Was the man Jesus God before He was Glorified . . . .

[Cross Reference]

I think a quote from a passage you have put up makes it pretty clear that He had to be:

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Philippians 2:5-7

He

[Jesus]

took on the form of a servant even though He

[The "Word"]

was in the form of God. He actually became a..........

[man],

then I can't see how He wasn't already actually God.

Jesus, the man didn't know all that the Word knew. Having said that, Jesus was entrusted with handling the Glory of God in whatever circumstance He found Himself in..having complete confidence in the Godhead He represented.

 

[nikolai_42]

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Philippians 2:5-7

[Jesus] [The "Word"] [man],

Jesus, the man didn't know all that the Word knew. Having said that, Jesus was entrusted with handling the Glory of God in whatever circumstance He found Himself in..having complete confidence in the Godhead He represented.

{emphasis added to quote}

Unless you have two separate identities here, I can't see isolating "Jesus" from "The Word". Otherwise, which one was the writer of Hebrews talking about :

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Hebrews 2:14-18

"The Word" didn't take on Jesus - the Word became flesh. He bore the weakness of sinful flesh yet was without sin. He endured not only the cross but the weakness that goes with that sinful flesh so that He could have firsthand knowledge of temptation. That same person was God manifested in the flesh and that same person ascended to the Father's right hand. It wasn't one person descending into two identities and resurrecting and being ascended back to the Father as one identity again. That's what it appears you require in your understanding.

 

[jsanford108]

If I may address these two points, then I will progress with your charges for me.

Given Jesus' submission to the Father, why would you believe otherwise? He was made a little lower than the angels.

"Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." John 8:28 (KJV)

Christ did submit to the Father's Will, but that does not make Him "lower" than the Father. Granted, this is a good inference utilizing our realities, however, that is placing human limits onto God. Would you say that the Holy Spirit is lower than God? Especially when considering that it is explicitly mentioned as "moving upon the face of the deep" in Genesis? If you contend that the Spirit is a "part of God," then Christ can likewise be a "part." Yet you would not claim that God is not whole. Therefore, all "parts" must be equal. Does that make sense?

Jsands, We have to remember when John understood these things about Jesus that he write about them as he did. Certainly John did not understand before the cross leading up to the ascension and then to wait for the Promise of the Father [Pentecost].



Try thinking of the "Word of God" as being us using our "lips" to speak/express our hearts desire, et al. cf Exo.33:20-23 KJV. cf with Paul's conversion experience on the road.



I believe you mean to say that the "Word of God" was with God from the beginning. Christ being a title given Jesus, the son, the man who needed to be proven that by it [process] would "win" the victory for both God and mankind. . . Sound reasonable?

There is a small error present here. When you say, "We have to remember when John understood these things about Jesus that he write about them as he did. Certainly John did not understand before the cross leading up to the ascension and then to wait for the Promise of the Father," you imply that John did not know these while writing his Gospel account. However, this is false, as his writing of the Gospel occurred decades after the Ascension. Common historical agreement is that the other Apostles wanted John to bear an account of the Gospel, as he was present throughout each event detailed, including the Crucifixion. So to imply that perhaps John's understanding was limited the strict timeline of his record, is false.

Furthermore, the idea of "Word of God" being a label or simple speech is false. The capacity of God's Word is beyond human comprehension. Jews actually have a slightly better idea of the depth of such a label, than most Christians. God's Word is more real than we are. Which makes sense, when you consider that God's very speech created reality, created the cosmos. He only had to speak and it was so. To reduce such a phrase as "Word of God" to a label or simple expression of desire is borderline sacrilegious. Simply because it is so much more than that.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thank you Dr Sproul.

Explain. :idunno:

AMR

 

[jsanford108]

Jsands, please exegete this passage:

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:5-11 (KJV)

In my opinion, this passage just goes to point to Christ being One with/in God. (the Trinity)

Demonstrated with the phrasing "Jesus Christ is Lord." If Christ was merely man, not God Incarnate, then this is in violation of the commandments. God cannot contradict Himself. By elevating Christ to equal status with Himself, He would be violating His own Commands to Moses, which extended to all people. Therefore, this passage would actually substantiate a claim that Christ is God.

 

[jsanford108]

Paul said, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good."

It's your responsibility to prove whatever it is you believe, not mine.

This is a shifting away from responsibility. Similar to atheists claiming "burden of proof lies with theists." It is actually false. If anyone makes a claim, as you did earlier, then the burden of proof lies with you, by your act of initiation. Claims of negative, such as "Christ is not God," by definition of "Burden of Proof," (as does "God does not exist") lies with the negative. "Christ is God" is the positive.

Don't worry, I will be providing evidence for my claim, due to not avoiding responsibility.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jsanford108]

"Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.'" (Matthew 16:17)

In what way was the Father's message revealed?

Hint: It was not by smartphone. The internet was not yet invented.

Some people can hear with more than their ears.

"But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." (Matthew 10:19-20)

The Spirit of the Father is holy and is sometimes referred to as the holy Spirit.

This does not support either your claim, not mine.

However, the verse right before does support the doctrine of Christ being God. Simon says "You are the Son of the Living God." This is not a light phrase to throw around. A sonship, especially in Hebrew culture was an inheritance. IE: a taking over. A prince takes over the kingdom, gaining the power that the king had. Likewise, a son inherits his father's estate, and actually (hopefully) enhances it. Making it superior to its former status. To call Christ "the Son of God," is saying He is equal to God. If Christ is not God, this is blasphemy and against God's Commandments passed to Moses. God cannot contradict Himself. Therefore, Christ being elevated in such a way would violate God's Law, unless Christ was God Incarnate.

Thus, logically, we can conclude that Christ, in order to possess the title "Son of God," must be God Incarnate.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jsanford108]

The son of God, Jesus Christ is the son of God, not God the son.

All sons have a beginning and an origination. Jesus Christ though planned by and foreknown by God His Father did not exist until he was conceived and born

If you see my responses to Cross Reference and Jaime, I have covered the realities associated with the title "Son of God."

To place human realities and limits on God is where error is entering your claim.

If God had a son, why would human limits of beginning and origin have any effect? God is without limit, no? Also, all things that have a beginning, must end.

Let us also examine the title, "Son of God." Sonship implies, in Hebrew Culture, equality with upon inheritance. If God elevates a man to equality with Himself, God has violated His own commandment to Moses. God cannot contradict Himself. Doing so negates His perfection. Therefore, Christ cannot be mere man, in any capacity. Even worship of Christ would be sinful if He was a man endowed with the Holy Spirit. We wouldn't worship the Apostles. We know they received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Therefore, Christ must be more than man. He must be God Incarnate for the title "Son of God" not to be blasphemous, for worship of Him to be anything other than sin, and to be equal to God.

The logical conclusion must be that Christ is God.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Cross Reference]

{emphasis added to quote}

Unless you have two separate identities here, I can't see isolating "Jesus" from "The Word". Otherwise, which one was the writer of Hebrews talking about :

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Hebrews 2:14-18

"The Word" didn't take on Jesus - the Word became flesh. He bore the weakness of sinful flesh yet was without sin. He endured not only the cross but the weakness that goes with that sinful flesh so that He could have firsthand knowledge of temptation. That same person was God manifested in the flesh and that same person ascended to the Father's right hand. It wasn't one person descending into two identities and resurrecting and being ascended back to the Father as one identity again. That's what it appears you require in your understanding.

Interesting that God had to do all of that and not sin. . . . :nono:

 

[nikolai_42]

Interesting that God had to do all of that and not sin. . . . :nono:

Why is it "interesting"? I get the feeling this is begging the question somehow....

 

[jsanford108]

Jsands, please exegete this passage:

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:5-11 (KJV)

For the record, I love your utilization of "exegete." I find that very few use such accurate terminology when discussing deeper topics, that benefit from such words.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Cross Reference]

Why is it "interesting"? I get the feeling this is begging the question somehow....

Why?? Because God CAN"T sin?

 

[jamie]

This is a shifting away from responsibility.

It is Paul's teaching. It simply means each of us must do our homework.

 

[nikolai_42]

Why?? Because God CAN"T sin?

Which is partly why I think this is (may be?) begging the question...

EDIT : If it were incumbent upon us to be like Jesus, then I could agree with your hangup. But because that isn't a requirement (nor is it possible, left to us) the judgment against sin is no less damning because the sinless One took on sinful flesh and overcame it perfectly.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Romans 8:1-4

Which is in direct response to Paul's own question of who will deliver him from the body of (this) death?

If you have a lifeguard who could swim all his life and had never had an incident - and one that learned to swim and failed in the process (but was still a decent lifeguard), would the perfect lifeguard be any less of a lifeguard because he had never failed?

 

[Cross Reference]

Which is partly why I think this is (may be?) begging the question...

EDIT : If it were incumbent upon us to be like Jesus, then I could agree with your hangup. But because that isn't a requirement (nor is it possible, left to us) the judgment against sin is no less damning because the sinless One took on sinful flesh and overcame it perfectly.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Romans 8:1-4

Which is in direct response to Paul's own question of who will deliver him from the body of (this) death?

If you have a lifeguard who could swim all his life and had never had an incident - and one that learned to swim and failed in the process (but was still a decent lifeguard), would the perfect lifeguard be any less of a lifeguard because he had never failed?

Jesus NEVER took on "sinful flesh". Had it been sinful He could not ever have redeemed man.

Had He sinned, what sinless man could have redeemed Him?

 

[jsanford108]

It is Paul's teaching. It simply means each of us must do our homework.

I agree. Which is why we should never shy away from defending what we believe.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jamie]

I agree. Which is why we should never shy away from defending what we believe.

If a person's mind is closed they can't learn.

 

[nikolai_42]

Jesus NEVER took on "sinful flesh". Had it been sinful He could not ever have redeemed man.

Had He sinned, what sinless man could have redeemed Him?

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Romans 8:3-4

...which is a fairly direct contradiction of what you responded - being clarified (the understanding of "likeness", that is) here :

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Philippians 2:6-7

So while He was without sin, that doesn't negate the fact that He came in that sinful flesh. He did not submit to it.

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
2 Cor 5:21

He was made sin for us - He bore our sins and came in the likeness of sinful flesh but did not sin. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Cross Reference]

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the *LIKENESS of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Romans 8:3-4

"LIKENESS" being the operative word. Jesus was NOT of sinful flesh. Can you hear me?

We were formed in the LIKENESS of God. Are you God?

 

[nikolai_42]

"LIKENESS" being the operative word. Jesus was NOT of sinful flesh. Can you hear me?

We were formed in the LIKENESS of God. Are you God?

The comparison is not apt. Jesus coming in the likeness of sinful flesh doesn't make Him a sinner just like us being formed in the image of God doesn't make us God as you point out. Paul tells the Philippians he came in the likeness of men. By your reasoning, that means He was never a man - He just looked like it. Is that what you are saying?