- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2013,06:41) 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.
John 6:62 is not talking about Jesus going to heaven.Jesus is talking about His resurrection. The disciples knew He was “from heaven.” What they did not know was that He was to die and be resurrected. They were not waiting by the tomb after His death.
Jesus asks in verse 62, what will they think if they see Him ascend from the ground. The word used for “ascend” is “anabainonta”. Which is the same word used in Mark 4:8 when it says the “fruit that SPRANG UP and increased.” Again, it says several times in the Gospel about how the apostles did not know/understand that Jesus was to die and be resurrected. Even John the Baptist had to ask at some point, “Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?”
As Jews, they were NOT looking for a suffering Messiah.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2013,06:43) 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”?
He is the beginning of the new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).Jesus is called “the first-born from the dead”!! (Col 1:18).
AND..let's not forget that ALL things begin with a plan!!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2013,06:52) 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.
First..I would ask you to rethink this post!!1. Not everyone would die for humanity's sake!!
2. Not everyone could go through the torture that Jesus went through!!
3. Even Jesus asked God if there was another way!!
4. How is laying down your life, even if it is just your earthly life, NOT a sacrifice?
5. He gave His whole earthly life over to God. No one else can say that!!
6. Jesus served GOD!! He did not lay down His life in order to receive treasures in heaven or to be at God's right hand. This was His reward for being obedient!! Yes, I agree that many would lay down their life IN ORDER to receive rewards.
7. Jesus did not just die “earlier than his natural life expectancy – just like billions of other people have done?” He was tortured. Not for His sins, but for ours. That, by definition, is a sacrifice.
8. The Bible TELLS us that Jesus was to be our sacrificial lamb. The TRUE lamb of God. The lamb that would put an end to sin, not just cover it like the lambs that were sacrificed by the Jews. This is just simple scripture. Do you really believe that Jesus was not a sacrifice?
So far, as I see it..
1. We see that God will raise a prophet out of the people. He will put wisdom in Him. He will become God's Son.
You seem to reject this because there is scripture that says God “will be” their God again. Keep in mind, God has always been everyone's God, but there were times when the Jews had other gods. God was only saying that they would recognize Me as “their God” again!!
2. Jesus is said to be “begotten” which is BORN not made. His genesis STOPS at Adam for some reason!
I am not sure why you reject this one. It is clear that Jesus was brought into existence at the exact time that God wanted and not a moment before.
3. Scripture says that it was because of the virgin birth and because of His obedience that God will call Jesus His Son.
Again, I am not sure exactly why you reject this. God knew that Jesus was going to be obedient, but He still had to go through His development. The same way that God could have only created those that He already know that will be saved, right? But, He chose to create the world and let it “run it's course.” That is not to say God does not rejoice when He sees people do what He already knows they will, right?
4. We know that the Bible was translated by trinitarians.
I would think that you both would be very skeptical of HOW certain words were translated when there are different meanings to words, but you do not appear to be.
5. We know that God created the world by Himself.
We know that He has always given credit when He has used His servants as the “arms or mouths of God.” And thus, I would expect it to be the same with the creation of the world, but God says He did it alone. Now, to me that means He did not do it “through” anyone!! I believe, as Genesis 1 says that the “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”, and God SPOKE the world into existence!! No need to do it “through” anything or anyone. Genesis let's us know exactly HOW powerful is our God. It does not say He did it “though” anyone, we must read into that, if that is what we want to believe OR if we are believing the trinitarians that translated the Bible!!
6. I believe that God never stopped existing “in the image of God”; whereas, I believe you both think that He did stop existing in His image. Now, scripture does not say that, but that is what you believe.
7. We both believe that Jesus came from heaven.
But, you believe that He existed there as a being.
I believe that “in God” and not as a being.Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 08 2013,05:10) 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.
At the time Paul wrote these words, hadn't all the things he mentioned already happened in the PAST? The statement as a whole is a PAST TENSE statement, about how Jesus WAS existing in the form of God, WAS made in the likeness of a human being, and WAS crucified, right?Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 08 2013,05:10) 3. I agree that He was made a man……
jb, this is how I understand the natural flow of the statement:Jesus was existing in the form of God. While in that form, he did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped, but instead emptied himself, and took on the form of a servant BY allowing himself to be made in the likeness of a human being.
And here is how I understand your interpretation:
While already a human being, Jesus was existing in the form of God. And although already existing with God's image like ALL MEN DO, he emptied himself, humbled himself, and was for a second time made in the likeness of a human being.
Why are you not addressing the CRUCIAL flaw in your understanding? If the LAST part is, was made in the likeness of a human being, humbled himself, and was killed, then the first parts (was existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God, but instead emptied himself) HAD TO HAVE happened BEFORE the last part.
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 08 2013,05:35) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2013,05:44)
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?
Agreed. So that means that when God again brings His firstborn into the word, all knees (including the knees of angels) will bow to him in an act of obeisance.And in order for God to again bring His firstborn into the world, He must have brought him into the world previously. And that means that Jesus was already God's firstborn before He brought him into the world the first time.
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 08 2013,05:35) And out of this stump, a root is produced which is Jesus.
Is it your contention that both “root” and “branch” metaphorically refer to offspring?Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 08 2013,05:45) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2013,06:10)
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.
So, YES, He came “down from Heaven” being MADE a man.
Jesus said:
I (me, myself personally)
came down from (as in, “I was there, but came down from there”)
heaven.For you to claim that those clearly descriptive words mean no more than I was a product of our heavenly Creator as all things are is nothing but denial, IMO.
The bottom line is that your Lord clearly, and without mincing words, told you directly that he indeed came down from heaven.
And instead of believing what he told you, you have changed the meaning of his words to, “I am from God like every other thing in existence is.”
Why say it then?
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 08 2013,05:46) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2013,06:15) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 15 2013,13:02)
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.
Great! You can see the LITERAL aspect of it!Now add Paul telling us that the last Adam originated in heaven to Jesus telling us point blank that he came down from heaven.
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 08 2013,06:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2013,06:41) 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.
John 6:62 is not talking about Jesus going to heaven.Jesus asks in verse 62, what will they think if they see Him ascend from the ground.
Okay,Here is my understanding:
Jesus said, Hey guys, I came down from heaven. And if that is a hard teaching, what are you going to think when you see me ascend to where I was before? And then some of those people actually DID see him ascend to where he was before. (Acts 1:9)
And here is your understanding:
Jesus said, I came down from heaven. And if that is a hard teaching, what are you going to think when you see me crawl out of the ground to the surface of the earth again?
Did any of them see Jesus “ascend back to earth”? And since Jesus was never buried, but laid in a tomb and remained on the earth's surface those three days, how exactly did he “ascend” back to earth's surface?
See? He didn't “ascend from the ground” as you've claimed, because his body was never buried in the ground in the first place.
Besides, didn't it occur to you that Jesus didn't once mention his resurrection in John 6? Why would he talking about nothing but how he is the real bread that came down from heaven, and then say he would ascend to where he was before, and your mind thinks he was out of the blue making an off-topic reference to being dug out of the earth?
Think harder, jb. I expect more from you.
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 08 2013,06:24) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2013,06:43) 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”?
He is the beginning of the new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).
Col 1:16 and Rev 3:14 say nothing about a “new” creation, do they?You are applying a concept from one scripture to another to suit your personal desires.
If the word “new” isn't in Col 1 or Rev 3, then don't add it into them.
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 08 2013,06:36) He did not lay down His life in order to receive treasures in heaven or to be at God's right hand. This was His reward for being obedient!! Yes, I agree that many would lay down their life IN ORDER to receive rewards.
Good. Then you agree that you, I, and almost every other single person on earth would JUMP at the chance to trade a day of crucifixion for eternity at God's right hand, ruling over heaven and earth.But you are wrong that Jesus didn't know what awaited him in heaven. The scriptures are full of Jesus' words to his disciples, telling them about how he has the power to lay down his life, and take it back up. And how they will see the exalted Jesus, in all his glory, coming on the clouds with the angels. In fact, Jesus actually prayed that they would be with him where he was going, so that they could see him in his glory.
So Jesus knew the outcome before he was crucified, right?
So I ask you plain and simple:
If God offered you a trade of less than one day of suffering in exchange for eternity at His right hand, ruling over heaven and earth……… would you take it? YES or NO?
Assuming your answer is “YES”, I have one more question:
Which of the following two terms would better reflect the deal you struck with God:
1. You made a huge sacrifice?
2. You won the greatest lottery of all time?
Think about it, jb.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2013,04:23) Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 08 2013,05:10) 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.
At the time Paul wrote these words, hadn't all the things he mentioned already happened in the PAST? The statement as a whole is a PAST TENSE statement, about how Jesus WAS existing in the form of God, WAS made in the likeness of a human being, and WAS crucified, right?Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 08 2013,05:10) 3. I agree that He was made a man……
jb, this is how I understand the natural flow of the statement:Jesus was existing in the form of God. While in that form, he did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped, but instead emptied himself, and took on the form of a servant BY allowing himself to be made in the likeness of a human being.
And here is how I understand your interpretation:
While already a human being, Jesus was existing in the form of God. And although already existing with God's image like ALL MEN DO, he emptied himself, humbled himself, and was for a second time made in the likeness of a human being.
Why are you not addressing the CRUCIAL flaw in your understanding? If the LAST part is, was made in the likeness of a human being, humbled himself, and was killed, then the first parts (was existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God, but instead emptied himself) HAD TO HAVE happened BEFORE the last part.
Quote At the time Paul wrote these words, hadn't all the things he mentioned already happened in the PAST? The statement as a whole is a PAST TENSE statement, about how Jesus WAS existing in the form of God, WAS made in the likeness of a human being, and WAS crucified, right? and yet..you MAKE it past tense to suit your belief? Paul knew what he was writing. Jesus was then and is now “existing in the form/image of God!!” There is NO past tense to that!!
Quote Why are you not addressing the CRUCIAL flaw in your understanding? If the LAST part is, was made in the likeness of a human being, humbled himself, and was killed, then the first parts (was existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God, but instead emptied himself) HAD TO HAVE happened BEFORE the last part. I do not see a flaw in my argument. First, we must understand the point of Paul's statement..”to be of like mind of Christ.” I submit that we can not do this, if Christ was a being who preexisted in heaven. Paul was just explaining that Jesus, like us, was created in the image of God, but did not seek to be equal with God. Second, where does it say that Jesus was “transformed” into a man?
I see this as two very big flaws in your argument.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2013,04:46) Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 08 2013,05:35) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2013,05:44)
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?
Agreed. So that means that when God again brings His firstborn into the word, all knees (including the knees of angels) will bow to him in an act of obeisance.And in order for God to again bring His firstborn into the world, He must have brought him into the world previously. And that means that Jesus was already God's firstborn before He brought him into the world the first time.
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 08 2013,05:35) And out of this stump, a root is produced which is Jesus.
Is it your contention that both “root” and “branch” metaphorically refer to offspring?Quote And in order for God to again bring His firstborn into the world, He must have brought him into the world previously. And that means that Jesus was already God's firstborn before He brought him into the world the first time. The problem, as I see it, is that you do not understand my stance. Jesus is the literal FIRSTBORN of God. We are created. Adam was created. But, Jesus was BORN!! And so, God's Firstborn will come AGAIN into this world!!
Quote Is it your contention that both “root” and “branch” metaphorically refer to offspring? I am explaining how Jesus can be the root and branch without being creator and offspring, without existing before and after! I do this by using the definition of the word.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2013,04:50) Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 08 2013,05:45) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2013,06:10)
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.
So, YES, He came “down from Heaven” being MADE a man.
Jesus said:
I (me, myself personally)
came down from (as in, “I was there, but came down from there”)
heaven.For you to claim that those clearly descriptive words mean no more than I was a product of our heavenly Creator as all things are is nothing but denial, IMO.
The bottom line is that your Lord clearly, and without mincing words, told you directly that he indeed came down from heaven.
And instead of believing what he told you, you have changed the meaning of his words to, “I am from God like every other thing in existence is.”
Why say it then?
Well, Jesus said He came “down from heaven.” He did not, however, say in what form or way “He came down.”Jesus said He came “out from” the Father.
John 16:27
For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.That being said..
Can one say Jesus came “out from God” and “from heaven”?
YESCan one say Jesus came “as a separate existing being” and “from heaven”?
YESBUT..which did Jesus say? The first one only!!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2013,05:08) Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 08 2013,06:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2013,06:41) 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.
John 6:62 is not talking about Jesus going to heaven.Jesus asks in verse 62, what will they think if they see Him ascend from the ground.
Okay,Here is my understanding:
Jesus said, Hey guys, I came down from heaven. And if that is a hard teaching, what are you going to think when you see me ascend to where I was before? And then some of those people actually DID see him ascend to where he was before. (Acts 1:9)
And here is your understanding:
Jesus said, I came down from heaven. And if that is a hard teaching, what are you going to think when you see me crawl out of the ground to the surface of the earth again?
Did any of them see Jesus “ascend back to earth”? And since Jesus was never buried, but laid in a tomb and remained on the earth's surface those three days, how exactly did he “ascend” back to earth's surface?
See? He didn't “ascend from the ground” as you've claimed, because his body was never buried in the ground in the first place.
Besides, didn't it occur to you that Jesus didn't once mention his resurrection in John 6? Why would he talking about nothing but how he is the real bread that came down from heaven, and then say he would ascend to where he was before, and your mind thinks he was out of the blue making an off-topic reference to being dug out of the earth?
Think harder, jb. I expect more from you.
First, Jesus did NOT speak “in chapters.” So, it does not really matter about which chapter says what!!Second, Jesus several times hinted about his death and resurrection; which, His disciples were not understanding.
Third, there were MANY witnesses too His rising from the earth. (resurrection from the dead.)
Quote And since Jesus was never buried, but laid in a tomb and remained on the earth's surface those three days, how exactly did he “ascend” back to earth's surface? See? He didn't “ascend from the ground” as you've claimed, because his body was never buried in the ground in the first place.
Well, what did Jesus say about His death?
Matt 12:40
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.It would appear, according to Jesus, that He was “in the heart of the earth.” And, it was from there that He was RAISED to “where He was before.” Again, Jesus never says that He is “returning” or “going back” to heaven..NEVER!!
More scripture to support His rising from death..
1 Cor 15:4
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:1 Cor 15:12
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?Matt 28:6-7
He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
Rom 1:4
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the deadLuke 24:6
He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,Luke 9:22
Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.John 20:9 (proof they did not understand)
For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2013,05:12) Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 08 2013,06:24) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2013,06:43) 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”?
He is the beginning of the new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).
Col 1:16 and Rev 3:14 say nothing about a “new” creation, do they?You are applying a concept from one scripture to another to suit your personal desires.
If the word “new” isn't in Col 1 or Rev 3, then don't add it into them.
First, scripture interprets scripture.
We KNOW that there is a NEW creation. We MUST be born again. It is through Jesus that we are born again, as he is the HEAD of the new creation. This is just a simple Biblical concept. We just need to know when to apply it.Second, Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5 tell us that Jesus is the firstborn from the dead!!
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.
Consider..
2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.Galatians 6:15
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.Ephesians 4:24
And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.2 Peter 3:13
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.Hebrews 12:24
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.Revelation 21:5
And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2013,05:24) Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 08 2013,06:36) He did not lay down His life in order to receive treasures in heaven or to be at God's right hand. This was His reward for being obedient!! Yes, I agree that many would lay down their life IN ORDER to receive rewards.
Good. Then you agree that you, I, and almost every other single person on earth would JUMP at the chance to trade a day of crucifixion for eternity at God's right hand, ruling over heaven and earth.But you are wrong that Jesus didn't know what awaited him in heaven. The scriptures are full of Jesus' words to his disciples, telling them about how he has the power to lay down his life, and take it back up. And how they will see the exalted Jesus, in all his glory, coming on the clouds with the angels. In fact, Jesus actually prayed that they would be with him where he was going, so that they could see him in his glory.
So Jesus knew the outcome before he was crucified, right?
So I ask you plain and simple:
If God offered you a trade of less than one day of suffering in exchange for eternity at His right hand, ruling over heaven and earth……… would you take it? YES or NO?
Assuming your answer is “YES”, I have one more question:
Which of the following two terms would better reflect the deal you struck with God:
1. You made a huge sacrifice?
2. You won the greatest lottery of all time?
Think about it, jb.
Of course Jesus knew what awaited Him!! I never said that He did not know what His reward would be. What I said was that He did not do it FOR the reward!! There is a difference!!What I am saying is that what Jesus did and what He went through was a sacrifice, not “winning the lottery.”
Even Jesus, being shown in the garden what was to come, sweat blood!! I believe this is the mental anguish that Jesus went through while being shown by God what was to come before His crucifixion. As He pleaded, “if there is any other way, take this cup from me.” Jesus, then knowing there was not another way, went through torture and death for our sins.
We have a hard time denying our own pleasures. Jesus did not even deny His torture in order to save us!!
Before you proceed..I understand you doubt me, but what about the Word of God..for the Bible tells us Jesus sacrificed..
Ephesians 5:2
And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.Hebrews 10:12
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;Again, as a loving brother, I urge you to reconsider your thoughts on our Lord's sacrifice for us!!
A couple questions for you both that I believe have not been answered..
1. Why does it not say Jesus was “transformed” or “changed” into a man?
2. What does Jesus mean when He says He “came out from” God?
3. God only talked to us “in these last days”; so, who/what was Jesus before these last days?
4. Why is the word “preexist” not used in the Bible anywhere to explain/describe Jesus?
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 23 2013,18:23) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2013,04:23) At the time Paul wrote these words, hadn't all the things he mentioned already happened in the PAST? The statement as a whole is a PAST TENSE statement, about how Jesus WAS existing in the form of God, WAS made in the likeness of a human being, and WAS crucified, right? and yet..you MAKE it past tense to suit your belief?
Hi jb,We are getting pretty spread out here in this discussion – which is the one thing I wanted to avoid in the beginning of it.
I want to address each and every word you said in your latest responses, and I will. But I'm going to address all of those points one at a time, so we can finally get some closure on some of them.
Point 1:
Please explain to me the tenses of these statements:
1. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus.
2. Who, although existing in the form of God……….
3. Did not consider equality with God something to be grasped………
4. Rather, he made himself nothing………
5. by taking the form of a servant…….
6. and was made in the likeness of a human being.
7. And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself……………8. by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!Here are my answers:
1. Present tense
2. Past tense
3. Past tense
4. Past tense
5. Past tense
6. Past tense
7. Past tense
8. Past tenseNow it seems that we would agree about #1. And I would assume we agree about numbers 3-8 as well.
So let's discuss #2, shall we?
Consider this statement IN ENGLISH:
And Mike, although running as fast as he could, was unable to win the race.
Now the ENGLISH word “running” is a PRESENT TENSE word, right? But in context, does the statement imply that Mike is still to this day running to finish that race? Or does the context dictate that, although “running” is a present tense word, the tense of the statement as a whole is PAST TENSE?
1. Is Mike presently running to win a race that has already concluded?
2. Or is the present tense “running” to be understood as a past tense “WAS running” in this context?
Which one, jb? #1 or #2?
Okay, assignment #2:
In your understanding, which line of Paul's statement begins the past tense segment of events?Do you believe it goes like this:
1. Have in you the mind of Jesus, who IS PRESENTLY existing in the form of God, AND PRESENTLY doesn't consider equality with God something to be grasped.
Or is your understanding more like this:
2. Have in you the mind of Jesus, who IS PRESENTLY existing in the form of God, but DIDN'T (past tense) consider equality with God something to be grasped.
Which one, jb? #1 or #2?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 25 2013,06:10) Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 23 2013,18:23) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2013,04:23) At the time Paul wrote these words, hadn't all the things he mentioned already happened in the PAST? The statement as a whole is a PAST TENSE statement, about how Jesus WAS existing in the form of God, WAS made in the likeness of a human being, and WAS crucified, right? and yet..you MAKE it past tense to suit your belief?
Hi jb,We are getting pretty spread out here in this discussion – which is the one thing I wanted to avoid in the beginning of it.
I want to address each and every word you said in your latest responses, and I will. But I'm going to address all of those points one at a time, so we can finally get some closure on some of them.
Point 1:
Please explain to me the tenses of these statements:
1. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus.
2. Who, although existing in the form of God……….
3. Did not consider equality with God something to be grasped………
4. Rather, he made himself nothing………
5. by taking the form of a servant…….
6. and was made in the likeness of a human being.
7. And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself……………8. by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!Here are my answers:
1. Present tense
2. Past tense
3. Past tense
4. Past tense
5. Past tense
6. Past tense
7. Past tense
8. Past tenseNow it seems that we would agree about #1. And I would assume we agree about numbers 3-8 as well.
So let's discuss #2, shall we?
Consider this statement IN ENGLISH:
And Mike, although running as fast as he could, was unable to win the race.
Now the ENGLISH word “running” is a PRESENT TENSE word, right? But in context, does the statement imply that Mike is still to this day running to finish that race? Or does the context dictate that, although “running” is a present tense word, the tense of the statement as a whole is PAST TENSE?
1. Is Mike presently running to win a race that has already concluded?
2. Or is the present tense “running” to be understood as a past tense “WAS running” in this context?
Which one, jb? #1 or #2?
Okay, assignment #2:
In your understanding, which line of Paul's statement begins the past tense segment of events?Do you believe it goes like this:
1. Have in you the mind of Jesus, who IS PRESENTLY existing in the form of God, AND PRESENTLY doesn't consider equality with God something to be grasped.
Or is your understanding more like this:
2. Have in you the mind of Jesus, who IS PRESENTLY existing in the form of God, but DIDN'T (past tense) consider equality with God something to be grasped.
Which one, jb? #1 or #2?
Quote 1. Is Mike presently running to win a race that has already concluded? 2. Or is the present tense “running” to be understood as a past tense “WAS running” in this context?
We can assume that Mike is not running anymore. However, it also means that Mike did not STOP running during the race. Right? Your belief is that Jesus was “in the form of God” and then He was not!! I do not believe this.
Quote Do you believe it goes like this: 1. Have in you the mind of Jesus, who IS PRESENTLY existing in the form of God, AND PRESENTLY doesn't consider equality with God something to be grasped.
Or is your understanding more like this:
2. Have in you the mind of Jesus, who IS PRESENTLY existing in the form of God, but DIDN'T (past tense) consider equality with God something to be grasped.
Which one, jb? #1 or #2?
Surely He was talking about a past event; so, I'd pick #2. The point is Jesus was made in the image of God, just like Adam was made in the image of God and we, too. However, unlike Adam and us, Jesus did not seek to be equal with God. Instead, He made Himself nothing, taking on the form of a servant. I believe the next statement is clarifying that He was a man!! “and was made in the likeness of a human being.” Paul then let's us know that Jesus “finding Himself in appearance as a man, humbled Himself.” Jesus knew He was different. He knew He was the Son of God, but He did not seek equality. Instead, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to death. Paul does not start off by saying Jesus “was created/made just like God and then changed into a man.”
So, since you believe in a chronological order to these verses, you believe that Jesus FIRST existed in the form of God, THEN decided to make Himself nothing by He Himself taking on the form of a servant, and THEN God made Him a man.
Is that correct?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
