The Nature of Jesus

[Slumberfreeze]

I'm still going to want you or someone else to answer the same questions for the other side at some point....

If you believe we have something to lose if we believe in a non pre existent Messiah. Does God become diminished? Does Jesus become inappropriately humbled? Just curious.

Does God become diminished? : Not for me. If Jesus was uniquely created/begotten entirely in the moment of His Holy Spirit conception, then as much as I hate the saying; it is what it is. Is God smaller for being different for how I perceive Him? I hope not, because that's surely what's going to happen anyways.

Does Jesus become inappropriately humbled? : For me? Yeah, kind of. I am taught by Paul in the first chapter of his letter to the Colossians to acknowledge Jesus as Creator and Sustainer of all things. A belief in a non-pre-existent Jesus precludes that first part, at least. Don't get me wrong, the Glory of Jesus is such that if one never knew that all things were Created by Him, it would not be able to significantly diminish Him in a way that is relevant to us. Too bright to look at is too bright to look at whether it's one sun or seven. Nevertheless, it is still inappropriate not to render praise and gratitude for that which praise and gratitude is due. Our eternal salvation we have to thank Him for, this we know. However even the mouths we have to thank Him with were His handiwork as well, and that's worth mentioning, I think.

Do I have anything else to lose from it? Probably not practically, not so's you'd notice. I view scripture much like a spider web, where every strand is more meaningful to the overall structure than one might think. If anything I would gain something: A fevered project where I have to work overtime to find out where all the verses pointing towards a pre-existent (Or as I prefer, eternal) Christ are actually pointing.

 

[andrew]

Slumber, you and I both suggested a couple of pages ago that there's a way in which Christ can be considered pre-existent and there's a way that he can be considered to have started his existence at conception. I don't see it as an either-or proposition. Sort of like the whole hypostatic union thing: it's both-and, not either-or. The fact that both-and strains our pea brains is irrelevant. Is light a particle or a wave? Why, yes, it is. How we think it's behaving depends on how we're observing it.

In like manner, there are plenty of debates in Christianity that have been going on for centuries before we showed up, and if Christ doesn't return sooner will still be rolling along centuries from now. And the reason they keep churning is that they are not decidable. Whether you join the particle gang or the wave gang depends on which scriptural evidence you tend to emphasize and which you tend to downplay, and those choices of emphasis depend on other factors. That should inspire us all with a certain humility, if you think about it....

 

[Mojo]

But now we're veering off into philosophical land again and if we go there, can we then begin to question if each human is pre-existent? If God is omniscient, then we must have been in his mind before we came into existence...or is each human only existent upon conception? Try that one on!

 

[andrew]

But now we're veering off into philosophical land again

What on earth does that mean? What is "philosophical land", and why do you say that like it's a bad thing?

The way I remember it, we are explicitly instructed in Proverbs and generally coached from start to finish in the scriptures to "seek wisdom". Philosophy is literally the love (philos) of wisdom (sophia).

Try again?

I feel like you just said "your mother wears army boots", and my response should be "yes, yes, she does—she's been proudly serving this country as an officer in the U.S. Army for 18 years"....

 

[Slumberfreeze]

@andrew

Totes. While I don't hold the view that there are any parts of the bible that are safe to ignore, there is certainly a lot that it is safe not to argue about.

 

[andrew]

While I don't hold the view that there are any parts of the bible that are safe to ignore, there is certainly a lot that it is safe not to argue about.

There's gotta be a high-five emoji we could add to our collection....

 

[Mojo]

What on earth does that mean? What is "philosophical land", and why do you say that like it's a bad thing?

The way I remember it, we are explicitly instructed in Proverbs and generally coached from start to finish in the scriptures to "seek wisdom". Philosophy is literally the love (philos) of wisdom (sophia).

Try again?

I feel like you just said "your mother wears army boots", and my response should be "yes, yes, she does—she's been proudly serving this country as an officer in the U.S. Army for 18 years"....

Wasn't meant to be derogatory. It's that whole "text is hard to emote with". Sorry if it came off that way. I was rushing off to earn bacon for the family and wanted to chime in.

What I meant was that there are explicit aspects to the text of scripture, and then there is the conjecture part. The deity and pre-existent deity of Christ can be discerned using explicit scriptural references. The details are conjecture. They are things we can seek to know, and can be impressed upon us by the Spirit, but cannot be confirmed biblically (absent serious textual gymnastics). That's why I said we are veering off into philosophy.

Are those boots leather, or synthetic?

 

[The Revolting Man]

This is a brilliant approach to contextualize these kinds of discussions. I'm curious: Mojo, how would you answer those questions from the other side?

I would say that we lose the inerrancy of scripture, so basically everything.

 

[andrew]

No, we would just lose the inerrancy of our opinions.

Each of us has a perspective informed by experience. If all we did was quote scripture at each other, there'd be nothing to argue about. (Well, most people would probably just start arguing about which translation is more 'accurate'....) It's not scripture that is the problem. It's when we use scripture as evidence in support of an argument that the problems arise. "My proof text can beat up your proof text."

It's not entirely clear why we have such a deep need to be "right". It's also not clear why we treat complicated, multi-faceted issues as yes/no, black/white, thumbsup/thumbsdown, us/them, right/wrong judgments we have to make. Why is it so hard to say, "it's complicated, and I can see evidence supporting both arguments"?

Then again our thinking is mostly limited to cause and effect concerns revolving around time, which don't apply to God as rigorously as they apply to His creation. The spiritual is the domain of ideas and intent, which we tend to regard as less real than the physical. But to the Creator that forms everything we understand reality by speaking it, they are more real than the reality that He expresses it through; for Heaven and Earth will pass away but His word will never pass away. Causality is the intended lens of the tiny, blind ones who do not yet know fully. We who are caught in the grip of time must view God from the specific moment in time, before, during, and after His works that we are placed in. From His location, has He ever changed at all?

That's from post #43 in this thread. A good reminder of our place in the grand scheme of things....

 

[Slumberfreeze]

It's not entirely clear why we have such a deep need to be "right".

Laconicfreeze: Pride.

Clownfreeze: I would hold my peace until the judgment, when Jesus affirms every nuance of my stance in front of my theological adversaries, but I'll be perfect then and probably won't be allowed to gloat...

Dramaticfreeze: Because I have wrested this truth from the earth by drinking its inky black blood and have seen more clearly than other men dare. This gift I purchased so dear a price for, I now offer to those whose eyes are yet clouded by lies. My Christian duty is to share it with all; I am the oracle of life, bring me your questions and lay them at the foot of my altar.

Altruisticfreeze: In a connect-the-dots book, a single dot improperly placed or numbered will obscure the picture. One never knows the damage a single misplaced doctrine will do. Every jot and tittle are of infinite importance, one tries to be sure about each one with great diligence, and then share that sureness with others so that they will be that much closer to true understanding.

Batfreeze: Because my parents are dead.

 

[andrew]

OMG. You just made my whole week....

 

[Mojo]

It's not entirely clear why we have such a deep need to be "right".

Why is it so hard to say, "it's complicated, and I can see evidence supporting both arguments"?

In my theology, being right is the difference between salvation and damnation. I'm not a universalist, so that means I believe there is a right and wrong way. I may be wrong thinking there is a right way, but I'd rather die believing I am right than not caring if I was wrong.

It is complicated! We don't arrive at a concept like the hypostatic union like it was choosing which burger to order from the menu! Like I said before, there is scriptural evidence to support both...so...Both are right!!! How?? I don't know. Why?? I don't know. No level of philosophy (love of knowledge as you so aptly reminded us) is strong enough to know the intricacies of the divine.

Was Jesus there in the beginning, yet brought forth as a man? There is scriptural evidence to support this. (The gospel of John (1), the epistle to the Phillipians (2 especially) and Hebrews (1) certainly address this.

Is scripture now invalid to use in our positions? Is taking a scriptural position close minded? At what point do we get so open minded that the angle of our openness begins to be classified obtuse (not in a pejorative sense i.e stupid, but so open that every wind of doctrine is entertained seriously). We need serious filters if we are going to be that open.

We try our best to understand what our finite brains can comprehend, but then (my opinion) it becomes counterproductive. The simplicity of the gospel becomes lost in emotions and confusion trying to figure out the details. We can become immobilized and lose sight of our true calling (making disciples and loving our Lord and our neighbors) while we try to figure it all out.

I don't claim to know the answers, but there are immovable goal posts I will not pass. If that paints me as a backwards, ignorant, narrow minded fundamentalist...then I will buy another can of paint for a second coat.

Peace.

 

[andrew]

In my theology, being right is the difference between salvation and damnation.

Did you mean to say that? If so, could you point me to a couple of verses that would back that up? Then could you give me your quick take on Mt 5:31-46, 1 Co 13:1-3, 1 Co 8:1, Rom 10:9-10, and Jn 13:35?

We try our best to understand what our finite brains can comprehend, but then (my opinion) it becomes counterproductive. The simplicity of the gospel becomes lost in emotions and confusion trying to figure out the details. We can become immobilized and lose sight of our true calling (making disciples and loving our Lord and our neighbors) while we try to figure it all out.

Can you help me with this? I would argue from the same premises that therefore we should be humble and open-minded and acknowledge the limits of our ability to understand the infinite, and that we're never going to "figure it all out". Are you saying you have it all figured out? If you don't have it all figured out, then why not just relax and admit that you don't (and probably never will) have it all figured out?

philosophy (love of knowledge as you so aptly reminded us)

Actually, I said love of wisdom, which is a lot different, which is important because of the difference between what the bible says about knowledge and what it says about wisdom and understanding....

I leave you with a poem:

Knowledge and wisdom, far from being one,
Have ofttimes no connection. Knowledge dwells
In heads replete with thoughts of other men;
Wisdom in minds attentive to their own.
Knowledge, a rude unprofitable mass,
The mere materials with which wisdom builds,
Till smoothed and squared and fitted to its place,
Does but encumber whom it seems to enrich.
Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much,
Wisdom is humble that he knows no more.

William Cowper
The Winter Walk at Noon
1785

 

[IshChayil]

Slumber, you and I both suggested a couple of pages ago that there's a way in which Christ can be considered pre-existent and there's a way that he can be considered to have started his existence at conception. I don't see it as an either-or proposition. Sort of like the whole hypostatic union thing: it's both-and, not either-or. The fact that both-and strains our pea brains is irrelevant. Is light a particle or a wave? Why, yes, it is. How we think it's behaving depends on how we're observing it.

In like manner, there are plenty of debates in Christianity that have been going on for centuries before we showed up, and if Christ doesn't return sooner will still be rolling along centuries from now. And the reason they keep churning is that they are not decidable. Whether you join the particle gang or the wave gang depends on which scriptural evidence you tend to emphasize and which you tend to downplay, and those choices of emphasis depend on other factors. That should inspire us all with a certain humility, if you think about it....

Also, I'm willing to bet there are many on all sides who claim they were led by the Holy Spirit to those positions

 

[IshChayil]

Psalm 2:7
I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Is this is a mis-translation?

yalad, Hebrew 3205, Strong’s
yalad, yaw-lad'; a primitive root; to bear young; causative to beget; to act as midwife; specifically to show lineage :- bear, beget, birth ([-day]), born, (make to) bring forth (children, young), bring up, calve, child, come, be delivered (of a child), time of delivery, gender, hatch, labour, (do the office of a) midwife, declare pedigrees, be the son of, (woman in, woman that) travail (-eth, -ing woman).

Guys please enough with the strong's concordance definitions. Yes there is stuff wrong in that list of translations; yalad does not mean "be the son of"
doesn't mean "gender" or "hatch" it does not mean "time of delivery".
I'm just listing these errors so you guys will stop listing Strong's definitions. There isn't a single scholar I've ever encountered who trusts strongs definitions ... at all. Please find a better resource, it will serve you well.
***I'm not just writing to you Jim about this, others who quote strong's definitions I'm begging to stop, it's just painful for me to see it***
Home boy was ok in the 1800's but even then he wasn't great. Gesenius and others provided much better resources in those days. They just didn't' catch on in the Americas since they were in German.

Ok your Paslm 2:7 quote is not a mistranslation but He's speaking to David / Israel here. He's not speaking to Yeshua. There are numerous references to Israel as G-d's "firstborn" etc. these are of course allegorical and it's not really proper to try to apply them in this literal manner to Yeshua. In general it's not good practice to look back at the Hebrew bible and attempt to inject The Greek scriptures (New Testament) into it.

Luke 2:11
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

To force conscious pre-existance is to take a few verses and force a literal meaning to them and over-ride many, many, plain scriptures that simply over and over re-enforce the literal fatherhood of God, and the literal sonship of Christ.

I don't think anyone would choose this verse you listed to force the pre-existance argument. There aren't an gnostics here so I'm fairly sure everyone agrees Yeshua in the flesh was born to the virgin / young maiden Miriam (Mary).

To whatever that statement agrees with some label, I am Ok with... and to whatever degree it disagrees with tradition... I am also OK with that. Being raised Trinitarian, it was very difficult for me to consider that the church at large could have gotten this wrong. But let me ask you, are there ANY doctrines that the 'mother church' have kept pure from the beginning?

I think there are a whole slew of doctrines the Western church got wrong. That doesn't make your case for this one though.
We can't say 'they were wrong on lots of other stuff therefore wrong on this" unless you are unseating a "that's my tradition therefore i won't change it" argument.

You may believe the moon is made of 'green cheese' and still get to Heaven. Salvation is not dependent upon that. As important as the sonship of Christ is, if you believe that Jesus was the Son of God in the flesh, and trust His death to pay for your sin, you can be saved... regardless of how you believe Him to have become a son. But the truth is always better. You can be saved and reject PM, but the truth is better.

No need to worry about the moon; everyone who is presenting a different position from yours has listed scriptural evidence (as you also have listed scriptural evidence for your position). That said, I agree with your overall take on salvation.
My signature lists a Greek passage; that is the passage which talks about who will be saved (i.e. anyone who confesses with his mouth and believes in his heart ...etc).
We have luxury in our day and age that we all have access to scriptures; the vast majority of believers throughout time did not have a bible of their own.
We are privileged to live in a time where we are afforded the luxury to discuss such positions and contemplate them at all.
It's good the New Testament doesn't say "unless you believe in the trinity you will have no part of me".
We are saved by active faith, that is faith which is not idle, faith which moves us to be active imagers of the living G-d however our minds may try to appreciate His existence and the nature of the sinless atoner, Yeshua.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

@andrew. Loved that poem. It says so much in such a beautiful way. I may have to memorize that one

 

[mystic]

In my theology, being right is the difference between salvation and damnation.

That is the Protestant ethic, yes. Quite logical.

The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat.

Likewise, if I may say:

The trouble with sticking mercilessly to logic is that even if you're logical, you're still merciless.

Jesus had something to say about being merciful. I don't recall what he said about being right.

By the way, I don't mean to point the above at anyone in particular. It's just been on my mind for a while and this seemed like a suitable place for it.

 

[andrew]

Also, I'm willing to bet there are many on all sides who claim they were led by the Holy Spirit to those positions

Absolutely. There are all kinds of ways to justify our beliefs to ourselves and others. I think the difference I assumed there was that "the Spirit told me" is considered a subjective argument right out of the gate, and then the conversation quickly goes to different (typically scripture-driven) arguments pro or con whether that person really heard from God. So I didn't mean to sound like I'm picking on the scriptures or saying we shouldn't rely on them. Good catch.

 

[andrew]

@andrew. Loved that poem. It says so much in such a beautiful way. I may have to memorize that one

Yeah, that's one of my favorites, and if I had thought about it in advance I would have guessed that you would also appreciate it.

Memorizing it sounds like a great idea, and while I'm thinking about it, I think I'm gonna task my teenagers with memorizing it....

 

[The Revolting Man]

No, we would just lose the inerrancy of our opinions.

Each of us has a perspective informed by experience. If all we did was quote scripture at each other, there'd be nothing to argue about. (Well, most people would probably just start arguing about which translation is more 'accurate'....) It's not scripture that is the problem. It's when we use scripture as evidence in support of an argument that the problems arise. "My proof text can beat up your proof text."

It's not entirely clear why we have such a deep need to be "right". It's also not clear why we treat complicated, multi-faceted issues as yes/no, black/white, thumbsup/thumbsdown, us/them, right/wrong judgments we have to make. Why is it so hard to say, "it's complicated, and I can see evidence supporting both arguments"?


That's from post #43 in this thread. A good reminder of our place in the grand scheme of things....

You see this bothers me. There may be a myriad of things we can't understand but that doesn't mean that there aren't things we can know, or truths that don't have to be defended.

I'm sorry for all of the double negatives.

My point is that not being able to comprehend who Christ is doesn't give us license to discard what He told us about Himself. He was clear. He was there at the beginning. I don't understand it. I don't claim too. The Godhead makes no sense to me. I know it exists though. God by Himself makes no sense to me. That doesn't mean I can't confidently proclaim His existence and even tell you about His desires and personality.

And that's because He told me all those things; clearly, simply and directly. He wrote it down so I wouldn't forget it. So we might not understand how Christ was pre-existent but then we don't understand how God was pre-existent either.

And I don't think that anyone really disputes the idea that some part of Christ came into being at His birth. The body He was inhabiting probably did I would think. But that's not what we're talking about here as far as I can tell.