what of the incarnation?

[Guest]

Ev,

I will get to your questions soon. My goal is to respond to the objections in order from post to post.

No worries!

FWIW, I thought Derek's answers were terrific. 8)

[Guest]

I think you, for the most part fail to recognize the language of scripture, in favor of your doctrines.

Creation is the means by which God has brought things to pass outside of that which would occur naturally. He caused a human life to begin in the womb of Mary by an act of supernatural creation, not mystical incarnation (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). He waited for a willing woman to bear this child, a woman whose confession and testimony were befitting the honor bestowed upon her. In this way He brought into the world a human being who fulfilled the necessary conditions for becoming the Messiah. That was only the first hurdle. Then He had to work with the growing child to help him maintain his sinless condition until the time he could be anointed with holy spirit and thus be empowered to do the work to which he was called (Acts 10:38). Yes, God had to provide (by creation) the body that could be sacrificed, but Jesus had to obey Him flawlessly for his body to finally be the perfect sacrifice that it needed to be. Thus, God and Jesus each had a responsibility that the other could not perform, and upon which our redemption depended.

Let us reiterate a point we have already made in the first two chapters: the assertion that Jesus was God in human flesh nullifies the absolute necessity of Christ’s obedience, because, as God, no temptation he faced would have been genuine. God cannot be tempted, because God cannot sin (James 1:13). It is also axiomatic that God can neither “obey” nor “disobey” Himself. Nor does He need to command Himself to do anything, for as God, the perfect moral being, He always acts in a timely and perfectly righteous manner.

Another unsolvable problem caused by the “incarnation” is that it destroys the plan that God established of a first Adam and a last Adam. Romans 5:12-19 clearly defines a critical, logical parallel between Adam and Jesus Christ in the context of the redemption of mankind. A major consequence of the doctrine that God became man is that it destroys this key parallel, for Adam is hardly comparable to an eternally pre-existent being. Rather, he was a created being made in the image of the One who created him, God. Adam was not “fully man and fully God,” “100 percent man and 100 percent God,” “coequal with God the Father,” or “of the same substance as the Father.” Adam was a created, empowered being who chose to disobey a direct command of God, with dire consequences to himself and all mankind as a result.

Jesus Christ was also a created being, made a man in the same way that Adam was originally made, that is, a masterpiece of God’s creation, given dominion over Paradise and every creature He had made. Jesus could have no intrinsic advantage over Adam, or his qualification as Redeemer would be legally nullified. He was the Last Adam, not the first God-man. The differences between Adam and Jesus were circumstantial, not essential: Adam started tall with no navel; Jesus started short with a navel. Adam was created fully formed and fully able to comprehend the voice of God. Jesus had to learn from his parents. Adam did not have to suffer the indignity of a humble birth and be considered illegitimate, the son of common folk. Adam had only to dress and keep the garden and care for his wife. He had to keep from eating the fruit, or die and bring death to all his descendants. Jesus had to drink the cup of suffering and die so he could be raised to conquer death and make it possible for others to eat of the “fruit” of eternal life.

[Guest]

Jesusfollower,

One who assumes a name that indicates they are a follower of Jesus should not act in an unethical manner. It is unethical to cut and paste what others have written and present it as though you have written it. That is called plagiarism. You would do well to phrase other's ideas in your own words, along with thoughts of your own or clearly indicate you are copying and pasting someone else's writtings.

Did you notice what Soaringeagle did when he included a statement by John Gill? That is what I mean.

We all learn from and get ideas from others. There is nothing wrong with that. As a former pastor said, "I've never had an original thought of my own".

[Guest]

Well Homer they are my own, and you seem to have no trouble seeing they are cut and pasted, so you chew me out for pasting the links and also for not.

Here you go in case you forgot Sorry:

Although the “Incarnation” is assumed to be a basic tenet of Christianity, the term is used nowhere in Scripture. This is even admitted by Trinitarian scholars: “Incarnation, in its full and proper sense...

Part ONE of a two part teaching
Jesus Christ: Incarnated or Created?
Part 1 of 2
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... nt&sid=213

Jesus Christ: Incarnated or Created?
Part 2 of 2
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... le&sid=212

And I agree with everything said in the articles.

[Guest]

Evangelion,

John 17:22
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:



What was this glory, and when did he give it to the disciples? Whatever it was, it was something that enables the disciples to become "one" in the same way that Christ and the Father are "one."

A reasonable explanation would be that Christ is here speaking of the glory He will have in heaven. He is speaking of a future event as if it had already come to pass (as He has done many times in this context). But at the same time He is praying for their present unity... To be honest, it's a tough one for me to articulate... I look forward to your understanding of the passage. Perhaps that will help.

On a similar note, why did John tell us in the Apocalypse that Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world?



Revelation 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

I don't have a problem with this meaning the plan of the crucifixition. Just because the sacrifice of Christ was known before as an idea or plan does not make the lamb Himself a mere idea. His death was clearly foretold in the prophets and as far back as Genesis.

I do not see how this could justify reading into ..."the Word was God"... who ..."became flesh and dwelt among us"... that the Word was simply an idea. The weight of scripture is simply against this notion. (See the many relevant scriptures that have been posted on this thread by Soaring Eagle for instance).


I look forward to reading your posts on these scriptures. I trust that they will help me come to a better understanding of them.

I have been without Internet access for the weekend, so I apologize for my late response.

God bless,
Derek

[Guest]

Evangelion -

I think I agree with Derek's assessment of your questions.
So what is your take?

We're all waiting with breathless expectation.

[Guest]

Evangelion,

John 17:22
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:



What was this glory, and when did he give it to the disciples? Whatever it was, it was something that enables the disciples to become "one" in the same way that Christ and the Father are "one."

A reasonable explanation would be that Christ is here speaking of the glory He will have in heaven. He is speaking of a future event as if it had already come to pass (as He has done many times in this context). But at the same time He is praying for their present unity... To be honest, it's a tough one for me to articulate... I look forward to your understanding of the passage. Perhaps that will help.

You never know...!

On a similar note, why did John tell us in the Apocalypse that Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world?

Revelation 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

I don't have a problem with this meaning the plan of the crucifixition. Just because the sacrifice of Christ was known before as an idea or plan does not make the lamb Himself a mere idea. His death was clearly foretold in the prophets and as far back as Genesis.

So it's OK for the Bible to speak about things which haven't yet happened, as if they already have?

I do not see how this could justify reading into ..."the Word was God"... who ..."became flesh and dwelt among us"... that the Word was simply an idea. The weight of scripture is simply against this notion. (See the many relevant scriptures that have been posted on this thread by Soaring Eagle for instance).

Well, that's another topic entirely. I'll gladly address it in the appropriate context, at the appropriate time. A brand new thread would be ideal, if anyone wishes to start one - but not until we've finished here, of course! :p

I look forward to reading your posts on these scriptures. I trust that they will help me come to a better understanding of them.

I have been without Internet access for the weekend, so I apologize for my late response.

God bless,
Derek

No worries Derek - and thanks for your responses. I think you're the only person here who's actually met the questions head-on and dealt with them directly, with Scripture. That's very commendable.

[Guest]

Evangelion -

I think I agree with Derek's assessment of your questions.
So what is your take?

We're all waiting with breathless expectation.

Ooooh, you're not going to like it!

[Guest]

OK, so let's review Derek's answers.

To the question: why did Jesus say he was "no more in the world", when he actually still was?

Derek answers:

Jesus said that He was no more in the world because He was on His way out. He also says in 17:3 that "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do," although He had not at that point in time finished all that the Father had given Him to do (like die for our sins).

Elsewhere He speaks of "Where I am" and as far as I have been able to tell, He is talking about heaven in all these places (John 7:34, 14:3, 17:24 etc...)

I think this is a manner of speaking and have never read a great deal into it. I could be wrong.

Derek says that the Bible sometimes employs a manner of speaking in which things that have not yet occurred, are referred to as if they are already in the past.

This is interesting, because Derek's answer - if true - leads to the conclusion that the Bible does not always mean what it appears to be saying, even if the language seems very simple and clear to us.

Derek does not explain to us why the Bible would describe an event of the future, in the language of the past.

To the question: why did he ask that the disciples should be "one" in the same way that he and the Father are "one"? How can the disciples be "one" in that way?

Derek answers:

Of course Jesus does not here mean "one" as in of the same nature and essence. He and the Father are one in more ways than just that. They are also one in purpose and are united in pursuing the same end always.

In this context Christ is praying for the perfect unity of the church so it would follow that this is what is what He is petitioning here.

Derek says that the Father and Son are "one" in a particular sense; a sense in which the disciples can also be "one" with them.

This led me to ask the following questions: when we examine a "oneness" verse, how are we to know if it refer to Christ's nature, or his purpose, etc.? In other words, how can we tell if a verse means that he is "one in nature" with God, as opposed to being "one in purpose" - and vice versa?

These questions have not yet been answered, but I can leave them for the moment; they may be re-visted at another time. However, they do have significance and they will need to be addressed at some stage.

To the question: what was this glory, and when did he give it to the disciples? Whatever it was, it was something that enables the disciples to become "one" in the same way that Christ and the Father are "one."

Derek answers:

A reasonable explanation would be that Christ is here speaking of the glory He will have in heaven. He is speaking of a future event as if it had already come to pass (as He has done many times in this context). But at the same time He is praying for their present unity... To be honest, it's a tough one for me to articulate...

Derek has returned to his theory that the Bible uses language of the past, in reference to events of the future. Nevertheless, he recognises the difficulty that this hermeneutic faces when confronted with John 17:22 - which uses straight, unambiguous language about the past.

As before, Derek does not explain to us why the Bible would describe an event of the future, in the language of the past.

Finally, to the question: on a similar note, why did John tell us in the Apocalypse that Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world?

Derek answers:

I don't have a problem with this meaning the plan of the crucifixition. Just because the sacrifice of Christ was known before as an idea or plan does not make the lamb Himself a mere idea. His death was clearly foretold in the prophets and as far back as Genesis.

I do not see how this could justify reading into ..."the Word was God"... who ..."became flesh and dwelt among us"... that the Word was simply an idea. The weight of scripture is simply against this notion. (See the many relevant scriptures that have been posted on this thread by Soaring Eagle for instance).

Derek says that it is legitimate to speak about the sacrifice of Christ as if it happened at the beginning of the world, even though we know that it did not. He says that it is permissible to speak about the idea of Jesus' resurrection as if it had actually occurred at some ancient time (ie. in the time of Adam and Eve.)

(Once again, Derek does not explain to us why the Bible would describe an event of the future, in the language of the past.)

However, Derek argues that this form of language cannot be used to disprove the pre-existence of Christ, because in his view "the weight of Scripture" proves otherwise.

In Derek's mind, the logos of John 1 is not and cannot be merely "an idea"; this is simply impossible. It must be the pre-existent Christ, and nothing else.

Derek, have I summarised your position accurately? I would like to have your approval before I move on.

Thanks.

[Guest]

Evangelion wrote:

So it's OK for the Bible to speak about things which haven't yet happened, as if they already have?

I don't understand why you have a problem with this. How many times did God tell the Israelites that he has given a certain nation into their hands before they lifted a single sword in battle?