what of the incarnation?

[Guest]

A few questions to ponder:

Why did Jesus say he was "no more in the world", when he actually still was? And 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?

• John 17:11-12
  And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
  While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Why did Jesus say that he had given the disciples the same glory that the Father had given him?

• 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."

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.

We know from the Gospels that Jesus died at the end of his earthly ministry, not at the start of creation.

So what does John mean by this?

How do you answer these questions, Evangelion?

[Guest]

A few questions to ponder:

Why did Jesus say he was "no more in the world", when he actually still was? And 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?

• John 17:11-12
  And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
  While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Why did Jesus say that he had given the disciples the same glory that the Father had given him?

• 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."

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.

We know from the Gospels that Jesus died at the end of his earthly ministry, not at the start of creation.

So what does John mean by this?

How do you answer these questions, Evangelion?

I answer them from Scripture, of course.

Look, if you'd like to see my own answers, I'll be happy to post them. But I'd like to see some answers from other forum members first.

I wouldn't like to think that people were trying to avoid my questions. 8)

[Guest]

Why did Jesus say he was "no more in the world", when he actually still was?

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.

And 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?

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.

Sorry it took so long. I wasn't holding out. Just busy. I will have to respond to the rest of your questions later.

God bless!
Derek

[Guest]

Why did Jesus say he was "no more in the world", when he actually still was?

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.

And 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?

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.

Sorry it took so long. I wasn't holding out. Just busy. I will have to respond to the rest of your questions later.

God bless!
Derek

Thanks for your responses so far! I think we are making some progress on this passage.

Whether deliberately or inadvertently, you have raised an interesting issue by the way in which you have spoken of the "oneness" shared by the Father and Son.

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?

We really need some way of doing this, because without it we have no consistent method of exegeting such passages - and if we don't have this, we won't be able to prove that our exegesis is correct.

On an even more worrying note, we might also leave ourselves open to arguments from "New Age" spiritualists, who like to claim that humans are somehow "one in nature" with God Himself.

Still, this is something of a sideline for the moment; we can always return to it later.

I look forward to the rest of your response!

[Guest]

1. There is no question that Jesus “existed” before the world began. But did he exist literally as a person or in God’s foreknowledge, “in the mind of God?”

He existed literally as a person. He existed as the Living "Logos" of God. Thus, this "logos" was alive, as a person: Rev 19:13: He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. John 1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Here we see that this Word was with God all the way back in the Beginning. John 17:5: And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. The Living "Logos" of God, is the manifestation and expression of the heart of God. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks, and Jesus, being in the bosom of God was brought forth and "begotten" by God, and declared Him.

Both Christ and the corporate be in the Body of Christ, the Church, existed in God’s foreknowledge before being alive. Christ was the “logos,” the “plan” of God from the beginning, and he became flesh only when he was conceived.

Yes, the Body of Christ existed in the foreknowledge of God before coming into being. Yet Christ, is said to be alive, even in the beginning. True, he was definately the "logos" and possibly the plan of God, from the beginning, but this "logos" and "plan" of God was alive during that time, to the point of being capable to carry out acts, because it says that the 'Word' created the world: "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made..." This thought, idea, and plan of God had to be alive as a person, because a 'thought' or a 'plan' could not have created this entire huge world and everything in it. Nor could an imaginary or fictitious cause produce a real result. For example: if I were to constuct a spherical map/globe and draw the continents of the World while thinking about my future son that doesn't exist yet, would I then say, "my son made this globe", and if I did, what kind of sense would this be?

It is Trinitarian bias that causes people to read an actual physical existence into this verse rather than a figurative existence in the mind of God. When 2 Timothy 1:9 says that each Christian was given grace “before the beginning of time,” no one tries to prove that we were actually alive with God back then. Everyone acknowledges that we were “in the mind of God,” i.e., in God’s foreknowledge. The same is true of Jesus Christ. His glory was “with the Father” before the world began, and in John 17:5 he prayed that it would come into manifestation.

No, it is Scripture that causes people to see an actual physical existence in this verse, and others. It is Unitarian bias that causes people to read a figurative existence in the mind of God in these verses. It is true, that no one, exept Mormons, tries to prove that we, the church, pre-existed "before the beginning of time". But the same is not true with the Living "Logos" of God, who was with God in the beginning. God is love, and God is light, and He dwells in the light that no man can approach. No mortal could see becan see God in His Shikinah glory and light, because it would be too much and would destroy their phyical body. That's what we learn from the account of Moses on the mountain in the book of Exodus. Before the beginning, God is, and God is love. If you know anything about love, you know that if you don't give love away, you'll die on the inside. People who are loving people have to always be giving and doing, to release their love. God being love existed in three persons. God couldn't be be love if He didn't release His love. So we see that the Father loved the Son and the Spirit, and the Son loved the Father and Spirit, and the Spirit loved the Son and the Father.

Rom 15:30 - Now I beg you, brethren, through the Lord Jesus Christ, and through the love of the Spirit, that you strive together with me in prayers to God for me

Rom 5:5 - Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

Rom 8:35 - Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

In the same way love is of Christ, and God, is also true of the Holy Spirit. The love of the Spirit is real. Mere force or power cannot love, nor can love be of a force or power. Both God and Christ are persons, so the Holy Spirit is a person.

So God being love, divided Himself. In the beginning, the Word was with God. So there was God, and there was God's Word which was within Him. God made His Word a separate thing of Himself, but still was a part of Him. You cannot separate God from His Word, but the Word as we know became flesh and dwelt among us. So now we have the Son who is the Living "Word" of God. And also have the Ruach, the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God was God's divine light, the Shikinah, the Glory of God. Any time the glory of God is mentioned, it's bright, it's radiance, and it's brightness. So God separated that out of Himself, and made it a separate entity, and therefore we have the Trinity. God the Father, you have His Word, which is the Son, and you have the Holy Spirit. From these Three, comes everything that exists. Everything in the Universe.

2. Jesus was praying that he would have the glory the Old Testament foretold, which had been in the mind of God, the Father, since before the world began, and would come into concretion.

Where is this found in the Old Testament? Scripture please.

Trinitarians, however, teach that Jesus was praying about glory he had with God many years before his birth, and they assert that this proves he had access to the mind and memory of his “God nature.” However, if, as a man, Jesus “remembered” being in glory with the Father before the world began, then he would have known he was God in every sense. He would not have thought of himself as a “man” at all.

Yes, Trinitarians teach this. However, this doesn't prove that He had access of to the mind and memory of His God nature. He could only remember this as He fellowshipped with the Father, through His human mind and soul. He would have only realized His true identity. Yet just because He may have realized His true identity, doesn't mean he would think of Himself as a man, for He on several occasions foretold of His coming death, and slept every day. To say otherwise is a false dilimema.

If he knew he was God, he would not and could not have been “tempted in every way just as we are” because nothing he encountered would have been a “real” temptation to him. He would have had no fear and no thought of failure. There is no real sense in which Scripture could actually say he was “made like his brothers in every way” (Heb. 2:17) because he would not have been like us at all. Furthermore, Scripture says that Jesus “grew” in knowledge and wisdom. That would not really be true if Christ had access to some type of God-nature with infinite knowledge and wisdom.

Wrong. Even if Christ knew of His true identity, He still could have been tempted in every way just as we are. Because He was a man in every way we are, the temptation would be just as real as it is to us. Just because he knew his identity, doesn't mean he would have had no fear or thought of failure. This type of thinking only comes by "pretending" his way not a human in every way he is. Trinitarians do not teach that. It is true, that Jesus "grew" in knowledge and wisdom. Yet it is also true that The knowledge of Christ is far beyond any mortal knowledge. He is not just a genius, not just the wisest of all humans. His wisdom far exceeds all human limitations and could only be classified as perfect knowledge. First, He knows the inward thoughts and memories of man, an ability peculiar to God (1Kings 8:39; Jeremiah 17:9-16). He saw the evil in the hearts of the scribes (Matthew 9:4), He knew beforehand those who would reject Him (John 10:64) and those who would follow Him (John 10:14). He could read the hearts of every man and woman (Mark 2:8; John 1:48; 2:24, 25; 4:16-19; Acts 1:24; 1 Corinthians 4:5; Revelation 2:18-23). A mere human can no more than make an intelligent guess as to what is in the hearts and minds of others. Second, Christ has a knowledge of other facts beyond the possible comprehension of any man. He knew just where the fish were in the water (Luke 5:4-6; John 21:6-11), and He knew just which fish contained the coin (Matthew 17:27). He knew future events (John 11:11; 18:4), details that would be encountered (Matthew 21:2-4), and He knew that Lazarus had died (John 11:14). Third, He possessed an inner knowledge of the Godhead showing the closest possible communion with God as well as perfect knowledge. He knows the Father as the Father knows Him (Matthew 11:27; John 7:29; 8:55; 10:15; 17:25). The fourth and consummating teaching of Scripture along this line is that Christ knows all things (John 16:30; 21:17), and that in Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). The bold paragraph is from Thomas Schultz in his dissertation, The Doctrine of the Person of Christ With an Emphasis Upon the Hypostatic Union

We believe that John 17:5 is a great example of a verse that demonstrates the need for clear thinking concerning the doctrine of the Trinity.

True!

The verse can clearly be interpreted in a way that is honest and biblically sound, and shows that Christ was a man, but was in the foreknowledge of God as God’s plan for the salvation of mankind.

Wrong again. Such an interperetation would not be biblically sound.

It can also be used the way Trinitarians use it: to prove the Trinity.

Trinitarian Victory is at hand!

However, when it is used that way it reveals a Christ that we as Christians cannot truly identify with. We do not have a God-nature to help us when we are tempted or are in trouble or lack knowledge or wisdom. The Bible says that Christ can “sympathize with our weakness” because he was “tempted in every way, just as we are” (Heb. 4:15).

False dilema again. It does not reveal a Christ that we as Christians couldn't truly identify with. Just because we aren't like Christ in every way, doesn't mean that him having two natures results in us not being able to identify with Him. He was like us in every way, but was also more than that.

The thrust of that verse is very straightforward. Because Christ was just like we are, and was tempted in every way that we are, he can sympathize with us. However, if he was not “just as we are,” then he would not be able to sympathize with us. We assert that making Christ a God-man makes it impossible to really identify with him.

Continue to say the same thing several times but in different words, in an attempt to lengthen the exegesis and commentary of this verse, and pretend to have adequately dealt with this verse. What a great method to prove a point or refute another!

3. Jesus’ prayer in John 17 sets a wonderful example for us as Christians. He poured out his heart to his Father, “the only true God” (John 17:3), and prayed that the prophecies of the Old Testament about him would be fulfilled.

As if this proves that the Trinity is false. Nice try though. To use Jesus as a man (since on earth He was the God-man) we can rightly say that the Father is the "only true God." In trinitarian theology, we have no problem with Jesus saying this, because Unitarians also ignore the rest of the verse, which goes on to say "AND Jesus Christ..."

So Not only do we have a straw man but we also have a context problem. John 17:3 is not alone in the entire Bible. If it was, then perhaps the Unitarians would have watertight argument. They want to isolate part of the verse from the rest of the Bible as if it were the last word on the nature of the God. This is another case of bad hermeneutics trying to desperately prove Unitarian Theology.

If it was said "ONLY the Father is the true God" that might pose problems with saying Christ is the true God too.

However, it says "The Father is the only true God" which is true, and we can easily say Jesus is also the only true God as well. It may not look like it off the bat, but the two phrases do not contradict each other at all, it would only make a contradiction if it were put in the variant form I created above. Both the Father and Jesus are the only true God.

What about all the passages which show the remarkable unity of the Father and Son? One in particular is as follows:

John 10:27 - My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Jesus claims the same preogatives as God: "neither shall any man pluck them out of MY hand, no man is able to pluck them out of MY Father's hand". However God in the OT says:

"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of MY hand." (Deuteronomy 32:39)

In the OT nowhere do we find 'a god' saying anything like these claims Jesus did. Jesus says that He is the one who grants eternal life; He places Himself on equal footing with His Father - who is "greater than all" - in claiming that He will keep His sheep firmly in hand; He has claimed to be "one" with His Father. This last cannot be a mere claim to "unity of purpose," for even the Jews would say that they are "one with God" in this regard. For the Jews, Jesus' statements were claims to Divine prerogatives rightly belonging only to YHWH.

[Guest]

However, it says "The Father is the only true God" which is true, and we can easily say Jesus is also the only true God as well. It may not look like it off the bat, but the two phrases do not contradict each other at all, it would only make a contradiction if it were put in the variant form I created above. Both the Father and Jesus are the only true God.

Looks like one heck of a stretch to me, as though you are adding to the Word. What about the Holy Spirit? same for him right? Sound like three Gods to me.

Does not explain Jesus calling the Father the only true God does it?
And what happened to the Holy Spirit in the book of Revelation, I see only two thrones there. You will never convince me it is taught in The Book.

[Guest]

JF wrote

Looks like one heck of a stretch to me, as though you are adding to the Word. What about the Holy Spirit? same for him right? Sound like three Gods to me. Does not explain Jesus calling the Father the only true God does it? And what happened to the Holy Spirit in the book of Revelation, I see only two thrones there. You will never convince me it is taught in The Book.

No, I am definately not adding to the word of God. To me, it looks like your unitarian ideas are inserted into the text and certain words. The topic at hand is about the incarnation, not so much about the Holy Spirit. So let's not get off on rabbit trails.

Out of my whole post showing the errors of the unitarian understanding of John 17:5, you only touch on that little bit? Is that all you can come up with, JF? There will be more to come too, don't worry. I will (If Yah permits) respond to each of your posts, well, they aren't actually yours, but I will touch on each of them in the same way as I have.

As far as my comments on John 17:3, you only gave a personal opinion, a question, another personal opinion, followed by another question. Is that it? John Gill, in his expostion of the bible, says this of John 17:3:

The Arians and Unitarians urge this text, against the true and proper deity of our Lord Jesus, and his equality with the Father, but without success; since the Father is called the only true God, in opposition to the many false gods of the Heathens, but not to the exclusion of the Son or Spirit; for Christ is also styled the one Lord, and only Lord God, but not to the exclusion of the Father; yea the true God and eternal life; was he not, he would never, as here, join himself with the only true God; and besides, eternal life is made to depend as much upon the knowledge of him, as of the Father. The reason of this different mode of expression, is owing to the character of Christ as Mediator, who is said to be sent by the only true God, about the business of man's salvation. Nor is it of any moment what the Jew {f} objects, that Jesus here confesses, that the true God is only one God; nor does he call himself God, only the Messiah sent by God; and that the Apostle Paul also asserts the unity of God, 1 Timothy 1:17; and therefore Jesus cannot be God: for Christ and his Father, the only true God, are one; and that he is the one true God with his Father, he tacitly suggests here by joining himself with him; and what the Apostle Paul says of the one and only wise God, may as well be understood of Christ, the Son of God, as of the Father; since all the characters in the text agree with him, and of him he had been speaking in the context.

Also, JF, you haven't dealt with all of the Scriptures that speak of the incarnation. Try this one:

Heb. 10:5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. 7 Then I said, 'Behold, I have come-- In the volume of the book it is written of Me-- To do Your will, O God.' "
and

More to come...

[Guest]

I see Hebrews 10:5 as nothing more than fulfillment of prophesy, verse 7 tells you that. It is not a scripture which is used by scholars only lay people that see the Trinity in every shadow.

[Guest]

Anyone else want to take a shot at my questions?

[Guest]

JF,

Did you forget that the topic at hand is "The incarnation of Christ" and not the Trinity? Though they are closely related, they are not the same.

"Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord God and His Spirit Have sent Me." (Isa 48:16)
paralleled with
Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. 7 Then I said, 'Behold, I have come-- In the volume of the book it is written of Me-- To do Your will, O God.' " (Heb. 10:5)

Looks like the bible does indeed teach the pre-existence and incarnation of Christ.

Ev,

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