what of the incarnation?

[Guest]

Hi Ev,

Quote:
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.

I think that Jesus was speaking of an event in the future because as He uttered the words He was right there in front of the apostles or others (as in the "where I am" verses spoken to ther Pharisees earlier). This is the plainest way to understand them. I gave examples of Jesus using this manner of speach. I did not say that "the bible" employs this way of speaking though it does in someplaces (see Christophers post). My position was that I saw Jesus using this manner of speaking in other passages.


As to "why" Jesus spoke this way, again I don't know. It was my first impression when reading those passages and appears to be the plain meaning when the contexts of the verses I sited are considered.

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?

I am only aware of two verses in the Bible that speak of a "oneness" between Christ and the Father (I am sure there may be more). Both of the ones I am aware of could be interpreted the way that I have and it does no damage to the doctrine of Christ's divinity or incarnation in my opinion. If those verses were not even in the bible He can still be shown to be God. I suppose this ties into the incarnation/preexistence somehow in your thinking?

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.

Again, when compared to other instances of Christ using this manner of speaking, I feel that this is a safe enough understanding. Still of course taking into consideration that there is an apparent unresolved difficulty to be cleared up with my understanding of the latter part of the verse.

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.)

Ok, the verse from Revelation. Here there may be an instance where the bible speaks in this fashion. But I don't think so having studied now it a bit. When studying this verse, it has come to my attention when I looked out of my trusty KJV to some other translations, (ESV, NET,and NASB) that this can also be understood as:

"and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain."

Now this is taken from the ESV, but is worded the same in the above cited translations and can be understood this way even in the more literal rendering. This is a perfectly legit way to understand this verse.

So we are back to Christ's use of this manner of speaking.

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.

That still holds true (in my mind). He created the world as the context clearly says. He had to have been there.

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

I am on the edge of my seat. Please go on.

[Guest]

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

No, he doesn't. Perhaps no one can explain it! But whether or not we can explain it in no way detracts from the fact that such language is, in fact, frequently used.

Perhaps the clearest example is found in the following passage:


But there is a place where someone has testified: "What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honour and put everything under his feet."

In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. Hebrews 2:6-8 NIV

[Guest]

It is known as the prophetic perfect to mark the certainty of the event coming to pass. Had you read some of the information I have pointing you to you would have known that. Speaking of an event that has not happened as though it had, it is employed in the Bible many times.

[Guest]

This is the first time I've heard of "the prophetic perfect".

I wonder if it is used in those cases where God has definitely decided to accomplish a certain act. When God has made up His mind to do a thing, nothing can stop Him. So if God decides to do something, it's as good as done now!

Let's take salvation from sin, for example. It is a life-long continuing process. Yet, "He who began a good work in you will continue to perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." God is going to complete the salvation process. So it's as good as done now. So we might as well say we have been saved.

The New Testament speaks of our "being saved" (present continuous tense), and that we "will be saved". But in the book of Ephesians, it is stated "You have been saved." I think this also is an example of the "prophetic perfect".

[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.

I wasn't aware that I did have a problem with this.

But I can tell you now that most Trinitarians do. Indeed, most Trinitarians I have met, do not accept this principle at all - or, if they do, apply it very selectively, within an excruciatingly narrow context.

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?

Indeed!

[Guest]

Hi Ev,

Quote:
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.

I think that Jesus was speaking of an event in the future because as He uttered the words He was right there in front of the apostles or others (as in the "where I am" verses spoken to ther Pharisees earlier). This is the plainest way to understand them. I gave examples of Jesus using this manner of speach. I did not say that "the bible" employs this way of speaking though it does in someplaces (see Christophers post). My position was that I saw Jesus using this manner of speaking in other passages.


As to "why" Jesus spoke this way, again I don't know. It was my first impression when reading those passages and appears to be the plain meaning when the contexts of the verses I sited are considered.

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?

I am only aware of two verses in the Bible that speak of a "oneness" between Christ and the Father (I am sure there may be more). Both of the ones I am aware of could be interpreted the way that I have and it does no damage to the doctrine of Christ's divinity or incarnation in my opinion. If those verses were not even in the bible He can still be shown to be God. I suppose this ties into the incarnation/preexistence somehow in your thinking?

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.

Again, when compared to other instances of Christ using this manner of speaking, I feel that this is a safe enough understanding. Still of course taking into consideration that there is an apparent unresolved difficulty to be cleared up with my understanding of the latter part of the verse.

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.)

Ok, the verse from Revelation. Here there may be an instance where the bible speaks in this fashion. But I don't think so having studied now it a bit. When studying this verse, it has come to my attention when I looked out of my trusty KJV to some other translations, (ESV, NET,and NASB) that this can also be understood as:

"and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain."

Now this is taken from the ESV, but is worded the same in the above cited translations and can be understood this way even in the more literal rendering. This is a perfectly legit way to understand this verse.

So we are back to Christ's use of this manner of speaking.

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.

That still holds true (in my mind). He created the world as the context clearly says. He had to have been there.

OK, so you basically acceot my summary, with a few qualifications. That's fine.

I have also examined the Revelation passage from several angles and in several translations, but the alternatives just don't ring true.

The NET (my favourite for study purposes, BTW) only manages it by changing the order of the sentence to produce an entirely different verse altogether.

The editors have swapped the placement of the references to the Lamb and the foundation of the world, and reading "of" as "belonging to." This amounts to a very blatant attempt to manufacture a preferred reading, IMHO and is simply insupportable. If a non-Trinitarian did it, there would be howls of outrage from all sides.

There is a place which refers to the names written in the book before the foundation of the world (Revelation 17:8)but here the construction is different, with no mention of the Lamb.

[Guest]

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

I am on the edge of my seat. Please go on.

• Mark 12:26-27
  And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
  He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
• Romans 4:16-17
  Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
  (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

8)

[Guest]

I have also examined the Revelation passage from several angles and in several translations, but the alternatives just don't ring true.

Somehow I knew you would say that.

[Guest]

I have also examined the Revelation passage from several angles and in several translations, but the alternatives just don't ring true.

Somehow I knew you would say that.

I'm off to work now. More later. 8)

[Guest]

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

No, he doesn't. Perhaps no one can explain it!

I believe that the Bible explains it for us. I believe that an understanding of the Jewish theological mindset helps us to understand it.

But whether or not we can explain it in no way detracts from the fact that such language is, in fact, frequently used.

I agree.