what of the incarnation?

Post Reply
User avatar
_Evangelion
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)

Post by _Evangelion » Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:19 am

Paidion wrote: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".
That's exactly the sort of thing I have in mind.

Other examples will follow. 8)
Last edited by _BJDedera on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Søren Kierkegaard

User avatar
_Evangelion
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)

Post by _Evangelion » Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:31 am

  • That any expression or vehicle of God’s will for the world, His saving counsel and purpose, was present in His mind, or His ‘Word,’ from the beginning is a natural way of saying that it is not fortuitous, but the due unfolding and expression of God’s own being.

    This attribution of pre-existence indicates religious importance of the highest order. Rabbinic theology speaks of the Law, of God’s throne of glory, of Israel and of other important objects of faith, as things which had been created by God, and were already present with Him, before the creation of the world.

    The same is also true of the Messiah. It is said that his name was present with God in heaven beforehand, that it was created before the world, and that it is eternal.

    But the reference here is not to genuine pre-existence in the strict and literal sense.

    This is clear from the fact that Israel is included among these pre-existent entities. This does not mean that either the nation Israel or its ancestor existed long ago in heaven, but that the community Israel, the people of God, had been from all eternity in the mind of God, as a factor in His purpose.

    [...]

    This is true of references to the pre-existence of the Messiah. It is his ‘name,’ not the Messiah himself, that is said to have been present with God before creation.

    In Pesikta Rabbati 152b is said that ‘from the beginning of the creation of the world the King Messiah was born, for he came up in the thought of God before the world was created.’ This means that from all eternity it was the will of God that the Messiah should come into existence, and should do his work in the world to fulfill God’s eternal saving purpose.
Mowinckel, S. (1954), He Who Cometh.
Last edited by _BJDedera on Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Søren Kierkegaard

User avatar
_Evangelion
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)

Post by _Evangelion » Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:33 am

  • When the Jew said something was ‘predestined,’ he thought of it as already ‘existing’ in a higher sphere of life.

    The world’s history is thus predestined because it is already, in a sense, preexisting and consequently fixed.

    This typically Jewish conception of predestination may be distinguished from the Greek idea of preexistence by the predominance of the thought of ‘preexistence’ in the Divine purpose.

    Dewick, E.C. (1912), Primitive Christian Eschatology.
Last edited by _BJDedera on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Søren Kierkegaard

User avatar
_Evangelion
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)

Post by _Evangelion » Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:37 am

  • For this is what the Lord of the world has decreed: He created the world on behalf of his people, but he did not make this purpose of creation known from the beginning of the world so that the nations might be found guilty . . . But He did design and devise me [Moses], who was prepared from the beginning of the world to be the mediator of the covenant.

    Testament of Moses, 1:13, 14
Last edited by _BJDedera on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Søren Kierkegaard

User avatar
_Evangelion
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)

Post by _Evangelion » Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:44 am

  • Jeremiah 1:5
    Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Last edited by _BJDedera on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Søren Kierkegaard

User avatar
_Evangelion
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)

Post by _Evangelion » Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:47 am

  • Romans 9:9-13
    For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
    And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
    (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
    It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
    As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Last edited by _BJDedera on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Søren Kierkegaard

_Jesusfollower
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: NW

Post by _Jesusfollower » Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:19 am

The Prophetic Perfect
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... nt&sid=268

I lost you. The pre-existence of Christ came out of the Trinity doctrine, so are you asserting as the Mormons do that we are all spirit pre-existent beings? It says we also were predestined and chosen before the foundation for the world.

35. The reader can decide for himself which of the following sounds more logical and scriptural:

a) God Himself became a man, coming down to earth from heaven to do a job. He is treated poorly while trying to do the job, and is killed. He then raises Himself from the dead and goes back to where He came from, declaring Himself victorious.

b) God created a human being, whom God prepared and commissioned to do a job. The man comes from a humble, earthly origin, is treated poorly and killed. Because he did such a good job, however, God raised him from the dead and promoted him to an exalted position in heaven.
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... le&sid=212

In examining the Gospel of John, Chapter 6, we freely admit that there are verses in Scripture that seem to say that Jesus actually existed prior to his birth. However, there is a greater weight of evidence against such an incongruous notion (can one exist before he exists?), and the verses that seem to say he did “pre-exist” can be understood in a way that does not support such a counterintuitive notion. Furthermore, the few “pre-existence” verses are outnumbered by many clear verses that teach that Jesus began his life as a seed in the womb of Mary.

If Jesus did “pre-exist,” then the only way that he could become a baby would be to “incarnate.” Thus, the fact that the Scripture does not mention any such “incarnation” is a good argument that it never actually occurred. This is made even more apparent when the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are read, because they clearly indicate that Jesus’ life began when God impregnated Mary. For example, the wording of Matthew 1:18 is specific. Most translations read something like: “This is how the birth of Jesus came to be….” The Greek word translated “birth” is genesis, which technically means “beginning,” and is translated “birth” only when the context demands it. It was apparent that the early copyists were unhappy that the Bible said “the beginning of Jesus Christ,” so in many Greek texts they changed “genesis,” “beginning,” to the closely related word, “gennesis,” which definitely means “birth.” [40] Thankfully, there are honest people doing textual work today and it is openly admitted, even by Trinitarians, that the original word used in Matthew was genesis (“beginning”).

40. For an examination of this and other changes that copyists made to make the text more Trinitarian, see Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (Oxford University Press, N.Y., 1993).

As Peter declared by revelation, “For he was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you” (1 Pet. 1:20 - NASB). Christ was in God’s foreknowledge before the world began, but was not yet a reality. Christians are spoken of in exactly the same way. Romans 8:29 says Christians were foreknown. Ephesians 1:4 says Christians were chosen before the foundation of the world. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says Christians were chosen from the “beginning.” 2 Timothy 1:9 (NASB) says the grace of God was granted us from all eternity. Yet no theologians say that Christians “pre-existed,” so it is inconsistent of them to take the same wording about both Christ and Christians and arrive at two different conclusions—that Christ “pre-existed,” but Christians were only “foreknown

41. Werner, op. cit., pp. 132-139. According to Werner, some of the early references to Christ being an angel are: The Ascencio Jesaiae, the Ebionites who recognized Christ as an archangel; Theodotus, who wrote that Christ was “an angel of the [Gnostic] pleroma; Apelles the Marcionite, the book of Jeu [probably Jehu]; the writing Pistis Sophia; the writing Sophia Jesus Christi, which identifies Jesus as “the angel of Light”; the Epistula Apostolorum has Christ as the angel Gabriel appearing to Mary; the widely known Shepherd Of Hermas portrays Christ as the angel Michael; Of Threefold Fruits; Justin wrote that Christ was the highest angel prince; Clement wrote that Christ appeared as an angel in the Old Testament; Origen wrote that Christ was the angel who guarded Paradise; Methodius of Olympus wrote that Christ was first of the Archangels; the book of Enoch has “the son of man” as an angel; and Novatian and Lactonius referred to Christ as an angel

The widely held and deeply rooted belief that Christ was a created being was a major obstacle that had to be overcome in order for the Trinity to be accepted by most Christians. In the first place, it is a clear tenet of Scripture that, born as a baby, Jesus became the glorified Christ with a new body and acquired the position of “Lord” that the Word says he earned by virtue of his obedience to God. It was quite inconceivable to the Jews and early Christians that God Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, could undergo growth and change, because the Bible clearly testifies that He is perfect and does not change (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17). Thus, the fact that Christ did grow and change presupposed that he was not God, but a creation of God (Luke 2:52). No wonder centuries of theological debate were required before the Trinity was accepted in the Church! Not only was it non-scriptural, but it flew in the face of another ancient myth that we have been discussing—Jewish Angel-Christology. [42] The doctrine of the Trinity was not accepted immediately, but had to gain ascendancy by replacing the beliefs already in existence.



42. “Angel-Christology” is a theological term for the belief that Christ is an angel or some created spirit being who existed before he was born on earth.

So any way give it up.
Last edited by _bradshawm on Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:37 am

1."reads post"
2.goes to biblical unitarian website and asks " website, what do I think about this?"
3.reads website to collect thoughts. (God forbid I should see what the bible says and actually formulate a thought for myself. I might become a trinitarian :shock: )
4.copies and pastes website's thought onto forum
5.tells one who actually reads the bible "give it up"
You sure told me!

Perhaps you could just go to the "announcements" area of the forum. Post a link to the biblical unitarian website and let us refer to those links when we are interested in that point of view. Please!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

_Jesusfollower
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: NW

Post by _Jesusfollower » Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:49 am

Very amusing, trying to turn it around on me. what you write has been in circulation for many years and definitely not your own thought about scripture. Of course you can not see that since you have a pre conceived notion of what is what. All your assertions are from old when all of these ideas were formed from gnostic thought. All of your counterproductive notions are answered and documented at the sources I give.
Derrek, give up your fight against God, Christ and their people.
Last edited by _bradshawm on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Jesusfollower
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: NW

Post by _Jesusfollower » Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:57 am

I almost forgot, Derek this is for you:

If studied in the language and culture in which they were spoken, words or phrases that seem to communicate one truth often communicate something else entirely. This is a common occurrence in verbal intercourse. James Dunn’s exhaustive study devoted to the origin of the doctrine of the “Incarnation” was motivated by a desire to understand the words of the New Testament in their original context. He writes: “My concern has been all the time, so far as it is possible, to let the New Testament writers speak for themselves, to understand their words as they would have intended, to hear them as their first readers would have heard them...” [45] Unfortunately, Dunn is not sensitive to idiomatic language and falls into the same trap many Trinitarian New Testament scholars do, that of taking figurative language literally, and literal language figuratively. Once again we see that the proper acknowledgement of figures of speech is absolutely crucial for sound biblical exegesis.

There is a common Hebrew and Aramaic idiom that when God is the author of something, the Jews spoke of it as “coming from God,” “coming from heaven,” “coming down from heaven,” etc. For example, the very prologue of John most often used to substantiate the doctrine of Incarnation says in verse 6: “There was a man sent from God whose name was John.” Does this mean that John, too, was a pre-existent divine being who was sent from heaven and became a human by an “incarnation”? Clearly not, but he was “sent from God” in the sense that he was commissioned by God to perform an important function.

There are many other examples of this idiom. God said in Malachi that He would “open the windows of heaven and pour out a blessing,” and today we still use the word “Godsend” for a blessing that comes at just the right time. The Bible speaks of the “bread from heaven” referring to manna, but the manna did not float down like snow. Rather, it appeared like frost on the ground. It was said to “come down from heaven” because God was its source. God being the source is the best explanation for Christ’s statements that he was sent by God, came from above, etc. The Jews would naturally have understood Christ’s statements that way, and there is no evidence at all that they would have expected Christ to be speaking of a literal descent from heaven or an “incarnation.”

In regard to the example of John the Baptist as a man “sent from God,” consider the following verse:

Matthew 21:25
Jesus asked the Jews: “John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven [i.e., was God its source?], or from men?” They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’”

John’s baptism was “from heaven” because God was the source of the inspiration. So too, Jesus “came from heaven” because God was the source of the seed created in Mary. It would be an intrusion on the language and the culture of the times to insist that the Bible teaches an incarnation when there is evidence that the words used to “prove” it have an entirely different meaning. We will quote one final example that should suffice to make the point. James 1:17 says that good and perfect gifts are “from above” and “come down” from the Father. Obviously, this verse is saying that God is the source of the wonderful things spoken of. No one believes that unless something literally drops from the sky it is not from God.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... d=212#null

:D :D :D
Last edited by _bradshawm on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”