This blog was inspired by a blog from Ivan,found here:
Ivan's blog on John 16:27-30
I recommend his blog to anyone interested in Christological,Jehovah's Witness,or kingdom of God apologetics.
(John 16:27-30, NASB)
for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father. I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.” His disciples said, “Lo, now You are speaking plainly and are not using a figure of speech. Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.”
Ivan(whose blog inspired this post..thanks Ivan) says "if ‘come into the world’ means to be born, then one would expect this to be first and Jesus being commissioned afterwards. But this is not what Jesus says. He says he first came from God and then came into the world."
And I would say:how could Yahushua come into the world without coming from God to do so?How could he have been "born" without God sending his spirit to impregnate Mary,essentially causing his "word of life"(eternal life from the father) to manifest at the "proper time"?(1 John 1:1,2,5:11,Gal. 4:4)We already know from scripture that anything God wills is always with him and comes from him,instigated by an operation of his miraculous and powerful holy spirit.That is how and why any gift from the father could be said to come forth from Him,and in fact descend.
James 1:17:Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights(NIV)
or as the New Living Translation says:
Whatever is good and perfect comes down to us from God our Father, who created all the lights in the heavens.
What God decrees,harbors,fancies,and intends is with him,spoken forth,and manifest at the proper time.(Gal. 4:4,Eph. 1:10)I really can't think of anything from the father,any gift,any precious surety,more amazing and poignant than the "purpose he set forth in Christ"(Eph. 1:9),"which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."(Col. 1:27)Yahushua knew he was that "gift" that would "come down"(James 1:17),that "true bread from heaven",from youth on as his parents taught him the scriptures and the Spirit he was full of led and taught him fully.(John 3:34)This gift that came from God was Christ's *flesh*.This *Son of man* was of course from God!Where else would it(the bread,or flesh) and he(Yahushua) be from?
John 6:32:Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the *bread from heaven*, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
This "bread" was "flesh" that "came down" from heaven as any gift from God would,as opposed to a spirit that transmigrated.(John 6:51)
Yahushua knew who and what he was,how he was present since before the world even was,as "the mystery hidden for ages and generations" that was "*now* revealed to his saints."(Col. 1:26)The revelation of that mystery was,again,Christ the genuine man in the flesh,not a Godman,not an Angel who became human.(except from both camps,Arian and trinitarian, by inference)The eternal life from the father was a "decree before the ages for our glory"(1 Cor. 2:7)and quite honestly and sincerely the Last Adam(that's a human being who needs no ontologies added,either at the same time or before and after) once manifest.(1 Cor. 15:45,Rom. 5:14,John 1:14)
The father Yah was the reliable source of Messiah Yahushua.In fact,he said to David:
2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.
Messiah came from God.He didn't come forth of his own initiative and make claims that weren't true.(John 14:6)
John 8:42:Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.
When Christ said "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world",he was trying to let them know that he was indeed the "Christ,the Son of the Living God."(Matthew 16:16)EXACTLY who he always said he was.He never said "I was the Angel of the LORD" or "I am the same God (in being,not person) as the One who sent me."The revelation that he was the decreed Christ of Yah was and is a truth so important that if one can't or won't accept it,that one will "die in his sin."(John 8:24)That was the purpose and heart of the texts in question.Because:
2 John 1:7:Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
Yahushua wanted them to know that he was that "flesh" from heaven.The Messiah in the flesh,a true human being,from God himself,sent to save the world.
Ivan further says:"Another passage that points to a similar concept of being with God but sent to the world is John 17:18 (ESV):
As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world
It is plain that Jesus “sent them,” that is, his disciples, “into the world” in a person-to-person correlation. Yet, Jesus compares this sending to how the Father sent him “into the world.” Jesus’ sending must also have been a person-to-person correspondence."
To which I say:How did Yahushua send his disciples into the world?By letting them know of their divine commission and the work that needed(and still needs) to be done.Why would a pre-existence spring into view (except by presupposition perhaps)in order for God to have "person-to-person" correspondence with his own Son?Are we forgetting that "no one knows the Father except the Son"?(Matt. 11:27)And how do people come to "know" God?Well,by his Spirit.And who was full of that more exceptionally,intimately,and wholly than any other?Yahushua,of course,who was given the Spirit of his loving father generously "without limit."(John.3:34)I would certainly consider that "person to person" correspondence.
When Yahushua said "I am leaving the world again and going to the Father",even though it is the opposite of coming from the father,he is communicating that he is returning to the place from which he originated.He didn't come of his own initiative or from any unreliable source,but from the faithful and true Shema's One God Himself!God is the source and sender and father of the one he made to be Lord and king of the world,Yahushua.(Matt. 28:18,Acts 2:36)Christ was a gift of life,true bread from heaven,for the world who would exercise faith,poignantly and surely from Yahuwah,no other source.:)
When the disciples said "you are speaking plainly and are not using a figure of speech",the word for "figure of speech" is "paroimia",defined as an enigmatical or fictitious illustration on e-sword.(easily downloadable free bible study software)So basically all the disciples were saying was "what you have said is true,as opposed to false.You are definitely who you say you are.We believe you.You haven't spoken in another enigmatic illustration." NOT,and as opposed to, "You were a spirit entity who transmigrated into a womb to become a man.What you've said is clear in that you were the Angel of the LORD in the Old Testament who now stands before us as a human being!"That notion has to be read INTO the texts.The Greek word for "plainly" means "frankly" or "bluntly."Yahushua could say "frankly" and "bluntly" that he came from God without having to mean "I was a spirit who did."Because,again,how could Yahushua come into the world without coming *from God* to do so?His origin was from no other place!If it were,then he would be a false Messiah.We know that isn't an option.
Further,John writes:
John 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.” 31 Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe?"
Do you think Yahushua was asking them if they now believed he pre-existed or if they now knew for certain that he was the Christ of Yah?To "know all things" means Christ was full of the spirit of Yah,truly "from God" as the prophesied Messiah to give life to the world,not that he existed for millenniums as another ontology.Again,I think the whole point is that he wasn't a false Messiah from some source other than Yah.
Ivan noted on his blog:
"Even preeminent British scholar James Dunn whom has a tendency to read pre-existence out of the New Testament says,
“Linked with the Father-Son theme is the regularly expressed conviction of his own pre-existence—of a prior existence in heaven with the Father (6.62; 8.38; 10.36; 17.5), of his descent from heaven (3.13; 6.33, 38, 41f., 50f., 58), of his coming from God (3.31; 8.42; (13.3); 16:27f.; 17:8) into the world (3.19; 9.3; 10.36; 12.46; 16.28; 18.37). The climax is probably reached in the most powerful of the ‘I am’ sayings, where Jesus’ claim to pre-existence achieves its most absolute expression—‘Before Abraham was, I am’ (8.58).”- Christology in the Making, pg. 57, 2nd edition."
My response to this point:
Dunn said in his foreword that since his writing of the "Christology" book that his "understanding of the beginnings of Christology has itself developed and become clarified"(xxvi) and that "it becomes clear from John's Gospel",to a degree he hadn't appreciated when he wrote "Christology",that the "main issue of that period was monotheism."(xxviii)And though he doesn't mention John ch. 16 specifically in his foreword,I am left to assume(and you can disagree) that if he thinks the Johannine Christ is NOT an incarnation of a pre-existing "Son of God",then he doesn't think any text of John would solidly support such a thought.He says:
"It would be better to speak of the Johannine Christ as the incarnation of GOD,as God making himself known in human flesh,*not as the incarnation of the Son of God(which seems to be saying something other.)*"(xxviii Foreword to 2nd edition of "Christology in the Making" by James D.G. Dunn)
and also:
"Christ was the incarnate Logos,a self-manifestation of God,the One God insofar as he could make himself known in human flesh.--not the incarnation of a divine power other than God.Christianity was still monotheistic;the only difference was the belief that this God had manifested himself in and as human flesh;this Jesus now provided a definitive 'window' into the One God;he was (and is) "God" as the self-manifestation of God,not as one somehow other than God.".(xxx foreword to 2nd edition of "Christology in the Making" by James D.G. Dunn)
In other words,Christ was the father(and the father's own self-revelation) incarnate in human flesh,not a pre-existing Angel or "Son of God" incarnate in human flesh.And I would agree.And,no,just in case there be any misunderstandings,that point is NOT advocating a Modalist position.It's advocating God the father IN his Son,a separate "being" and individual,*through* whom he made himself known as fully as an infinite, holy, and unseeable God possibly could.(2 Cor. 5:19,Col. 2:9)
Showing posts with label Jesus's preexistence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus's preexistence. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Colossians 1:16 take 2
I found something in my documents that I want to share.I don't know who posted it because I can't find the webpage anymore.I only had this portion pasted too and not the whole dialogue!So I am really sorry for that.But because I think there are some valuable arguments from this,as well as sharper more pulled together argumentation than my peabrain is generally able to produce or my flawed writing style to articulate,thought I would post.I do remember this much:this was written in response to Dave on his scripturaltruths website I think on one of his blogs about Colossians 1:16.(that I can no longer find so if anyone has the link to this particular blog,I would like it)Dave holds to the position that Jesus is a pre-existent spirit being who is the LITERAL firstborn of creation,God's first creation.This is I would presume a response from someone who knows better.Here 'tis:
In my original post I pointed out that the “all things” of Colossians 1 could not mean the “all things” of creation. You said that, according to the usage of “all things” elsewhere, it has to be all created things. This does not hold up. Let me explain.
If I take Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6 and Heb. 2:10 as the scriptures you state, I will end up with a trinitarian stance. These scriptures refer to all created things coming from God, Jesus included. If all these very things came by and through Jesus, he is immediately excluded from that creation, making him the Creator or co-creator. Reading the Colossians text in such absolute terms creates an exegetical problem, even for you. In this case you, as the Watchtower did, resort to reinterpreting the section, claiming that Paul used some kind of tautological figure of speech. Hence the parenthetic insertion of [other] in the NWT.
If one allows Scripture to interpret itself, one has to keep the possibilities open for other, albeit typically Pauline, usages of “all things” and “creation.”
2 Cor. 5:17, 18 (NWT): “Consequently if anyone is in union with Christ, he is a NEW CREATION; the old things passed away, look! new things have come into EXISTENCE. But all things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of the reconciliation.”
Romans 8:19-25 (summarized): “The creation” was subjected to futility but eagerly expecting the freedom of the children of God. Not only “all creation,” but also ourselves are groaning while we wait for adoption as sons.
Ephesians 1:9, 10, 20-23, 2:10, 15 (NWT): “It is according to his good pleasure which he purposed in himself for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, namely, to gather ALL THINGS together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth…[He] raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come. He also subjected ALL THINGS under his feet, and made him head over ALL THINGS TO THE CONGREGATION, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things in all. For we are a product of his work and were CREATED in union with Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared in advance for us to walk in them. By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, that he might CREATE the two peoples in union with himself into one new man and make peace.”
Ephesians 4:23, 24 (NWT): “But that you should be MADE NEW in the force actuating your mind, and should put on the new personality which was CREATED according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty.”
All these instances show that we, the human creation, are offered recreation through Christ. NONE of these instances refer to the “all things” of creation. Following the reasoning of Paul in Ephesians 1:19-23, a clear parallel can be drawn with his sequential reasoning in Colossians 1.
Something else to consider is Paul’s presentation of Jesus being the first-born Son of God. Granted, the Synoptics present Jesus to be God’s Son (Mt 1:21, 3:17, Mr. 15:39, Lu. 1:35, 9:35). The former lawyer, Paul, however focuses more on Jesus’ preeminence and his legal right as God’s Son. He presents Jesus’ preeminence as first-born, not by virtue of some unstated and unsubstantiated claim of being the one God started his creation with, but by virtue of the legal proof of his preeminence, namely, his resurrection. See for instance Ac. 26:23, Rom. 1:4, Col. 1:18.
Now, returning to Colossians 1, verse 20 says (NWT without parenthesis):
“and through him to reconcile again to himself all things by making peace through the blood on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens.” (cf. the reference to peace in Eph 2:15)
Again, these “all things” have to be reconcilable things, things that can be gathered together in Christ (Eph 1:10). This immediately excludes unintelligent or lower life forms. This can only involve the candidates for and members of the New Creation.
To summarize: However you look at it, it puts you in a “catch-22.” As a Jehovah Witness you have to believe that Jesus is the first in sequence of all literal creation. You reason? Romans 11:36, 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Hebrews 2:10. But these scriptures refer to creation in its totality, including Jesus, so, you’re not proving your point. The WT Society realized this, hence the parenthetic insertion of [other] in Colossians 1. The text doesn’t say that. Secondly, if we look at Romans 8 creation in this context necessitates human creation only. Colossians 1:20 confirms that. Hence my and others’ contention that the “all things” of Colossians 1 speaks of matters pertaining to the New Creation, and not universal creation, hence no proof of preexistence.
You said that new creation has already been reconciled. Yes, what has been reconciled is in that state, but the work of creating the New Creation is not over, hence the still continuous process of reconciling “all things” with Christ (2 Cor. 5:20, 21). Secondly, our state of being reconciled is not final. It is not a matter of “once saved always saved.” Jesus will be the ultimate judge for our living forever in the age to come. As an aside, as a Jehovah Witness you should be the last one pointing to the completion of reconciliation with God. Your theology states that the “other sheep” will only reach full reconciliation during the millennial reign of Christ. Your objection renounces this very position. (I’m saying it with respect).
As regards our interchange on John 17:5, you state,
“The only way he could have the glory of an idea would be to return to the state of being the thing he had the glory of, which is an idea.”
Firstly, as I said, RETURN is not at issue here. Jesus prayed to receive the glory which God had reserved for him. I’m not sure why you strain the thought with your reference to “idea.” As I showed in Job, something being with God, especially abstract things such as wisdom, is never seen as being literally alongside God. Likewise, God intended to give Jesus glory as his inheritance. This was reserved for Jesus, hence Jesus’ requesting the glory (abstract) he had (reserved for him) before the world was.
In John 17:22 Jesus speaks of the glory God gave him which he also gave his disciples. Now, this glory that was given had obviously not been attained by either Jesus or his disciples. Hence, again, the understanding of glory assigned to or reserved for Jesus and his faithful followers – not only for those in the First Century, but also for those in the centuries to follow.
This is not a new thought. It is a thought expressed somewhat differently in John’s writings, but John’s approach is not primarily historical, but more theological. It is more concerned with the eschatological realities of Jesus’ redemption work, hence its proleptic approach to matters. The idea of God’s foreknowing the appearance of someone (Isa 1:5) is not foreign to Hebrew thought. The apostle Peter speaks of prognostically determining the appearance of Christ and his Church (1 Pet 1:2, 20, 21). Once again not personally existent in their pre-human past, but intentionally in God’s foreknowledge (cf. Mt. 25:34b).
This scripture – John 17:5 – is another text putting JWs in a doctrinal “double bind.” They have to believe in a version of preexistence Christology, and John 17:5 is often sited as proof. But, if that text is to be taken literally as the Watchtower asserts, then Jesus has to physically return to glory he previously possessed. That contradicts, not only Scripture which says that he received greater glory (Php. 2:9), it also contradicts Watchtower theology.
As regards the striking silence of his alleged pre-existence in the Synoptics, I think I do have a point there. The Synoptics, written as historical accounts, presents the Messiah as the one prophesied to come, starting his existence with his virgin birth (Lu. 1:35) and not before that. John’s writings – written with the Messiah’s accomplished purpose in mind, presented, not primarily historically but eschatologically and proleptically – necessitate the reader to understand preexistence notions within the frame of John’s purpose in writing and the metaphor used by the Jews.
I agree that Jesus Christ is what God’s Word, purpose and wisdom produced. Jesus is wisdom in human form. But this metaphor doesn’t change the reality of his coming into existence at his human birth as foreordained by God.
The end.From me:
Welp,I think some good points were made here that I hadn't even thought of.I STILL(because of knowing how the Hebrews spoke and thought of God's word and wisdom) think Colossians 1 has a poetic allusion to the original creation in Christ's great cosmic foreordained significance and in his fulfillment of all things(and because of what he represents that's been with God from the beginning in which all things were created,namely,his wisdom and word) ,which this guy doesn't seem to address at all.That being said,there were so many good points made here and correlating texts provided(especially in relation to Paul's use of "all things" and his mindset on a new creation typically)that I wanted to post.God bless.
In my original post I pointed out that the “all things” of Colossians 1 could not mean the “all things” of creation. You said that, according to the usage of “all things” elsewhere, it has to be all created things. This does not hold up. Let me explain.
If I take Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6 and Heb. 2:10 as the scriptures you state, I will end up with a trinitarian stance. These scriptures refer to all created things coming from God, Jesus included. If all these very things came by and through Jesus, he is immediately excluded from that creation, making him the Creator or co-creator. Reading the Colossians text in such absolute terms creates an exegetical problem, even for you. In this case you, as the Watchtower did, resort to reinterpreting the section, claiming that Paul used some kind of tautological figure of speech. Hence the parenthetic insertion of [other] in the NWT.
If one allows Scripture to interpret itself, one has to keep the possibilities open for other, albeit typically Pauline, usages of “all things” and “creation.”
2 Cor. 5:17, 18 (NWT): “Consequently if anyone is in union with Christ, he is a NEW CREATION; the old things passed away, look! new things have come into EXISTENCE. But all things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of the reconciliation.”
Romans 8:19-25 (summarized): “The creation” was subjected to futility but eagerly expecting the freedom of the children of God. Not only “all creation,” but also ourselves are groaning while we wait for adoption as sons.
Ephesians 1:9, 10, 20-23, 2:10, 15 (NWT): “It is according to his good pleasure which he purposed in himself for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, namely, to gather ALL THINGS together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth…[He] raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come. He also subjected ALL THINGS under his feet, and made him head over ALL THINGS TO THE CONGREGATION, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things in all. For we are a product of his work and were CREATED in union with Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared in advance for us to walk in them. By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, that he might CREATE the two peoples in union with himself into one new man and make peace.”
Ephesians 4:23, 24 (NWT): “But that you should be MADE NEW in the force actuating your mind, and should put on the new personality which was CREATED according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty.”
All these instances show that we, the human creation, are offered recreation through Christ. NONE of these instances refer to the “all things” of creation. Following the reasoning of Paul in Ephesians 1:19-23, a clear parallel can be drawn with his sequential reasoning in Colossians 1.
Something else to consider is Paul’s presentation of Jesus being the first-born Son of God. Granted, the Synoptics present Jesus to be God’s Son (Mt 1:21, 3:17, Mr. 15:39, Lu. 1:35, 9:35). The former lawyer, Paul, however focuses more on Jesus’ preeminence and his legal right as God’s Son. He presents Jesus’ preeminence as first-born, not by virtue of some unstated and unsubstantiated claim of being the one God started his creation with, but by virtue of the legal proof of his preeminence, namely, his resurrection. See for instance Ac. 26:23, Rom. 1:4, Col. 1:18.
Now, returning to Colossians 1, verse 20 says (NWT without parenthesis):
“and through him to reconcile again to himself all things by making peace through the blood on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens.” (cf. the reference to peace in Eph 2:15)
Again, these “all things” have to be reconcilable things, things that can be gathered together in Christ (Eph 1:10). This immediately excludes unintelligent or lower life forms. This can only involve the candidates for and members of the New Creation.
To summarize: However you look at it, it puts you in a “catch-22.” As a Jehovah Witness you have to believe that Jesus is the first in sequence of all literal creation. You reason? Romans 11:36, 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Hebrews 2:10. But these scriptures refer to creation in its totality, including Jesus, so, you’re not proving your point. The WT Society realized this, hence the parenthetic insertion of [other] in Colossians 1. The text doesn’t say that. Secondly, if we look at Romans 8 creation in this context necessitates human creation only. Colossians 1:20 confirms that. Hence my and others’ contention that the “all things” of Colossians 1 speaks of matters pertaining to the New Creation, and not universal creation, hence no proof of preexistence.
You said that new creation has already been reconciled. Yes, what has been reconciled is in that state, but the work of creating the New Creation is not over, hence the still continuous process of reconciling “all things” with Christ (2 Cor. 5:20, 21). Secondly, our state of being reconciled is not final. It is not a matter of “once saved always saved.” Jesus will be the ultimate judge for our living forever in the age to come. As an aside, as a Jehovah Witness you should be the last one pointing to the completion of reconciliation with God. Your theology states that the “other sheep” will only reach full reconciliation during the millennial reign of Christ. Your objection renounces this very position. (I’m saying it with respect).
As regards our interchange on John 17:5, you state,
“The only way he could have the glory of an idea would be to return to the state of being the thing he had the glory of, which is an idea.”
Firstly, as I said, RETURN is not at issue here. Jesus prayed to receive the glory which God had reserved for him. I’m not sure why you strain the thought with your reference to “idea.” As I showed in Job, something being with God, especially abstract things such as wisdom, is never seen as being literally alongside God. Likewise, God intended to give Jesus glory as his inheritance. This was reserved for Jesus, hence Jesus’ requesting the glory (abstract) he had (reserved for him) before the world was.
In John 17:22 Jesus speaks of the glory God gave him which he also gave his disciples. Now, this glory that was given had obviously not been attained by either Jesus or his disciples. Hence, again, the understanding of glory assigned to or reserved for Jesus and his faithful followers – not only for those in the First Century, but also for those in the centuries to follow.
This is not a new thought. It is a thought expressed somewhat differently in John’s writings, but John’s approach is not primarily historical, but more theological. It is more concerned with the eschatological realities of Jesus’ redemption work, hence its proleptic approach to matters. The idea of God’s foreknowing the appearance of someone (Isa 1:5) is not foreign to Hebrew thought. The apostle Peter speaks of prognostically determining the appearance of Christ and his Church (1 Pet 1:2, 20, 21). Once again not personally existent in their pre-human past, but intentionally in God’s foreknowledge (cf. Mt. 25:34b).
This scripture – John 17:5 – is another text putting JWs in a doctrinal “double bind.” They have to believe in a version of preexistence Christology, and John 17:5 is often sited as proof. But, if that text is to be taken literally as the Watchtower asserts, then Jesus has to physically return to glory he previously possessed. That contradicts, not only Scripture which says that he received greater glory (Php. 2:9), it also contradicts Watchtower theology.
As regards the striking silence of his alleged pre-existence in the Synoptics, I think I do have a point there. The Synoptics, written as historical accounts, presents the Messiah as the one prophesied to come, starting his existence with his virgin birth (Lu. 1:35) and not before that. John’s writings – written with the Messiah’s accomplished purpose in mind, presented, not primarily historically but eschatologically and proleptically – necessitate the reader to understand preexistence notions within the frame of John’s purpose in writing and the metaphor used by the Jews.
I agree that Jesus Christ is what God’s Word, purpose and wisdom produced. Jesus is wisdom in human form. But this metaphor doesn’t change the reality of his coming into existence at his human birth as foreordained by God.
The end.From me:
Welp,I think some good points were made here that I hadn't even thought of.I STILL(because of knowing how the Hebrews spoke and thought of God's word and wisdom) think Colossians 1 has a poetic allusion to the original creation in Christ's great cosmic foreordained significance and in his fulfillment of all things(and because of what he represents that's been with God from the beginning in which all things were created,namely,his wisdom and word) ,which this guy doesn't seem to address at all.That being said,there were so many good points made here and correlating texts provided(especially in relation to Paul's use of "all things" and his mindset on a new creation typically)that I wanted to post.God bless.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
Responses to email concerns about my Socinian Christology..Did Jesus pre-exist?
This is part of a couple mails I sent to people with an Arian Christology(in that they think Christ preexisted without having to hold to every belief Arius had,as no one is sure of that since his writings were burned)One thing I've learned is that those with an "Arian" type Christology disagree amongst themselves who Jesus was before he came here and who he is now.As I've said before,to me this is a red flag.
In response to one guy's assertion that Christ was raised a life giving spirit(1 Cor. 15:45) and that this somehow proves he isn't a glorified man(Acts 17:31,1 Tim 2:5):
You say you think Jesus was raised a spirit..I do too..but in what respect?The answer is in the context.A LIFE GIVER,a spiritualized BODY(verse 44).In this respect is he a pneuma..encompassing what the holy spirit accomplishes.The life and spirit he is filled to the tip top with BODILY(Colossians 2:9..correct?) gives life to the world.Like soul,I am assuming "spirit" can either refer to the life of a person or the entire person.I could be called a soul,a spirit(though not in the same respect as Yahshua as lifegiver!),or a body.Also,as a reasoning point..God is love.Does this mean God is LITERALLY the virtue love or that he is so full of it's power that he can be called love?Clearly the context of 1 Corinthians 15:35-54 is all about BODIES,perishable and corruptible ones being distinguished from imperishable,immortal,and incorruptible spiritual ones.Nothing in this chapter about disembodiment unless you simply read the text you're using without context.Jesus said after he was raised that he was not a spirit..but that he had flesh and bone..like we will have at the resurrection.His body was raised and made so new as to be almost unrecognizable I'm sure,just like ours will be.(1 Cor. 15:44,53)Yahshua's resurrected life giving spiritual body is being emphasized against the first Adam's that didn't have that life giving power,that same spirit."Pneuma" here simply means lifegiver.The stone was rolled away by a real corporeal flesh body/person.Was Christ trying to fool everyone by saying he wasn't a spirit and doing things like rolling a stone away so his body could pass?(Luke 24:39,Mark 16:4)
In response to someone using Hebrews 1:3,which says:"He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature":
You also seem to think Jesus being the copy and imprint of God means he has to be the same substance,made of the same stuff.In a respect he is in that he has so much of God's spirit that he is.(John 3:34)However,this doesn't eradicate the fact that this spirit dwells in him in bodily form.(Col 2:9)Charakter(the greek word for express image) would certainly connote that Yahshua is just like his father.But let's pretend I was a spirit no one could see and I worked through another who people COULD see as my representative and viceregent,that representative could be said to be my express image if I had the power to fill them bodily with something called holy spirit by which I perform through others my will.He or she would be my copy in that he said and did what I would,had the same personality,and conformed to my will.Hupostasis(greek for nature or person) can mean person..now to be the exact representative of someone's person or nature would be easy for Yahshua because God works through him and he is that one's image.(Acts 2:22,John 10:25,Colossians 1:15)So full,again,of Yahweh's spirit(John 3:34),that he exactly does and says what Yahweh would say and do.(John 5:30,12:49)Does this mean he doesn't have the fullness corporeally?Of course not.The bible says he does.(Colossians 2:9)And Jesus himself testified to being raised bodily in the flesh.(John 2:19-21,1 John 4:3,Luke 24:39)The bible still calls Jesus a corporeal man,glorified and exalted beyond match,but it says what it says(Acts 17:31,1 Tim. 2:5).There is no grander testimony to God's will and personality and nature than Yahshua the Messiah.
In response to a guy saying he doesn't know what Jesus was in his preexistent form but knows he was called "Word":
As for Jesus supposedly being a preexistent being named "Word"..this is foreign to the bible upon thoughtful examination.It was the word from Yahweh's MOUTH that he created by(Psalm 33:6)..that same word,encompassing Yahweh's self expression,plans,and creative will(Isaiah 55:11,Revelation 4:11),became flesh in John 1:14 when Yahshua fulfilled God's prophecies,greatest plans,and creative will.All things were created in Yahshua as God foreknew his role as the sustainer of all things by means of his obedience,death,resurrection,and redemptive power.(Heb. 1:3,Ephesians 1:9, 10, 20-23, 2:10, 15 )God knew his desired will & creation could never be ultimately realized,fulfilled,or sustained without the Son that was slain from the foundation of the world(Rev. 13:8) in God's foreknowledge and plans.(1 Peter 1:20)In this respect,the original creation was made in Christ.And in a more literal capacity,the new creation is brought about by Yahshua as master and Lord and king,heir of all things,through whom God gives life to the world.(2 Cor. 5:17, 18,1 John 1:2,2:24,25)If it was the word from God's mouth that he created by,why would this suggest to you that a person named Word was next to him creating for him?Yahshua and the apostles only ever spoke of Yahweh their God and father resting on the 7th day and creating in genesis.(Heb 4:3,4)Why would they not mention Jesus was there helping as agent?That would be a serious point to omit.
HE who created them from the beginning(Matt. 19:4)
the creation which GOD created(Mark 13:19).
appointed him (Yahshua)over the works of Your (Yahweh's)hands (Heb. 2:7)
And finally in response to a couple people who have accused me of denigrating my Lord and master:
Yahshua is my king,Lord,savior,Messiah,mediator,father,brother..the love of my life,what God intended for men to be.The forerunner and firstborn of many brothers .God has given him the spirit fully to make all the righteous anew in his image.My intercessor,my glory,my redeemer,my hope ,my way,truth and life.If that's nothing special,then the bible doesn't think Yahshua is special.If that's a denigration,then we should all be so blessed to be denigrated.
What's so ironic is that Yahshua and others of the earliest times of Christianity were persecuted and hated for believing a MAN,as opposed to God,a godman ,or some literally ancient being,could be so glorified,gifted,and loved by Yahweh.That he could be Lord and king of all things,could be extolled to the inimitable position Christ now possesses by the love and generosity of Yahweh and not because of some "nature" or "age."(Luke 3:22,Phil. 2:6-11,Heb. 1:9)But that would be the case nevertheless according to my understanding.Is history repeating itself?People are STILL offended when you say Yahshua was and is still a man,without adding other natures to make him worthy of the titles and positions he holds..Greater than any other in a million respects,but nevertheless,the Last Adam.He is Lord and king and lifegiver to be sure,but all granted by Yahweh for this to be so.Why CAN'T Yah give this to the genuine flesh Last Adam,as opposed to an archangel,a spirit creature who's "old enough" or another supposed member of his "being" as an excuse for this functional equality and exaltation?Could it be our traditions that make us think this notion is somehow repelling?And not scripture itself?God is love..Yahshua deserves that love..And we are made by Yahweh in Yahshua,who is our lifegiver by means of what he's accomplished and been given,as opposed to lifegiver literally by hand.We are given life in and through him.It's incredible in the most poignant way imaginable.Praise Yahweh and Yahshua!
In response to one guy's assertion that Christ was raised a life giving spirit(1 Cor. 15:45) and that this somehow proves he isn't a glorified man(Acts 17:31,1 Tim 2:5):
You say you think Jesus was raised a spirit..I do too..but in what respect?The answer is in the context.A LIFE GIVER,a spiritualized BODY(verse 44).In this respect is he a pneuma..encompassing what the holy spirit accomplishes.The life and spirit he is filled to the tip top with BODILY(Colossians 2:9..correct?) gives life to the world.Like soul,I am assuming "spirit" can either refer to the life of a person or the entire person.I could be called a soul,a spirit(though not in the same respect as Yahshua as lifegiver!),or a body.Also,as a reasoning point..God is love.Does this mean God is LITERALLY the virtue love or that he is so full of it's power that he can be called love?Clearly the context of 1 Corinthians 15:35-54 is all about BODIES,perishable and corruptible ones being distinguished from imperishable,immortal,and incorruptible spiritual ones.Nothing in this chapter about disembodiment unless you simply read the text you're using without context.Jesus said after he was raised that he was not a spirit..but that he had flesh and bone..like we will have at the resurrection.His body was raised and made so new as to be almost unrecognizable I'm sure,just like ours will be.(1 Cor. 15:44,53)Yahshua's resurrected life giving spiritual body is being emphasized against the first Adam's that didn't have that life giving power,that same spirit."Pneuma" here simply means lifegiver.The stone was rolled away by a real corporeal flesh body/person.Was Christ trying to fool everyone by saying he wasn't a spirit and doing things like rolling a stone away so his body could pass?(Luke 24:39,Mark 16:4)
In response to someone using Hebrews 1:3,which says:"He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature":
You also seem to think Jesus being the copy and imprint of God means he has to be the same substance,made of the same stuff.In a respect he is in that he has so much of God's spirit that he is.(John 3:34)However,this doesn't eradicate the fact that this spirit dwells in him in bodily form.(Col 2:9)Charakter(the greek word for express image) would certainly connote that Yahshua is just like his father.But let's pretend I was a spirit no one could see and I worked through another who people COULD see as my representative and viceregent,that representative could be said to be my express image if I had the power to fill them bodily with something called holy spirit by which I perform through others my will.He or she would be my copy in that he said and did what I would,had the same personality,and conformed to my will.Hupostasis(greek for nature or person) can mean person..now to be the exact representative of someone's person or nature would be easy for Yahshua because God works through him and he is that one's image.(Acts 2:22,John 10:25,Colossians 1:15)So full,again,of Yahweh's spirit(John 3:34),that he exactly does and says what Yahweh would say and do.(John 5:30,12:49)Does this mean he doesn't have the fullness corporeally?Of course not.The bible says he does.(Colossians 2:9)And Jesus himself testified to being raised bodily in the flesh.(John 2:19-21,1 John 4:3,Luke 24:39)The bible still calls Jesus a corporeal man,glorified and exalted beyond match,but it says what it says(Acts 17:31,1 Tim. 2:5).There is no grander testimony to God's will and personality and nature than Yahshua the Messiah.
In response to a guy saying he doesn't know what Jesus was in his preexistent form but knows he was called "Word":
As for Jesus supposedly being a preexistent being named "Word"..this is foreign to the bible upon thoughtful examination.It was the word from Yahweh's MOUTH that he created by(Psalm 33:6)..that same word,encompassing Yahweh's self expression,plans,and creative will(Isaiah 55:11,Revelation 4:11),became flesh in John 1:14 when Yahshua fulfilled God's prophecies,greatest plans,and creative will.All things were created in Yahshua as God foreknew his role as the sustainer of all things by means of his obedience,death,resurrection,and redemptive power.(Heb. 1:3,Ephesians 1:9, 10, 20-23, 2:10, 15 )God knew his desired will & creation could never be ultimately realized,fulfilled,or sustained without the Son that was slain from the foundation of the world(Rev. 13:8) in God's foreknowledge and plans.(1 Peter 1:20)In this respect,the original creation was made in Christ.And in a more literal capacity,the new creation is brought about by Yahshua as master and Lord and king,heir of all things,through whom God gives life to the world.(2 Cor. 5:17, 18,1 John 1:2,2:24,25)If it was the word from God's mouth that he created by,why would this suggest to you that a person named Word was next to him creating for him?Yahshua and the apostles only ever spoke of Yahweh their God and father resting on the 7th day and creating in genesis.(Heb 4:3,4)Why would they not mention Jesus was there helping as agent?That would be a serious point to omit.
HE who created them from the beginning(Matt. 19:4)
the creation which GOD created(Mark 13:19).
appointed him (Yahshua)over the works of Your (Yahweh's)hands (Heb. 2:7)
And finally in response to a couple people who have accused me of denigrating my Lord and master:
Yahshua is my king,Lord,savior,Messiah,mediator,father,brother..the love of my life,what God intended for men to be.The forerunner and firstborn of many brothers .God has given him the spirit fully to make all the righteous anew in his image.My intercessor,my glory,my redeemer,my hope ,my way,truth and life.If that's nothing special,then the bible doesn't think Yahshua is special.If that's a denigration,then we should all be so blessed to be denigrated.
What's so ironic is that Yahshua and others of the earliest times of Christianity were persecuted and hated for believing a MAN,as opposed to God,a godman ,or some literally ancient being,could be so glorified,gifted,and loved by Yahweh.That he could be Lord and king of all things,could be extolled to the inimitable position Christ now possesses by the love and generosity of Yahweh and not because of some "nature" or "age."(Luke 3:22,Phil. 2:6-11,Heb. 1:9)But that would be the case nevertheless according to my understanding.Is history repeating itself?People are STILL offended when you say Yahshua was and is still a man,without adding other natures to make him worthy of the titles and positions he holds..Greater than any other in a million respects,but nevertheless,the Last Adam.He is Lord and king and lifegiver to be sure,but all granted by Yahweh for this to be so.Why CAN'T Yah give this to the genuine flesh Last Adam,as opposed to an archangel,a spirit creature who's "old enough" or another supposed member of his "being" as an excuse for this functional equality and exaltation?Could it be our traditions that make us think this notion is somehow repelling?And not scripture itself?God is love..Yahshua deserves that love..And we are made by Yahweh in Yahshua,who is our lifegiver by means of what he's accomplished and been given,as opposed to lifegiver literally by hand.We are given life in and through him.It's incredible in the most poignant way imaginable.Praise Yahweh and Yahshua!
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Jesus's preexistence
I came across a brief "debate" between Anthony Buzzard and a trinitarian and was gazing over the comments by people who had listened.I came across a couple I found compelling..Now these are edited by me to bring out what I found to be the most interesting ..if you want to see the FULL comments or to read more OR of course to listen to the debate,visit this link:
http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/2010/02/08/february-8-2010/
a man named Brad said,in relation to the preexistence of Christ:
On the issue of pre-existence, the Holy Spirit makes a special point in Jeremiah that God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in his mother’s womb. This “doctrine” of God’s confession of a “relationship knowledge” of a person prior to their birth is also set forth in detail in Psalm 139:14-17 where the infinite knowledge of God (God’s thoughts are without number) is said to encompass a knowledge of a human being prior to their birth (in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them). If Jesus as man had a greater revelation of this point than David or Jeremiah, he might well have shared it. In fact, if this point is true, we might imagine the Son of Man being filled with this understanding as he looked at himself, as David and Jeremiah had, through the eternal eyes of His Father.
If God the Father “knew” Jeremiah before he was born, and if God’s infinite knowledge and eternal point of view is accepted as a legitimate and authoritative frame of reference, and if Christ is the Logos made flesh, i.e. the self-expression of God the Father made human, one would think that such a human would have a transcendent self-image with respect to time, a vastly expanded experience of the revelation given to Jeremiah (Jer 1:5) and David (Psalm 139:14-18).
Let us ask ourselves, what was Christ’s self image like if he had a full revelation of God’s eternal perspective of him? And what if part of God’s intent in sending Christ was to give the rest of us a window into this eternal perspective — taking us to the destination that Jeremiah and David had pointed toward? Are we “seated in heavenly places” in Christ? Were we known before we were born? Were we not “created in Christ Jesus” and “chosen in him before the foundation of the world”? What if God wanted us to have a vehicle or paradigm for an eternal self-image, couldn’t He provide that in a perfect, pattern Son?
The truth is, much of Paul’s teaching extrapolates on the stated and unstated premise that we are to view our identities as eternally fixed in the Son. And the starting point for that discussion has to be some concept of a “Son” that transcends time, not as a second person of a tri-une (complex) God, but as a foreknown, prototype man who “was and is” the self expression of the ONE God– the Logos.
Brad went on to say in another comment(I'm assuming it's the same Brad!And again,this is edited.):
We try to lay out doctrines and creeds to define God; we would do better to let our hearts get to know God and His Son as individuals, as persons, as beings, and let their respective positions and personalities speak for themselves. Jesus said that His Father was “His God”; the man Christ is worshipping His God in heaven today. And God the Father is receiving that worship — which is coming from the heart of the only person, other than the Father, who is completely perfect, and pure in heart. Let’s not let doctrine rob us of such a beautiful reality!
Brad goes on to say:
God the Father distinguishes the human lineage of Christ as the basis for the honor due Christ. This is the BIG stumbling stone it seems to me, even today. At His trial, Jesus was finally found “guilty of death” when he confessed that He was the Son of the Blessed, and that as the Son of Man would be sitting at the right hand of His Father. That statement was enough to convict him.
Now, if I were to say, Jesus is one with His Father as man, and as man is due the same honor that is due His Father, based solely on His unique and profound birthright — in other words, that His human lineage and human relationship to God as human Son –puts him at the right hand of God — and gives him oneness with the Father — that God Himself accepts this as appropriate legal grounds for the honor and majesty attributable to His Son, then watch out.
And yet Jesus as man can say that God is His literal Father — and I say that this Sonship gives Jesus a birthright of Divine dimensions…that’s right, a birthright of Divine dimensions.
What is interesting is that history is repeating itself. the religious of our day are stumbled by the idea that Jesus, as MAN, is due the SAME honor that His biological Father is due. If you hang your hat on that point alone, you WILL be called a heretic by the mainstream of Christianity. It is blasphemy. You must recant, or say that He is one with God in some way other than “merely” as an only begotten human Son. Am I right?
In other words, if Jesus Christ was on (religious) trial today, and made no claims to be part of a complex unity, no claims to be a second person of God, but merely stated that he was the only begotten Son of God, as man, had been given His Father’s name, and all power in heaven and earth, and that God was requiring the world to honor Him as they Honor the Father — with only Luke 1:35 as a basis, he’d be called a heretic and a blasphemer.
How ironic…
http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/2010/02/08/february-8-2010/
a man named Brad said,in relation to the preexistence of Christ:
On the issue of pre-existence, the Holy Spirit makes a special point in Jeremiah that God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in his mother’s womb. This “doctrine” of God’s confession of a “relationship knowledge” of a person prior to their birth is also set forth in detail in Psalm 139:14-17 where the infinite knowledge of God (God’s thoughts are without number) is said to encompass a knowledge of a human being prior to their birth (in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them). If Jesus as man had a greater revelation of this point than David or Jeremiah, he might well have shared it. In fact, if this point is true, we might imagine the Son of Man being filled with this understanding as he looked at himself, as David and Jeremiah had, through the eternal eyes of His Father.
If God the Father “knew” Jeremiah before he was born, and if God’s infinite knowledge and eternal point of view is accepted as a legitimate and authoritative frame of reference, and if Christ is the Logos made flesh, i.e. the self-expression of God the Father made human, one would think that such a human would have a transcendent self-image with respect to time, a vastly expanded experience of the revelation given to Jeremiah (Jer 1:5) and David (Psalm 139:14-18).
Let us ask ourselves, what was Christ’s self image like if he had a full revelation of God’s eternal perspective of him? And what if part of God’s intent in sending Christ was to give the rest of us a window into this eternal perspective — taking us to the destination that Jeremiah and David had pointed toward? Are we “seated in heavenly places” in Christ? Were we known before we were born? Were we not “created in Christ Jesus” and “chosen in him before the foundation of the world”? What if God wanted us to have a vehicle or paradigm for an eternal self-image, couldn’t He provide that in a perfect, pattern Son?
The truth is, much of Paul’s teaching extrapolates on the stated and unstated premise that we are to view our identities as eternally fixed in the Son. And the starting point for that discussion has to be some concept of a “Son” that transcends time, not as a second person of a tri-une (complex) God, but as a foreknown, prototype man who “was and is” the self expression of the ONE God– the Logos.
Brad went on to say in another comment(I'm assuming it's the same Brad!And again,this is edited.):
We try to lay out doctrines and creeds to define God; we would do better to let our hearts get to know God and His Son as individuals, as persons, as beings, and let their respective positions and personalities speak for themselves. Jesus said that His Father was “His God”; the man Christ is worshipping His God in heaven today. And God the Father is receiving that worship — which is coming from the heart of the only person, other than the Father, who is completely perfect, and pure in heart. Let’s not let doctrine rob us of such a beautiful reality!
Brad goes on to say:
God the Father distinguishes the human lineage of Christ as the basis for the honor due Christ. This is the BIG stumbling stone it seems to me, even today. At His trial, Jesus was finally found “guilty of death” when he confessed that He was the Son of the Blessed, and that as the Son of Man would be sitting at the right hand of His Father. That statement was enough to convict him.
Now, if I were to say, Jesus is one with His Father as man, and as man is due the same honor that is due His Father, based solely on His unique and profound birthright — in other words, that His human lineage and human relationship to God as human Son –puts him at the right hand of God — and gives him oneness with the Father — that God Himself accepts this as appropriate legal grounds for the honor and majesty attributable to His Son, then watch out.
And yet Jesus as man can say that God is His literal Father — and I say that this Sonship gives Jesus a birthright of Divine dimensions…that’s right, a birthright of Divine dimensions.
What is interesting is that history is repeating itself. the religious of our day are stumbled by the idea that Jesus, as MAN, is due the SAME honor that His biological Father is due. If you hang your hat on that point alone, you WILL be called a heretic by the mainstream of Christianity. It is blasphemy. You must recant, or say that He is one with God in some way other than “merely” as an only begotten human Son. Am I right?
In other words, if Jesus Christ was on (religious) trial today, and made no claims to be part of a complex unity, no claims to be a second person of God, but merely stated that he was the only begotten Son of God, as man, had been given His Father’s name, and all power in heaven and earth, and that God was requiring the world to honor Him as they Honor the Father — with only Luke 1:35 as a basis, he’d be called a heretic and a blasphemer.
How ironic…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)