- This topic is empty.
- Posts
The thing is, no one else goes around saying that they existed in the form of God. Yes we are made in the image of God and we can partake in divine nature, but Jesus is the image of God.
Are you the image of God?
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 26 2013,05:07) We can assume that Mike is not running anymore.
Agreed. So the present tense “existing” in Phil 2 – WHEN FACTORED INTO THE PAST TENSE FORM OF THE STATEMENT AS A WHOLE – could easily be understood as a past tense “was existing in the form of God”, right?Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 26 2013,05:07) However, it also means that Mike did not STOP running during the race. Right?
Not necessarily. Mike might have ran as fast as he could, then realized he was nowhere close to winning, and so called it quits without ever reaching the finish line, right?So you are reading more into it than the available information allows, right? You do the same with Phil 2.
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 26 2013,05:07) Your belief is that Jesus was “in the form of God” and then He was not!
Correct. But I come by that belief honestly, jb.First, I assume a difference between “existing in the FORM of God” and “all men were created in the IMAGE of God”. I assume as much because if “FORM of God” only meant the same exact thing as “IMAGE of God” – then what point would Paul have in saying it? It seems to me that Paul was distinguishing Jesus as DIFFERENT than the rest of us in this passage. And if that is the case, what would be the point in saying that Jesus existed on earth in the image of God – JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER MAN WHO EVER LIVED?
Secondly, what did Jesus “empty himself” of? The words must flow, jb. Jesus was existing in the form of God…… but then EMPTIED HIMSELF of something. What something? There was nothing else mentioned about him before he emptied himself, EXCEPT for existing in the form of God. And he emptied himself of this something BY taking on a DIFFERENT form – that of a servant.
So the flow is that Jesus WAS existing in the form of God, but emptied himself (of that form, apparently), and took on a DIFFERENT form (the form of a servant – as opposed to the form of God that he WAS having).
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 26 2013,05:07) Surely He was talking about a past event; so, I'd pick #2.
Okay. But tell me if it really makes sense to you for Paul to say, He IS PRESENTLY existing in the form of God, but DIDN'T (past tense) consider equality with God to be grasped.I can't see a way that makes sense.
Just like “running” was OBVIOUSLY a past tense event in my analogy (based on the rest of the context), “existing in the form of God” is also obviously a past tense occurrence based on the past tense context of EVERYTHING else that follows.
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 26 2013,05:07) 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?
Close. He was existing in the form of God, where he never once considered that he was equal to God. When the set time came (Gal 4:4), Jesus ALLOWED HIMSELF to be emptied of that previous form, and ALLOWED HIMSELF to be made in the form of a servant by ALLOWING HIMSELF to be made in the likeness of a human being.jb, consider the following order of events – according to your understanding:
1. The HUMAN BEING Jesus existed in the form of God.
2. The HUMAN BEING Jesus didn't consider equality with God something to be grasped.
3. The HUMAN BEING Jesus emptied himself.
4. The HUMAN BEING Jesus took on the form of a servant.
5. The HUMAN BEING Jesus was made in the likeness of a human being.
No matter what else you say, #5 is going to bite you in the butt every time.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 27 2013,11:11) The thing is, no one else goes around saying that they existed in the form of God. Yes we are made in the image of God and we can partake in divine nature, but Jesus is the image of God. Are you the image of God?
The problem with your and Mike's understanding is in the word “form.” The Greek word is “morphe” which is the equivalent of “image.” You believe it to mean that He existed in the “essence” of God.He was also in the “morphe” of a servant. Does a servant have an “essence”? NO. He took on a role/attitude of a servant. A servant's essence is no different than any other man. The difference is in what he does.
Furthermore, Mark 16:12 states that Jesus appeared in a different “morphe” to the two people as they walked through the country. It was a different “form” from which He appeared to Mary. Was it a different “essence”? NO. It was a different “image”, a different “outward appearance.”
So, Jesus is and was a reflection of God. Which is what we are/should be? So yes, I am in the image of God and so are you!!
However, we can all agree that Jesus reflected God perfectly, right? Whereas, we are created to reflect God; and yet, we fall short of His glory!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 27 2013,12:35) Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 26 2013,05:07) We can assume that Mike is not running anymore.
Agreed. So the present tense “existing” in Phil 2 – WHEN FACTORED INTO THE PAST TENSE FORM OF THE STATEMENT AS A WHOLE – could easily be understood as a past tense “was existing in the form of God”, right?Quote Agreed. So the present tense “existing” in Phil 2 – WHEN FACTORED INTO THE PAST TENSE FORM OF THE STATEMENT AS A WHOLE – could easily be understood as a past tense “was existing in the form of God”, right? Wrong. Becuase, Jesus still exists in the form of God!
Quote Not necessarily. Mike might have ran as fast as he could, then realized he was nowhere close to winning, and so called it quits without ever reaching the finish line, right? So you are reading more into it than the available information allows, right? You do the same with Phil 2.
Now who is “reading more into it.” I am merely reading the Bible and what God says and what Jesus says without adding on. Whereas, You and t8 have created a new preexistent life for Jesus of which the Bible NEVER speaks. I know at some point during this discussion one of you stated that Jesus must have had amnesia about His “past life” and had to relearn as “He grew in the wisdom of God.” Do you remember that? I'll have to go back and find it. Is that “reading into the Bible” or what?
Quote Correct. But I come by that belief honestly, jb. First, I assume a difference between “existing in the FORM of God” and “all men were created in the IMAGE of God”.
See my response to t8 above on this one. The only difference is in the wording.
Quote I assume as much because if “FORM of God” only meant the same exact thing as “IMAGE of God” – then what point would Paul have in saying it? It seems to me that Paul was distinguishing Jesus as DIFFERENT than the rest of us in this passage. And if that is the case, what would be the point in saying that Jesus existed on earth in the image of God – JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER MAN WHO EVER LIVED? Well, Jesus reflected God perfectly; whereas, we do not. The point would be, that Jesus was like us, but resisted sin. He was just like us, but sinless; and thus, able to put an end to sin as a sacrifice.
Quote Secondly, what did Jesus “empty himself” of? The words must flow, jb. Jesus was existing in the form of God…… but then EMPTIED HIMSELF of something. What something? There was nothing else mentioned about him before he emptied himself, EXCEPT for existing in the form of God. And he emptied himself of this something BY taking on a DIFFERENT form – that of a servant. We went over this already. Jesus emptied Himself OF Himself. He emptied Himself of His own will, His own desires! He spoke the words of His Father. He did the actions that His Father commanded Him to do, even to the death!
Quote So the flow is that Jesus WAS existing in the form of God, but emptied himself (of that form, apparently), and took on a DIFFERENT form (the form of a servant – as opposed to the form of God that he WAS having) This is why you are having such a hard time understanding this. He NEVER stopped “existing” in the form of God. Where does it say that He stopped or was changed? OR..did you just read that into these verses? You have already added “was” existing. Think about it.
Quote Okay. But tell me if it really makes sense to you for Paul to say, He IS PRESENTLY existing in the form of God, but DIDN'T (past tense) consider equality with God to be grasped. Not “presently” as in TODAY. I believe that Paul was letting us know that Jesus never stopped being “in the form of God” by specifically NOT making it past tense. Why do YOU think Paul did not say “was” existing? Why do you think that YOU need to keep adding it in order to make your point that it was a past event? Paul was making the point that WHILE Jesus was in the form of God He humbled Himself and was a servant. I do NOT need to change Paul's words to maintain THIS point.
Quote Close. He was existing in the form of God, where he never once considered that he was equal to God. When the set time came (Gal 4:4), Jesus ALLOWED HIMSELF to be emptied of that previous form, and ALLOWED HIMSELF to be made in the form of a servant by ALLOWING HIMSELF to be made in the likeness of a human being. What does Gal 4:4 really say..
But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the lawWhere did God send forth His Son from? A woman. He was sent forth by being made of a woman and under the law. Isaiah 55:11 tells us that God says that His word will go “out of His mouth” and into the world!! Think about it. Who is Jesus? Jesus BECAME the word of God for us, right? The word, God's word..BECAME flesh. Right? Please, just stop for a minute and pray about it.
Quote jb, consider the following order of events – according to your understanding: 1. The HUMAN BEING Jesus existed in the form of God.
2. The HUMAN BEING Jesus didn't consider equality with God something to be grasped.
3. The HUMAN BEING Jesus emptied himself.
4. The HUMAN BEING Jesus took on the form of a servant.
5. The HUMAN BEING Jesus was made in the likeness of a human being.
No matter what else you say, #5 is going to bite you in the butt every time.If you do not ADD the words “human being” then it does make PERFECT sense!! Why must you add words and thus change mine in order to make your point
?Consider that IF this is really chronological then Paul contradicts himself in verse 8. Think about it!!
verse 7 says..made himself of no reputation (humbled himself), became a servant, made a man..
while verse 8 says..made a man, humbled himself, became a servant (even to the death).
So..if you want to maintain that it is chronological, how do you explain this apparent mistake in order (in the VERY next verse no less)?
I have also read that Paul was using a poetic form that was typical of Hebrew writers. These verses do sound very poetic to me, especially the repetition between verses 7 & 8. I can not prove this, of course, but it is something to think about. We can not just read the Bible with a “Gentile” mind. It is a book written by Jewish minds during Jewish customs and Jewish traditions. If we lose sight of this, then we run the risk of misinterpreting certain things. It would be like me writing a book in English using American slang. Someone 2,000 years from now living in a different “world” would certainly have a hard time understanding it, if they did not get into the mind of an American living in 2013. Would you not agree? Certainly there would have to be SOME discussion about American tradition or slang! Right? I am sure there would be back and forth about what I meant about “something being sick.” Ill? Awesome? (disclaimer: I do not use such slang) The point is we MUST consider the time, traditions, writing styles, and customs of the writers. It is worth considering.
I know that you do not want to “jump around”, but I have to say this. It is so, so important to me that you both read the scripture around this, without “firing back” first; instead, read the scripture and pray about the revelation of truth. I truly care about you both. I believe that, just like me, you both want to know the truth.
Consider the following verses..
1 Peter 1:20
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for youNotice: Jesus was FOREKNOWN..NOT pre-existent. God KNEW Jesus before the foundation of the earth!! Very important to understand the meaning of foreknown/foreordained versus created before the foundation of the earth.
1 Peter 2:4
To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and preciousNotice: Jesus was CHOSEN.
1 Peter 1:21
Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.So, Jesus was given glory AFTER his resurrection.
Psalm 22:9-10
But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
This is a Psalm about Jesus. Now, where is Jesus' origin here? The womb. Jesus declares “thou art my God from my mother's belly.” Was God NOT Jesus' God in His pre-existent life in heaven? OR..maybe, Jesus' beginning was in fact IN THE WOMB as He confesses.
From these verses we see that Jesus was foreknown by God, chosen by God, made in the womb of Mary, and received glory after his resurrection.
This is a different account than to say..Jesus lived in heaven, volunteered to go to earth, was transformed into a man, and then given back His glory!
Yes there is a lot to look at here.
For now, I would like to say that there are quite a lot of scriptures that demonstrate that Jesus existed before coming in flesh. Many are direct quotes and others are indirect in that they require that he was with the Father in the beginning.
This is the biggest problem I have with the view that Jesus is but a mere man created lower than the angels and is only 2000 or so years old, in a Universe that is supposedly billions of years old with who knows how many ages before he appeared on the scene.
To me it is just too much tweaking of scripture to eliminate all the references and yes I know that this has been meticulously done by those who do not believe in Jesus being the literal first born of creation, but that it requires too much work and you have to take on too much extra information for it to work.
In my mind, you could change anything in scripture with such effort.
I prefer to read the text as it is and let it speak to me and time and time again, it requires Jesus to be with the Father before the world began and it not only requires it, it says it too.
So back to refuting them one at a time, but just wanted to give my wider view.
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 27 2013,09:11) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 27 2013,12:35)
Agreed. So the present tense “existing” in Phil 2 – WHEN FACTORED INTO THE PAST TENSE FORM OF THE STATEMENT AS A WHOLE – could easily be understood as a past tense “was existing in the form of God”, right?
Wrong. Becuase, Jesus still exists in the form of God!
How can you say “wrong”, when it IS a possibility? Consider this statement:Have in you the mind of Jesus, who, existing (present tense form) as the only begotten Son of God on earth, didn't allow that prestige to keep him from serving sinners and prostitutes.
Similar to the “running” analogy, the word “existing” in this analogy is also a present tense word. But you and I both KNOW from the past tense context of the rest of the words, that the writer is talking about a time when Jesus, IN THE PAST, was existing ON EARTH as God's only begotten Son, right?
Now here is the thing. Did Jesus ever STOP existing as God's only begotten Son? NO.
So the fact that I referred to a PAST time when Jesus WAS existing as God's only begotten Son, has NOTHING AT ALL to do with whether or not Jesus ever STOPPED existing as God's only begotten Son.
Just like when Paul speaks of Jesus existing in the form of God IN THE PAST, it doesn't speak one way or the other about whether or not Jesus ever STOPPED existing in the form of God – or whether or not he exists in that form to this very day.
Can we at least agree on this simple and true FACT?
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 27 2013,08:09) The problem with your and Mike's understanding is in the word “form.” The Greek word is “morphe” which is the equivalent of “image.” You believe it to mean that He existed in the “essence” of God.
That is inaccurate – at least about me.I know full well that the Greek word “morphe” means “outward appearance”.
I have never thought that Jesus and his God share the same “essence”. Jesus is a creation of God – just like the rest of us.
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 27 2013,09:11) The point would be, that Jesus was like us, but resisted sin.
So “image of God” refers to men who do sin, and “form of God” refers to men who don't sin?What does “outward appearance” have to do with whether or not a man sins?
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 27 2013,09:11) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 27 2013,12:35) jb, consider the following order of events – according to your understanding: 1. The HUMAN BEING Jesus existed in the form of God.
2. The HUMAN BEING Jesus didn't consider equality with God something to be grasped.
3. The HUMAN BEING Jesus emptied himself.
4. The HUMAN BEING Jesus took on the form of a servant.
5. The HUMAN BEING Jesus was made in the likeness of a human being.
No matter what else you say, #5 is going to bite you in the butt every time.If you do not ADD the words “human being” then it does make PERFECT sense!! Why must you add words and thus change mine in order to make your point?
Consider that IF this is really chronological then Paul contradicts himself in verse 8. Think about it!!
verse 7 says..made himself of no reputation (humbled himself), became a servant, made a man..
while verse 8 says..made a man, humbled himself, became a servant (even to the death).
So..if you want to maintain that it is chronological, how do you explain this apparent mistake in order (in the VERY next verse no less)?
I don't see a “mistake in the order”.Let me continue my list:
1. The HUMAN BEING Jesus existed in the form of God.
2. The HUMAN BEING Jesus didn't consider equality with God something to be grasped.
3. The HUMAN BEING Jesus emptied himself.
4. The HUMAN BEING Jesus took on the form of a servant.
5. The HUMAN BEING Jesus was made in the likeness of a human being.
6. And being found in appearance as a HUMAN BEING, Jesus humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross.#6 doesn't seem to have any bearing at all on the fact that #5 still bites you in the butt.
You said, If you do not ADD the words “human being” then it does make PERFECT sense! What does that mean?
Don't you believe that Jesus WAS a human being during #'s 1 through 4? If so, then what does it hurt for me to outline Jesus' human nature as I go?
jb, this part of my post is the crux of our Phil 2 disagreement. I need you to either understand that Jesus WASN'T a human being before being made in the likeness of a human being………….. OR………….. explain to me HOW he could be a human being in #'s 1-4, and then BE MADE INTO a human being in #5.
Please go through the numbers I listed, and tell me if you agree he was a human being during each number…….. or not.
Example:
1. YES Mike, I believe Jesus WAS a human being at this time.2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 27 2013,12:49) From these verses we see that Jesus was foreknown by God, chosen by God, made in the womb of Mary, and received glory after his resurrection.
I wholeheartedly agree with each and every one of those things, jb.Now, tell me which one of them prohibits Jesus from existing alongside his God with much glory before the world began? (John 17:5)
Without actually getting into a 17:5 discussion right now, just tell me if any of those things you posted TRULY PROHIBIT Jesus from existing BEFORE those things happened.
They don't. Not one of them.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 28 2013,09:39) Yes there is a lot to look at here. For now, I would like to say that there are quite a lot of scriptures that demonstrate that Jesus existed before coming in flesh. Many are direct quotes and others are indirect in that they require that he was with the Father in the beginning.
This is the biggest problem I have with the view that Jesus is but a mere man created lower than the angels and is only 2000 or so years old, in a Universe that is supposedly billions of years old with who knows how many ages before he appeared on the scene.
To me it is just too much tweaking of scripture to eliminate all the references and yes I know that this has been meticulously done by those who do not believe in Jesus being the literal first born of creation, but that it requires too much work and you have to take on too much extra information for it to work.
In my mind, you could change anything in scripture with such effort.
I prefer to read the text as it is and let it speak to me and time and time again, it requires Jesus to be with the Father before the world began and it not only requires it, it says it too.
So back to refuting them one at a time, but just wanted to give my wider view.
We can start with the fact that I believe the account of Genesis to be just what it says..a 6 day creation (evening and morning).I believe that man was “allotted” 6000 years to rule/have dominion. I believe that we are nearing the end of that 6000 years in which, as God said, His spirit will NO LONGER strive with man. The restrainer/God's spirit WILL be removed SOON and the Antichrist will be revealed.
That being said, I do not have to “tweak” the scriptures. I'd say having to make up a past life or adding words such as “was” would be “tweaking” the scriptures. I have not done that. I only translate words from Greek in a manner that is a) actually a defined meaning according to the Greek language and b) makes scripture make sense. If a word is translated in a way that directly contradicts scripture, whereas there is an equally accurate translated word that would not contradict scripture..then I will choose that translated word ANY day of the week!!
And, Jesus WAS with the Father from the beginning. But, in what way was he with God? Well scripture tells us..He was FOREKNOWN. You change that to mean “right there with Him” and tell me that I am “tweaking” scripture? I do not get it yet, but I faith that the truth will come to light.
I still greatly respect both you and Mike. I thank you both for this discussion. I feel it brings all of us closer to our God and hopefully to each other.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 28 2013,12:20) Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 27 2013,09:11) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 27 2013,12:35)
Agreed. So the present tense “existing” in Phil 2 – WHEN FACTORED INTO THE PAST TENSE FORM OF THE STATEMENT AS A WHOLE – could easily be understood as a past tense “was existing in the form of God”, right?
Wrong. Becuase, Jesus still exists in the form of God!
How can you say “wrong”, when it IS a possibility? Consider this statement:Have in you the mind of Jesus, who, existing (present tense form) as the only begotten Son of God on earth, didn't allow that prestige to keep him from serving sinners and prostitutes.
Similar to the “running” analogy, the word “existing” in this analogy is also a present tense word. But you and I both KNOW from the past tense context of the rest of the words, that the writer is talking about a time when Jesus, IN THE PAST, was existing ON EARTH as God's only begotten Son, right?
Now here is the thing. Did Jesus ever STOP existing as God's only begotten Son? NO.
So the fact that I referred to a PAST time when Jesus WAS existing as God's only begotten Son, has NOTHING AT ALL to do with whether or not Jesus ever STOPPED existing as God's only begotten Son.
Just like when Paul speaks of Jesus existing in the form of God IN THE PAST, it doesn't speak one way or the other about whether or not Jesus ever STOPPED existing in the form of God – or whether or not he exists in that form to this very day.
Can we at least agree on this simple and true FACT?
I think we are having a misunderstanding on this one.Paul IS talking about a past event. So, YES, as we talk about it TODAY..it was a past event; and so, you CAN say..”was existing.”
However, at the moment that Paul was writing, he was declaring that WHILE Jesus was in the image of God, He did not feel equality as something to be grasped at. Paul went on to describe his proof.
Paul did not state that Jesus' “being in the form of God” was AT THAT TIME a PAST event. We know this because Paul did NOT use the past tense when saying that “Jesus existing in the from of God..”
You are CHANGING #1 to say Paul said “Jesus existed in the form of God..and then was CHANGED into a man.” The problem with this statement is that is NOT what Paul actually said!!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 28 2013,12:24) I know full well that the Greek word “morphe” means “outward appearance”. I have never thought that Jesus and his God share the same “essence”. Jesus is a creation of God – just like the rest of us.
I do apologize.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 28 2013,12:26) Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 27 2013,09:11) The point would be, that Jesus was like us, but resisted sin.
So “image of God” refers to men who do sin, and “form of God” refers to men who don't sin?What does “outward appearance” have to do with whether or not a man sins?
No. “Image of God” and “Form of God” are the same thing.Your question was, “what would be Paul's point in saying that Jesus existed in the image of God if in fact we are all in the image of God.”
My response was to answer your question on Paul's reason for stating such. I believe that Paul was telling us that although Jesus is in the image of God (just like us), He did not seek to be equal with God (unlike us).
Quote What does “outward appearance” have to do with whether or not a man sins? If we sin, we are not “reflecting” (ie: the image of God) God as we should. However, Jesus was the very “reflection” of God. Jesus truly was in every way “the image of God” for us.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 28 2013,12:39) You said, If you do not ADD the words “human being” then it does make PERFECT sense! What does that mean? Don't you believe that Jesus WAS a human being during #'s 1 through 4? If so, then what does it hurt for me to outline Jesus' human nature as I go?
People do not go around putting “human being” in front of every sentence. It just sounds funny to say it like that.Yes, Jesus was in every step a human.
Where is the scripture that says BEFORE He was human..He was “something else.”Keep in mind that scripture says we are to confess that Jesus “came in the flesh” or better stated “was human.” It does not say anything about a “pre-human” existence. So, we do not need to recognize his supposed pre-human existence?
You did not answer HOW the order can be different in verse 7 and 8.
verse 7 says..made himself of no reputation (humbled himself), became a servant, made a man..
while verse 8 says..made a man, humbled himself, became a servant (even to the death).
Furthermore, since you maintain that it is a chronological order, was Jesus still with God in heaven when He made Himself of no reputation. Was Jesus made a servant BEFORE He was made a man? This is what verse 7 would mean if you take these events as in chronological order; HOWEVER, verse 8 states that he was FIRST made a MAN and THEN was made a servant, IF of course, you believe that this is in chronological order.
Please read over the above questions carefully.
Quote jb, this part of my post is the crux of our Phil 2 disagreement. I need you to either understand that Jesus WASN'T a human being before being made in the likeness of a human being………….. OR………….. explain to me HOW he could be a human being in #'s 1-4, and then BE MADE INTO a human being in #5. It is EASY if you do not maintain that there is some kind of “chronological order” to these verses. I believe it is talking about simultaneous events. I think the proof that it is NOT chronological is in the two different orders of verse 7 and 8. If you hold to the idea that they are in chronological order, then you are left with the conclusion that Paul made a BIG mistake from verse 7 to 8. For, if this is chronological order than the meaning of CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER states that ONLY ONE of these “orders” can be true!! Think about it.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 28 2013,12:43) Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 27 2013,12:49) From these verses we see that Jesus was foreknown by God, chosen by God, made in the womb of Mary, and received glory after his resurrection.
I wholeheartedly agree with each and every one of those things, jb.Now, tell me which one of them prohibits Jesus from existing alongside his God with much glory before the world began? (John 17:5)
Without actually getting into a 17:5 discussion right now, just tell me if any of those things you posted TRULY PROHIBIT Jesus from existing BEFORE those things happened.
They don't. Not one of them.
I will say NO. None of those verses would necessarily mean that Jesus did not preexist. BUT, you would need to “read into” these verses to take it to mean that Jesus also preexisted.Being foreknown.
I would say..God knows the difference between foreknown and actually “being.” And so, when we are told that Jesus was foreknown, as we believers are too according to scripture, I'll take God's word for it..Jesus was foreknown not fore-created. Since we too were foreknown, did we exist with God before creation, too? You can not have it “both ways”! We can not define one verse one way and another with the SAME context another way just to “prove” our point.Chosen by God.
This does not disprove a preexistence, BUT where was Jesus chosen by God from..from among the people NOT from among the heavenly beings. God said He would raise a prophet from among the people, in every way like them. Again, this does not mean that He did not preexist, but only if you “read into” it and say, “yea, well He COULD have still preexisted.” However, God does not tell us that.Made in the womb of Mary.
Again, would not necessarily exclude a preexistence, but what does it say.. MADE..not remade or changed or transferred to!! You would have to “read into” this scripture. The Bible says that He was made in the womb of Mary. The Bible gives us His genealogy leading back to Adam, not heaven. We are to confess that He was a man. His humanity is all over, but His “preexistence” seems to be nonexistent..and only “implied” if we read into these verses, take verses out of context, or just fail to understand the Jewish writers customs/traditions/writings/etc!!Received glory after His resurrection.
Again, one can CLAIM that He had glory in a preexistent life, but where is the scripture. You are assuming or “reading into” scripture in order to find this “truth.” Why does it not say that He “got back” His glory? Why does it not say “given back His glory and more”? It doesn't say that at all! You read that into it to suit your belief. I can say that He “could” have a past life, but that would make these passages misleading. He received glory AFTER His resurrection and BECAUSE of his obedience. The Bible tells us exactly WHY Jesus received glory. Let's not try to change it.As I look at the above, I see 4 passages that lead me to believe that Jesus did not preexist. That being said, the choices seem to be…
1) Jesus did not preexist.
2) Jesus did preexist, but for whatever reason, these statements do not in ANY way even hint to the fact that He had a previous life!! Furthermore, they lead one to believe that He did not have a previous life.And, yes, I look forward to John 17:5, too.
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 28 2013,07:45) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 28 2013,12:20)
Have in you the mind of Jesus, who, existing (present tense form) as the only begotten Son of God on earth, didn't allow that prestige to keep him from serving sinners and prostitutes.
Paul did not state that Jesus' “being in the form of God” was AT THAT TIME a PAST event. We know this because Paul did NOT use the past tense when saying that “Jesus existing in the from of God..”
No, we don't “know this” – because in my example, I used the present tense “existing”, even though I was clearly speaking of the PAST – when Jesus was ON EARTH as the only begotten Son of God.We also know that, even at the time Paul wrote those words, everything he depicted happened in the PAST. The being made as a man, the humbling himself, the dying on a tree. They were all PAST events – even at the time Paul wrote the letter.
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 28 2013,07:45) You are CHANGING #1 to say Paul said “Jesus existed in the form of God..and then was CHANGED into a man.” The problem with this statement is that is NOT what Paul actually said!
Are you aware that verse 7 starts with the CONTRASTING conjunction “but”?So the flow of the statement is that Jesus was existing in the form of God……… BUT…….. emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant (actually “a slave”).
Is Jehovah a slave, jb? Can anyone be in the form of God AND in the form of a slave at the same time?
Paul is making a CONTRAST here – which is why he used the conjunction “but” instead of “and”. Jesus was in the form of God, but took on the form of a slave.
This doesn't mean Jesus stopped being “godlike” while on earth as a man. But Paul is clearly showing a CONTRAST between “form of God” and “form of a slave”.
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 28 2013,07:56) My response was to answer your question on Paul's reason for stating such. I believe that Paul was telling us that although Jesus is in the image of God (just like us), He did not seek to be equal with God (unlike us).
I've never thought I was equal with God. Nor have I ever tried to be equal to God. Nor did Paul, who wrote this down, think he was equal with God.So I think my understanding that Paul was deliberately CONTRASTING “form of God” with “form of a slave” makes a lot more sense than this thing you've concluded.
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 28 2013,07:56) If we sin, we are not “reflecting” (ie: the image of God) God as we should.
Even after God decided that the thoughts of mankind were evil all the time and so flooded the earth, He still told Noah, after he came out of the ark, “for in the image of God has God made mankind.” (Gen 9:6)It seems to me that you are purposely rejecting what your conscious already knows to be the best understanding of “form of God” versus “form of a slave”, and reaching for anything and everything it COULD alternately mean.
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 28 2013,08:26) It is EASY if you do not maintain that there is some kind of “chronological order” to these verses.
But they ARE in chronological order.Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 28 2013,08:26) You did not answer HOW the order can be different in verse 7 and 8.
You are only imagining a “reverse order” here. Let me do it again.In chronological order:
1. Was existing in the form of God – WHERE he didn't consider equality with God something to be grasped.2. BUT INSTEAD, made himself of no account BY taking on the form of a servant BY being made in the likeness of a human being.
3. And AFTER being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself [even further] BY becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!
So there are really only three steps in the chronological order. And the third step is right in line with the first two.
I don't know where you're seeing something that is out of chronological order in verses 7 and 8.
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 28 2013,08:26) Furthermore, since you maintain that it is a chronological order, was Jesus still with God in heaven when He made Himself of no reputation. Was Jesus made a servant BEFORE He was made a man?
Absolutely. Jesus has always been a servant of God. But Michael the archangel is a servant of God who can be said to exist “in the form of God” – meaning he is a powerful spirit being like God is.And it would be quite an “emptying” experience for Michael, as a powerful spirit servant of God, to take on the much lower form of a human slave of God. (It would be like you, a human, being asked to lower your existence and live as a cockroach for a while.)
And then after being made a human, Michael would have to humble himself even further to walk willingly right into his sure death on a tree. (Like you, after being made as a cockroach, humbling yourself even further by obeying God and walking right under the shoe that you knew was going to squash you.)
Notice that the “humbling yourself even further” in the second parenthetical clause above is in perfect chronological order with the previous “lowering your existence” in the first parenthetical clause.
Quote (jb2u @ Aug. 28 2013,08:26) Yes, Jesus was in every step a human.
But since the whole thing IS in chronological order, surely you will be able to adjust your previous understanding, and see that anyone who existed in any form whatsoever BEFORE being made in the likeness of a human being, must, by necessity, have pre-existed that human likeness.Of course, you still have the option of pretending that verse 8 is out of order with verses 6 and 7. But a man who is truly after scriptural truth wouldn't do a thing like that, right?
And that is only ONE scripture, jb. There are 50 more that support the teaching of Phil 2. And since you agree that there isn't a single scripture in the entire Bible that specifically PROHIBITS the pre-existence of Jesus, it's time we move on to John 17:5 – as we both have expressed an interest in that one.
I will give you a chance to respond to this post before starting 17:5.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
