The Nature of Jesus

[andrew]

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.

And now we're circling back to the beauty of it all.

More on this later, but my interest in this discussion is primarily aimed at taking more seriously Christ's human-ness. Not at the expense of his divine-ness, but I think the cultural bias leans toward the abstract and hyper-spiritual (gotta get all our theology all systematic and stuff...), so the remedy for that, if that's true, is to take a stand more for the human nature of Christ. More later, got work deadlines....

 

[andrew]

Something wonderful and freaky and unique happened in time when our Heavenly Father got that girl pregnant. Something changed. That's what I want to come back to.

 

[Shibboleth]

my interest in this discussion is primarily aimed at taking more seriously Christ's human-ness. Not at the expense of his divine-ness, but I think the cultural bias leans toward the abstract and hyper-spiritual (gotta get all our theology all systematic and stuff...), so the remedy for that, if that's true, is to take a stand more for the human nature of Christ.

This jogged a childhood memory of mine (and I don't have many of those); I must've been in the 5-7 year range. I remember thinking that since Jesus was God, He must not have felt any pain on the cross. My dad set me straight on that notion right away.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

@Jim an Apostle , I am just curious if you believe we have something to lose if we believe in a pre existent Messiah. Does God become diminished? Does Jesus become inappropriately exalted? Just curious.

The biggest way that it affects me is reflected in the following verse:

1 Peter 2:21
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

I see many promises for the believer in the scripture that the life of Jesus demonstrated for us: heal the sick, raise the dead, calming the storm, walking on water, multiplying food, casting out demons, overcoming the world, the flesh, and the devil. Jesus said:

John 14:12
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

I have not arrived to the fullness of this ideal; however, as long as my mind is blocked with the overwhelming difference between Jesus and me (because He was a 'God-man'), how would I ever attempt to believe for the works to be demonstrated in my life that He accomplished in His, let alone greater works? If Jesus had conscious pre-existence, then He had a great advantage over me, and over Adam, as well. How could I ever hope to to greater works that 'God' had already done?...and yet in this verse, He tells us that we are supposed to do just that! I believe Jesus was a sinless Son of God by birth. Adam was a sinless Son of God by creation. We become sinless at salvation. Our body is waiting redemption, but our spirit-man is pure in the eyes of God! Those of the 'first century church' carried on the manifestations of supernatural healings, and even miracles. Phillip was transported to another city from the Ethiopian eunuch.

• For me, believing that Jesus had to walk a walk of faith, and believe who His Father was... by faith... just like I do... IS an example to follow.
• Believing that Jesus worked miracles... by faith... (not by the power of 'deity' already possessed) is an example for me to follow.
• Believing that Jesus trusted God to raise Him from the dead... is an example for me to follow.
• Believing that Jesus was tempted, and faced the risk of failure... is an example for me to follow.
• Believing that Jesus was hungry and tired, yet was meek when anger would have been normal... is an example for me to follow.
• Believing that Jesus was Glorified is a Hope for me to attain!

Could Jesus have failed? Did He have free-will? Could He have sinned? Did he face doubt?
All of these ideas seem diminished if He had conscious pre-existence.

If Jesus was fully God in eternity past, why risk failure as a man... just to be God again?
If Jesus could not fail, how can He be my example!
How or why could an Immutable God limit, or lay aside, His God-ness?
If He had always been the Son, who was the Mother?
If He was always a lessor-god, yet eternal, then how/when did He come to be?

If He had conscious pre-existence and Glory, and was already co-equal (according to standard Trinitarian teaching), then we diminish His Exaltation and His suffering.
If He had conscious pre-existence and Glory, then the only purpose to His death is really my salvation.
Jesus said:

Luke 24:25-26
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: [26] Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

There was another reason (other than just the redemption of the creation) for the death of the Son. God could have just made another creation and started over. Too many unanswered questions are posed by conscious pre-existence.

If He left His consciousness in Heaven, then it obviously wasn't necessary to His mission.
How did Jesus "know things" about the past, and the present, and the future? By revelation! (He walked in all the gifts and callings given to man.)

It seems to me that to make Jesus conscious pre-existent requires taking literal scripture and making it figurative and figurative scripture and making it literal. If you were Satan, wouldn't the first thing you would want to distort would be the proper understanding of who Jesus really is, in order to plant in the mind of the new convert, that they could not do the works Jesus did... because "That was Jesus..."
I can't fully relate to a conscious pre-existant God/Jesus, and I don't think He can fully relate to me.
I can, however, relate to a Son of God, Who by faith overcame and remained sinless, and Who asks me to follow Him into Glory.

 

[Shibboleth]

OK... let me start by stating the obvious: I don't know certain answers to any of this, and I'm not sure I even believe what I'm about to say, just playing with ideas here... But I'm about to throw out a totally wacky idea that goes along with the flatland analogy Andrew mentioned earlier. It's been my thought for a while that some Biblical paradoxes (mainly free will vs. predestination) can be resolved by viewing things from both a linear/temporal perspective, and an eternal non-temporal perspective. God seems to exist outside of time, as He knows the end from the beginning. We see things like prophecies fulfilled, and prayers whose answers are set in motion before they are prayed. The analogy I like to use when explaining it to kids is that if you draw time as a line on a sheet of paper, God is nowhere on the line, or even on the paper; He is in the room that the paper is in.

So... imagine if, from a linear perspective, Jesus first came into being at His virgin conception (no human father, thus not under sin), was filled with Spirit, grew to a man, lived in perfect submission to His Heavenly Father, died and was raised, and ascended to Heaven. Then, He is glorified into eternity, in essence stepping out of time (lifting out of the paper, as it were). At this point, because He is now outside of time, like the Father, He exists at all points throughout time, including in the eternal past, where He is pre-existent, and at the Creation of the world, where He then creates the world that would/did give Him birth.

I'm not really sure I personally like this idea, or that I believe it. Like I said, I'm just playing with different ideas, to see whether there's a way both views can be true. Do with that what you will.

To quote Captain Janeway, "Temporal mechanics give me a headache."

 

[Mojo]

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?


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?


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

Thanks for the poem. It was cute.
Now, I'm going to pull my inner Ross Perot (good Texan) out, and ask you to focus like a laser beam on the subject of this thread.

You never addressed three NT witnesses regarding a preexistent Christ. I presented John 1, Phillipians 2, and Hebrews 1.

Before I consider your verses, I would like to know how you approach these three witnesses.

• Will they be approached as an absolutist, a relativist, or a relative absolutist?
• If there is no absolute right way to interpret them, is that true of all scripture, or just portions?
• Should I ignore these portions of scripture?
• If I shouldn't ignore them and I follow your example on how to interpret them, should I use that same method when discussing polygyny?

 

[Mojo]

The biggest way that it affects me is reflected in the following verse:

1 Peter 2:21
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

I see many promises for the believer in the scripture that the life of Jesus demonstrated for us: heal the sick, raise the dead, calming the storm, walking on water, multiplying food, casting out demons, overcoming the world, the flesh, and the devil. Jesus said:

John 14:12
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

I have not arrived to the fullness of this ideal; however, as long as my mind is blocked with the overwhelming difference between Jesus and me (because He was a 'God-man'), how would I ever attempt to believe for the works to be demonstrated in my life that He accomplished in His, let alone greater works? If Jesus had conscious pre-existence, then He had a great advantage over me, and over Adam, as well. How could I ever hope to to greater works that 'God' had already done?...and yet in this verse, He tells us that we are supposed to do just that! I believe Jesus was a sinless Son of God by birth. Adam was a sinless Son of God by creation. We become sinless at salvation. Our body is waiting redemption, but our spirit-man is pure in the eyes of God! Those of the 'first century church' carried on the manifestations of supernatural healings, and even miracles. Phillip was transported to another city from the Ethiopian eunuch.

• For me, believing that Jesus had to walk a walk of faith, and believe who His Father was... by faith... just like I do... IS an example to follow.
• Believing that Jesus worked miracles... by faith... (not by the power of 'deity' already possessed) is an example for me to follow.
• Believing that Jesus trusted God to raise Him from the dead... is an example for me to follow.
• Believing that Jesus was tempted, and faced the risk of failure... is an example for me to follow.
• Believing that Jesus was hungry and tired, yet was meek when anger would have been normal... is an example for me to follow.
• Believing that Jesus was Glorified is a Hope for me to attain!

Could Jesus have failed? Did He have free-will? Could He have sinned? Did he face doubt?
All of these ideas seem diminished if He had conscious pre-existence.

If Jesus was fully God in eternity past, why risk failure as a man... just to be God again?
If Jesus could not fail, how can He be my example!
How or why could an Immutable God limit, or lay aside, His God-ness?
If He had always been the Son, who was the Mother?
If He was always a lessor-god, yet eternal, then how/when did He come to be?

If He had conscious pre-existence and Glory, and was already co-equal (according to standard Trinitarian teaching), then we diminish His Exaltation and His suffering.
If He had conscious pre-existence and Glory, then the only purpose to His death is really my salvation.
Jesus said:

Luke 24:25-26
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: [26] Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

There was another reason (other than just the redemption of the creation) for the death of the Son. God could have just made another creation and started over. Too many unanswered questions are posed by conscious pre-existence.

If He left His consciousness in Heaven, then it obviously wasn't necessary to His mission.
How did Jesus "know things" about the past, and the present, and the future? By revelation! (He walked in all the gifts and callings given to man.)

It seems to me that to make Jesus conscious pre-existent requires taking literal scripture and making it figurative and figurative scripture and making it literal. If you were Satan, wouldn't the first thing you would want to distort would be the proper understanding of who Jesus really is, in order to plant in the mind of the new convert, that they could not do the works Jesus did... because "That was Jesus..."
I can't fully relate to a conscious pre-existant God/Jesus, and I don't think He can fully relate to me.
I can, however, relate to a Son of God, Who by faith overcame and remained sinless, and Who asks me to follow Him into Glory.

Thank you.

 

[Mojo]

OK... let me start by stating the obvious: I don't know certain answers to any of this, and I'm not sure I even believe what I'm about to say, just playing with ideas here... But I'm about to throw out a totally wacky idea that goes along with the flatland analogy Andrew mentioned earlier. It's been my thought for a while that some Biblical paradoxes (mainly free will vs. predestination) can be resolved by viewing things from both a linear/temporal perspective, and an eternal non-temporal perspective. God seems to exist outside of time, as He knows the end from the beginning. We see things like prophecies fulfilled, and prayers whose answers are set in motion before they are prayed. The analogy I like to use when explaining it to kids is that if you draw time as a line on a sheet of paper, God is nowhere on the line, or even on the paper; He is in the room that the paper is in.

So... imagine if, from a linear perspective, Jesus first came into being at His virgin conception (no human father, thus not under sin), was filled with Spirit, grew to a man, lived in perfect submission to His Heavenly Father, died and was raised, and ascended to Heaven. Then, He is glorified into eternity, in essence stepping out of time (lifting out of the paper, as it were). At this point, because He is now outside of time, like the Father, He exists at all points throughout time, including in the eternal past, where He is pre-existent, and at the Creation of the world, where He then creates the world that would/did give Him birth.

I'm not really sure I personally like this idea, or that I believe it. Like I said, I'm just playing with different ideas, to see whether there's a way both views can be true. Do with that what you will.

To quote Captain Janeway, "Temporal mechanics give me a headache."

I like it. It's in the realm of possibility (what isn't?). But now we are getting into the workd of physics, quantum physics, wormholes, etc. In order for this to be possible, at some point, doesn't the non-temporal have to interact with the temporal for the temporal to realize there is a non-temporal? Or does the non-temporal relish being anonymous?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but isn't that a nuanced similarity to LDS doctrine? We, as created beings, become "Gods" upon death and operate outside of the universe to become a deity of our own universe?

 

[andrew]

@Mojo

Cute? Seriously?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

@Shibboleth I liked your post and the analogy of God outside of the timeline, my only question re your thoughts above would be that it seems like that brings us back to the chicken or the egg, which came first? Bad analogy I know, but if Jesus did not begin until his birth, how could all things that were created by him be created to result in a young girl that would be impregnated by God?

 

[IshChayil]

That is the Protestant ethic, yes. Quite logical.

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.

It's catchy but I ...can't...resist...commenting.
One may be merciless in mathematics but I'm not sure this type of lack of mercy (ie in logic) is transitive to forgiveness/mercilessness in human relationships

Regarding "doing" right Yeshua said, "go forth and sin no more..."
presumably being right helps us to "sin no more" at least sometimes;

Today's bible portion read by Jews around the world has a verse that came to mind when I read your post.
Dt. 30:15-16a "Look, I have set before you today the life and the goodness or the death and the evil which I commanded you today to love the L-rd your G-d to walk in His ways..."

To know His ways we need to be right at least sometimes. You're right that logic only takes us so far; usually because even a rock solid set of reasoning skills can be derailed by incorrect presuppositions (i.e. misunderstanding a base verse or it's context).

Matt: 7:13-14 Come in through the narrow double-gate. For the double-gate is wide and the way is wide which leads to destruction, and there are many who themselves enter through it. For the double-gate is narrow and the way is constricted which leads into the life, and they are few who find it.

peace

 

[IshChayil]

2 Cor. 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
metamorphoo, ... [STRONGS goofiness deleted]
Metamorphoo was a known Greek work at the time. Paul used it here. Why is this word never used to describe Jesus’ transformation from God to man? Wouldn’t that have cleared the water a bit?

Hey Jim, it's a long post so I'm just going to comment on the language question quoted above.
In Greek this word represents a change which is "observable" or "visible" to others. So it wouldn't be appropriate to use it in the manner you suggest.

 

[IshChayil]

@Shibboleth read your post and made mental note to come back and hit <reply> then couldn't find it.
So anyway the problem with this scenario is that the moment the being (in this case Yeshua) "stepped out of our timeline" into "timelessness" they would have instantly always existed... loopy as that sounds. Time is closely related to matter .. the stuff of creation; this is the beauty of Einstein's observation that "moving clocks run slow" and how when an object approaches the speed of light it's mass changes etc. as it's time approaches zero. There is a relationship to mass, time, and speed.

To be removed from the equation so to speak is to be eternally existent in both directions (negative and positive infinity); more succinctly time is undefined in the situation you suggest. It's an interesting thought experiment but gets us right back to that part of the discussion all over again.
Even still it's very creative, maybe you'll have a piggy-back idea on this one?

 

[andrew]

It's catchy but I ...can't...resist...commenting.
One may be merciless in mathematics but I'm not sure this type of lack of mercy (ie in logic) is transitive to forgiveness/mercilessness in human relationships

Regarding "doing" right Yeshua said, "go forth and sin no more..."
presumably being right helps us to "sin no more" at least sometimes;

Today's bible portion read by Jews around the world has a verse that came to mind when I read your post.
Dt. 30:15-16a "Look, I have set before you today the life and the goodness or the death and the evil which I commanded you today to love the L-rd your G-d to walk in His ways..."

To know His ways we need to be right at least sometimes. You're right that logic only takes us so far; usually because even a rock solid set of reasoning skills can be derailed by incorrect presuppositions (i.e. misunderstanding a base verse or it's context).

Matt: 7:13-14 Come in through the narrow double-gate. For the double-gate is wide and the way is wide which leads to destruction, and there are many who themselves enter through it. For the double-gate is narrow and the way is constricted which leads into the life, and they are few who find it.

peace

IC, I think I get what you're saying, but I don't get how it's on point.

Mojo made a pretty bold statement, that the difference between salvation and damnation is "being right" (in this context, that means being right about some theological propositions about the nature of an infinite God Who exists by definition outside of the framework of what we are able to understand).

Mystic suggested that the teachings of Jesus point in a different direction (focusing more on love and mercy and not so much on dogma or religious observances based on tradition).

Then you come along saying "To know His ways we need to be right at least sometimes", which to me seems unusually wishy-washy for you. I'd be willing to go further with you, that we need to be right a lot of the time, but one of the things we need to get right is the relative merits of (a) thinking we're right in our head about how we understand the nature of the infinite expressing itself through the finite, and (b) practical acts of selflessness of the sort Jesus expressly taught are the foundation of a judgment between salvation and damnation.

 

[andrew]

Even still it's very creative, maybe you'll have a piggy-back idea on this one?

I went through a phase about ten years ago where I was paying a lot of attention to quantum superposition and entanglement, Schrödinger's cat, and the like. The state of the art in physics changes so quickly it probably wouldn't hurt for me to circle back and see what they're talking about these days.

I'm not arguing that someday our science will figure this all out. But while "time" is a gnarly subject that we mostly take for granted and don't really understand very well, there is some work being done that may at some point help us at least understand time a little better than we do now.

All that to say that I really appreciate thought experiments such as Shibboleth's, and I do hope there'll be some piggy-back thoughts here. We may never really understand it, it's fun to try!

 

[steve]

You want loopy?
You want preexistent?

Yahushua was Adam reincarnated.
1 Corinthians 15:45 (KJV) 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

*running for the hills*
(Oh wait, I am already in Broadus MT, you cannot get me)

 

[Jim an Apostle]

Hey Jim, it's a long post so I'm just going to comment on the language question quoted above.
In Greek this word represents a change which is "observable" or "visible" to others. So it wouldn't be appropriate to use it in the manner you suggest.

Romans 12:2
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

The renewing of the mind is not a visible process.

 

[andrew]

Hmmmm....

 

[Mojo]

@Mojo

Cute? Seriously?

Very serious.

It's cute because it's a strategy and tactic you employ consistently. Someone poses a question, or makes a statement, then, rather than addressing the point or answering the question, you find an out of place word, or minor point to focus on to mask answering the major point or question. Rabbit trails? I'm onto it.

Your poem was a tangent on my misplaced word (knowledge instead of wisdom) when you know full well that God can use "foolish things to confound the wise". It's not just the knowledgeable that can be puffed up. But, again, that's your tactic. Let's focus on a poem rather than three portions of scripture.

You asked me to consider scripture before you addressed the ones I posed to you. Should I view your verses as your dogma, as a suggestion?

I'm still waiting for a response to those three witnesses.

Waiting....

Waiting...

 

[The Revolting Man]

So stepping out of the timeline came up and since this thread is winding down I'm going to hijack it.

I have always been fascinated by the statement that the Apostle John would not die before he saw the return of Christ. Christ hasn't returned. The Apostle John is dead. So what gives?

I have decided that The Revelation wasn't a vision or a dream. John instead was transported into the future where he literally saw the actual events as they happened. He was then brought back in time to the exact moment he left so that his companions did not know that anything had happened. Problem solved.

Roads? Where we're going we don't need any roads...that aren't paved with gold.