Jesus the Man Before John !

[LeviR]

Therefore, to confess that the Christ is the son of the living God is to also acknowledge that he had come as a true flesh and blood man as all the rest of the children of God.

 

[LeviR]

Why would someone tell another who confesses that the Christ is the son of the living God who was also a true flesh and blood man who was killed and rose again from the dead that they can’t be saved?

The only reason I suppose one would suggest that is because they don’t believe the Christ to be the son of the living God who was a flesh and blood man like all the other children of God and who did not die and raise again from the dead.

 

[brightfame52]

We know that Christ existed First as the Last Adam or Heavenly Man, and that adam the earthy was made after His Image and Likeness, he was patterned after Him who was in Heaven, for that's a Divine principle. Now there is the Adam earthy and Heavenly as per 1 Cor 15:45-49

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Now please notice verses 46-47 Adam first is natural and earthy and the Last Adam is Spiritual and Heavenly [see Jesus words Jn 8:23 ]

Now Christ is the Creator of Adam earthy Col 1:16

16 For by him [Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him[Christ]:

Now lets look at how we derive this principle of the earthy being patterned after the heavenly Heb 8:4-5

4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Adam was a shadow, a figure of heavenly things !

Heb 9:23-24

23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

And then Paul tells us that Adam was the earthy figure of Him [Christ] to come Rom 5:14

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

This does confirm what is indicated, that the earthy adam was Created by the Heaveny God Man Mediator Christ Jesus, after His Image and Likeness Gen 1:26, for this must be if we follow the rule of pattern laid down in Heb 8:4-5;9:23-24

And that in all things Christ has the preeminence Col 1:18

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Now that would not be true if adam from the ground was a Man before Christ the Mediator !

 

[Runningman]

One of the main problems for the Trinitarian is the idea that God died. The RCC claims that God died, while a great majority of others who claim to be orthodox disagree with the RCC.
It seems to me that the belief in whether or not the son died is vitally important. Wouldn’t you think?

Yes and it comes with some baggage to accept that view. It comes with the baggage that if God died then God isn't immortal. If God died then he didn't actually die because He's still around and therefore the sin sacrifice in Trinitarianism wasn't real. All of this goes away when we accept Jesus is a man, that God resurrected a man, and that a man received eternal life which is itself scriptural.

 

[LeviR]

Yes and it comes with some baggage to accept that view. It comes with the baggage that if God died then God isn't immortal. If God died then he didn't actually die because He's still around and therefore the sin sacrifice in Trinitarianism wasn't real. All of this goes away when we accept Jesus is a man, that God resurrected a man, and that a man received eternal life which is itself scriptural.

It’s way nice to know that it was a WHO that died rather than a WHAT. A WHO is a person that died, not a thing that died.
Yes, if we say that a person died, and the person was God, then we deny that God is immortal.
If we affirm the person died, then we must also affirm that the person who died is not the God who never dies.

 

[LeviR]

Yes and it comes with some baggage to accept that view. It comes with the baggage that if God died then God isn't immortal. If God died then he didn't actually die because He's still around and therefore the sin sacrifice in Trinitarianism wasn't real. All of this goes away when we accept Jesus is a man, that God resurrected a man, and that a man received eternal life which is itself scriptural.

Even more confusion is brought in by the churches when they say all persons are immortal.
If John is a man and man is mortal, why would they say John is not mortal?
If John is not mortal as they say, then John is immortal like God is immortal.
Therefore, John does not need to be saved from mortality because John never dies, just as God never dies.
Why they don’t want to get it right is beyond me.

 

[LeviR]

I don’t think anyone would argue that John is a male person. Unless you belong to the group that denies gender. lol.
Anyway, the person who was John was mortal and therefore died. Just as the person who was Jesus was mortal and died.
Many deny it. I don’t.

 

[RandyK]

I was taught by those who claimed to be orthodox Trinitarians.

I'm not sure they were orthodox Trinitarians, but language is flexible. What they mean by certain terms may mean something else to me by those same terms. Context is key whenver we use terms and attempt to understand how they are being used.

I was not told that the word became flesh but rather the word took upon Himself flesh.

God took upon Himself flesh in the Incarnation. And He did so via His Word. His Word, by definition, is His vehicle for expressing things in finite ways that express what He has done as an Infinite Being or who He is as an Infinite Being within the finite world.

Within the finite world, the Word of God expresses God's Person in the form of the Holy Spirit, in the form of theophanies, and in the form of His Son, Jesus. These are expressions made finite so that we, as finite beings, can understand them.

Understand that the expressions God gives us assume finite form, but are not, in themselves, finite persons. The revelation of God of His Person may assume a finite form, but emerges from God as an eternal source.

The Word of God conveys the revelations of God from Him as an eternal source, and what expression of His Person takes place as a result of this Word retains its source in the eternal Person of God. As such, all Persons of the Trinity are eternal and infinite, even though they may be revealed in finite space and in finite forms.

I was not told that God became flesh, but rather He took on a human body as one might put on a coat.
But the language doesn’t say that.
For example, if I were to say the rabbit was made a coat. You would understand what I mean. And that is what the text is saying with reference to the word.
Trinitarians separate the word from flesh. They do it with a hyphen- God-man. Which is in direct contradiction to the text.

I'm really trying to understand this. The Word *became* flesh. The Word *became* Jesus, the God-man.

God certainly didn't just put on humanity as He would "put on a coat." If so, then His Person would not really be expressing the human person, Jesus, as the divine Person. Jesus would be separate from Deity, and simply be a vessel or garment for God's use in the world.

I'm really trying to understand the argument here, but am having difficulties. Sorry!

 

[Runningman]

Even more confusion is brought in by the churches when they say all persons are immortal.
If John is a man and man is mortal, why would they say John is not mortal?
If John is not mortal as they say, then John is immortal like God is immortal.
Therefore, John does not need to be saved from mortality because John never dies, just as God never dies.
Why they don’t want to get it right is beyond me.

And therefore believing in Jesus is not required for the reception of eternal life if people are inherently immortal. Yes I know lol.

Protestant and Catholic doctrines are full of a lot of problems. They formulated a lot of doctrines to support the Trinity, but they didn't debate them enough way back when to iron out the wrinkles before publishing Trinitarianism as the official church doctrine. The debates may have also been a bit one-sided, political, and sometimes dangerous, too, back then. They had to make a lot of supporting doctrines for Trinitarianism and unconditional immortality is one of them, but it also undermines the gospel.

 

[Vinny37]

Yes, the name for "God" may have a plural ring to it largely because, I think, Scriptures are using the language of the contemporary times, so that a pagan use of "the gods" is being used to convey the actual truth that there is only one God. Language is funny that way. We're stuck with the language that people are using, no matter how much untruth may be attached to it. The explanation has to work things out.

I find the "God is not a person" thing, by Lewis, interesting. How can He be a "person" when this "Person" defies all explanation of how we, as people, would define a "person?" A 3-headed God cannot be a typical "person" as we understand the term.

I would say that God is a "person" nonetheless, but add that He is an unconventional Person, being infinite, and as such, is able to transform Himself into other dimensions, such as within the earthly dimension where He appears in geographical places as the Holy Spirit and in the man Jesus.

I completely agree that the terminology does not attempt to read back or ahead to maintain a consistent Christology or Trinitarianism. God is simply called "God," as the "Father," without arguing He can reveal Himself in Jesus before he actually comes. But if we describe the person Jesus in the sense that he preexisted as Deity, then we may safely say that Jesus was the preincarnate, eternal Son, even though technically he did not achieve sonship until he became a man.

Some people see the preincarnate Jesus as a kind of weird "Logos-Son," in order to retain the idea that the Trinity existed from eternity. But I think God, if anything, preexisted not just as a Trinity, but as an infinite possible number of incarnations or revelations of God's Person in different dimensions, whether theophanies or actual finite expressions of God's Person.

Thanks for sharing your brilliance--I enjoy it! I just hope I didn't misunderstand it! ;) And I hope I spoke well enough to convey what I'm trying to say?

In wording CSL was inconsistent, as was Paul. Lewis often worded God as a person, but at times Lewis underlined, not that God was three-headed like Cerberus, nor tritheistic (three independents gods), but tri-personal, in short one eternal society of three persons—in that sense not a person. Like a two-dimensional square (a square as a person) trying to imagine a three-dimensional cube, our minds can get part-way, though the cube (persons joined in a deeper dimension) can fully perceive us. We can gain much from CSL’s writings on this, even as he gained much from Boëthius.

https://archive.org/details/MereChristianityCSL: 4.4, Good Infection

https://archive.org/details/collectedworksof00csle/mode/1up?q="Poison+of+Subjectivism"&view=theater: The Poison of Subjectivism

True, the NT generally links θεος to the father: in a sense God is a person—the father, not the son (1 Cor.8:6). In some contexts it can speak of the son as θεος (eg NET: Tts.2:13; 2 Pt.1:1). Systematising such is the name of the game, and some additional terms come into play to put the differences of different contexts, into coherence. Mt.28:19 is IMO a good beginning: one name, three persons.

Our language is too weak and our speech per force inconsistent. Even the term θεος has a semantic range worth analysing (see eg Heiser). Nowadays I tend to use the term deity, to signify the essence, the ουσια, of which the son noncarnate is ὁμοουσιος (same essence) with the father and the spirit. I speak of the deificity of the son incarnate, to underline both the sameness and difference of stream from source: the man Christ Jesus is not omni~, and his nailed hands did not fling stars into space (pace Graham Kendrick). Jesus-is-God, might be right in colloquial language, but is not right in systematic language, and gets a flinch from me.

Suprapersonal deity can manifest itself through the persons, and here the term God, is handy: God the father, God the son, God the spirit; all are deity, and their unity can speak in varying ways through the persons: different roles in common agenda, as per the Athanasian Creed. And God the son has a permanent and undiminishing human stream named Yeshua and begun at the conception.

I tend to dismiss such terms as pre-existent Jesus, for I hold that there was a time when Jesus was not. Whether or not the noncarnate son manifested himself, eg to Abraham, I stand uncertain—but if so any such was a huiophany, not christophany, since predating his human anointing (chrismation). That the noncarnate son was involved in creation, I doubt not.

I tend to dismiss from-eternity talk, as perhaps failing to grasp the idea of eternity being beyond time-space: within creation we speak of coming from one place into another, and thus time-wise no longer being where they came from. Beyond creation the creator is neither in a place nor within time. Poetically (not scientifically), the sun shines itself upon us, yet is where it was: this is but a dim analogy. We might speak of a mirror image; the image is on a lower plane, and does not diminish its object. I uphold trinitarianism as for now our best way to comprehend deity, ie eternal three interconnected persons, the Brute Fact beyond creation. Many good Christians have before and since trinitarian formulation, without trinitarianism worshipped deity far better than have I, but not because they worshipped without trinitarianism.

 

[LeviR]

And therefore believing in Jesus is not required for the reception of eternal life if people are inherently immortal. Yes I know lol.

Protestant and Catholic doctrines are full of a lot of problems. They formulated a lot of doctrines to support the Trinity, but they didn't debate them enough way back when to iron out the wrinkles before publishing Trinitarianism as the official church doctrine. The debates may have also been a bit one-sided, political, and sometimes dangerous, too, back then. They had to make a lot of supporting doctrines for Trinitarianism and unconditional immortality is one of them, but it also undermines the gospel.

After developing the Trinity doctrine they began to refer to themselves as “orthodox” which means “right thinking”.

What’s right thinking about developing a doctrine where the conclusion is called an impenetrable paradox.

It’s like developing a mathematical equation that doesn’t equate and calling it right thinking.

 

[RandyK]

In wording CSL was inconsistent, as was Paul.

I can't say Paul was "inconsistent," because of what that sounds like. It sounds as if Paul was incompetent and therefore uninspired. I believe he was called, and God knew the limitations of his ability to describe the deity of Christ and the distinction of the Persons of Father, Son, and Spirit.

However, I understand what you mean and accept that Paul did not have an agenda to explain the distinctions and therefore wasn't at all concerned to establish a systematic Trinitarianism. Therefore, perhaps we could describe his language as "inconsistent," and perhaps necessarily so?

I should think CSLewis, you, I, or anybody else would have the same limitations, though we are indeed trying to be more systematic, and therefore, more consistent in the way we describe God and His distinctions. Like the Early Church, we are trying to use the language of Pagan Theology to explain the truths of the Hebrew God. And I think that is perfectly acceptable if we wish to communicate God to the world at all?

Lewis often worded God as a person, but at times Lewis underlined, not that God was three-headed like Cerberus, nor tritheistic (three independents gods), but tri-personal, in short one eternal society of three persons—in that sense not a person.

I think that is a valuable explanation, that trying to explain on a finite plane what is actually deeper, and infinite, is like trying to explain the distinction of the "Trinity" on a finite level when its reality really is on an infinite, transcendent level. On the other hand, I don't personally like trying to explain the "Trinity" on an "eternal level," since that has as much limitations as describing God as a "Person" for you?

What I do, personally, is use descriptions that perhaps originated with Tertullian and Origen, who linked the transcendent God to His Son by way of the link between God as Source and the Son as an extention of Him as Source. Call it "extensions of Deity" or "eternal generation"--I don't remember. Like rays from the sun, God remains God as Source even though His "light rays" extend out beyond their origin.

https://archive.org/details/MereChristianityCSL: 4.4, Good Infection

https://archive.org/details/collectedworksof00csle/mode/1up?q="Poison+of+Subjectivism"&view=theater: The Poison of Subjectivism

True, the NT generally links θεος to the father: in a sense God is a person—the father, not the son (1 Cor.8:6). In some contexts it can speak of the son as θεος (eg NET: Tts.2:13; 2 Pt.1:1). Systematising such is the name of the game

I was challenged by Christian Research Institute many years ago when I 1st tried describing the Trinity in my own terms. They said the formula doesn't work that I was using at the time: One Infinite Person and three finite persons expressing that same one Person. 3 persons does not equal 1 person. They liked the traditional 3 persons and 1 substance. Or, 1 God in 3 persons.

Again, I would go back to your "3 dimensional cube" example. It isn't really inconsistent to express a single Person as "3 persons"--it is just inadequate. You may call God a "single Person" or not. He is over and over again described in Scriptures as "one God," suggesting that He is a single Person.

On the other hand, the fact He is distinguished between Father, Son, and Spirit, as well as with theophany, indicates that the one Divine Person can also be expressed, legitimately, as 3 persons, as well. This is entirely Scriptural.

Our language is too weak and our speech per force inconsistent. Even the term θεος has a semantic range worth analysing (see eg Heiser). Nowadays I tend to use the term deity, to signify the essence, the ουσια, of which the son noncarnate is ὁμοουσιος (same essence) with the father and the spirit.

Yes, using "substance" describes the unity of God without having to explain the distinctions of the persons of God. It is the old creed or formula, or the very language originally used to explain this. So I use it as well, to remain in unity with the original formulations, and retain a consistent orthodoxy over time.

I speak of the deificity of the son incarnate, to underline both the sameness and difference of stream from source: the man Christ Jesus is not omni~, and his nailed hands did not fling stars into space (pace Graham Kendrick). Jesus-is-God, might be right in colloquial language, but is not right in systematic language, and gets a flinch from me.

Yes, "colloquial description" is what I think Paul was using to avoid being too systematic. He wanted his readers to understand the spiritual oneness of the persons of God so as to experience them as such, and not just intellectually comprehend them.

Suprapersonal deity can manifest itself through the persons, and here the term God, is handy: God the father, God the son, God the spirit; all are deity

Using "deity" as an adjective, ie "divine" helps us to define the persons of God as having the "substance" or essence of God so that we experience Him in all 3 persons as the "one God," or "one transcendent Person." The fact He appears in lesser finite forms does not in any way detract from the fact they are expressions of "deity" who can be comprehended and experienced as such, according to our limitations.

I tend to dismiss such terms as pre-existent Jesus, for I hold that there was a time when Jesus was not.

Yes, saying Jesus did something "from eternity" misses the point in this respect. He may have done so as the preexistent transcendent Person of God, creating the universe. But he did not create the world "as a man," who by definition could never create the universe. He could only have created the universe as the eternal God, originating as the transcendent deity before creation in time.

The best we can know about "eternity" is that in our history, God preexisted what we know of the universe. He is an eternal Being, who remains the eternal Being even as He is expressed in our time and history.

We see Him in our lives as the same God in any way He reveals Himself as a person. We see the same transcendent Being in the Holy Spirit, as theophanies, and as the Son. "He who sees me see the Father." And yet we still experience Him as the same God throughout who obviously is the eternal Being from one expression to the other, from one revelation to another.

I find it personally acceptable to describe the preexistent Son not as a "preexistent man," but rather, as a "preexistent divine Person," or the ever-existing Word of God, which is capable of reducing transcendent deity to expressions utilizing finite terminology and revelation.

I tend to dismiss from-eternity talk, as perhaps failing to grasp the idea of eternity being beyond time-space: within creation we speak of coming from one place into another, and thus time-wise no longer being where they came from. Beyond creation the creator is neither in a place nor within time.

I use "eternity" as a "source," and not in any sense that we can understand where finite expressions originate. God is simply "before" the things He originated and before anything. All things have a source in the infinite Being and Mind of God, originating from the transcendent Person of God and appear to us in limited, finite language. Not only do we perceive an "intelligent design" in creation but we perceive God Himself in a relationship with us.

Poetically (not scientifically), the sun shines itself upon us, yet is where it was: this is but a dim analogy. We might speak of a mirror image; the image is on a lower plane, and does not diminish its object. I uphold trinitarianism as for now our best way to comprehend deity, ie eternal three interconnected persons, the Brute Fact beyond creation. Many good Christians have before and since trinitarian formulation, without trinitarianism worshipped deity far better than have I, but not because they worshipped without trinitarianism.

Yes, I wouldn't compare with others the value of either their spirituality or formulation. As I said above, being "consistent" with a systematic formula may be impossible, unnecessary, or irrelevant. The only reason I try to have a consistent explanation myself is to side with the original orthodox formulations to show unity with their legitimate interest in establishing a single God with the Jews and multiple persons to admit the necessity of a divine Christ for the Christians.

The importance of a divine Christ cannot be over-stated. He died to forgive us personally. He gave us God's Spirit, legally, as a personal gift. As a man he did these things while at the same time he represented God as a transcendent Being who did these things on a higher level than simply a human level. Technically, God the Father gives us His Holy Spirit.

Christ is that ray of light from the sun, a finite expression of something that is incomprehensible and infinite, and yet important to know and experience. We must know him not just as a man, but more, as Paul said, as divine (2 Cor 5.16).

Through Christ we come to know God as the transcendent Person of God, and not simply in a created, human form or revelation. Christ provided for this *legally,* so that we may know not just him as a man, but also God as a transcendent Being and Fatheer.

 

[Free]

One of the main problems for the Trinitarian is the idea that God died. The RCC claims that God died, while a great majority of others who claim to be orthodox disagree with the RCC.
It seems to me that the belief in whether or not the son died is vitally important. Wouldn’t you think?

How is this a problem? It seems to me that you are basing that on certain assumptions about what death is, what it means to die, and which at the heart is what constitutes the nature of humans. Perhaps you should post about those things first, then see if your question makes sense or is even necessary.

In John’s epistles he speaks to believers in Christ but warns them not to deny that Jesus had come in the flesh.
John is not warning them to deny Jesus was God or to deny he had come at all but rather he warns the believers not to deny the flesh of Christ as being something other than the flesh that all man share.
IOW, to deny that Jesus was something other than a flesh and blood man like all the rest would be a doctrine of antichrist.

Not at all. It is likely an argument he makes against Gnostics or some similar belief. Gnostics believed that flesh was evil and that Christ only appeared to be in the flesh, but actually wasn't. That's called the heresy of Docetism.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (ESV)

Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)

Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (ESV)

Again, we come back to what it means to "believe in his name." John begins his gospel with telling us that the Son of God is somehow actually connected with God, being the eternally existing Word that was in interpersonal relationship with God and in some way was God, and who then entered time and became flesh. He then says that those who become children of God were those "who believed in his name." Throughout his gospel there are numerous hints and statements that imply the deity of the Son. Then, John ends his gospel with the exclamation of Thomas, "My Lord and my God!," which explicitly states what has mainly been implied (there are a few exceptions). And, only three verses after Thomas's statement, John writes that everything he wrote down, was "written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

John finishes his gospel with how he began--reaffirming the deity of Jesus and tying that into the need to believe in his name for salvation. Believing "in his name" means, according to M. R. Vincent, "to accept as true the revelation contained in "Jesus Christ the Son of God," as "name" expresses "he sum of the qualities which mark the nature or character of a person." That necessarily entails the deity of Jesus as the Son of God.

 

[Free]

Therefore, to confess that the Christ is the son of the living God is to also acknowledge that he had come as a true flesh and blood man as all the rest of the children of God.

Why would someone tell another who confesses that the Christ is the son of the living God who was also a true flesh and blood man who was killed and rose again from the dead that they can’t be saved?

The only reason I suppose one would suggest that is because they don’t believe the Christ to be the son of the living God who was a flesh and blood man like all the other children of God and who did not die and raise again from the dead.

Because we absolutely cannot just believe Jesus to be whomever or whatever we want him to be. If he is the eternally preexisting Son of God of God in human flesh, then that is who we must believe him to be, so that "by believing [we] may have life in his name." To not believe that is to believe in a different Jesus in whom there is no salvation.

2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
2Co 11:4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. (ESV)

 

[RandyK]

Because we absolutely cannot just believe Jesus to be whomever or whatever we want him to be. If he is the eternally preexisting Son of God of God in human flesh, then that is who we must believe him to be, so that "by believing [we] may have life in his name." To not believe that is to believe in a different Jesus in whom there is no salvation.

2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
2Co 11:4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. (ESV)

Yes, other faiths just hope that there's life after death. Christianity is squarely based on the promise of it, demonstrated in history, confirmed by miracles done in Jesus' name, and a spiritual life that we can put on and experience a significant change from lives that deserve death to lives that warrant forgiveness and a 2nd chance. We surely don't have it in us to warrant it, but experiencing what he was like and is like in the present spirituality he gives to us we can rest assured that at least one religion has the answers. Actually, it is the only religion that has answers that are verifiable in our lives by a genuine righteousness that comes from God--a righteousness humanity sorely needs.

 

[LeviR]

How is this a problem? It seems to me that you are basing that on certain assumptions about what death is, what it means to die, and which at the heart is what constitutes the nature of humans. Perhaps you should post about those things first, then see if your question makes sense or is even necessary.


Not at all. It is likely an argument he makes against Gnostics or some similar belief. Gnostics believed that flesh was evil and that Christ only appeared to be in the flesh, but actually wasn't. That's called the heresy of Docetism.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (ESV)

Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)

Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (ESV)

Again, we come back to what it means to "believe in his name." John begins his gospel with telling us that the Son of God is somehow actually connected with God, being the eternally existing Word that was in interpersonal relationship with God and in some way was God, and who then entered time and became flesh. He then says that those who become children of God were those "who believed in his name." Throughout his gospel there are numerous hints and statements that imply the deity of the Son. Then, John ends his gospel with the exclamation of Thomas, "My Lord and my God!," which explicitly states what has mainly been implied (there are a few exceptions). And, only three verses after Thomas's statement, John writes that everything he wrote down, was "written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

John finishes his gospel with how he began--reaffirming the deity of Jesus and tying that into the need to believe in his name for salvation. Believing "in his name" means, according to M. R. Vincent, "to accept as true the revelation contained in "Jesus Christ the Son of God," as "name" expresses "he sum of the qualities which mark the nature or character of a person." That necessarily entails the deity of Jesus as the Son of God.

If you can’t be convinced of something by your own intelligence and reasoning, and therefore to understand, I don’t know what else I can say.
My understanding is drawn from the Scriptures. And my intelligence and reasoning confirm my understanding.

I would not expect someone to understand the Scripture who lacked intelligence or the ability to reason from them.

If someone tries to inform my understanding of the Scripture but speaks not of what the word says but but also is against reason I reject it.

I believe it is not necessary to make up words and ideas that are not found in scripture. The RCC is notorious for it.

The words that are already found in scripture teach the truth. This is what is meant by comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
The words of the scripture are given by the Holy Spirit of God and when rightly divided inform the understanding.

A red flag ought automatically go up when people speak words that are neither found in scripture and that will contradict them. But you need intelligence and reasoning for it.

I already know you neither lack intelligence or the ability to reason. But what I don’t understand is why you allow your intelligence and reason to be overruled by words that are neither found in scripture but also contradict them. And stranger still, they ought be rejected by reason.

 

[brightfame52]

Was Jesus Christ Created ?



Was Jesus Christ Created ? The answer is absolutely Yes,He was Created or we can say He was begotten, that He did have a derived Existence. Now, I already know my enemies are going to use this what i am about to say against me, and claim by it that I deny the Deity of Christ or that He is God, but by no means do i deny that, because Jesus is also 100 % Very God as much as the Father, and within the Divine Essence of the Godhead He as the Father has a underived, uncreated, unbegotten, Self Existence along with the The Holy Ghost as well !

However, there is yet another part of His Being that was Created or derived an Existence out of the Father, hence He has titles like Col 1:15

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

The word firstborn is the greek word prōtotokos and means:

I.the firstborn
A.
of man or beast

B.
of Christ, the first born of all creation

first-born, eldest.

Now the word is actually Two words #1 prōtos which means:

I.
first in time or place
A.
in any succession of things or persons


II.
first in rank
A.
influence, honour

B.
chief

C.
principal


III.
first, at the first

This is why He said to be before all things Col 1:17

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

He existed as God's Creation before all other things that would be Created !

The other word #2 is tiktō and means:

I.to bring forth, bear, produce (fruit from the seed)
A.
of a woman giving birth

B.
of the earth bringing forth its fruits

C.
metaph. to bear, bring forth

He was the very first produced, brought forth !

The word produce itself denotes Creation, for our english dictionary defines it as:

to create, bring forth, or yield offspring, products,

And finally He is said to be the firstborn of every creature, the word creature being the greek word ktisis and means:

I.the act of founding, establishing, building etc
A.
the act of creating, creation

B.
creation i.e. thing created
i.
of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation
a.
anything created

So this verse in Col 1:15 is evidence that in some capacity the Lord Jesus Christ was Created before all things else were Created.

Another verse that collaborates this thought is Rev 3:14

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Its plain and simple that He is Identifying Himself as the Beginning of the Creation of God, or the Firstborn of Every Creature as in Col 1:15 !

 

[Vinny37]

I can't say Paul was "inconsistent," because of what that sounds like. It sounds as if Paul was incompetent and therefore uninspired. I believe he was called, and God knew the limitations of his ability to describe the deity of Christ and the distinction of the Persons of Father, Son, and Spirit.

However, I understand what you mean and accept that Paul did not have an agenda to explain the distinctions and therefore wasn't at all concerned to establish a systematic Trinitarianism. Therefore, perhaps we could describe his language as "inconsistent," and perhaps necessarily so?

I should think CSLewis, you, I, or anybody else would have the same limitations, though we are indeed trying to be more systematic, and therefore, more consistent in the way we describe God and His distinctions. Like the Early Church, we are trying to use the language of Pagan Theology to explain the truths of the Hebrew God. And I think that is perfectly acceptable if we wish to communicate God to the world at all?

I think that is a valuable explanation, that trying to explain on a finite plane what is actually deeper, and infinite, is like trying to explain the distinction of the "Trinity" on a finite level when its reality really is on an infinite, transcendent level. On the other hand, I don't personally like trying to explain the "Trinity" on an "eternal level," since that has as much limitations as describing God as a "Person" for you?

What I do, personally, is use descriptions that perhaps originated with Tertullian and Origen, who linked the transcendent God to His Son by way of the link between God as Source and the Son as an extention of Him as Source. Call it "extensions of Deity" or "eternal generation"--I don't remember. Like rays from the sun, God remains God as Source even though His "light rays" extend out beyond their origin.

I was challenged by Christian Research Institute many years ago when I 1st tried describing the Trinity in my own terms. They said the formula doesn't work that I was using at the time: One Infinite Person and three finite persons expressing that same one Person. 3 persons does not equal 1 person. They liked the traditional 3 persons and 1 substance. Or, 1 God in 3 persons.

Again, I would go back to your "3 dimensional cube" example. It isn't really inconsistent to express a single Person as "3 persons"--it is just inadequate. You may call God a "single Person" or not. He is over and over again described in Scriptures as "one God," suggesting that He is a single Person.

On the other hand, the fact He is distinguished between Father, Son, and Spirit, as well as with theophany, indicates that the one Divine Person can also be expressed, legitimately, as 3 persons, as well. This is entirely Scriptural.

Yes, using "substance" describes the unity of God without having to explain the distinctions of the persons of God. It is the old creed or formula, or the very language originally used to explain this. So I use it as well, to remain in unity with the original formulations, and retain a consistent orthodoxy over time.

Yes, "colloquial description" is what I think Paul was using to avoid being too systematic. He wanted his readers to understand the spiritual oneness of the persons of God so as to experience them as such, and not just intellectually comprehend them.

Using "deity" as an adjective, ie "divine" helps us to define the persons of God as having the "substance" or essence of God so that we experience Him in all 3 persons as the "one God," or "one transcendent Person." The fact He appears in lesser finite forms does not in any way detract from the fact they are expressions of "deity" who can be comprehended and experienced as such, according to our limitations.

Yes, saying Jesus did something "from eternity" misses the point in this respect. He may have done so as the preexistent transcendent Person of God, creating the universe. But he did not create the world "as a man," who by definition could never create the universe. He could only have created the universe as the eternal God, originating as the transcendent deity before creation in time.

The best we can know about "eternity" is that in our history, God preexisted what we know of the universe. He is an eternal Being, who remains the eternal Being even as He is expressed in our time and history.

We see Him in our lives as the same God in any way He reveals Himself as a person. We see the same transcendent Being in the Holy Spirit, as theophanies, and as the Son. "He who sees me see the Father." And yet we still experience Him as the same God throughout who obviously is the eternal Being from one expression to the other, from one revelation to another.

I find it personally acceptable to describe the preexistent Son not as a "preexistent man," but rather, as a "preexistent divine Person," or the ever-existing Word of God, which is capable of reducing transcendent deity to expressions utilizing finite terminology and revelation.

I use "eternity" as a "source," and not in any sense that we can understand where finite expressions originate. God is simply "before" the things He originated and before anything. All things have a source in the infinite Being and Mind of God, originating from the transcendent Person of God and appear to us in limited, finite language. Not only do we perceive an "intelligent design" in creation but we perceive God Himself in a relationship with us.

Yes, I wouldn't compare with others the value of either their spirituality or formulation. As I said above, being "consistent" with a systematic formula may be impossible, unnecessary, or irrelevant. The only reason I try to have a consistent explanation myself is to side with the original orthodox formulations to show unity with their legitimate interest in establishing a single God with the Jews and multiple persons to admit the necessity of a divine Christ for the Christians.

The importance of a divine Christ cannot be over-stated. He died to forgive us personally. He gave us God's Spirit, legally, as a personal gift. As a man he did these things while at the same time he represented God as a transcendent Being who did these things on a higher level than simply a human level. Technically, God the Father gives us His Holy Spirit.

Christ is that ray of light from the sun, a finite expression of something that is incomprehensible and infinite, and yet important to know and experience. We must know him not just as a man, but more, as Paul said, as divine (2 Cor 5.16).

Through Christ we come to know God as the transcendent Person of God, and not simply in a created, human form or revelation. Christ provided for this *legally,* so that we may know not just him as a man, but also God as a transcendent Being and Fatheer.

RandyK

Like the circumference of a ripple keeps getting wider until it’s unperceived, unsurprisingly this dialogue has gotten to a point of an overload of time but certainly not of interest: I appreciate your depth. I’ll not tick all ‘boxes’, so to speak, but limit myself to parts of your post. If you wish we could continue via a PM or such. Besides, the OP is [Jesus the Man Before John!] and one must not go too wide for too long.

Personally I nowadays never speak of a Hebrew/transcendent god. It’s old polytheism I deem fine within an OT setting of monolatry, when philosophic monotheism seldom showed above ground level. I would speak of God in Hebrew thought (not of the Hebrew god] and of God as transcendent (not of a transcendent god), but never as a type of god/goddess. That that causes problems for me I freely acknowledge. Are they worthwhile? I think so. Some Bible versions sometimes alleviate: eg 1 Cor.1:3 (NLT vs NABRE).

I deem the OT to have been a secondary stage of understanding, where monotheism was not really the subject, but loyalty to their god among deities, was. That Yahweh was pictured as a god and as a person, I fully accept. The NT opens up the picture. But besides biasing the term θεος to one person, the father, it does add in more data which opens up a complexity which trinitarianism systematises. Its focus is on one person of three persons. IMO God is person-al, and the father is the person usually called God (a representative use of θεος), and yet deity is a being, a society not a single person, tripersonal not monopersonal. I do not hold the idea of one person yet three persons, but we’re certainly back to the inconsistency thing of speech, and we might speak of what he, the trinity, wills: a corporate will (Jhn.10:30)?

On inconsistency, asking me before and after a meal will receive opposite answers, but I hope will not conclude that I am incompetent and uninspired. Similarly, are we adopted or birthed into Christ’s kingdom—the NT is inconsistent (Paul vs Hebrews vs John). I side with JWs in minimising Jesus; the NT focus is the father but some Evangelicals are Jesus-Only. Qv Steve Hakes’ The Father’s Gone Global: https://archive.org/details/the-fathers-gone-global-exploring-gods-heart-231212.

[God is simply “before” the things…]. To my mind that still imposes time on our concept of God: A is before B and B is after A. CSL, I think, was helpful with his talk on three dimensions. Eternity is not before time; time is within eternity. It’s hard to speak of absolute timelessness in time-terms: we know in part and speak in part. In another context, we may rightly say that we have eternal life, but without meaning that we thus transcend time-space, gaining beginninglessness. Words in different settings meaning different things.

All the best.

 

[RandyK]

RandyK

Like the circumference of a ripple keeps getting wider until it’s unperceived, unsurprisingly this dialogue has gotten to a point of an overload of time but certainly not of interest: I appreciate your depth. I’ll not tick all ‘boxes’, so to speak, but limit myself to parts of your post. If you wish we could continue via a PM or such. Besides, the OP is [Jesus the Man Before John!] and one must not go too wide for too long.

Personally I nowadays never speak of a Hebrew/transcendent god. It’s old polytheism I deem fine within an OT setting of monolatry, when philosophic monotheism seldom showed above ground level. I would speak of God in Hebrew thought (not of the Hebrew god] and of God as transcendent (not of a transcendent god), but never as a type of god/goddess. That that causes problems for me I freely acknowledge. Are they worthwhile? I think so. Some Bible versions sometimes alleviate: eg 1 Cor.1:3 (NLT vs NABRE).

I deem the OT to have been a secondary stage of understanding, where monotheism was not really the subject, but loyalty to their god among deities, was. That Yahweh was pictured as a god and as a person, I fully accept. The NT opens up the picture. But besides biasing the term θεος to one person, the father, it does add in more data which opens up a complexity which trinitarianism systematises. Its focus is on one person of three persons. IMO God is person-al, and the father is the person usually called God (a representative use of θεος), and yet deity is a being, a society not a single person, tripersonal not monopersonal. I do not hold the idea of one person yet three persons, but we’re certainly back to the inconsistency thing of speech, and we might speak of what he, the trinity, wills: a corporate will (Jhn.10:30)?

On inconsistency, asking me before and after a meal will receive opposite answers, but I hope will not conclude that I am incompetent and uninspired. Similarly, are we adopted or birthed into Christ’s kingdom—the NT is inconsistent (Paul vs Hebrews vs John). I side with JWs in minimising Jesus; the NT focus is the father but some Evangelicals are Jesus-Only. Qv Steve Hakes’ The Father’s Gone Global: https://archive.org/details/the-fathers-gone-global-exploring-gods-heart-231212.

[God is simply “before” the things…]. To my mind that still imposes time on our concept of God: A is before B and B is after A. CSL, I think, was helpful with his talk on three dimensions. Eternity is not before time; time is within eternity. It’s hard to speak of absolute timelessness in time-terms: we know in part and speak in part. In another context, we may rightly say that we have eternal life, but without meaning that we thus transcend time-space, gaining beginninglessness. Words in different settings meaning different things.

All the best.

You have a knack for making me think beyond my capacity. That's probably good. Yes, we shouldn't try to penetrate the veil with our feeble human minds except to identify the One about whom we speak. At least, not too much! ;) Thanks much!

 

[Runningman]

Was Jesus Christ Created ?



Was Jesus Christ Created ? The answer is absolutely Yes,He was Created or we can say He was begotten, that He did have a derived Existence. Now, I already know my enemies are going to use this what i am about to say against me, and claim by it that I deny the Deity of Christ or that He is God, but by no means do i deny that, because Jesus is also 100 % Very God as much as the Father, and within the Divine Essence of the Godhead He as the Father has a underived, uncreated, unbegotten, Self Existence along with the The Holy Ghost as well !

However, there is yet another part of His Being that was Created or derived an Existence out of the Father, hence He has titles like Col 1:15

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

The word firstborn is the greek word prōtotokos and means:

I.the firstborn
A.
of man or beast

B.
of Christ, the first born of all creation

first-born, eldest.

Now the word is actually Two words #1 prōtos which means:

I.
first in time or place
A.
in any succession of things or persons


II.
first in rank
A.
influence, honour

B.
chief

C.
principal


III.
first, at the first

This is why He said to be before all things Col 1:17

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

He existed as God's Creation before all other things that would be Created !

The other word #2 is tiktō and means:

I.to bring forth, bear, produce (fruit from the seed)
A.
of a woman giving birth

B.
of the earth bringing forth its fruits

C.
metaph. to bear, bring forth

He was the very first produced, brought forth !

The word produce itself denotes Creation, for our english dictionary defines it as:

to create, bring forth, or yield offspring, products,

And finally He is said to be the firstborn of every creature, the word creature being the greek word ktisis and means:

I.the act of founding, establishing, building etc
A.
the act of creating, creation

B.
creation i.e. thing created
i.
of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation
a.
anything created

So this verse in Col 1:15 is evidence that in some capacity the Lord Jesus Christ was Created before all things else were Created.

Another verse that collaborates this thought is Rev 3:14

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Its plain and simple that He is Identifying Himself as the Beginning of the Creation of God, or the Firstborn of Every Creature as in Col 1:15 !

What is your take on Acts 13:32,33 saying that the prophecy concerning Jesus being the begotten Son of God was fulfilled by his resurrection from the dead? Wouldn't that mean there was a point that Jesus became the Son of God and not something that has always been his status?

Acts 13
32And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.