THINK ORANGE -- JD
I just do not understand the reason for the opposition to what Bill is saying. It is as if we cannot read the biblical message at all.jt: Sure we can read the biblical message, the problem is with reading all of it in balance and in context.
No, Judy, the problem is the balance between personal bias and objectivity.
In John 17, the Son of God addresses his heavenly Father and makes the following claims:
1) that he declares His existence as Son pre-dates his earthly ministry - v 3. Jesus was sent by God , the Son sent by the Father. The implication? That He was not created in the womb but was sent (from his heavenly existence) to this place.
jt: Sure he was sent as the Latter day Prophet who was foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15 and until we receive His prophetic ministry He can not be to us a Priest and King.
At least two things are wrong, here. First, John 17 is a conversation between the Son and His Father " ............Father .. glorify you Son " (words found in verse ONE.) Reading in balance and context, you say. Amen, I say. The CONTEXT is established in verse one. Everything we read in this passage has to do with the intimate relationship between the Father and the Son. THAT is the context. It never changes, in this chapter, and is confirmed in vv.11, 21, 24 and 25. Nothing about prophet or king.
Secondly, verse three, is only the second sentence (NASV) of this prayer record. In the first sentence, Jesus requests glorification as the Son from the Father. In the very next sentence, He, the Son of course, makes clear His role in the presentation of "eternal life." It is the result of knowing both God and Jesus -- the Father and the Son as per what is referred to IN THE PRECEDING BREATH. You go outside the text and drag in prophet and king -- for what reason? Before you do such, there must be a reason why you cannot allow verse one to be the contextual statement. You go outside the text for your "context." I go to the preceding breath !!! You can give no reason for this change.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God) is not of this world -- his existence predates His appearance here (verse 14).
2.) He pronounces that He (
jt: Vs.14 does not address "his existence" He refers to the "spirit" he and his disciples are of which is not "of this world"
Now, your comments here, have some credibility. You are making an argument that Christ and His disciples are not of this world for the very same reasons. That is legitimate, I suppose. But so is my point. I say, Christ is not of this world because he is God. The disciples are not of this world because of their attachment to Him.
jt: He was sent as God's prophetic voice and became a son when Mary gave birth to him.
3.) He, the Son of God, was sent into this world -- something not possible if He had no prior existence as the Son ( v. 3).
Unless you can give us a reason for saying that Christ speaks as the Son in verse one, but not as the Son in verse three -- I will ignore your comment above. To think that He was sent as a prophet but popped out as the Son is akin to Ooops Theology, is it not? Again, you have no reason for ignoring the context established in verse one.
jt: Jesus is made unto us wisdom from God which is nothing new. He describes himself in Proverbs 8:30-36 "I together with him was establishing them; and daily I was his delight, rejoicing always before him, rejoicing in his habitable earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. Now therefore hearken to me, O you children; for blessed is he who keeps my ways. Hear instruction and be wise and do not go astray. Blessed is the man who heeds me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at my threshold. For my objectives are the issues of life, they proclaim the will of the Lord. Those who sin against me wrong their own soul; all those who hate me love death"
4.) He, the Son of God praying to His Fathers, declares the Fathers love from Him before the foundations of the world.
Huh ?? !! Provers 8 has nothing to do with this passage (John 17:24) and you wonder why you are criticized for proof-texting. But, Judy, this is not even good proof-texting. Seriously. Now, before you quote a responce out of Habakkak or where ever -- think about the actual words of this verse: it begins with that danged old word, Father. You want context, there it is. And here is the important aspect of that verse (for the sake of this discussion -- ready?) ----------------------------------------------"Father .... you have loved me before the foundations of the world. " The Father can't be a father without the son etc.
jt: No John. Adam was the firstborn of the old creation who because of the fall are now spiritually dead and Jesus is the firstborn of the New Creation
5.) The point of Luke's lineage is not to say that Adam was, the first of the creation, the son of God but that Christ -- even before his birth -- was the son of God (Luke 3:38). It is a play on words, but not just a play on words......a very powerful evangelical tool.
who God calls "His first begotten Son" (Heb 5:6, Rev 1:5) and "His only begotten Son" (John 3:16)
Judy - the point of Luke's genealogy is to evidence that Jesus is "the son of God." "Begotten" is not in view, here, nor is it referenced by Luke at all. That is not to say that it is not so -- only that this is not Luke's point. One of the greatest illustrations I have ever heard, in the pulpit, was the word for word quote of this genealogy. The preachers voice got more placid as he proceded, more placid as the congregation fell asleep. And then, suddenly, BAM , "son of God" is spoken. You realize, even suddenly, that it is not the genealogy that is the point, but the fact that Christ is the SON OF GOD. The genealogy transcends recorded time. The lesson is obvious and supportive of the eternal Sonship of Christ.
because of the lineage through King David; it is true in the spirit because of the resurrection. These two circumstances are testimony to His Sonship. Neither pin point the time when He became the Son or Paul would have used only one of these circumstances. He was the Son before the foundations of the world and THAT IS WHY HE WAS BORN OF A VIRGIN AND THAT IS WHY HE WAS RESURRECTED.
6) Romans 1:3-4 makes it clear that Christ is the Son of God, this is true from a fleshly perspective (read "in the flesh")
jt: Produce one OT Scripture that says the above in balance and in context John.. He is:
Shiloh (Genesis 49:10)
A prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15)
A star out of Jacob, a scepter out of Israel - in Balaam's prophecy (Numbers 24:17)
Job spoke of Him when he prophesied "I know that my Redeemer lives" (Job 19:25-27)
A rod from the stem of Jesse, a branch out of his roots (Isaiah 11:1)
An ensign to the people (Isaiah 11:10)
God's servant, his elect who shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:1-4)
The light of the world (Isaiah 60:1-5)
The Redeemer who comes to Zion (Isaiah 59:20)
King over a kingdom that shall break in pieces all these other kingdoms (Daniel 2:44)
The rod of God's strength coming out of Zion (Psalm 110:2)
Judy -- a rather ill timed request. After last week's lesson in life, I have decided to never allow the subject to take a left turn. This is what you are attempting to do above. None of it is challenged by me, certainly. And the fact that "Son" is not on this list proves absolutely nothing. God to the Old Testament and find "Jesus" in the text ------ anywhere. I give you a passage in Romans and you counter by a) ignoring the Romans passage and b) you present a scripture lesson that is right on but with no purpose to our discussion.
jt: A little twisted John. He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world not because Jesus was the Son but because he was as a lamb slain before the foundation of the world.
7.) God the Father chose us in his Son, Jesus Christ, before the foundations of the world ------ the Father and the Son working from us specifically from the very beginning (Eph 1:3,4)
Can't be a father, Judy, without a son. And what does Eph 1:3,4 say? "Blessed be the God and Father OF our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world ............... "
Did you even read this passage before responding?
jt: The above verses say nothing at all about "being a Son of God" rather it states: "Who being in the FORM of God (a Spirit), did not consider it robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation and took upon himself the form of a servant and was in the likeness of men. Lets not add to his words lest we be found a liar. (Prov 30)
8.) Phil 2:6,7 specifically states that Christ (who happens to be the Son of God) did not count equality with God a thing to be held on to, but emptied Himself. Paul is clear -- Jesus (the Son) gave us this example.
Well, apparently you can use THAT word and I can't. But more importantly, Judy, Jeus Christ is the Son of God. Clearly that is the thinking of Paul who wrote this passage AND the preceding Ephesian's passage. It you think it important that this does not reference Jesus Christ, the Son of God, be my guest. But you ignore the fact that That Paul uses "Jesus Chrsit" as synonymous with "Son". The thought of Philip 2 begins in verse one, of course, and continues through verse eleven, Judy. And in verse eleven, you are going to find that pesky word "Father." So, you tell me why "Jesus Christ" in this passages cannot possibly mean Son.
9) The "Son" as declared in Col 1:13 had an existence before all things (v 17).
jt: The Kingdom of His Beloved Son is a post resurrection reality which had no existence "before all things...."
Circular logic, Judy. The fact of the matter is this: the context of verse 17 ("He is before all things ...") is the realtionship of the "Father" (ver. 12) and the "Son" verse 13. Give me a textual and grammatical reason for thinking the context changes. I need a reason - not an expressed bias.
jt: No, Hebrews 1:2 says that in these latter days God has spoken to us by His Son whom He has appointed heir of all things - post Calvary you understand. He created the worlds and upholds them by the Word of His Power .. Remember "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) Let's not manipulate truth to fit our (eternal son) doctrine.
10.) The Hebrews writer declares that is was through the "Son" (Heb 1:2) that all things were created. The Son predates the virgin birth.
Here's the verse -- " ... in theese last days [God] has spoken to us IN HIS SON, whom (the Son) He (God) appointed heir of all things, through whom (the Son) also He (God) made the world" (thus, I might add, the wording, "Let us make man in our image .....") Who's doing the twist, Judy.
jt: Only after the incarnation and resurrection and John is not speaking of them in the same breath... Neither does Bill see them as the same thing, he does not see God's Word as a living thing - yesterday said " To deny the eternal Sonship of Christ and to set in his place a rationally-static "Word" doctrine, is to depersonalize the relationship most central to the heart of God: the Father-Son relationship" .
The Word of life and the Son of God are the same. What is true of one is true of the other. Because this is true, John speaks of them in the same equation, the same breath, in I John 1:1-3. Jesus is the eternal life manifested to us by the Father.
I thought Bill was referring to YOUR USE of "word," not the biblical dynamic "Word" of much of the biblical message. But Bill is fully capable on his own. And why do you quote Bill against me? Is it because I am so easily influenced by the Liberal Cartel [sp] found here on TT. You know, there is Jonathan, Bill, Lance and poor old John Smithson? Whatever.
Lets see what this passage actually says, Judy. [there I go quoting the biblical message again -- kind a irritaten, ain't it) I John 1:1-2. "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life (Judy wants the Word of Life to be the pre-existing Son -- clearly not in line with this passage - they saw and handled JESUS , or was it the "Word of Life" or, hey, maybe they are the same thing -- you think? ) and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father (that would be ............... THE SON) -- what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ."
jt: No 1 John 4:2 means that he came in a "flesh body" - It does not mean that he was the "eternal Son" before God provided a flesh body; actually this scripture was written to counteract the peculiar gnostic doctrine that was around in that day.
11.) In I John 4:2, that which we are to confess is that Jesus came in the flesh. That can only mean that he predated the flesh. He did not have existence as the Son, Jesus, at His birth. Rather, His birth marked His coming in the flesh. Because He existed before the flesh, he was able to come in the flesh. John
Only the antiChrist refuses to confess that Jesus, the Son of God, the creator of all things, God, the Word of Life [all terms used by John in his writings to refer to his Lord and Savior] came in the flesh. Now, if you want to argue that "flesh and body are not somehow related -- go ahead, but don't expect this Disciple to join you. Is this Dake's opinion. If so, get rid of him in a hurry --
John
