 2013,03:03)

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.

But even then, God created you right and did he do that through anyone, or were you created out of the dirt directly?

See even you were created through your parents and yet you have to reconcile that with your understanding of God creating you alone.

And your creation was not even an obscure scripture that can be mistaken. You know you came through your parent. So how does this reality fit your understanding?

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2013,11:31)

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.

Jesus, like us, was and is “in the image of God.”

He NEVER stopped being “in the image of God.”

I think you see a chronological chain of events, but I do not see it as a chain of events. It is only telling us that even though Jesus was in the image of God, He did not seek to be equal but instead took on the role of servant being a man. Keep in mind, Jesus NEVER stopped being “in the form of God.” This part never changed. The part that changed was that He emptied Himself of His own will in order to take on the will of God, which was for Him to be a servant.

I agree that in the version that you use it seems more confusing, but looking at the Greek translation it seems more clear (to me at least).

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2013,12:24)

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.

Hebrews 1:4 says that Jesus “by so much better having become than the angels”.

It could mean that He was better but now He is “more better”, but that just doesn't sound right to me. As it is only when God brings His first begotten into the world that the angels are to worship Him.

Hebrews 1:6, the “and again,” is connecting two prophecies about the coming Messiah. It is clear that this is a connection between the two verses from the OT and not to say “when He brings Jesus again into the world.” That is a rearrangement of the scripture.

Quote

The first understanding doesn't sit well with Hebrews 2:7……. You made him lower than the angels for a little while.

It makes perfect sense if we do not try to change scripture. God is telling us that Jesus was MADE lower than the angels, but when He accomplished His mission He was exalted to over them. It would make less sense to say that He was over them then under them then over them again, when that is NOT what scripture says.

Quote

If Jesus is both the Root and the Offspring of David, who came first?

I explained this to Kathi. I can find it and paste it here if you need me to. I explained that Jesus can be the root and offspring of David without existing prior to His birth.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2013,13:02)

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

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?

Jesus clearly did come “from heaven” as He tells us that He “came OUT OF” God. I believe this!! Jesus said it and it is true. If He came “out of” God, as He said, then He did not exist as a separate “being” prior to His birth. I believe He came “out of” God just like HE said, and thus..FROM HEAVEN.

Also note that when He speaks of coming from heaven, He also states that He IS in heaven. Is He in two places at once? Or, is He just showing His connection with the Father?

Quote

When Jesus said he saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven, do you take his words casually, at face value?

I believe that He saw it, but it doesn't say that it was a “first hand account.” It could have been a revelation/vision given to Him by GOD.

Quote

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.

Again, I never claimed to not believe that He is “from heaven.” I just do not agree that He existed “as a being” from heaven.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2013,13:02)

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.

I think that is a little unfair to say that I “don't want Jesus to have literally..”

I agreed to this debate with the purest of heart. I stated that I only want the truth to come to light. Furthermore, I told you that originally I believed that Jesus did preexist; and so, I show my willingness to admit that I am wrong and change.

I have NO reason to want Jesus to be anything more or less than He is. I truly want to know the truth and the truth only. Daily I pray for wisdom from God!

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2013,13:05)

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?

On the cross!! Atoning for our sins.

[jb2u]

Quote (t8 @ July 15 2013,18:26)

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.

Well, Jesus is God's firstborn. He is the first BEGOTTEN of God. It does not say “first created” or “first made.” It says first begotten which is the first BORN. Secondly, Jesus IS the first born of the new creation as there will be a new heaven and new earth. Jesus is the first fruits.

[jb2u]

Quote (t8 @ July 15 2013,19:48)

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?

Again, I do believe that Jesus came FROM heaven, OUT OF His Father.

The point Jesus is making in John 3:12-21 is that no one would be going to Heaven if it were not for Him, Jesus, coming to die for our sins. Plus do not forget, that in this same verse Jesus says that He IS, as in currently is, in heaven. You left that out of verse 13.

Here are some reasons I can not see what you both see..

1) The bible never talks about Jesus' “previous life.” (this is not that important, but it would convince me that he did preexist.)

2) It never says that He was “changed.” We see that He was “made” a man, but it does not say that He was “changed into.”

3) Jesus never says that He is “RETURNING TO HEAVEN.” He says that He will return to earth, but He NEVER says that He is returning to His Father. He says He is “going to” His Father. He speaks of going to His Father several times, but never as returning to His Father.

[jb2u]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 03 2013,00:07)

But even then, God created you right and did he do that through anyone, or were you created out of the dirt directly? See even you were created through your parents and yet you have to reconcile that with your understanding of God creating you alone. And your creation was not even an obscure scripture that can be mistaken. You know you came through your parent. So how does this reality fit your understanding?

But again, God gives my parents credit for me and them the responsibility of me!!

The problem is the translated scripture says the world was created BY Jesus and FOR Jesus, and then other times as Through Him and For Him.

I've shown that the word used can also mean “on account of” and both of these would easily fit into these verses and make perfect sense!! It would also keep “in tune” with God's claim in the OT that HE created the world. However, the trinitarians that translated the Bible and believe that Jesus is God made the word “di” to be “by” and “through” instead of using the equally correct definition of “on account of.”

Now, we KNOW that it was “on account of” what Jesus did that the world was created. So, why do you both think that the correct use of the word “di” should NOT be “on account of”? (keeping in mind that trinitarians with an agenda translated the Bible)

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 02 2013,07:14)

I think you see a chronological chain of events, but I do not see it as a chain of events.

Are you serious, jb?

Are you saying that these things all happened simultaneously?

1. Was existing in the form of God.
2. Did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, and so emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant.
3. And was made in the likeness of a human being.

It's #3 that kills your understanding, jb. So let's talk about that for a minute.

Was Jesus made in the likeness of a human being BEFORE existing in the form of God? During? Or after?

Please explain your understanding of #3, because to me it seems a no-brainer that Jesus WAS existing in the form of God, BUT THEN was made in the likeness of a human being.

Please explain how that is NOT the case.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 02 2013,07:39)

It could mean that He was better but now He is “more better”, but that just doesn't sound right to me.

Perhaps how it “sounds” to you is peppered by your own conception that Jesus started his existence as a human being.  If I accepted that as an absolute truth, then Jesus being made even more better than the angels wouldn't “sound right” to me either.

I do respect and appreciate your honesty in admitting that it COULD BE understood as Jesus becoming even more superior to the angels than he previously was.  Keep that COULD BE in mind as we continue with this discussion.

Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 02 2013,07:39)

As it is only when God brings His first begotten into the world that the angels are to worship Him. It is clear that this is a connection between the two verses from the OT and not to say “when He brings Jesus again into the world.” That is a rearrangement of the scripture.

And has God already brought/sent His Son into the world?  Yes.  

And did any angels do obeisance him at that time?  No.  

Did all knees in heaven and earth bow to him at that time?  No.

So these things will APPARENTLY happen when God AGAIN brings His firstborn into the world, right?  (The second coming of the firstborn of God.)

Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 02 2013,07:39)

It would make less sense to say that He was over them then under them then over them again, when that is NOT what scripture says.

But if, as the scriptures teach, Jesus HAD TO partake in humanity because the children he was to save were partakers in humanity, then it WOULD make sense that he was higher, then lower by necessity, then exalted higher again.

Quote

I explained that Jesus can be the root and offspring of David without existing prior to His birth.

You don't need to paste it from Kathi's thread….. but you can.  Either way, I would like to hear how Jesus could be the Root of David without existing before David – as that seems nonsensical to me.

I would also like you to keep in mind that being the Root of David COULD refer to Jesus existing in a different form before David ever existed.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 02 2013,07:47)

Jesus clearly did come “from heaven” as He tells us that He “came OUT OF” God. I believe this!! Jesus said it and it is true.

Jesus said, I came DOWN FROM heaven, jb.

Surely saying he came DOWN FROM heaven is not the same as saying he is metaphorically “of heaven”, or “of God” – as all things are.

Even the Jews to whom he said these words understood that he was saying that he personally came down from heaven – as if he WAS in heaven, and then came down from there.

How is it that you don't believe that Jesus literally came down from heaven? (Keep in mind that for one to come “down from” heaven, that one must first exist IN heaven before coming down from there.)

[mikeboll64]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2013,13:02)

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.

Do you agree with that last sentence?  If not, then why not?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 02 2013,07:52)

I think that is a little unfair to say that I “don't want Jesus to have literally..” I agreed to this debate with the purest of heart. I stated that I only want the truth to come to light.

Okay, fair enough and point taken.

So far this is how I see it:

1.  I believe that Phil 2 says Jesus was existing in the form of God, but emptied himself and was made in the likeness of a human being.

You apparently believe Jesus was existing in the form of God WHILE he emptied himself and was made in the likeness of a human being.  (The jury is still out on this one – as I'm waiting for an answer to my latest post on the matter.)

2.  I believe Jesus when he says he came down from heaven.  You apparently equivocate “came down from heaven” with “came from God like every other living thing that ever existed” – in which case, why would Jesus say such a thing in the first place?  

3.  I understand that “the first man was of the dust of the earth” means the first man ORIGINATED from the dust of the earth.  I therefore follow the same common sense guidelines when understanding that “the last man was from heaven” means the last man ORIGINATED in heaven.  (The jury is still out on this one as well, but it seems you DON'T think “from the dust of the earth” and “from heaven” both refer to the ORIGIN of the referent.)

4.  I believe God ALONE and BY HIMSELF created me, but did that THROUGH Jesus, Adam, Noah, and my parents…………. and therefore having things created THROUGH you doesn't mean you were the actual creator of those things.  You insist that things like dinosaurs were created “ON ACCOUNT OF” Jesus – even though you don't think Jesus existed to appreciate many of those ancient things.  Did God create you “through” Noah?  Or “on account of” him?

5.  I believe that in John 6, Jesus made it abundantly clear that he came down from heaven, and that some of those standing there would later see him ascend to “where I was before” – meaning “to heaven”.  Then some of those standing there DID actually see him ascend to “where he was before” – fulfilling his own prophecy.  You don't believe that Jesus ever said he would return to heaven.

These are just a few of the things we've discussed thus far in this thread, jb.  So while I want to believe you only want the truth to come to light, forgive me for saying that it often seems you are running from that very truth as fast as we can present it to you.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 02 2013,07:57)

Well, Jesus is God's firstborn. He is the first BEGOTTEN of God. It does not say “first created” or “first made.”

And what about Revelation 3:14, where Jesus refers to himself as the “beginning of the creation by God”?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 02 2013,07:54)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2013,13:05) 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? On the cross!! Atoning for our sins.

So Jesus was born a mere human being who was destined to die anyway, and then he died?

Where is the sacrifice?  That he died earlier than his natural life expectancy – just like billions of other people have done?

Yes, it would be a sacrifice to die for others a little earlier than you would have died naturally anyway.  But how much of a sacrifice would that have really been?  Millions of Christians have died earlier than their natural life expectancy because of adhering to the word of God, right?

On the other hand, a being who never even had to experience death at all, but was willing to be made into a lower existence AND THEN suffer death……….. now THAT would be a sacrifice of great proportions.  And THAT is the mind of Christ that Paul spoke about in Phil 2.

The way I see it, the Jesus of the non-preexisters didn't really make a significant sacrifice – but instead won the greatest lottery of all time.

jb, would YOU trade in a day of extreme suffering for eternity at God's right hand, ruling over heaven and earth? I sure would! And I surely wouldn't consider it a “sacrifice”. I would consider it the greatest “blessing” of all time.

To be a normal human being who would have died anyway, and then get to speed up your death in exchange for a lifetime at God's right hand would the greatest lottery winner of all time.

There isn't one of us who wouldn't have made that “sacrifice”, jb.

Think about it. Because your understanding means Jesus was willing to do only what ANY OF US would bend over backwards to get the opportunity to do.

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2013,05:27)

Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 02 2013,07:14) I think you see a chronological chain of events, but I do not see it as a chain of events. Are you serious, jb? Are you saying that these things all happened simultaneously? 1.  Was existing in the form of God. 2.  Did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, and so emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant. 3.  And was made in the likeness of a human being. It's #3 that kills your understanding, jb.  So let's talk about that for a minute. Was Jesus made in the likeness of a human being BEFORE existing in the form of God?  During?  Or after? Please explain your understanding of #3, because to me it seems a no-brainer that Jesus WAS existing in the form of God, BUT THEN was made in the likeness of a human being. Please explain how that is NOT the case.

1. Does NOT say “was existing.” It says “hyparchon”, which is “subsisting,” which is existing, not WAS existing. You made it a past tense verse.

2. I agree with this interpretation.

3. I agree that He was made a man, as oppose to an angel, tree, or animal. This is not to say that He stopped being in the image of God. We, too, have not stopped being in the image of God.

Where is the sentence that says He STOPPED being in the image of God? You are adding that!

If we continue to look..verse 8 appears to restate this in a different order.
1. He was made a man.
2. He humbled himself (he “emptied” himself?).
3. Became obedient (became a “sevant”?).

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2013,05:44)

Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 02 2013,07:39) It could mean that He was better but now He is “more better”, but that just doesn't sound right to me. Perhaps how it “sounds” to you is peppered by your own conception that Jesus started his existence as a human being.  If I accepted that as an absolute truth, then Jesus being made even more better than the angels wouldn't “sound right” to me either. I do respect and appreciate your honesty in admitting that it COULD BE understood as Jesus becoming even more superior to the angels than he previously was.  Keep that COULD BE in mind as we continue with this discussion. Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 02 2013,07:39) As it is only when God brings His first begotten into the world that the angels are to worship Him. It is clear that this is a connection between the two verses from the OT and not to say “when He brings Jesus again into the world.” That is a rearrangement of the scripture. And has God already brought/sent His Son into the world?  Yes.   And did any angels do obeisance him at that time?  No.   Did all knees in heaven and earth bow to him at that time?  No. So these things will APPARENTLY happen when God AGAIN brings His firstborn into the world, right?  (The second coming of the firstborn of God.) Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 02 2013,07:39) It would make less sense to say that He was over them then under them then over them again, when that is NOT what scripture says. But if, as the scriptures teach, Jesus HAD TO partake in humanity because the children he was to save were partakers in humanity, then it WOULD make sense that he was higher, then lower by necessity, then exalted higher again. Quote I explained that Jesus can be the root and offspring of David without existing prior to His birth. You don't need to paste it from Kathi's thread….. but you can.  Either way, I would like to hear how Jesus could be the Root of David without existing before David – as that seems nonsensical to me. I would also like you to keep in mind that being the Root of David COULD refer to Jesus existing in a different form before David ever existed.

Quote

And has God already brought/sent His Son into the world?  Yes.

Agreed

Quote

And did any angels do obeisance him at that time?  No.

I would image they did. How do we know that they did not cheer His arrival?

Quote

Did all knees in heaven and earth bow to him at that time?  No.

Not yet. But, scripture does tell us that the first time He will be a suffering Messiah, but will come back and “all knees in heaven and earth will bow to Him. Right?

Quote

You don't need to paste it from Kathi's thread….. but you can.  Either way, I would like to hear how Jesus could be the Root of David without existing before David – as that seems nonsensical to me.

For the meaning behind Isaiah 11, which I assume that you are referring to, see Isaiah 10.

The tree of Jesse will be reduced to a stump (the defined word for the Hebrew word “geza” translated stem). And out of this stump, a root is produced which is Jesus. This root will flourish; whereas the “forest” that is the Assyrians (as described in Isaiah 10) will die. There fruit will bear nothing. The root of satan will die (Isaiah 14), and the root of Jesse will become great once again and for eternity!!

I assume you believe that Jesus was the beginning of Jesse. Is that correct? I believe many do, but in light of Isaiah 10 and 14, we can not continue to believe that Jesus is the beginning of Jesse. The Bible clearly shows that Jesus came OUT OF the line of Jesse. A Davidic line that was once great & powerful; and yet, “cut down” to a stump in Jesus' day.

So Jesus is the root of Jesse. Without the tree of Jesse there would not have been a stem to drop new roots. The root of satan are called the Assyrians. Do you believe they came from satan, or were they the creators of satan??

If we just open our Bibles and read all of Isaiah and not just one or two verses and try to derive meaning from them, it becomes clear what is meant by “the root of Jesse.”

I can look out my window and see a tree in my front yard.

That tree grew and made stems that produced leaves and fruit that drop. Now, around this tree, there are more trees coming forth. These new trees have there own roots, but one can easily say that the roots came from the first tree because that first tree was the source of the seeds that started that root. The problem is a misunderstanding of the words used in that scripture!! Not in my lack of understanding of dendrology.

Again, read Isaiah again. It is clear that the tree is not bearing fruit. Out of this tree comes forth a new root that is Jesus.

Also, God promised that the Messiah would come OUT of the Davidic line, not that He would be the source of the Davidic line.

Well lets not go by the way WE think about “roots” since it is written in GREEK….

Romans 15:12
And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

Revelation 5:5
And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

The word root is “rhiza”
According to Strong's Concordance it means….
a root, shoot, source; that which comes from the root, a descendent.  

I believe it is the “shoots” that I was talking about before!! And YES, by definition…I could call my descendants….my “rhiza.” I wouldn't call them “my roots” because obviously it would confuse those that speak English. That being said, these verses are in Greek.

Again, we can not just take the translations as they are if we see an apparent contradiction!! I have said it over and over. I believe that
is why GOD has told us…SEEK and ye shall find!!

Quote (Lightenup @ May 29 2013,05:20)
jb,
The 'root of Jesse' is talking about Isaiah 11 where FROM the ROOTS of Jesse comes a branch. Obviously the two terms are not the same here.

Isaiah 11 1A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;

from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.

Even so, the meaning of the word does not change. The shoot still came FROM Jesse and, yes, that shoot will have roots that ultimately can be called the roots of Jesse.

A family tree really does not have any roots as it is just an illustration, but the point is….I have proven that the meaning of this word “root” does also mean “that which comes from the root, a descendant.”

Furthermore, I have also explained how Jesus can be the root of Jesse, for without Jesus, there would have been NO Jesse or Moses or Adam or you or me!!!

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2013,06:10)

Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 02 2013,07:47) Jesus clearly did come “from heaven” as He tells us that He “came OUT OF” God. I believe this!! Jesus said it and it is true. Jesus said, I came DOWN FROM heaven, jb. Surely saying he came DOWN FROM heaven is not the same as saying he is metaphorically “of heaven”, or “of God” – as all things are. Even the Jews to whom he said these words understood that he was saying that he personally came down from heaven – as if he WAS in heaven, and then came down from there. How is it that you don't believe that Jesus literally came down from heaven?  (Keep in mind that for one to come “down from” heaven, that one must first exist IN heaven before coming down from there.)

I, and you, can not say exactly HOW it happened, but I BELIEVE that Jesus came out of a part of God. The same way that my kids are literally “a part of me.” It was a part of MY chromosomes that created them. Just like God spoke, in the beginning, and God's spirit moved over the waters, God also spoke and His spirit descended upon Mary. Right? And, something did happen! Did God put “a part of Himself” in Mary's womb? Did God cause Mary's egg to replicate by itself? Did God just breath life into Mary's womb? Well WE don't know!! What we DO know is that Jesus is the Messiah, He was obedient, He atoned for our sins, He was from the line of David, and, although the apostles repeatedly speak of His humanity, they never comment on “a past life.”

So, YES, He came “down from Heaven” being MADE a man. NOTICE it does NOT say that He was “transformed” into a man!!

[jb2u]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2013,06:15)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2013,13:02) 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. Do you agree with that last sentence?  If not, then why not?

Yes. I can see where it is literal, as well as symbolic.

[Author]

Posts