what of the incarnation?

[_Derek]

Ev,

Quote:
Could this be when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us? It seems rather likely to me.


If that is so, why does Paul not tell us? Why does he make no attempt to link this event with John 1? It seems a curious omission, if the pre-existence of Christ is his theme.

Maybe because he had never read it? Romans was written before John. It makes it that much more true to me since he didn't get it from John's gospel.

I've already told you why he said it. Paul is reassuring his readers that Christ was truly one of us - just as we read in Hebrews 2:17-18.



Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

While this is true, it is also said to Christ by the Father in Hebrews:


Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Heb 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."
Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;

Now here again Jesus is called God (by no less than the Father) and we have again Just like in John 1:1-3 where Jesus is said to be the creator of the earth as He is also said to be in Col. 1:16.

So:

In John 1 Jesus is said to be God, the creator. Nothing was made that was not made by Him.

In Col. 1 He is said to be the Creator and that He is before all things and by Him all things consist.

In Heb.1 He is again called God, said to be the Creator and that He was there in the beginning.

I see a pattern here.

It would seem that you are emphasizing the scriptures that show the humanity of Jesus. They are there. No one denies the humanity of Christ. But there are a lot of scriptures that show Jesus to be much more than man.

Whether or not this is trinity doctrine or not, the bible is clear that Jesus is God. That He is our creator, there at the beginning before all things and that nothing was made that He did not make Himself, and that He emptied Himself, became flesh and dwelt among us.

[Guest]

Col, is talking about the new creation derek, Gen. makes plain who created all, it is the Father. Honest ingin'.

[_Derek]

Col, is talking about the new creation derek, Gen. makes plain who created all, it is the Father. Honest ingin'.

Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end."


Is the new creation going to perish?

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Everything in heaven, everything on earth, whether we can see it or not everything was made by the Lord Jesus.

[Guest]

Not so,
1. This verse is quoted from the Old Testament (Ps.102:25), where it applied to Yahweh, and the author of Hebrews is lifting it from the Psalms and applying it to Jesus Christ. The subject of the verse changes from Yahweh (Old Testament) to Jesus Christ (New Testament). It makes sense, therefore, that the action being attributed changes also. Many Old Testament verses testify that God created the original heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1, etc.) However, both the Old Testament and New Testament tell us that there will be a new heavens and earth after this one we are currently inhabiting. In fact, there will be two more. First the heaven and earth of the Millennium, the 1000 years Christ rules the earth, which will perish (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 20:1-10), and then the heaven and earth of Revelation 21:1ff, which will exist forever. The context reveals clearly that Hebrews 1:10 is speaking of these future heavens and earth. If we simply continue to read in Hebrews, remembering that the original texts had no chapter breaks, Scripture tells us, “It is not to angels that He has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking” (Heb. 2:5). This verse is very clear. The subject of this section of Scripture is not the current heavens and earth, but the future heavens and earth. The reader must remember that the word “beginning” does not have to apply to the absolute beginning of time, but rather the beginning of something the author is referring to (see the note on this on John 6:64). When this verse is referring to the work of the Father, as it is in the Old Testament, it refers to the beginning of the entire heavens and earth. When it is applied to the Son, it refers to the beginning of his work, not the beginning of all creation, as Hebrews 2:5 makes clear.

2. Although we ascribe to the explanation above, a number of theologians read this verse and see it as a reference to the Father, which is a distinct possibility. Verse 10 starts with the word “and” in the Greek text, so verse 9 and 10 are conjoined. Since verse 9 ends with, “Your God has set you [the Christ] above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy,” these theologians see the reference to “the Lord” in the beginning of verse 10 as a reference back to the God last mentioned, i.e., the Father. Norton explains this point of view:

Now the God last mentioned was Christ’s God, who had anointed him; and the author [of the book of Hebrews], addressing himself to this God, breaks out into the celebration of his power, and especially his unchangeable duration; which he dwells upon in order to prove the stability of the Son’s kingdom…i.e., thou [God] who hast promised him such a throne, art he who laid the foundation of the earth. So it seems to be a declaration of God’s immutability made here, to ascertain the durableness of Christ’s kingdom, before mentioned; and the rather so, because this passage had been used originally for the same purpose in the 102nd Psalm, viz. [Author uses KJV] To infer thence this conclusion, “The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed be established before Thee. In like manner, it here proves the Son’s throne should be established forever and ever, by the same argument, viz., by God’s immutability.” [40]

Theologians such as Norton say that as it is used in the Old Testament, the verse shows that the unchanging God can indeed fulfill His promises, and they see it used in exactly the same way in Hebrews: since God created the heavens and the earth, and since He will not pass away, He is fit to promise an everlasting kingdom to His Son.

Authors who believe that the verse refers to the Son:

Broughton and Southgate, pp. 289-295

Buzzard, pp. 161 and 162

Racovian Catechism, pp. 95-105

Authors who believe that the verse applies to the Father:

Hyndman, p. 137

Morgridge, p. 122

Norton, p. 214

Sweet right?

[Guest]

So are you telling me that he lost the form of God somehow?

No, I'm not telling you that. But the passage I quoted tells you that, if you will just take the words at face value.

Then what was that form, and how did he lose it?

That form was, as the passage says, that of God. He lost it by becoming a human being.

If Jesus is God, you're telling me that he lost his own form.

Am I telling you that? On what basis do you make this statement? Never have I ever suggested on this forum that Jesus is the same divine Individual as the Father.

But can God really lose His own form? How does that work, exactly - and where in Scripture do we find this idea?

You're attacking a straw man here.

Mate, that's a hell of a lot to read into a very simple passage of Scripture.

I'm "reading" nothing into the passage. However, I did explain the passage in terms of other scripture and early Christian writings.

Where are we told that ie was "generated as the Son of God before all ages"?

I think you are aware of the fact that the New Testament refers to Him as the "only-generated (begotten, if you prefer) Son of God".

Also John 1:18 translated from the oldest manuscripts reads:

No one has seen God at any time; the only-generated God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.

So we have "God", the Father, who was never generated, and we have the Son of God, who was a generated "God". Sometimes the word "God" is used in the sense of "Deity" and others in the sense of "the Father". Both senses are used also in John 1:1. That verse states that the Logos was "with" God. In that case, "God" is immediately preceded by the definite article. Whenever this is done the reference is to the Father. But when it states, "and the Logos was God", the word "God" lacks the definite article, and the order of the phrase is reversed. This reversal also occurs where it is written "Your word is truth" and "God is love". For "truth" is the kind of thing His word is, and "love" is the kind of thing God is. So when it is written "The Word was God" it is saying that "God" or "Deity" is the kind of thing that the Word was. Saying that the Logos is Deity would be similar to saying that you are human. A careful reading of John 1 clearly indicates that "the Logos" refers to the Son of God. In the description of Jesus Revelation 19,it is clearly stated in verse 13 that "the name by which He is called is 'The Logos of God'".

Second century Christians stated that He was generated before all ages, and used the passage in Proverbs 8:22-31 as descriptive of the Son of God. They understood "Wisdom" to be one of His names.

Where are we told that he was "the exact expression of His essence"?

We find it in Hebrews 1:3. The Revised Standard Version puts it this way:

Hebrews 1:3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power.

"Stamp" is a good translation of the Greek word "charaktar". When you use a device to stamp a figure you produce an exact expression of the original. The RSV translated "hupostasis" as "nature" but it's more than "nature". The word refers to the very being or essence of the Father.

Where are told that he "divested Himself of all of His divine attributes"?

What else could "emptied Himself ... being born in the likeness of man" mean? He couldn't have emptied Himself at the time of His birth, for there was nothing to empty Himself of. By the way, you haven't addressed what I said about His being born "in the likeness of people". Isn't everyone born as human? Why would the write specify that Jesus was born in the likeness of people (anthropoi), if He had not pre-existed as the One "in the form of God"?

You are simply importing all of these ideas into the text.

Untrue.

There is absolutely nothing which suggests them, or even supports them.

Not only is there plenty of scripture which suggests and supports my statements, but also much which unequivocally states them.

[Guest]

Several times in the Old Testament we are informed God appeared to man.
To Adam, Gen. 3:8
To Abraham, Gen. 17:1-4, 18:1-3
To Jacob, Gen 32:24-30
To Moses, Exodus 3:2-6
And probably to Joshua, Joshua 5:13-15
And Daniel, Daniel 3:22-25

In the case of Jacob, it is said to have been "face to face", and also involved physical contact.

Elsewhere we are informed that God is spirit. That God is invisible.
John 1:18; "No man has seen God at any time"
Col. 1:16; "He is the image of the invisable God"
1 Tim. 1:17; "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God...."
1 Tim 6:16; "....whom no man has seen or can see."
Hebrews 11:27; "for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen." (This said of Moses who we are informed had seen God!)

Now to me these repeated, plain, and apparently contradictory statements are rather easily resolved as I believe in the preincarnate existance of Messiah as the "Living Word". I must admit to difficuly with the idea of God being three persons in the sense of individuals; to me this indicates three Gods in any common understanding of the terms. I can easily see God as three persona, being in three forms simultaneously. (Perhaps my difficulty is a mental weakness, I am "the weak brother".)

The theophanies cited above, I believe, were preincarnate appearances of Jesus. They present no problem to me. They would seem to me to be a great difficulty for those who believe Jesus did not exist prior to being begotten by the Holy Spirit.

I am interested in an how you explain (or explain away) this, Evangelion and/or (in your own words) Jesusfollower.

Blessings! Homer

[_Derek]

J.F.,

This verse is quoted from the Old Testament (Ps.102:25), where it applied to Yahweh, and the author of Hebrews is lifting it from the Psalms and applying it to Jesus Christ. The subject of the verse changes from Yahweh (Old Testament) to Jesus Christ (New Testament). It makes sense, therefore, that the action being attributed changes also.

Yahweh is God. The verse was quoted to God. Only if you presuppose Unitarianism can this possibly work. In my understanding, the subject is not changing because they are the same. Jesus is the creator, there before everything else as the passage clearly states. Yahweh is simply a name for God. The author of Hebrews is therefore justified when applying to Christ because Christ is God as the passage also says.

It would seem really strange for a Jew, who probably wouldn't even write down the proper name of God, to go and quote verses known to be about Yahweh and apply them to a mere man. (This happens a lot by the way. Not just in Hebrews.)

Many Old Testament verses testify that God created the original heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1, etc.) However, both the Old Testament and New Testament tell us that there will be a new heavens and earth after this one we are currently inhabiting. In fact, there will be two more.

Huh??? Two new heavens and earth(s)??

First the heaven and earth of the Millennium, the 1000 years Christ rules the earth, which will perish (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 20:1-10),

First of all this presupposes a future literal millenium which I reject being amillenial. But either way, where in the scriptures is there said to be a new heavens and new earth prior to the supposed millinium? It sure isn't in the verses they gave. This is called "wresting" the scriputures my friend.

and then the heaven and earth of Revelation 21:1ff, which will exist forever. The context reveals clearly that Hebrews 1:10 is speaking of these future heavens and earth. If we simply continue to read in Hebrews, remembering that the original texts had no chapter breaks, Scripture tells us, “It is not to angels that He has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking” (Heb. 2:5). This verse is very clear. The subject of this section of Scripture is not the current heavens and earth, but the future heavens and earth. The reader must remember that the word “beginning” does not have to apply to the absolute beginning of time, but rather the beginning of something the author is referring to (see the note on this on John 6:64).

They say that Heb. 2:5 makes this point clear but just how it does that I am not so sure. I agree that there are not chap. breaks, but the subject changes. Christ is called God, said to be the creator there before all things, then of that creation it is said to be "perishing," "folding away like a garment" and such, then a judgement is mentioned in the beginning of chap. 2. We are also told that it would be foolish to neglect the salvation promised by the Lord and Apostles and then there is a mention of the world to come.

When this verse is referring to the work of the Father, as it is in the Old Testament, it refers to the beginning of the entire heavens and earth. When it is applied to the Son, it refers to the beginning of his work, not the beginning of all creation, as Hebrews 2:5 makes clear.

This is not so clear I am afraid, as shown above.


This is the last time I am going to interact with those websites. If you copy and paste another article I will ignore it. It is because you refuse to think for yourself that you have bought into these wacky ideas and I am not going to contribute any more by responding to them and encouriging you to go back.

[Guest]

Derek,
I agree with you concerning JF. Very sad pray that the Lord lifts the veil from his eyes and ears.

Gal 1:6-9 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. s we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

1Ti 6:3-5 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, [even] the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Pray for him,

Jim

[Guest]

I must admit to difficuly with the idea of God being three persons in the sense of individuals; to me this indicates three Gods in any common understanding of the terms. I can easily see God as three persona, being in three forms simultaneously. (Perhaps my difficulty is a mental weakness, I am "the weak brother".

I must say, that for a "mentally weak" brother, you certainly have presented a powerful argument from the theophanies for the pre-existence of Christ! One of the early Christians commented that anyone supposing that the Father of All appeared upon a tiny portion of the earth raves with madness.

With regards to your comment above, if you do not see God as consisting of three persons ("God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity"), then you are not a Trinitarian. You appear to hold to the position known as "Oneness", or "modalism" (the idea that the one divine Individual manifests Himself in three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). In the fourth century, this position was called "Sabellianism" and was declared a heresy by the Trinitarian church leaders of the day.

[Guest]

Paidion,

I believe myself to be a trinitarian in the old sense. It is my understanding that the modalist believes God can be only one "person" at a time. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this) I believe He fills three roles (persona) simultaneously, "nothing is impossible for God".

When men apply the term "individual" to Father, Son, and Spirit, in the common definition of the term, then I am confused. Individual refers to that which can not be divided, to separateness. Then it is said the individuals are one in essence which I understand to mean "the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing" (Websters).

Perhaps I am a raving heretic or I hope, just a weaker brother who can not understand what is inscrutable. Thankfully, Peter's confession, I believe, sets the minimum we are required to understand, else God did not provide salvation for us "weak" folk!

P.S. Found this in an article which says it well:

"Two words have been used historically to speak about the Trinity. One is the Latin word "persona"; God is three persons in one nature or substance. Derived from the language of the theater, the word "persona" refers to masks worn by actors in their roles on stage. Today we give the word "person" more individualistic connotations, but in trinitarian theology the persons are three different characterizations of one dynamic actor."