what of the incarnation?

[Guest]

phewy to you derek, and the other guy too.

Proverbs 8:23
I [wisdom] was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.(NIV)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Occasionally, a Trinitarian will use this verse to try to support the Trinity and the pre-existence of Christ by saying that “wisdom” was appointed from eternity, Christ is the “wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24) and, therefore, Christ was from eternity. This position has not found strong support even among Trinitarians, and for good reason. This wisdom in Proverbs was “appointed” (literally, “set up”) by God, and is therefore subordinate to God. Carefully reading the verse and its context shows that wisdom was “brought forth as the first of His works” (v. 22). If this “wisdom” were Christ, then Christ would be the first creation of God, which is an Arian belief and heretical to orthodox Trinitarians. Therefore many of the Church Fathers rejected this verse as supportive of the Trinity, among them such “heavyweights” as Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, Epiphanius and Cyril. We reject it also, but for different reasons. Taking a concept and speaking of it as if it were a person is the figure of speech Personification. Personification often makes it easier to relate to a concept or idea because, as humans, we are familiar with relating to other humans. Personification was common among the Jews, and the wisdom of God is personified in Proverbs. Christ is considered the wisdom of God in Corinthians because of what God accomplishes through him.

Racovian Catechism, pp. 73-75

You are the one who can not see.
I know it is tough to argue against logic and scholarly study. Ya I'm the one not thinking for myself. Let's see, everything you all have said has been promoted to be the truth since the 4th century a successful deception by Athanasius so said Sir Issac Newton, I guess he was not thinking for himself, nice try.

[Guest]

Homer, as to the appearances for Christ, that is one heck of a stretch
then you list the scriptures also that show extreme contradiction, seems to me you are the one with the problem.
Is it the appearances of Christ in the O/T you want me to explain away? They are not there.

[Guest]

Homer, as to the appearances for Christ, that is one heck of a stretch
then you list the scriptures also that show extreme contradiction, seems to me you are the one with the problem.
Is it the appearances of Christ in the O/T you want me to explain away? They are not there.

WOW! JF posted without pasting www.truthortradition.com

LOL...

[Guest]

Here you go Homer, and brody it is Biblical Unitarian. No wonder you can't figure out the scripture you don't pay attention, smart guy.

Genesis 18:1-2
(1) The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day.
(2) Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. (NIV)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. These verses pose a problem for Christians who have been taught that no one has ever seen God. The Hebrew text clearly says that Yahweh appeared to Abraham in the form of a man, and He was with two angels, who also took on human appearance. This is not a problem. God created mankind so He could intimately fellowship with us. It is reasonable that He would occasionally becomes visible and take on human form to be intimate with His creation. In fact, Scripture records a number of people to whom God appeared: Adam and Eve (they heard His footsteps, Gen. 3:8), Abraham (Gen. 12:7;15:1;17:1;18:1), Jacob (Gen. 28:13), Moses and the elders of Israel (Ex. 24:9-11), Samuel (1 Sam. 3:10), Solomon twice (1 Kings 3:5;9:2;11:9), Micaiah (1 Kings 22:19-22), Isaiah (Isa. 6:1-5), Ezekiel (Ezek. 1:26-28), Daniel (Dan. 7:9-14), Amos (Amos 7:7), Stephen (Acts 7:56) and the Apostle John (Rev. 5:1-8).

2. A study of Genesis 18:1 in Christian commentaries reveals that most theologians do not believe that Yahweh can appear in the form of a man. Before we examine why they say that, we must remember that, difficult to believe or not, that is exactly what the text says. Many theologians who do not believe that the text can be literal have postulated other explanations. The standard explanations of the verse are: it was actually a dream and not real; it was the pre-incarnate Christ who appeared; it was an angel that appeared carrying the name of Yahweh.

Some theologians teach that the record of Genesis 18:1ff was a dream because of the circumstances, i.e., it was the heat of the day and the time for naps. However, the Bible never says it was a dream, and there certainly was no time when Abraham “woke up.” The record of Sodom and Gomorrah is certainly not a dream. The angels left Abraham and went to the city of Sodom where they rescued Lot and his daughters from God’s judgment. There is just no solid Scriptural evidence that Yahweh’s appearance was a dream. Neither would this account for the many other times Yahweh appears.

Many Trinitarian theologians say that Genesis 18:1 is an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ. The evidence they give for their conclusion is twofold: Yahweh is invisible and no one has or can see Him, so it cannot be He; and the record clearly says it is Yahweh, so it must be the pre-incarnate Christ since “Christ is a member of the Godhead.” However, if it could be shown that Yahweh does indeed occasionally appear in the form of a man, then there would be no reason not to take the Bible literally. Furthermore, the fact that Scripture never says that the one appearing is Christ is strong evidence that this is not Christ. And there are at least two occasions where Yahweh and Christ appear together (Dan. 7 and Rev. 5). This seems to us to force the conclusion that Yahweh cannot be

Christ. The major reason to make the “Yahweh” of this record into an angel is the same as the reason to make the record a dream or to make Yahweh into the pre-incarnate Christ. It comes from the preconceived idea that Yahweh just cannot appear in human form. Therefore, the temptation here is to make Yahweh of necessity a dream, an angel or Christ. Even though in other records angels are called God, this record is different. We have seen from other verses that angels are occasionally called “God” (see the notes on Gen. 16:7-13). However, a study of the records where the angel of the Lord is called “God” shows that he was always clearly identified as an angel, and it was clear that he was bringing a message from God. This record, and the others mentioned above in which Yahweh appears, are decidedly different. The “man” identified as Yahweh is among other angels, and the entire record identifies Him as Yahweh. And while other records show the angel of the Lord carefully avoiding the use of the first person, “I,” “me” and “my,” referring to God, the “Yahweh” in this record uses the first person over and over.

3. Most Christians have not been taught that God can appear in a form resembling a person. They have always heard, “no one has seen God at any time.” In Don’t Blame God!, the language of that phrase is examined and explained. John 1:17 and 18 states: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God...” We write:

Please note that truth, in its fullness, came not with Moses, but with Jesus Christ. It was he who for the first time in history made God truly understandable. It is not that the Old Testament believers knew nothing of God, but rather that their knowledge and understanding of Him were quite limited (“veiled”). Since truth came by Jesus Christ (“For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus,”), we believe that the first part of John 1:18—“no man hath seen God at anytime”—means that no man had “known” God [as He truly is] at any previous time. It is Jesus Christ who reveals, or makes known, God to man.

In many languages, “to see” is a common idiom for “to know.” In the Hebrew language, one of the definitions for “see” (Hebrew = ra’ ah) is “see, so as to learn, to know.” Similarly, the Greek word translated “see” in verse 18 (horao) can be “to see with the eyes” or “to see with the mind, to perceive, know.” Even in English, one of the definitions for “see” is “to know or understand.” For example, when two people are discussing something, one might say to the other, “I see what you mean.”

The usage of “see” as it pertains to knowing is found in many places in the New Testament. Jesus said to Philip, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Here again the word “see” is used to indicate knowing. Anyone who knew Christ (not just those who “saw” him) would know the Father. In fact, Christ had made that plain two verses earlier when he said to Philip, “If you really knew me you would know my Father as well” (John 14:7). [4]

Further evidence that “see” means “know” in John 1:18 is that the phrase “no man has seen God” is contrasted with the phrase “has made Him known.” The verse is not talking about “seeing” God with one’s eyes, it is saying that the truth about God came by Jesus Christ. Before Jesus Christ came, no one really knew God as He truly is, a loving heavenly Father. Jesus Christ made that known in its fullness. Our study has led us to conclude that verses seeming to say that no one has ever “seen” God are either using the word “seen” as meaning “to know,” and thus referring to knowing Him fully, or they are referring to seeing Him in all His fullness as God, which would be impossible. We agree with the text note on John 1:18 in the NIV Study Bible, which says, “Since no human being can see God as He really is, those who saw God saw Him in a form He took on Himself temporarily for the occasion.”

Another point should be made about the word “seen” in John 1:18. If Trinitarians are correct in that Jesus is “God incarnate,” “God the Son” and “fully God,” then it seems to us that they would be anxious to realize that “seen” means “known” because it makes no sense to say that no man has seen God with his eyes and then say Jesus is God. Theologians on both sides of the Trinitarian debate should realize the idiom of “seen” meaning “known” in John 1:18.

The Bible also calls God “the invisible God.” This is true, and God’s natural state is invisible to us. However, that does not prevent Him from occasionally becoming visible. Angels and demons are also naturally invisible, but they can and do become visible at certain times. If angels and demons can sometimes become visible, then God certainly can too. We remind the reader that the Bible plainly says, “Yahweh appeared to Abraham,” and to others as well.

It is often stated that the people could not have really seen Yahweh because a person will die if he sees God. This idea comes mainly from the conversation Moses had with God. Moses asked to see the glory of God, and God responded, “You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live” (Ex. 33:20). It is clear from the context that the “face” of God was the “glory” of God, because that is what Moses asked to see. We would concur that human beings are not equipped to comprehend God in all His fullness, and exposure to all that God is would be lethal. However, we know that God did create mankind so He could fellowship with us, and we assert that the human-like form that He has sometimes assumed in order to be near us is not His fullness in any way.

There are two records very important to this subject because they describe God and also show Jesus Christ with Him. The first is a revelation vision of the future that Daniel the prophet had.

Daniel 7:9,10,13 and 14
(9) As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze.
(10) A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened.
(13) In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.
(14) He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

The “Ancient of Days” is Yahweh. Note his description as a man. Into his presence comes “a son of man” who is given authority and dominion. It is quite universally agreed among Christians that the “Ancient of Days” is God the Father, and the “son of man” is Jesus Christ, who receives his authority from God. Note that in this passage there is no hint of the Trinity. There is no “Holy Spirit” and no indication that the “son of man” is co-equal or co-eternal with the Father. On the contrary, while God is called the “Ancient of Days,” a title befitting His eternal nature, Christ is called “a son of man,” meaning one who is born from human parents. This prophecy is one of many that shaped the Jewish belief about their Messiah: he was not foretold as “God in the flesh,” but rather a man like themselves who would receive special honor and authority from God. For our purposes in understanding Genesis 18:1, these verses in Daniel demonstrate very clearly that God can and does appear in human form. And because in Daniel’s vision He is with the Messiah when He does so, there is no reason to assume that the other times He appears it is actually Jesus Christ.

The other very clear record is Revelation 4 and 5. The length of the record prohibits us from printing it here, but the reader is encouraged to read those two chapters. They portray God sitting on a throne surrounded by elders and creatures who repeat, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty.” God is holding in His right hand a scroll that is written on both sides but sealed shut with seven seals. An angel calls out to summon those who could open the scroll, but no one was worthy. As John began to weep, an angel comforted him with the words, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll.” Then “a Lamb” (the context makes it clear it is Jesus Christ) “came and took the scroll from the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.” At that point the creatures and the elders fell down before the Lamb and started singing a “new song.”

The record is clear. God is described as sitting on a throne and even holding in His hand a scroll that Jesus comes and takes from Him. This record again shows that God can and does occasionally take on human form so that we can better identify with Him.

4. This record and the others like it show a glimpse of what Christians have to look forward to. God loves us and created us to have a deep and abiding relationship with Him. He will not always remain as distant as He now sometimes seems. The Bible tells of a time when “the dwelling of God is with men, and He will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God” (Rev. 21:3). [For further study, please read Chapter 12 of our book One God & One Lord, God's Namesake in Action.]

Daniel 3
28 Then Nebuchadnezzar said, "Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants!
Did you miss that.

Genesis 3:8 (New International Version)
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
?????
God can appear to men, but what you are using here seems another stretch, Mosses saw his Goodness In the other scripture I think. Whatever makes you feel good.

[Guest]

Here you go Homer, and brody it is Biblical Unitarian. No wonder you can't figure out the scripture you don't pay attention, smart guy.

LOL. If me "figuring out" is going to lead me in the direction of your position, or should I say biblicalunitarian.coms position, I would rather remain ignorant.

Thanks for your input, or should I say "Thanks biblicalunitarian.com for your input. And thanks to you JF for your 2 sentences a post.

[Guest]

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.

Fair point, but he could at least have introduced the idea. Surely he would not have been ignorant of John's Christology. Better yet, why not link it to Colossians 1, if indeed both passages are intended to teach pre-existence?

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.

Click here for Hebrews 1, here for John 1:1-14 and here for Colossians 1:16.

So:

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

Jesus is mentioned in John 1, yes. However, I see no mention of him in John 1:1.

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 refer you to the links I provided earlier.

I see a pattern here.

So do I, but not the same as yours!

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.

It does seem strange to me that after all of this, you have not actually addressed Philippians 2 or answered the questions that I threw out to the forum in my response to Paidion.

Would anyone else like to take a shot at 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

The first - and most important - question that I have for you is this:

How do you intend to convince me that these "theophanies" are in fact literal appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ?

None of them claim to be any such thing.

Not one single apostle quotes them in that context, or attempts to explain to his reader that they are what you claim them to be.

Nowhere in the New Testament do we see any of these passages being quoted to preach, prove or defend the pre-existence of Christ.

Indeed, the appearances to Moses in Exodus 3 is described by Stephen as an angelic visitation:

• Acts 7:30-33
  And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.
  When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him,
  Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold.
  Then said the Lord to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet: for the place where thou standest is holy ground.

As with so many other such cases in the Old Testament, the angel speaks on God's behalf and is referred to as "the Lord" even though he is not literally God. Whether you accept this ir not, there is no escaping the very clear statement by Stephen that it was an angel who appeared to Moses on this occasion. (See also Stephen's comments in verse 38.)

Your proof texts are great, except for one basic problem: they don't actually prove anything.

They certainly don't prove the pre-existence of Christ.

[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.

Once again I see more questions than answers here. You have shown nothing from the text which proves or even implies pre-existence. On the one hand you tell me that Jesus lost the form of God and divested himself of all his divine attributes, but on the other hand you still want me to believe that he continued to be God.

I don't have time to do your post justice, as I'm getting an early night tonight. I'll come back tomorrow.

[_Derek]

Fair point, but he could at least have introduced the idea. Surely he would not have been ignorant of John's Christology.

Well John's Christology is in John. Which wasn't written til later. So he probably was ignorant of it. which again affirms it's truth in my mind to know it is independant.

Better yet, why not link it to Colossians 1, if indeed both passages are intended to teach pre-existence?

Where does anyone "link" to anywhere aside from in subject matter? Does Paul ever say about anything "you know, like I saild in Philippians?"

Is that what you're going for here?

Jesus is mentioned in John 1, yes. However, I see no mention of him in John 1:1.

He is the Word. The Word of Life that John said he handled, saw with his eyes and his hands had touched (1John 1:1)

He is the Word, that became flesh and dwelt among us. In John 1:14 it says:

"The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth."

Who's glory did they behold? His, the only begotten.

It does seem strange to me that after all of this, you have not actually addressed Philippians 2 or answered the questions that I threw out to the forum in my response to Paidion.

I will have to do so later.

I didn't go to your links and the Christadelphian site yet. Will try later though.

[Guest]

Hi all..

i was up for some light reading so i decided to go ahead and plow through the 6 pages of posts here... i had been resisting doing so because it looked rather daunting, and it was a tad tough to follow given the length of some of the posts and some of the side issues, etc.

it seems as if you have reached an impasse, my friends! I never even heard of BU before (call me sheltered) so i am at least now educated in that view. it appears that BU's have an answer for every argument, and the other side has a counterargument to their counterarguments, which, well, makes for a very long argument, as we have seen.

as i am sure is true for others here, nothing will convince me that Jesus did not pre-exist his birth, unless Jesus Himself tells me some day. If He does, then, my bad. my excuse will be that the scriptures deceived me, despit emy best efforts to understand them. but i certainly don't expect that to be the case.

my question for those arguing against B.U. -- do you believe that a sincere believer in B.U. is "saved?" just curious.

TK