Christian Persecution in Australia
January 10th, 2009 by Sean
Today I had the pleasure of speaking with Carlos Jimenez of Sydney, Australia, a student at MacQuarie University. He shared his amazing journey to faith from agnosticism to Christianity. Along the way he began studying about the doctrine of the Trinity and its effects on our Christian history. At one point he asked his pastor if the church confessed belief in the Trinity and found out that they did not believe that Jesus was God. This pleased Carlos because through his own studies he had already come to this sound doctrine.
1 Timothy 4:6
In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following.
After his conversion to Christianity he applied to theological schools to pursue higher learning with the intent of becoming a teacher of theology. To his dismay virtually every college he found required him to sign a statement of faith affirming the Nicene Creed. After a long search he found a “non-denominational” school which did not require this affirmation. Sadly, during his interview he was told that because he did not believe in the Trinity he was on the same level as “homosexuals, fornicators, and blasphemers!”
Click here to listen to this file to hear his whole story.
I found this to be a very fascinating story. Thanks for sharing. I was wondering if we could get a little more information about which church Carlos stumbled upon that happened to be biblically unitarian?
The same kind of persecution is all around us in America. If we do
not NECESSARILY agree to their prescription of the faith, we may be
considered by them to be most lost indeed.
I do not necessarily agree with the statement that Jesus is God,
though God did create the world through him, though he was in
the beginning with God, and that like God himself, he visited man
by the spirit, (for the spirit of Christ was in the O.T. prophets) and
though very few noticed his existance (there are some who did as
evidenced by the O.T. prophesies) in the world (see John 1:10)
he no doubt was working in the lives of men who were seeking the
things of God, as the devil was working against them.
Because Jesus is the Son of God there is a distinction. Sometimes
I hear what sounds to be contradictory by those who hold to the
doctrine of the trinity, therefore I choose to not be a follower of that particular discipline, though I do desire to follow the word of
God and it’s Messiah, by the spirit of God which is Christ, for where
the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.
Ray,
Is it your belief that Jesus was an angel who became human?
This story of Ray, it is quite a parallel about what would be happening in the pre-tribulation (quite near) of the abomination spoken in Daniel and Matthew, except that instead of being asked to an alliance to a statement of faith, would be an alliance to a world religion statement of faith prior to its desolation. It will be chaotic and distressful for those who can’t deal with the truth. However, for those who who already have foreknowledge of these things, it is a glimpse of the glory of Jesus coming soon!
Sean, I do not believe Jesus was ever an angel, but he did become
human.
I suppose because the word angel could be used to refer to any
messenger of God,( in that sense) I could refer to Jesus as an ‘angel’
(messenger) of God, but I don’t usually do so for it may cause confussion.
I believe Jesus is a messenger of God for he always carried the truth of God. He is God’s word. Whenever Jesus taught, it was the
word of God.
He was in the beginning with God before angels were created.
I suppose at that time he was ‘like’ and angel, though he was not
an angel as he is the Son of God.
Angels may be referred to as sons of God at times but that doesn’t
mean they are sons as Jesus is the Son of God, but there are I suppose similarities between Jesus and the holy angels of God, and therefore I suppose they are at times referred to as sons of
God for such reasons.
I often wonder why it is that when I confess Jesus as the Son of
God, some people wonder if I am saying he is an angel. I wonder
why that is. Has someone been twisting the meanings of words
around?
I remember talking to a Christian from a denomination. He
came to a friend’s house and he accused me of saying that Jesus
is God, a thing I never said. I told him Jesus is the Son of God, and
he asked me what that meant. When I told him Jesus is the Son of
God, he seemed to think I was saying that he is God.
I had to ask him who it was sitting in his car in the driveway next
to the lady behind the steering wheel. It was his son as I had suspected. He told me it was his son. So I asked him why it was
that he can understand that that young man is his son, but when
I say Jesus is God’s son he doesn’t seem to know what I’m saying.
He himself was telling me that Jesus is an angel named Michael, a
think I know to be wrong teaching.
Why all this confussion I’m not sure. It must be because of men’s
doctrines.
Ray,
Did the pre-human Jesus retain his memories when he transmutated into a human fetus?
Wally,
Why do you believe that the great tribulation is near?
Sean,
I’m certain that God revealed to him things he knew
from the beginning.
It seems to me that when he grew up as a child, the spirit of wisdom revealed things to him, and when he received the holy
spirit at his baptism by John, that the same spirit brought things
to his memory.
How much he knew of his glory with God in the beginning, on the
first day of his life on this earth, having just been born of Mary, I
don’t know.
Sean,
I looked up the word “transmute”.
Are you saying in effect that Jesus, through the body of Mary
became ‘converted’ in order that we might then be converted
unto God by him?
Ray,
So, the memories and consciousness of the pre-human Jesus did not survive his incarnation? If so, this seems a lot closer to reincarnation than anything else. And, if his memories and consciousness did survive then it what sense can we call him human. He would be more like an angelic being in disguise.
Sean,
In response to #10, I say that if that is your theology then you
are responsible for that.
I believe Jesus was with God in the beginning when God created
the earth and all that we see by him. Even the unseen things were
made by God through Jesus, who came to his earth through the womb of Mary who gave birth to him and raised him along with Joseph as one of their own.
That same son of Mary was indeed the Son of God, his only begotten who would redeem the world, whosoever would believe
in him. He was before all things.
How much he was aware of his past with God, during the times of
eternity in him during the first days of his life on this earth as a tiny
baby, I don’t know.
I do believe God taught him as he grew, being instructed by him
through his spirit of wisdom, and when he received the holy spirit
at his baptism by John, no doubt God communicated much with him
by that means, revealing many things.
Ray,
#10 represents the two options for your theology. My theology is that Jesus began to exist when he was conceived. Furthermore, I would also contend that if one’s origin is not in conception but prior then that person is not a real human being.
Sean,
Why?
Jesus’s origin was in God from eterinty past, yet he came into
this world being conceived in Mary’s womb by the holy spirit
of God his Father.
I believe that qualified him as a human being, at least if not one
at the time of his conception in Mary, for certain at the time of his
birth.
(I do believe I should consider all conceptions in wombs of human
beings as human beings, for the natural state of such conceived
in such a place, will by the grace of God result in a fully developed
baby should the goodness of God prevail without hinderance or
other troubles, which so often is the case, because of his great
love for us.)
I suppose during those early years of his life he may not have been
as aware of his purpose as later, especially after his baptism by John. No doubt by then his purpose by God began to be revealed
to him and maybe even things about his past when he was with
his Father, God in heaven, before all things were made.
Ray,
Why?
This is a contradiction in terms. Conceived means to generate, or procreate an offspring, which is normally considered the beginning of the offspring’s existence. If Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit, that is his beginning, and he didn’t exist before. But if he existed before, his beginning was not in Mary’s womb.
That’s correct. So if a pre-exising Jesus merely entered the physical realm through Mary, rather than being conceived, then he is technically not a real human being.
I supposed that as a young child it wasn’t necessary for him to
be burdened of all that he would later bear.
As an older child growing up, he learned the scriptures and was
found in discussion with the men who knew the law, as Joseph
and Mary looked for him. They marveled at his wisdom. I suppose
few children knew the things of God as well as he at that age.
But after his baptism by John, a thing John said he was unworthy
to do, the holy spirit came upon Jesus and it seems to me that his
purpose would be more clearly given to him by the spirit of God
which prepared him for his ministry when the fullness of that time
came.
It was then he was driven by the spirit into the wilderness to be
tempted by the devil and the temptations were concerning his
ministry as the Son of God to be the saviour of the world and the
ruler of the kingdom of heaven.
I’m reminded of the verse in Revelation where the dragon was
going to devour the child as soon as he was born, which no doubt
was attempted just after his birth by Mary, and yet here again
wasn’t his ministry being born in the wilderness? Wasn’t it here
he had trouble from the enemy just before something new had
begun?
Mark,
Jesus existed in the kingdom of heaven long before he was conceived in the womb of Mary by the holy spirit.
I assume all other men who have been born of a woman to have
had their beginning at the time of conception in the womb.
Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God. Without Jesus God
created nothing. All that God created was by Jesus, who is the
Word of God.
Ray
“Jesus existed in the kingdom of heaven long before he was conceived in the womb of Mary by the holy spirit.”
Other than putting this in the category of a mystery beyond understanding, how can I make sense of that statement? It seems to be self-contradictory, and sounds more like Greek mythology than anything else.
Mark and Brian,
I think there’s a bit of confusion here. Of course conceived means to generate, or procreate an offspring, which is normally considered the beginning of the offspring’s existence. I doubt though that Ray believes Jesus the human being was conceived sometime and somewhere else prior to Mary getting pregnant. Do you Ray?
Already asked Sean this. If hypothetically Christ existed in a pre-human state, and then became flesh and blood, why exactly is he not, even “technically”, a human being?
Why Ray?
John,
I was thinking that as a young child Jesus might not have known
that his life would end on the cross. I was thinking that later on
as he learned the scripture and some of the prophesies that it
might have greatly concerned him at that time.
When I was young I though of Jesus as the good shepherd,
but then again I was told of the cross later on and it wasn’t
much later on that I heard about that too.
I don’t know. Maybe Jesus knew what he would have to endure
even at a very young age.
Ray,
Yes; I see no reason to think he did not know.
Here’s something I found interesting from Psalm 2:7.
It appears to me that David early on in the writing of the Psalms,
realized his sonship by God in the spirit as he worshiped in Zion.
Psalm 2:7 also declares the sonship of Jesus as he was born
into this world when he was ‘realized’. Psalm 2 is a prophetic
utterance concerning Jesus the king of Israel, the Son of God.
By ‘realized’ I mean manifest in this world and realized by us. (the
shepherds and wise men, Joseph and Mary, and others who believed.)
It seems that David was aware of his life as the king of Israel
at that time, and his anointing, as well as his dwelling in the
spiritual city Zion, as a pattern of the real Christ in heaven,
who was to come.
Q. Did David believe the gospel as well as we?
Was David aware of what sufferings the Christ would endure
in this world?
I suppose I should say that David certainly believed some of the
gospel, as much as he knew of it, as it was revealed to him by
the spirit of God.
Sometime I’d like to consider God and his Son, (Whom we now know as Jesus) abiding in holiness, power and glory together,
at the time of creation, and talk about that.
Which makes my point even stronger. Human babies do not have memories from a pre-existent life. Human beings start out not knowing anything and then have to be taught.
Not really. Human babies also start out by having a human mother AND a human father. Are you saying Jesus was not a human being because he had only a human mother but no a human father?
Adam is another human that is an exception to what humans usually experience. He had no human father and no human mother. He probably didn’t even have a belly button. But all other humans have a human father mother. Therefore, Adam could not be human.
In other words, can Jesus be an exception in certain aspects? If hypothetically, God would want to make one of his non-human creatures to change nature and become fully human in order to carry out a certain task, would God be able to perform a miracle like that?
We talk about the ‘miracle of Christmas’ sometimes, a most
remarkable thing God did in sending his only begotten Son
Jesus into this world.
Prior to coming into this world Jesus had not partaken
of flesh and blood.
Adam was made in the image of God and his Son, so when he
fell, God had a plan for his redemption already prepared in the
heavenlies. I think of the phraze “after it’s kind”. Jesus the seed
promised by God was able to connect with the woman Mary to
redeem us.
I once saw a tree that had about three or four different kinds of
leaves on it because the man who owned it began to graft different
kinds of twigs into it. That analogy is more fitting to the Gentiles
being grafted into the living tree of the Jews, but the line I am
thinking of here is that there was a similarity between the man
God made (Adam) and himself.
Adam did have a spiritual connection with God and by sending his
Son Jesus, he made the spiritual connection with us again by him.
When God gave us Jesus, he gave us part of himself, and Jesus
gave himself to us in full.
I think we need to stop and ask what does it mean to be human. For many it would seem like a simple answer, but the more I read from some of these comments, the more confused that concept is. The idea that someone could be not-human and then become human makes no sense. If God created Jesus as a non-human before Jesus became human, what was he?
JohnE
“If hypothetically, God would want to make one of his non-human creatures to change nature and become fully human in order to carry out a certain task, would God be able to perform a miracle like that?”
If we are going to go down that alley, we can come up with all sorts of hypotheticals; recognizing that Jesus is a unique situation does not mean that we can come up with non-Biblical ways of thinking about his coming into being.
Brian,
Ok, what is human?
To you maybe? To some, the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin with no human father makes no sense either. You would tell them that God performed a miracle.
A spiritual being of course. The Word who was a god and was with God.
It is easy to dismiss this idea as just another crazy hypothetical. But it is actually not, as it has Biblical support. There is great support in the Bible for preexistence; others would say the theory of no preexistence is non-Biblical.
The point is you already allow for exceptions regarding Jesus’ human nature. He is not a typical human, even if only viewed from the perspective of his birth; he is the only human with no human father but with a human mother. He is the only human to have been conceived by the Holy Spirit.
But then you come and say Christ could not have preexisted because that would be an exception from human nature. So the claim that if the Son deviates in one aspect from all humans is a proof he could not have been human is simply unfounded.
Then it turns out you operate with a double standard. You allow some exceptions, based on what the Bible says, but you disallow another Bible based exception.
I think God gives a pretty good definition of what is human in Gen. 2:7- “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” A human is a living soul who has a body that is animated by the breath of life. For everyone since Adam, their life was generated at conception. The angel told Mary that she would conceive a son (Luke 1:31) and it would be because the Holy Spirit would come upon her, and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, “…and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.” Nothing is said about a pre-existent being coming into concretion in or through Mary.
The question was asked, “If God created Jesus as a non-human before Jesus became human, what was he?” JohnE replied, “A spiritual being of course. The Word who was a god and was with God.” But then you have two gods, which automatically takes you out of the category of monotheism. This idea of a “lesser god” created by God was one of the major tenets of gnosticism, and was a big part of why the doctrine of the trinity had to be devised.
In contrast, even after the doctrine of the trinity was developed, John 1:3 still read, “All things were made by it; and without it was not any thing made that was made” in all English Bibles before the KJV in 1591. The fact is, nowhere in the OT is The Word ever a spiritual being. It is always God’s will, plan, wisdom, or intelligence. Jesus is that wisdom or plan made flesh. He was planned beforehand, and had glory in God’s foreknowledge, but we are told that his existence began at his conception. It is then that “the Word was made flesh.”
Mark,
And this includes non-human creatures. and the pre-human Christ.
Of course he said that. Mary’s son, the human Son of God, was indeed conceived then. Not the pre-human Son was conceived then, but the human the Word became.
Not at that moment, no. That doesn’t mean it was never said or implied in writing. See below.
That is not the kind of monotheism displayed by the ancient Jews in the Scriptures. See http://the-preexistent-son-of-god.blogspot.com/2008/12/pre-human-existence-of-christ-outside.html where I discuss this regarding Philippians 2.
See above. All this wrong labeling comes from not really knowing how the ancient Jews viewed supernatural beings.
Even if that is true, may I think you are well aware that English is not the only language of earth. Here’s an ancient coptic translation of the Greek that predates all English translations, where the English translator of the coptic rendered “Him”, not “it”: http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml
Could this coptic be translated as “it” instead? I have no idea. But what I know is that the Greek can be translated both ways. Linguistically, “it” has no more arguments for it than there are against “him”.
And the fact is, nowhere in the OT is The Word ever God like it is in John. Every book in the Scripture has something others don’t. Who expects to get the every single aspect of the truth from one book, or even one part of the Bible?
But what the OT says in Micah 5:2 is that Messiah’s origin is from long ago, from the days of eternity, not from the 1st century.
No we are not. We are only told his human existence began in the 1st century. There are plenty of verses that contradict the idea that the existence of the person that the Son of God is, began in the first century. I started to organize them at http://the-preexistent-son-of-god.blogspot.com/ and it will take some time to finish.
There is one God above all, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
who was with him from all eternity, being on his right hand in
the power of God, clothed in the majesty of God on high.
God never had any god or God that he worshiped above himself. Not
even Jesus. God never bowed to any as if he was inferior in any
way, for God is above all and Jesus his Son is as he is in power
and glory which he has of God himself.
When God conceals a thing, it’s for kings to seach out. Jesus has
been the mystery of God which he reveals to us by his grace and
love for us that we might be saved and be partakers of this mystery which is in him.
There were no idols with God, but he did have a Son with him.
All things are of God. Jesus never did anything contrary to him.
Considering Jesus, his life and his testimony, his meaning to our
lives and his great sacrifice of himself, let’s consider that he never
will sin against God ever, and that the word he says is the will of
God himself.
When God spoke to Israel about their idols and God said, “There is
no god with me” , he wasn’t saying “I have no Son whom I will one
day send to you to be an atonment for your sins…etc” He wasn’t
saying that.
Sean,
Well, after meditating on the chronological aspects of the prophecies at the end of times. It is clear its fulfillment. On Matthew chapter 24, there you find a lot of signs for the end of times, however there is one still to be fulfilled soon, (Matthew 24:15 and Matthew 24:29_ - If you know the meaning (s) of these two scriptures correlated with the rest of them on Revelation. God revealed his purpose so that his faithful servants can see that what God has said is holding true for those who are awaiting their own salvation. These signs are referring to the end of times. I identified the world events from two thousand years ago affecting such predictions from Jesus throughout history and accordingly to the secret master plan of the antichrist and its functional members to bring all this about. This beast, the false prophet as a religious entity, the man of lawlessness as a religious entity, will deceive many if possible even the chosen ones. ( Matthew 24:24) History also narrates the transcendental effects on these prophecies. There are three main objectives the antichrist and its members are carrying out in our time, once those three main events are fully enforced and executed. Nobody will stop such rush into power and control, as they called it, “The New World Order or Novus Ordo Seclorum”. (Rev. 17: 12, 13) ( 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12) The wild beast will receive the power and distribute the power for a little while but then the wild beast in turn will see appropriate to execute the power given by the dragon. ( Rev 17: 15,16, 17) Just like Noah’s times, destruction to the wicked one is at hand, Noah preached the end of the world by a flood. ( Matthew 24: 37, 38) They received the Divine warning enough to repent and turn to God. They did not listen or pay attention the warning. Likewise in our age, people do not realize what (Matthew 24:14) says and the rest of scriptures talking about it. ( Rev. 16:15) ( Rev. 22: 20) I tell everyone about this and show them the signs, and the things required for salvation.
Wally Folgar,
If he had some existence other than human before his human existence, then by definition he is not “made like His brethren in all things” (Heb. 2:17). The only verses that say anything like pre-existence are talking about the glory which he had with the Father from the beginning, which is because of him being the reason and center of all creation. We also were chosen in him before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), but that doesn’t mean we literally existed then.
To be more clear, in Greek, the noun is masculine, the “logos” being a masculine noun. Translation would depend on how the translator understands John. If John uses the masculine for “him” without thinking the Word is a person of masculine type - that is, only because logos is already masculine - then the rendering “it” will be supplied because the noun “word” is of neuter gender in English.
But if John has in mind a person of masculine type, by rendering this as neuter, John’s intention is lost.
By mentioning preexistence and Heb 2:17 together, you are taking the verse out of context. The context shows the writer was talking about the children of God being flesh and blood, so the Christ partook of flesh and blood as well (vs 14).
He also was tempted and suffered, just like the children of God. In this respect, He had to be made like His brethren in all these these aspects. The author’s statement is qualified. Your type of argument has been brought up before here and I already showed it does not work. Jesus was not “made like His brethren in all things” in absolutely every aspect and you know it.
All his brothers had a natural human father. He did not. All his brothers were sinning and were born with sin. He was not.
But as to human nature, with all its difficulties and trials, with all its physical characteristics, he was made to be like his brothers in every aspect.
That is not true. Careful and unbiased examination of the Bible reveals otherwise.
Many have struggled to define ‘Who’ exactly is being described in John 1, God the Father or Jesus of Nazareth. I believe the writer, from vv. 1-13, is exclusively referring to the only true God and Father. The word [”true light”, spirit] is represented throughout as Jesus’ very own Father, as he himself attests time and time again:
“…you do not have his word abiding in you…but I do know him and I keep his word…the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.” Jn 5.38; 8.55; 14.24 [cf. 10.35; 12.48; 17.26]
This eternal word that was “from the beginning” [Gen 1.1] came to ‘tabernacle’ [Jn 1.14] in the man, Jesus of Nazareth. So that the life that is the “light of [all] men [and things]” [vv.3-5], is now to be represented by God’s very own son:
“…I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life…While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” Jn 8.12; 12.36
Now with this in mind, try reading 1 John 1.
The writer of John is wholly concerned with revealing the “glory of God” in the human Jesus, a glory that at times is equally applied to both. But as used throughout the Bible, God’s doxa [kavod in the OT] is “the manifestation of God’s being, nature and presence, in a manner accessible to human experience [where doxa] does not bear this meaning anywhere except where Jewish influence is probable.” Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, 1965, p 201-208.
Hence, “the glory of God” is revealed to us as “the word become flesh [sarx]” dwelling among us, a glory that was full of truth and grace as only the uniquely begotten [monogenes] Son can express [1.14]:
“But this is the paradox which runs through the whole gospel: the doxa is not to be seen alongside the sarx, nor through the sarx as through a window; it is to be seen in the sarx and nowhere else. If man wishes to see the doxa, then it is on the sarx that he must concentrate his attention, without allowing himself to fall a victim to appearances.” Bultmann, The Gospel of John p 63.
But what about the clear Johannine claims that this “glory” is indicative of one and the same “person”? For didn’t the prophet Isaiah see “Jesus’ glory and spoke about him” [John 12.41—NIV], a fact that points towards the widely accepted interpretation of an orthodox Christology.
The first thing to note from the passage whence this is taken [John 12.37-41] is the variant reading of v. 41 [“the glory of God”] “supported by a few Greek manuscripts of comparatively later date [and] probably a scribal change prompted by the perceived difficulty in making Isaiah’s vision of ‘the Lord [YHWH]’ a vision of the preincarnate Son…[So] it would be mistaken to think that here or elsewhere, GJohn (or, for that matter, any other NT writing) simply collapses the distinction between Jesus and God ‘the Father’ and flatly identifies Jesus as Yahweh of the OT.
In fact [the writer of John] distinguishes ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son’ just as consistently as it affirms an unprecedented linkage of them and attributes to Jesus/the Son an astonishing participation in divine attributes and status…In GJohn Jesus not only is associated with the glory of God, he is the glory of God manifest.” Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, Erdmans, 2003, p 374-380.
“I do not receive glory from men…I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?” John 5.41-44
The prophetic glory that was Jesus’ even before his birth was because God’s plan was for him to be the glorious redeemer of Creation. This plan was so well defined by the body of prophecy spoken and written about the Coming One that it was a virtual certainty. Therefore, it could be spoken about as a “reality” long before it was actually fulfilled. In this same context Jesus could speak about the glory which he had with the Father “before the world was” [17.5]; a glory already received which in turn he gives to us, so that we may be one, just as he and the Father are one [17.22].
The perspective being Jesus’ heavenly and “eternal” glory transposed onto his earthly life and ministry; eternal because it began, not in some hereto unbeknownst “before all time” but in the mind of God.
Mark, I wrote
The only verses that say anything like pre-existence are talking about the glory which he had with the Father from the beginning.
That is not true. Careful and unbiased examination of the Bible reveals otherwise.
and you replied:
This is quite a generalization, which proves nothing. I could just as easily say that careful and unbiased examination of the Bible reveals that the glory which he had was in God’s foreknowledge, just as the glory which we had was (Eph. 1:4).
I’m not sure why you are not happy with my response; after all, it matches - intentionally - your initial response.
Xavier,
That’s an odd thing to say Xavier. So the only true God, the Light, came into the world (9), the only true God was in the world (10)? Instead of Jesus? The only true God was with God (2)? Am I ever with me? Do I ever do things through me?
You know, I many times admire how Socinian Unitarians always strive to bring simple, truthful, common sense arguments. But when it gets to “the word was with God”, all that is gone. It simply does not make sense, and the explanation given is the opposite of simple. Frankly, it is awkward, it seems like a lot of bending and twisting just to make things fit.
Anyway, I think you are forcing a bit the things here, out of necessity. It seems you are trying to prevent the conclusion that Jesus was the Word, the Light. And by the way, why do you say “[”true light”, spirit“] Where do you see the *spirit* in the “true light”?
Sorry, where does it say the word is eternal?
Sorry again. It does not say the word came to tabernacle in the man Jesus. But it is necessary for you to say that, I know…
JohnE: Am I ever with me? Do I ever do things through me?
Xavier: I refer to the Hebraic use of refering to those things [word, spirit, wisdom] as extensions of yourself. Personifications found through the whole of Hebrew thought and theology to say, for example, that your word is with you etc…
JohnE: Sorry, where does it say the word is eternal?
Xavier: The writer of John contrasts his opening Gospel with that of Genesis 1, where the “word” is from “the beginning”.
JohnE: It does not say the word came to tabernacle in the man Jesus.
Xavier: Jn 1.14 is a reference to the birth [evgeneto] of the human [flesh-sarx] Jesus. Subsequently, that word “pitched his tent” [tabernacled-ekineo, cp. Rev 21.3] among us.
Somewhere we are getting our wires crossed. I said that Jesus did not pre-exist his birth. His beginning was when he was conceived in Mary’s womb, and then born in Bethlehem. The verses that refer to him having glory with God from the beginning are referring to the glory he had with God in God’s foreknowledge because he was the focal point of all creation from the beginning.
You responded by saying, “That is not true. Careful and unbiased examination of the Bible reveals otherwise.” How does that match my initial response?
Hi there ,
seems to me like some folks have different ways of how they define what they mean with “personfication” or “Hebrew thought”, etc.
What is “personification found through the whole of Hebrew thought”? Normally, one understands “personification” to be the name of a particular figure of speech, by which inanimate objects, things etc are described as if they were human persons …such as speaking of “wisdom” as a “woman”. But this figure of speech is not limited to any particular language or any particular way of thinking … you find it in English, just as much as in German or Hebrew, and in modern day thought just as much as in ancient cultures …
It seems to me that what is claimed here as “personification” as “found in the whole of Hebrew thought” has not much to do with “personification” in the first place ? Thus, it would be very helpful to define terms first when deviating from general use and meaning of terms so that others can have a chance of understanding what is being said or written?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Xavier,
Why do resort to personification? Is there somewhere *any* scriptural example where one’s word is really *himself* and also one’s word is *with himself*? Cause if not, your resorting to personification seems to be done out of necessity and artificial.
Contrasts? Where did you get this idea from? Also, in Genesis 1 there’s no “word from the beginning”.
See? It’s quite a different statement. The word did not tabernacle in the man Jesus, rather the word who became the man Jesus tabernacled among humans.
Mark,
I’m surprised you don’t see how. You made a generalization:
I countered it with another. See now?
Wolfgang: What is “personification found through the whole of Hebrew thought”?
Xavier: in reference to logos there are 4 ways we can explain these Jewish ideas. “First, the Jewish targums explained certain theological anthropomorphisms by attributing the activities of God on earth to his [word–i.e. Gen 15.1]…it could be that logos…is a reference to Wisdom in Pro 8.22-31 and other Wisdom passages (e.g., Job 28)” For further commentaries see Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels pp. 481-483.
JohnE: The word did not tabernacle in the man Jesus, rather the word who became the man Jesus tabernacled among humans.
Xavier: Your right, that could be another way of interpreting this prologue. But I have a problem with saying that Jesus is what the logos became in light of these other passages, where the logos is exclusive to only God the Father:
“Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.” Jn 14.10; cp. Jn 5.38; 7.16; 8.55; 14.24; cf. 10.35; 12.48; 17.26.
Just a thought, I do not know how my audio testimony has become a forum for a wide variety of divergent theological debates
Xavier, before going to passages in other chapters, I would make sure I’m trying to understand what a passage says based on its internal aspects. I do not have a problem saying that Jesus is what the logos became, since that is exactly what John says:
“And the Logos became flesh”
That “flesh” is Jesus. Or is it not?
As to John 14:10, ““Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?”, Jesus is saying he is in perfect unity with his Father. Jesus being “in the Father” and vice-versa, is also applied by Jesus to his disciples, saying in chapter 17 that they are also in God and in him, Jesus. If you are saying that the Father was the Logos and so the Father became flesh, and then the Father is the Son, that is modalism/sabellianism. Are you saying that?
So your response “matched” mine in tone but not in substance, by being a generalization, which you claimed my initial comment was. Once again we are reduced to classic Python Argument Clinic responses. I hope the readers of this thread will just take the time to look up the verses that are used to prove pre-existance and make up their own minds.
No Mark, the generalization you made is the substance of your message, not “the tone”. You made a generalization, I made one as well. Is there any problem?
By “substance” I meant the point of what I said (that the only verses that say anything like pre-existence are talking about the glory which he had with the Father from the beginning.) You disagreed, though you offered no Scriptural response. You also disagree about what “substance” and “tone” mean. But I’m not going to get into a semantics argument with you. No, there is no problem.
Because you offered none either. You mind if I follow your example in this situation?
Not at all.
Hello brethren
Here’s a link to a recent book publication: The Only True God: A Study of Biblical Monothesim by H. H. Chang
http://issuu.com/totg/docs/introduction-en?mode=embed&layout=http%3A%2F%2Fskin.issuu.com%2Fv%2Fwood2%2Flayout.xml
“A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”
Monty, what?
John Paul