This message is on point . . I would just add, the terms "From heaven" or "From God" in their simplest meaning is just that of having "Divine Authority" . The ministry of John was 'from heaven', ie, it had divine authority and originated in the 'debar' plan of YHWH, and NOT in the minds of man (from below, carnal). If something is 'of heaven' or 'from God', and originates in the mind of YHWH, then it has ultimate Divine Authority.
Yesterday I was discussing with my wife about what is the difference between trinitarian Jesus and our Jesus. My wife said that their Jesus is just "Jesus culture". Our Jesus is a narrow way Jesus because we know we have to defeat our old flesh and walk JUST AS HE WALKED. There's no excuse for sin, no excuse for not loving others, no excuse for doing things without God telling us to do. They have excuse not to be as Jesus because they "know" that "they are not God in human flesh, but humans in human flesh" and they have excuse not to go a narrow way of death because there flesh doesn't like it. My flesh doesn't like it too, but I understand that there's no other way and this fact of knowing is doing work of changing my attitude and heart. It brings godly sorrow in me that I'm far away from what I have to be and this sorrow brings me to repentance. We must sit silent, cover our mouths, repent and listen to what God wants us to say and to do, not when we want, not what we want but when he wants and how He wants. He's not looking at the works we do, He looks who is the source of our works, and if it's not Him doing works through us then these works are works of our own hands which are as filthy rags. I understood that there's no need to argue with trinitarians about certain verses because there will be no end to it. We must show them the difference between their Jesus and our Jesus and they will see which way is narrow and they will have no excuse. If they still want their own wide way it's their choice, don't waste your time, just leave them.
Bro. Bill, As you know from our personal conversation at Guthrie Grove Church of God, I am not a Trinitarian, but "unitarian" while also believing in a pre-human origin of the Son of God, being God's Agent in creation and in His interactions with humanity. So my remarks here are not intended in any way to support the Trinitarian viewpoint, but only to critique your specific points in this video in which I believe you are making some very serious errors. These errors could be easily overthrown by Trinitarians who have some basic knowledge of Greek grammar. First, that the Son literally “came down from heaven” does not logically necessitate Jesus remaining a divine being as you claimed. The argument presented here overlooks the literal sense of John 1:14 that “Logos BECAME flesh,” and Phil. 2:7 that the Son “BECAME in the likeness of men.” The verb ginomai (became) describes a complete change in ontological nature, as when “water became (ginomai) wine” or “stones become (ginomai) bread.” Arguing that since Jesus from birth was 100% human (which I completely agree with) and therefore could not literally have been in heaven is assuming what you are trying to prove. Your argument might be effective against Trinitarian “hypostatic union” but it is not effective against “preexistence” itself IF a complete transformation from an immortal being (the Son of God) to a 100% mortal human person occurred as the two above Scriptures indicate when taken literally. This concept is no more impossible as the reverse is impossible, that Abraham as a mortal returned to dust but will be turned into an immortal person in the resurrection, and still be the same person. In the resurrection we all will have "preexisted" with a somewhat different ontological nature. John 3:27 does not justify your claim of figurative interpretation regarding “coming down from heaven” or being “from above” or having "come forth from God." What was “GIVEN from heaven” in this context only refers to John's COMMISSION and the specific revelation he was to preach. That is what is said to have come "from heaven," not that John the Baptist as a PERSON came from heaven. This is not comparable to the statements about Jesus. John 3:2 also does not support your claim. The words “come from God” use the verb "erchomai" and the preposition “apo” (from). The verb is general, and means either to "come" or "go" depending on context. This verse does not use the much more specific verb "ex-erchomai" which means to "come forth" from the presence of someone or a place. This is done by prefixing the preposition "ek" (out from within) to the verb "erchomai." To merely "come from God" (erchomai) certainly can and often does have the meaning you claim and does not necessarily require a personal presence with or beside God (when the preposition is either "apo" or "para"). However, to "come FORTH from God" (ex-erchomai para/apo Theos) requires being in His presence, where He is located, which is heaven. So Nicodemus' statement recognizing that Jesus has "come from God" does not in any sense (literally or figuratively) imply a personal presence with God in heaven. However, the claims about Jesus Himself "coming FORTH from God" are much more specific, indicating both personal presence AND location by use of the verb "ex-erchomai" (adding the prefixed preposition "ek" meaning "out from within"). Other statements have indicators which also point to Jesus' personal presence with God. For example: John 6:46, “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.” The fact that Jesus' exclusive claim to have seen God shows what He meant in this case by coming "from God," that it is literal and not figurative. John 1:18 also affirms Jesus' unique claim to be the only one who has seen God. John 1:6 does not say that John the Baptist himself came from God. It says that he was commissioned (SENT - apostello) from God. John's COMMISSION was indeed from the immediate presence of God in heaven, delivered through the angel Gabriel who was indeed in the very presence of God, and was sent to Zacharias (John the Baptist’s father) to deliver that COMMISSION for his soon-to-be-born son, John. Luke’s account proves this point decisively: Luke 1:19 (NASB) 19 The angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I have been SENT (commissioned) to speak to you and to bring you this good news.” The word “SENT” (commissioned) is the same word used in John 1:6 in the statement, “there was a man SENT (commissioned) from God.” John the Baptist’s COMMISSION to preach was literally from the very presence of God through Gabriel's agency. This is what John 1:6 refers to. The literal sense of this verse does not in any way compare to the statements about Jesus in John's Gospel having personally "come down out of heaven" (using the preposition "ek") or having "come forth from God" using the verb ex-erchomai, with "ek" prefixed to the verb. When John’s commentary in John 3:13 states “no one has ascended into heaven except the one who came down FROM heaven,” he also used the preposition “ek” which means “out from within.” This verse juxtaposes two opposite concepts, Jesus' "descending out of heaven" vs. His "ascending into heaven." It is clear that Jesus' ascension into heaven was literal, therefore His descending out of heaven must also be literal (otherwise John's comparison is not logical, comparing apples {literal} to oranges {figurative}). Also, the aorist participle "having descended" requires that this action was ANTERIOR to the main verb "has ascended." The Greek grammar and syntax requires something like this: "No one has ascended into heaven (perf. tense - and remains there) except His having PREVIOUSLY descended out from within heaven." Paul said essentially the same thing in Eph. 4:9-10. We have the same thing in John 13:3 "Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had COME FORTH from God and was going back to God." The sense is not dependent on the preposition "from." It is dependent on the sense of the verb ex-erchomai which prefixes the preposition "ek" to the verb, and thus means to COME FORTH out from His presence and location. In John 6:38 Jesus said, “I came down from heaven” using the first-person personal pronoun "I" and the preposition “ek” (out from within). His use of the first-person singular PERSONAL pronoun “I” requires that His conscious PERSON (not necessarily His flesh) came “out from within heaven." Also, the term “descended” (from heaven) is never used of any person except Jesus, no prophet, and not John the Baptist. In this chapter Jesus claimed that His PERSON (Himself) coming down out of heaven was the Father’s “gift” to the world (v. 33). This is contrasted with the gift which Jesus Himself gave -- His “flesh” (v. 51). What the Father GAVE (Jn. 3:16 - His only-begotten Son) is not the same as what the Son GAVE (His flesh, His mortal life). John 16:27-30 flatly contradicts the claim that all of this language is figurative. 27 "for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I CAME FORTH (ex-erchomai) from God. 28 "I CAME FORTH (ex-erchomai) from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father." 29 His disciples said to Him, "See, now You are speaking plainly, and using no figure of speech! 30 "Now we are sure that You know all things, and have no need that anyone should question You. By this we believe that You CAME FORTH (ex-erchomai) from God." 31 Jesus answered them, "Do you now believe? Jesus twice used the verb "ex-erchomai" along with the prepositional phrase, "from the Father." This requires His presence with God in heaven. Jesus clearly juxtaposed two comparative, opposite ideas: "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world" is juxtaposed with "I am leaving the world and going to the Father." This juxtaposition demands that both opposite clauses be treated equally, either both are figurative or both are literal. Making one literal and the other figurative is not logically sound (same as in John 3:13 & John 13:3). Since Jesus' leaving the world and ascension to the Father was clearly literal, personally relocating from earth to heaven, so also was His coming from the Father into the world a personal relocation from heaven to earth. These statements are meant to be mirror images of each other. In vs. 29 the disciples acknowledged that Jesus was speaking LITERALLY and not FIGURATIVELY, and then they affirmed plainly that they believed Jesus came forth from God, again using the verb "ex-erchomai." In vs. 31 Jesus responded to this by saying, "Do you now believe?" Thus He affirmed that they were correct that He was NOT speaking figuratively. In Jesus' prayer in John 17:8 He said this: "for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me." Again, "ex-erchomai" is used (came forth). These passages in John's Gospel were meant literally, that the Son of God came down OUT FROM heaven, having COME FORTH from the Father's immediate presence. They require a personal pre-human existence in heaven with God. Yet none of them imply co-eternality or co-equality with God as in Trinitarianism, nor do they imply that Jesus as man was "divine" in His ontological nature. Denying these clear Scriptures is not helping the "unitarian" cause. It is preventing it from succeeding. PS, Jesus' coming "out of heaven" (ek) is also stated of His second coming (1 Thes. 1:10). Is that also figurative? In 1 Thess. 4:16 Jesus will "descend from heaven with a shout," same language as in John 3:13. Is that also figurative language?
Tim, thanks for the thoughtful response. A lot there. My off the cuff reaction is that I wouldn't base my Christology only on what is often metaphorical language in the Gospel of John. Jesus' flesh didn't literally come down from heaven and we don't literally eat his flesh and drink his blood. In this Gospel Jesus tells his listeners, among those people that don't understand his metaphors, that he is a "man that told you the truth that I heard from God" (8:40). "sent" language and "from heaven" language is too vague, too metaphorical to contradict Jesus' being a real human person whose literal origin was in the womb of Mary, not a pre-incarnate being who changed from being one thing and then transformed into a human. Again, thanks for the thoughts.
@@billschlegel1 Bro. Bill. Thanks for replying. Yes, there was a lot in my post. I did not intend to overwhelm. But the problem I see here is one of subjective handling of Scripture instead of being objective in handling Scripture. Metaphorical language is of course used at times in Scripture. But it must be judged as non-literal from the immediate context. The reason we understand certain words or clauses to be metaphors in language is because they make absolutely no sense literally. That is the normal standard. We recognize that in the statement, "Life is a beach," that the word "beach" is non-literal and metaphorical BECAUSE it makes no sense when taken literally in this context. We understand that "I am the door" uses "door" as a metaphor because Jesus does not have hinges and a knob. It is simply not legitimate to claim that since there are some metaphors in John's Gospel that statements that make perfect sense literally are "metaphors" simply because they do not mesh with our theology. One could do away with any inconvenient truth that way. And what of John 16:26-31 where it is absolutely clear that Jesus was NOT speaking in metaphors but quite literally when He said, "I came forth (ex-erchomai) from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father," and the disciples said He was not speaking figuratively. These things are juxtaposed for comparison. They cannot be dismissed by simply saying one of the statements is not literal. I agree that Jesus was "a Man that told you the truth that He heard from God." I agree that He was 100% human ontologically, and nothing more. But having a unique origin does not make Him any less human that Adam's unique origin being created out of dust as an adult male, or Eve's unique origin. Whoever was a "rib" in another person before they became a human being? Or is the story of creation in Genesis just an allegory? In your second paragraph above you imply that Jesus could not be a real human person if He preexisted. But that is simply not true. What He was as a Man says nothing at all about the origin of His conscious self or His history. This is especially true when Scripture clearly states that "He BECAME in the likeness of men," meaning He was not so before He "emptied Himself" (Phil. 2:7). Your argument rests entirely on a philosophical concept not a biblical concept or claim from the text and grammar. Your argument is based on human philosophy about what constitutes a human person and not on what God has actually said. This is a severe mistake brother. I appreciate your attempt to make a valid and logical point from John the Baptist. IF you could show that the same language was used of John the Baptist that was used of Jesus in these statements, then your attempt might have been successful. But it failed because phrases like "commissioned from God" (which applies LITERALLY to all of God's prophets, angels, Jesus, and the Apostles) is not the same thing as "I have descended from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." You claim that Jesus was using metaphor that was not understood by His audience. But what about all of the editorial statements by John the Apostle in his Gospel? Was he too using this non-literal language decades after the fact when saying things like: "No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven"? John said that he wrote these things so that "you might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God." But the consistent testimony of the next generations of Christians was that these statements were literal. Brother, you are using faulty logic and conflating statements about John the Baptist and Jesus that are completely different in their literal sense. And because they may sound to you like similar concepts, you probably can persuade some to accept your explanation if they do not have the knowledge or tools to examine the Greek text to validate what you are claiming. In your reply above you gave no logical reason why these statements must be non-literal, just that there are metaphorical statements elsewhere in John, and your philosophical claim that Jesus could not be human if He pre-existed. These claims are not valid because the former says nothing about the passages in question, and the latter is simply not true. This is the very error that led such early church writers like Origin to claim that the promises to Israel in the OT were all allegory, meant to indicate a "heavenly" destiny. It was wrong to use the "not-literal" claim in Origin's case (when those promises made perfect sense literally), and it is wrong to use Origin's allegorical approach regarding Jesus' own testimony about Himself, and Paul's and John's repeated testimony about Jesus' pre-human origin and existence. As a pastor, I brought our church out of Trinitarianism, eternal torment, immortality of the soul, etc, as I was discovering the truths in God's Word that I could no longer deny. But these changes came about because the literal text (when examined in the Greek, paying careful attention to the grammar) forced me to change my views because I was willing to be wrong and be corrected by the Word. But from my interaction with Biblical Unitarians, all I have seen so far (when it comes to preexistence) is attempt to correct the Scriptures by their own presuppositions and philosophical speculations. For me personally, I take the warning in James very seriously, that teachers are going to receive the harsher judgement. I think your intentions are sincere, but the exegetical process you are using is seriously flawed IMHO. Grace & Peace, Tim
Hey Tim, I would like to address some of your comments, but I don't have a lot of time now. For now I would just point out a two things. First, are you claiming that the word ginomai requires an ontological change? I hope you are not saying that because the word is used many times without such a meaning. John 3:27 was not cited in the way you are arguing against. It was cited to show that the phrases "from heaven" and "from above" are being used as metonyms for "from God," i.e. to be from heaven simply means to be from God. This does not require that one who is from God literally come from heaven.
@@troysal Troy, Thanks for the interaction. First, the word "ginomai" means "to become." When used of events, it means to "occur." When used of a noun in the nominative case (except in predicate nominative clauses), such as "all things through Him BECAME (ginomai)" (Jn. 1:3), it means that they "originated," came into being. However, when it is used of something that already exists, that it BECAME (ginomai) something else named (as in predicate nominative clauses), then it refers to some kind of change from the former to the later. I gave two examples, "stones become bread" and "water became wine." Both of these meet the condition that one thing named "became" something else named. Whether or not you agree that "Logos" in John 1 is a person, I think you must agree that when "Logos became (ginomai) flesh," that there is definitely a complete change from one thing to another. Logos was not "flesh" before this occurred. Likewise, in Phil. 2:7 when the Son "emptied Himself" and "became (ginomai) in the likeness of men," He was not formerly "in the likeness of men." We can disagree over what "the likeness of men" means. But it is undisputable that whatever it means, the use of "ginomai" in this case means He was not that BEFORE He "emptied Himself." That much is clear from the grammar. Your claim that "from heaven" (used of a PERSON) is a metonym for "from God" is an assumption, a circular argument unless you can show someone apart from Jesus where this is said. What other PERSON is said to have come "from heaven?" Not John the Baptist. He was "commissioned (apostello) from heaven." That is, heaven was the place and source of his commission. More importantly, what other person is said to have "descended from heaven?" What other PERSON is said to "come forth" (ex-erchomai) from God? Jesus is the only one. Since the intent of the video was to show that what is said of Jesus is also said of John the Baptist, the video came up short. Even the title of the video is false. Nothing in John 1:6 (taken completely literally) even remotely suggests that "John the Baptizer came down from heaven" as the title indicates. This video conflates very different statements as though they mean the same thing. Sure, divine revelation may come from heaven. A commission may come from heaven. But a PERSON (besides Jesus) "descended from heaven," or a PERSON who "came forth" (ex-erchomai) from God? Only Jesus. The verb "ex-erchomai" absolutely requires Jesus' personal presence in heaven before God. This is the verb used when Jesus evicted demons who "went out from" people. It is the verb used when Jesus healed the woman who touched His garment, noting that power had "gone forth from" Him. This verb always requires leaving a place or someone's presence. Therefore, for Jesus to "come forth from God" (ex-erchomai) requires that He was with God in heaven. I will grant you that there is some language that is often interpreted by Trinitarians to support preexistence which is misused, such as being "sent into the world." This clause does not require coming from outside planet earth, since "world" is often used without the sense of the physical creation, but rather the orderly society, a jurisdiction, even the Roman Empire. However, there is language that cannot be explained away which is absolutely unique to Jesus. Making these statements (such as Jn. 3:13) figurative is not only unsound logically (because it ignores the juxtaposition of opposite ideas - a logical error), but also goes against explicit statements such as John 16:27-31. That passage is quite clear that Jesus was speaking literally and not figuratively. He literally "came forth (ex-erchomai) from God into the world" (which requires His leaving God's location/presence), and was about to "leave the world and go to the Father." These statements are logically opposite in meaning. Either both are literal or both are figurative. There are other similar statements which cannot be made non-literal, such as John 6:62 "What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?" Such statements require a personal presence in heaven. In the end it really comes down to whether or not we are going to BELIEVE God's testimony about His Son, or DISBELIEVE it and find creative ways to explain it away (1 Jn. 5:10). Grace & Peace, Tim
A response to @ yisraelavraham4078. I think it’s fair to say that most who read the likes of John 3:13 and John 8:14 believe that Jesus is referring to his pre-existent state. If those born of the Spirit “come from” the same place as Jesus, then in context, it would mean that they also must have pre-existed in heaven before their incarnation. For me, that's the obvious problem. Was Jesus “born again” at his baptism? Here are some observations to take into consideration:- Jesus was a “son of God” in the same sense as Adam simply because God was their source of unique creation. Unlike Adam, Jesus was “born” of a woman under the law Gal 4:4. For this very reason, not because he was a sinner, it makes sense that he had to be “born again”. Jesus is the “firstborn” of many brothers Rom 8:29-30, would this not mean that those “born of the Spirit” would have to be “born” in the same manner as Jesus? And that manner certainly isn't from the womb of a virgin Mother. Therefore, it's not inconceivable that at Jesus’ baptism he “became” God’s “beloved son” via the new birth. That's why, in my opinion, “immediately” after his baptism Satan tried to cast doubt upon Christ’s newly appointed status as the “son of God” - “if” you are the son of God, do this etc - This kind of questioning doesn't make sense in the light of Jesus’ supposed pre-existence. Why would Satan try to get the son to prove the obvious, something they “both” would have already known from his pre-existent status. It's not out of character for Satan to deceitfully question something God has just said - Did God “really” say not to eat of the tree, did God “really” declare you to be his son”? -Satan succeeded in getting the appointed head of God's original creation to sin via his deceitful questioning. He didn't succeed in getting the appointed head of God’s new creation to sin via the same method. Yes, John had the spirit from birth, yet having the spirit doesn't equate to being “born again”. The “new birth” originated with Jesus and didn't happen to anyone else until “after” his glorification John 7:39. So, in whatever sense John had the spirit it wasn't in the same way as it originated with Jesus, nor was it in the same way as those who would later believe Gal 4:6. Simply put, John did not have the spirit of Christ via the “new birth”. This reasoning gives rise to Jesus’ statement in Matt 11:11 -There is none “born” among women who is greater than John. yet he who is least IN the kingdom of heaven is greater than John -This makes sense concerning part of Jesus' statement that is often omitted in John 3:13 -The son of man who is IN heaven-The very least of those chosen to receive this “new birth” are also seated IN the heavens Eph 2:4-6. All such ones are considered to be greater than John who himself did not receive the “new birth” or fully understand those things pertaining to Christ and his kingdom. Again, the above is just my personal reasonings. Peace
Ha ha. Indeed Mr. J T Baptist was sent from heaven, and so was Isaiah, as he was in the back row in a meeting in heaven (if we are going to take translated scripture so literally) and he called out to the chair of the meeting (YHWH) "SEND ME" and so YHWH said "ok off you go, but first let me burn your lips with an ember out of the campfire here." And Jesus told us Peter was the devil! The trouble we get ourselves into when we insist on reading literal translation, and ignore the original intended prophetic meaning.
Good point, that Isaiah is another good example of a prophet being "in the council/secret place" of God. As Troy points out, Numbers 12:6 is also informative: "And he said, "Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream."
Hi. Indeed, Trinitarians do think those 4 verses are essential for their doctrine of who God and Christ are. 4 verses, where the context is Paul is encouraging believers to be unified in humility, Paul is supposed to have snuck in the most essential claim that one member of a multi-member god became a man. But Philippians 2 is about the man Christ Jesus. Christ is the title of a human. Jesus is the name of a human. The attitude and actions of humility Christ Jesus had (and has) were when he was a human being. The man Christ Jesus died (God does not die) and was exalted by his God (2:9-11). To claim that the attitude and actions described in Phil. 2:5-8 were of some pre-incarnate god/being dishonors the man Christ Jesus. It takes the honor from him and tries to give it to some other non existent god. ua-cam.com/video/ntg8KvZ2pSQ/v-deo.html
Conceived by the power of the Spirit. Born of the Spirit he became during his baptism in the Jordan when God sent the spirit upon him in the shape of a dove.
Códex Sinaiticus John 3: 13 And no one has ascended into heaven but he that came down from heaven, the Son of man, who is in heaven. What’s your take on this statement by Jesus?
Probably like paul who ascended to a level of heaven yet he wasn't sure if he was out of the body or in the body...I think its more of jesus being present with the most high God while being on earth which all is done in the spirit. Since the spirit comes from the kingdom of heaven and is dwelling with christ jesus.
Jn3:13. The Hebrew, and most so called "eastern" peoples, claimed good things were "heaven sent" or "came from heaven" or even "came down from heaven" (an ancient construct when they believed earth was flat.) I noticed this some years ago by watching Chinese historical dramas. Many times "heaven sent" a person, a blasting, a blessing, all sorts of stuff were attributed to being sent from heaven or coming down from heaven. Biblically literal by translated wording Isaiah was obviously in heaven in a meeting when he got his lips burned and was sent down to earth. We dont assume this or try to build theology to suit. Jesus is the promise of Gen3:15 and more specific to Israel Deut18:18. The promised great prophet a jewish man who God would speak THROUGH. So Jesus is sent (up down through or from) heaven. Because the one who sent him "is in heaven" (where ever that is geographically). I hope that clears it up a bit for you.
@@ken440 Let’s find the thesis and antithesis from John 3:13, "And no one has ascended into heaven but he that came down from heaven, the Son of man, who is in heaven," The thesis in this context is the assertion that only the Son of man, who came down from heaven, has ascended into heaven. The antithesis could be the idea that others besides the Son of man may ascend into heaven. The verse emphasizes the unique divine nature of the Son of man. In the context of the verse John 3:13, the synthesis would be the reconciliation or resolution between the thesis (only the Son of man has ascended into heaven) and the antithesis (the possibility that others may ascend). The synthesis here emphasizes the exclusivity of the Son of man's divine nature and his role as the unique mediator between heaven and earth. It doesn't necessarily provide room for others to ascend in the same divine manner. ChatGPT 😂
The way I understand John 3:13 is that the phrase " the one descending from heaven" refers to what we now call the second coming of Yeshua. The son of man was seen descending from heaven in Daniel's vision, so, in the sense that Daniel's vision was in the past when Yeshua said this, it was a past event. But the vision speaks of a descent from heaven at the end of this age, which is still future. But how can it be that a son of man can descend from heaven unless he had previously ascended into heaven. So in reality, the ascending precedes the descending, not the other way around.
Yes, I believe you are correct that the statement in John 3:13 relates to the prophetical vision of Daniel of the Son of Man (the people of Israel, who is represented by the ideal Israel, Messiah Yeshua). Messiah/Israel's rule is the fulfillment of God's desire for a human rule on earth, rather than the beastly rule of kingdoms of the world that we've seen so much of.
@@riversofeden3929 In personal correspondence, Troy has said he is open to other explanations for the passage. He isn't being dogmatic on this understanding. I tend to see John 3:13 as the comment of the author, not of Jesus. And, like I said, I think the comment has a connection to Daniel's vision. Jesus did describe himself as the Son of Man who comes on the clouds at the right hand of God/Power. "Coming on the clouds" can be a kind of descending. In any case, the comment is about a Son of Man, that is, a descendant of Adam. There are/were no pre-incarnate humans in heaven. Also, I think John 3:13 could have something to do with revelation/knowledge. The verses just before it are about what (and how?) Jesus and John the Baptizer know things that Mr. Respected Wise Member of the Council Nicodemus didn't understand.
@@riversofeden3929 I was referring to a passage like (and parallels) Matthew 26:64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
The 'descent from heaven' is just simply that Messiah (the plan and concept) originated in the mind of YHWH. Messiah is of the mind of YHWH, thus he is of heaven and from above. When this plan of YHWH was thus manifested in reality, time and history, messiah in the flesh, it is thought of as a 'descent' from heaven because that's where the whole Divine Plan of YHWH originated (from heaven). Its that simple
@@riversofeden3929 Are you suggesting that it is invalid to see the son of man coming with the clouds from Daniel's vision as the return of Yeshua? I think this is exactly what the NT authors thought - Matt 24:30; 26:64; Rev. 1:7. Look, if you have a different take on Dan. 7:13, fine, but don't act like it is illegitimate to take it the way I do, like only your preterist interpretation is valid. The judgment scene in Dan. 7:9-12, imo, is taking place on earth (it's really just a vision meant to convey some reality, namely, that the nations will be judged and God will strip them of their authority and his kingdom will reign supreme). A similar thing is seen in Joel 3:12.
Do you not realize your perception of The Bible removes God revealing himself to the World? Moreover, do you not realize your interpretation gets rid of the Savior? Even more, do you not realize by claiming Jesus Christ is just an exalted man, simply a prophet, you take away him fulfilling every prophecy in the Old Testament as to what the Messiah would do? Riding a donkey, where he'd be born, that he'd be pierced... All these things you scoff at, as though he is just another man. Finally. by denying Jesus Christ as God, the Father, the Word, in the flesh, you take away the lamb. There is no sacrifice to save mankind, outside of God himself making a way. There is no man worthy of the crown Jesus Christ wears. This teaching is simply the same train of thought Islamic teachers are on. You'll never respond to me, I realize this, because you know it's a conversation you don't want to entertain. Jesus Christ is GOD. That is the revelation. That is the clear truth to His sheep.
Hi Joseph, I believe that God has made himself known uniquely in and through the man Christ Jesus. The God who has made himself known through the man Christ Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, known in Hebrew by the letters יהוה and especially in the New Testament as "The Father". Hope that helps.
HALLELUJAH
This message is on point . . I would just add, the terms "From heaven" or "From God" in their simplest meaning is just that of having "Divine Authority" . The ministry of John was 'from heaven', ie, it had divine authority and originated in the 'debar' plan of YHWH, and NOT in the minds of man (from below, carnal). If something is 'of heaven' or 'from God', and originates in the mind of YHWH, then it has ultimate Divine Authority.
Yesterday I was discussing with my wife about what is the difference between trinitarian Jesus and our Jesus. My wife said that their Jesus is just "Jesus culture". Our Jesus is a narrow way Jesus because we know we have to defeat our old flesh and walk JUST AS HE WALKED. There's no excuse for sin, no excuse for not loving others, no excuse for doing things without God telling us to do. They have excuse not to be as Jesus because they "know" that "they are not God in human flesh, but humans in human flesh" and they have excuse not to go a narrow way of death because there flesh doesn't like it. My flesh doesn't like it too, but I understand that there's no other way and this fact of knowing is doing work of changing my attitude and heart. It brings godly sorrow in me that I'm far away from what I have to be and this sorrow brings me to repentance. We must sit silent, cover our mouths, repent and listen to what God wants us to say and to do, not when we want, not what we want but when he wants and how He wants. He's not looking at the works we do, He looks who is the source of our works, and if it's not Him doing works through us then these works are works of our own hands which are as filthy rags. I understood that there's no need to argue with trinitarians about certain verses because there will be no end to it. We must show them the difference between their Jesus and our Jesus and they will see which way is narrow and they will have no excuse. If they still want their own wide way it's their choice, don't waste your time, just leave them.
Hi Bill. I enjoy your work.
👍🏼
Bro. Bill,
As you know from our personal conversation at Guthrie Grove Church of God, I am not a Trinitarian, but "unitarian" while also believing in a pre-human origin of the Son of God, being God's Agent in creation and in His interactions with humanity. So my remarks here are not intended in any way to support the Trinitarian viewpoint, but only to critique your specific points in this video in which I believe you are making some very serious errors. These errors could be easily overthrown by Trinitarians who have some basic knowledge of Greek grammar.
First, that the Son literally “came down from heaven” does not logically necessitate Jesus remaining a divine being as you claimed. The argument presented here overlooks the literal sense of John 1:14 that “Logos BECAME flesh,” and Phil. 2:7 that the Son “BECAME in the likeness of men.” The verb ginomai (became) describes a complete change in ontological nature, as when “water became (ginomai) wine” or “stones become (ginomai) bread.” Arguing that since Jesus from birth was 100% human (which I completely agree with) and therefore could not literally have been in heaven is assuming what you are trying to prove. Your argument might be effective against Trinitarian “hypostatic union” but it is not effective against “preexistence” itself IF a complete transformation from an immortal being (the Son of God) to a 100% mortal human person occurred as the two above Scriptures indicate when taken literally. This concept is no more impossible as the reverse is impossible, that Abraham as a mortal returned to dust but will be turned into an immortal person in the resurrection, and still be the same person. In the resurrection we all will have "preexisted" with a somewhat different ontological nature.
John 3:27 does not justify your claim of figurative interpretation regarding “coming down from heaven” or being “from above” or having "come forth from God." What was “GIVEN from heaven” in this context only refers to John's COMMISSION and the specific revelation he was to preach. That is what is said to have come "from heaven," not that John the Baptist as a PERSON came from heaven. This is not comparable to the statements about Jesus.
John 3:2 also does not support your claim. The words “come from God” use the verb "erchomai" and the preposition “apo” (from). The verb is general, and means either to "come" or "go" depending on context. This verse does not use the much more specific verb "ex-erchomai" which means to "come forth" from the presence of someone or a place. This is done by prefixing the preposition "ek" (out from within) to the verb "erchomai." To merely "come from God" (erchomai) certainly can and often does have the meaning you claim and does not necessarily require a personal presence with or beside God (when the preposition is either "apo" or "para"). However, to "come FORTH from God" (ex-erchomai para/apo Theos) requires being in His presence, where He is located, which is heaven. So Nicodemus' statement recognizing that Jesus has "come from God" does not in any sense (literally or figuratively) imply a personal presence with God in heaven. However, the claims about Jesus Himself "coming FORTH from God" are much more specific, indicating both personal presence AND location by use of the verb "ex-erchomai" (adding the prefixed preposition "ek" meaning "out from within").
Other statements have indicators which also point to Jesus' personal presence with God. For example: John 6:46, “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.” The fact that Jesus' exclusive claim to have seen God shows what He meant in this case by coming "from God," that it is literal and not figurative. John 1:18 also affirms Jesus' unique claim to be the only one who has seen God.
John 1:6 does not say that John the Baptist himself came from God. It says that he was commissioned (SENT - apostello) from God. John's COMMISSION was indeed from the immediate presence of God in heaven, delivered through the angel Gabriel who was indeed in the very presence of God, and was sent to Zacharias (John the Baptist’s father) to deliver that COMMISSION for his soon-to-be-born son, John. Luke’s account proves this point decisively: Luke 1:19 (NASB) 19 The angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I have been SENT (commissioned) to speak to you and to bring you this good news.” The word “SENT” (commissioned) is the same word used in John 1:6 in the statement, “there was a man SENT (commissioned) from God.” John the Baptist’s COMMISSION to preach was literally from the very presence of God through Gabriel's agency. This is what John 1:6 refers to. The literal sense of this verse does not in any way compare to the statements about Jesus in John's Gospel having personally "come down out of heaven" (using the preposition "ek") or having "come forth from God" using the verb ex-erchomai, with "ek" prefixed to the verb.
When John’s commentary in John 3:13 states “no one has ascended into heaven except the one who came down FROM heaven,” he also used the preposition “ek” which means “out from within.” This verse juxtaposes two opposite concepts, Jesus' "descending out of heaven" vs. His "ascending into heaven." It is clear that Jesus' ascension into heaven was literal, therefore His descending out of heaven must also be literal (otherwise John's comparison is not logical, comparing apples {literal} to oranges {figurative}). Also, the aorist participle "having descended" requires that this action was ANTERIOR to the main verb "has ascended." The Greek grammar and syntax requires something like this: "No one has ascended into heaven (perf. tense - and remains there) except His having PREVIOUSLY descended out from within heaven." Paul said essentially the same thing in Eph. 4:9-10.
We have the same thing in John 13:3 "Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had COME FORTH from God and was going back to God." The sense is not dependent on the preposition "from." It is dependent on the sense of the verb ex-erchomai which prefixes the preposition "ek" to the verb, and thus means to COME FORTH out from His presence and location.
In John 6:38 Jesus said, “I came down from heaven” using the first-person personal pronoun "I" and the preposition “ek” (out from within). His use of the first-person singular PERSONAL pronoun “I” requires that His conscious PERSON (not necessarily His flesh) came “out from within heaven." Also, the term “descended” (from heaven) is never used of any person except Jesus, no prophet, and not John the Baptist. In this chapter Jesus claimed that His PERSON (Himself) coming down out of heaven was the Father’s “gift” to the world (v. 33). This is contrasted with the gift which Jesus Himself gave -- His “flesh” (v. 51). What the Father GAVE (Jn. 3:16 - His only-begotten Son) is not the same as what the Son GAVE (His flesh, His mortal life).
John 16:27-30 flatly contradicts the claim that all of this language is figurative.
27 "for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I CAME FORTH (ex-erchomai) from God.
28 "I CAME FORTH (ex-erchomai) from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father."
29 His disciples said to Him, "See, now You are speaking plainly, and using no figure of speech!
30 "Now we are sure that You know all things, and have no need that anyone should question You. By this we believe that You CAME FORTH (ex-erchomai) from God."
31 Jesus answered them, "Do you now believe?
Jesus twice used the verb "ex-erchomai" along with the prepositional phrase, "from the Father." This requires His presence with God in heaven. Jesus clearly juxtaposed two comparative, opposite ideas: "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world" is juxtaposed with "I am leaving the world and going to the Father." This juxtaposition demands that both opposite clauses be treated equally, either both are figurative or both are literal. Making one literal and the other figurative is not logically sound (same as in John 3:13 & John 13:3). Since Jesus' leaving the world and ascension to the Father was clearly literal, personally relocating from earth to heaven, so also was His coming from the Father into the world a personal relocation from heaven to earth. These statements are meant to be mirror images of each other. In vs. 29 the disciples acknowledged that Jesus was speaking LITERALLY and not FIGURATIVELY, and then they affirmed plainly that they believed Jesus came forth from God, again using the verb "ex-erchomai." In vs. 31 Jesus responded to this by saying, "Do you now believe?" Thus He affirmed that they were correct that He was NOT speaking figuratively.
In Jesus' prayer in John 17:8 He said this: "for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me." Again, "ex-erchomai" is used (came forth).
These passages in John's Gospel were meant literally, that the Son of God came down OUT FROM heaven, having COME FORTH from the Father's immediate presence. They require a personal pre-human existence in heaven with God. Yet none of them imply co-eternality or co-equality with God as in Trinitarianism, nor do they imply that Jesus as man was "divine" in His ontological nature. Denying these clear Scriptures is not helping the "unitarian" cause. It is preventing it from succeeding.
PS, Jesus' coming "out of heaven" (ek) is also stated of His second coming (1 Thes. 1:10). Is that also figurative? In 1 Thess. 4:16 Jesus will "descend from heaven with a shout," same language as in John 3:13. Is that also figurative language?
Tim, thanks for the thoughtful response. A lot there. My off the cuff reaction is that I wouldn't base my Christology only on what is often metaphorical language in the Gospel of John. Jesus' flesh didn't literally come down from heaven and we don't literally eat his flesh and drink his blood. In this Gospel Jesus tells his listeners, among those people that don't understand his metaphors, that he is a "man that told you the truth that I heard from God" (8:40).
"sent" language and "from heaven" language is too vague, too metaphorical to contradict Jesus' being a real human person whose literal origin was in the womb of Mary, not a pre-incarnate being who changed from being one thing and then transformed into a human.
Again, thanks for the thoughts.
@@billschlegel1 Bro. Bill. Thanks for replying. Yes, there was a lot in my post. I did not intend to overwhelm. But the problem I see here is one of subjective handling of Scripture instead of being objective in handling Scripture. Metaphorical language is of course used at times in Scripture. But it must be judged as non-literal from the immediate context. The reason we understand certain words or clauses to be metaphors in language is because they make absolutely no sense literally. That is the normal standard. We recognize that in the statement, "Life is a beach," that the word "beach" is non-literal and metaphorical BECAUSE it makes no sense when taken literally in this context. We understand that "I am the door" uses "door" as a metaphor because Jesus does not have hinges and a knob. It is simply not legitimate to claim that since there are some metaphors in John's Gospel that statements that make perfect sense literally are "metaphors" simply because they do not mesh with our theology. One could do away with any inconvenient truth that way. And what of John 16:26-31 where it is absolutely clear that Jesus was NOT speaking in metaphors but quite literally when He said, "I came forth (ex-erchomai) from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father," and the disciples said He was not speaking figuratively. These things are juxtaposed for comparison. They cannot be dismissed by simply saying one of the statements is not literal.
I agree that Jesus was "a Man that told you the truth that He heard from God." I agree that He was 100% human ontologically, and nothing more. But having a unique origin does not make Him any less human that Adam's unique origin being created out of dust as an adult male, or Eve's unique origin. Whoever was a "rib" in another person before they became a human being? Or is the story of creation in Genesis just an allegory?
In your second paragraph above you imply that Jesus could not be a real human person if He preexisted. But that is simply not true. What He was as a Man says nothing at all about the origin of His conscious self or His history. This is especially true when Scripture clearly states that "He BECAME in the likeness of men," meaning He was not so before He "emptied Himself" (Phil. 2:7). Your argument rests entirely on a philosophical concept not a biblical concept or claim from the text and grammar. Your argument is based on human philosophy about what constitutes a human person and not on what God has actually said. This is a severe mistake brother.
I appreciate your attempt to make a valid and logical point from John the Baptist. IF you could show that the same language was used of John the Baptist that was used of Jesus in these statements, then your attempt might have been successful. But it failed because phrases like "commissioned from God" (which applies LITERALLY to all of God's prophets, angels, Jesus, and the Apostles) is not the same thing as "I have descended from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." You claim that Jesus was using metaphor that was not understood by His audience. But what about all of the editorial statements by John the Apostle in his Gospel? Was he too using this non-literal language decades after the fact when saying things like: "No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven"? John said that he wrote these things so that "you might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God." But the consistent testimony of the next generations of Christians was that these statements were literal.
Brother, you are using faulty logic and conflating statements about John the Baptist and Jesus that are completely different in their literal sense. And because they may sound to you like similar concepts, you probably can persuade some to accept your explanation if they do not have the knowledge or tools to examine the Greek text to validate what you are claiming. In your reply above you gave no logical reason why these statements must be non-literal, just that there are metaphorical statements elsewhere in John, and your philosophical claim that Jesus could not be human if He pre-existed. These claims are not valid because the former says nothing about the passages in question, and the latter is simply not true.
This is the very error that led such early church writers like Origin to claim that the promises to Israel in the OT were all allegory, meant to indicate a "heavenly" destiny. It was wrong to use the "not-literal" claim in Origin's case (when those promises made perfect sense literally), and it is wrong to use Origin's allegorical approach regarding Jesus' own testimony about Himself, and Paul's and John's repeated testimony about Jesus' pre-human origin and existence.
As a pastor, I brought our church out of Trinitarianism, eternal torment, immortality of the soul, etc, as I was discovering the truths in God's Word that I could no longer deny. But these changes came about because the literal text (when examined in the Greek, paying careful attention to the grammar) forced me to change my views because I was willing to be wrong and be corrected by the Word. But from my interaction with Biblical Unitarians, all I have seen so far (when it comes to preexistence) is attempt to correct the Scriptures by their own presuppositions and philosophical speculations. For me personally, I take the warning in James very seriously, that teachers are going to receive the harsher judgement. I think your intentions are sincere, but the exegetical process you are using is seriously flawed IMHO.
Grace & Peace, Tim
Hey Tim, I would like to address some of your comments, but I don't have a lot of time now. For now I would just point out a two things. First, are you claiming that the word ginomai requires an ontological change? I hope you are not saying that because the word is used many times without such a meaning.
John 3:27 was not cited in the way you are arguing against. It was cited to show that the phrases "from heaven" and "from above" are being used as metonyms for "from God," i.e. to be from heaven simply means to be from God. This does not require that one who is from God literally come from heaven.
@@troysal Troy, Thanks for the interaction. First, the word "ginomai" means "to become." When used of events, it means to "occur." When used of a noun in the nominative case (except in predicate nominative clauses), such as "all things through Him BECAME (ginomai)" (Jn. 1:3), it means that they "originated," came into being. However, when it is used of something that already exists, that it BECAME (ginomai) something else named (as in predicate nominative clauses), then it refers to some kind of change from the former to the later. I gave two examples, "stones become bread" and "water became wine." Both of these meet the condition that one thing named "became" something else named. Whether or not you agree that "Logos" in John 1 is a person, I think you must agree that when "Logos became (ginomai) flesh," that there is definitely a complete change from one thing to another. Logos was not "flesh" before this occurred. Likewise, in Phil. 2:7 when the Son "emptied Himself" and "became (ginomai) in the likeness of men," He was not formerly "in the likeness of men." We can disagree over what "the likeness of men" means. But it is undisputable that whatever it means, the use of "ginomai" in this case means He was not that BEFORE He "emptied Himself." That much is clear from the grammar.
Your claim that "from heaven" (used of a PERSON) is a metonym for "from God" is an assumption, a circular argument unless you can show someone apart from Jesus where this is said. What other PERSON is said to have come "from heaven?" Not John the Baptist. He was "commissioned (apostello) from heaven." That is, heaven was the place and source of his commission. More importantly, what other person is said to have "descended from heaven?" What other PERSON is said to "come forth" (ex-erchomai) from God? Jesus is the only one. Since the intent of the video was to show that what is said of Jesus is also said of John the Baptist, the video came up short. Even the title of the video is false. Nothing in John 1:6 (taken completely literally) even remotely suggests that "John the Baptizer came down from heaven" as the title indicates. This video conflates very different statements as though they mean the same thing. Sure, divine revelation may come from heaven. A commission may come from heaven. But a PERSON (besides Jesus) "descended from heaven," or a PERSON who "came forth" (ex-erchomai) from God? Only Jesus. The verb "ex-erchomai" absolutely requires Jesus' personal presence in heaven before God. This is the verb used when Jesus evicted demons who "went out from" people. It is the verb used when Jesus healed the woman who touched His garment, noting that power had "gone forth from" Him. This verb always requires leaving a place or someone's presence. Therefore, for Jesus to "come forth from God" (ex-erchomai) requires that He was with God in heaven.
I will grant you that there is some language that is often interpreted by Trinitarians to support preexistence which is misused, such as being "sent into the world." This clause does not require coming from outside planet earth, since "world" is often used without the sense of the physical creation, but rather the orderly society, a jurisdiction, even the Roman Empire. However, there is language that cannot be explained away which is absolutely unique to Jesus. Making these statements (such as Jn. 3:13) figurative is not only unsound logically (because it ignores the juxtaposition of opposite ideas - a logical error), but also goes against explicit statements such as John 16:27-31. That passage is quite clear that Jesus was speaking literally and not figuratively. He literally "came forth (ex-erchomai) from God into the world" (which requires His leaving God's location/presence), and was about to "leave the world and go to the Father." These statements are logically opposite in meaning. Either both are literal or both are figurative. There are other similar statements which cannot be made non-literal, such as John 6:62 "What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?" Such statements require a personal presence in heaven. In the end it really comes down to whether or not we are going to BELIEVE God's testimony about His Son, or DISBELIEVE it and find creative ways to explain it away (1 Jn. 5:10).
Grace & Peace, Tim
A response to @ yisraelavraham4078.
I think it’s fair to say that most who read the likes of John 3:13 and John 8:14 believe that Jesus is referring to his pre-existent state. If those born of the Spirit “come from” the same place as Jesus, then in context, it would mean that they also must have pre-existed in heaven before their incarnation. For me, that's the obvious problem.
Was Jesus “born again” at his baptism? Here are some observations to take into consideration:-
Jesus was a “son of God” in the same sense as Adam simply because God was their source of unique creation. Unlike Adam, Jesus was “born” of a woman under the law Gal 4:4. For this very reason, not because he was a sinner, it makes sense that he had to be “born again”. Jesus is the “firstborn” of many brothers Rom 8:29-30, would this not mean that those “born of the Spirit” would have to be “born” in the same manner as Jesus? And that manner certainly isn't from the womb of a virgin Mother. Therefore, it's not inconceivable that at Jesus’ baptism he “became” God’s “beloved son” via the new birth. That's why, in my opinion, “immediately” after his baptism Satan tried to cast doubt upon Christ’s newly appointed status as the “son of God” - “if” you are the son of God, do this etc - This kind of questioning doesn't make sense in the light of Jesus’ supposed pre-existence. Why would Satan try to get the son to prove the obvious, something they “both” would have already known from his pre-existent status. It's not out of character for Satan to deceitfully question something God has just said - Did God “really” say not to eat of the tree, did God “really” declare you to be his son”? -Satan succeeded in getting the appointed head of God's original creation to sin via his deceitful questioning. He didn't succeed in getting the appointed head of God’s new creation to sin via the same method.
Yes, John had the spirit from birth, yet having the spirit doesn't equate to being “born again”. The “new birth” originated with Jesus and didn't happen to anyone else until “after” his glorification John 7:39. So, in whatever sense John had the spirit it wasn't in the same way as it originated with Jesus, nor was it in the same way as those who would later believe Gal 4:6. Simply put, John did not have the spirit of Christ via the “new birth”.
This reasoning gives rise to Jesus’ statement in Matt 11:11 -There is none “born” among women who is greater than John. yet he who is least IN the kingdom of heaven is greater than John -This makes sense concerning part of Jesus' statement that is often omitted in John 3:13 -The son of man who is IN heaven-The very least of those chosen to receive this “new birth” are also seated IN the heavens Eph 2:4-6. All such ones are considered to be greater than John who himself did not receive the “new birth” or fully understand those things pertaining to Christ and his kingdom.
Again, the above is just my personal reasonings.
Peace
And the Word (the promise about John the Baptist - Iz 40,3 Mal 3,1 Mark 1,2 ) also became flesh. As in the case of Jesus.
Ha ha. Indeed Mr. J T Baptist was sent from heaven, and so was Isaiah, as he was in the back row in a meeting in heaven (if we are going to take translated scripture so literally) and he called out to the chair of the meeting (YHWH) "SEND ME" and so YHWH said "ok off you go, but first let me burn your lips with an ember out of the campfire here."
And Jesus told us Peter was the devil!
The trouble we get ourselves into when we insist on reading literal translation, and ignore the original intended prophetic meaning.
Good point, that Isaiah is another good example of a prophet being "in the council/secret place" of God. As Troy points out, Numbers 12:6 is also informative: "And he said, "Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream."
Trinitarians like to use Philippians 2:5-8 to back up the claim that Jesus came down from Heaven because he pre existed
Hi. Indeed, Trinitarians do think those 4 verses are essential for their doctrine of who God and Christ are. 4 verses, where the context is Paul is encouraging believers to be unified in humility, Paul is supposed to have snuck in the most essential claim that one member of a multi-member god became a man.
But Philippians 2 is about the man Christ Jesus. Christ is the title of a human. Jesus is the name of a human. The attitude and actions of humility Christ Jesus had (and has) were when he was a human being. The man Christ Jesus died (God does not die) and was exalted by his God (2:9-11).
To claim that the attitude and actions described in Phil. 2:5-8 were of some pre-incarnate god/being dishonors the man Christ Jesus. It takes the honor from him and tries to give it to some other non existent god. ua-cam.com/video/ntg8KvZ2pSQ/v-deo.html
To be fair the human ontology of jesus is what is made superior because he is born of the power of the spirit ...
Conceived by the power of the Spirit.
Born of the Spirit he became during his baptism in the Jordan when God sent the spirit upon him in the shape of a dove.
@johndevisser903 it was since birth he was son of God..
Códex Sinaiticus John 3: 13 And no one has ascended into heaven but he that came down from heaven, the Son of man, who is in heaven.
What’s your take on this statement by Jesus?
Probably like paul who ascended to a level of heaven yet he wasn't sure if he was out of the body or in the body...I think its more of jesus being present with the most high God while being on earth which all is done in the spirit. Since the spirit comes from the kingdom of heaven and is dwelling with christ jesus.
Jn3:13.
The Hebrew, and most so called "eastern" peoples, claimed good things were "heaven sent" or "came from heaven" or even "came down from heaven" (an ancient construct when they believed earth was flat.)
I noticed this some years ago by watching Chinese historical dramas. Many times "heaven sent" a person, a blasting, a blessing, all sorts of stuff were attributed to being sent from heaven or coming down from heaven.
Biblically literal by translated wording Isaiah was obviously in heaven in a meeting when he got his lips burned and was sent down to earth. We dont assume this or try to build theology to suit.
Jesus is the promise of Gen3:15 and more specific to Israel Deut18:18. The promised great prophet a jewish man who God would speak THROUGH.
So Jesus is sent (up down through or from) heaven. Because the one who sent him "is in heaven" (where ever that is geographically).
I hope that clears it up a bit for you.
@@ken440 sorry typo John 3:13 I fixed it. 😂
@@yisraelavraham4078 as did I in my reply.
@@ken440 Let’s find the thesis and antithesis from John 3:13, "And no one has ascended into heaven but he that came down from heaven, the Son of man, who is in heaven,"
The thesis in this context is the assertion that only the Son of man, who came down from heaven, has ascended into heaven.
The antithesis could be the idea that others besides the Son of man may ascend into heaven. The verse emphasizes the unique divine nature of the Son of man.
In the context of the verse John 3:13, the synthesis would be the reconciliation or resolution between the thesis (only the Son of man has ascended into heaven) and the antithesis (the possibility that others may ascend). The synthesis here emphasizes the exclusivity of the Son of man's divine nature and his role as the unique mediator between heaven and earth. It doesn't necessarily provide room for others to ascend in the same divine manner.
ChatGPT 😂
The way I understand John 3:13 is that the phrase " the one descending from heaven" refers to what we now call the second coming of Yeshua. The son of man was seen descending from heaven in Daniel's vision, so, in the sense that Daniel's vision was in the past when Yeshua said this, it was a past event. But the vision speaks of a descent from heaven at the end of this age, which is still future. But how can it be that a son of man can descend from heaven unless he had previously ascended into heaven. So in reality, the ascending precedes the descending, not the other way around.
Yes, I believe you are correct that the statement in John 3:13 relates to the prophetical vision of Daniel of the Son of Man (the people of Israel, who is represented by the ideal Israel, Messiah Yeshua). Messiah/Israel's rule is the fulfillment of God's desire for a human rule on earth, rather than the beastly rule of kingdoms of the world that we've seen so much of.
@@riversofeden3929 In personal correspondence, Troy has said he is open to other explanations for the passage. He isn't being dogmatic on this understanding.
I tend to see John 3:13 as the comment of the author, not of Jesus. And, like I said, I think the comment has a connection to Daniel's vision. Jesus did describe himself as the Son of Man who comes on the clouds at the right hand of God/Power. "Coming on the clouds" can be a kind of descending.
In any case, the comment is about a Son of Man, that is, a descendant of Adam. There are/were no pre-incarnate humans in heaven.
Also, I think John 3:13 could have something to do with revelation/knowledge. The verses just before it are about what (and how?) Jesus and John the Baptizer know things that Mr. Respected Wise Member of the Council Nicodemus didn't understand.
@@riversofeden3929 I was referring to a passage like (and parallels) Matthew 26:64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
The 'descent from heaven' is just simply that Messiah (the plan and concept) originated in the mind of YHWH. Messiah is of the mind of YHWH, thus he is of heaven and from above. When this plan of YHWH was thus manifested in reality, time and history, messiah in the flesh, it is thought of as a 'descent' from heaven because that's where the whole Divine Plan of YHWH originated (from heaven). Its that simple
@@riversofeden3929 Are you suggesting that it is invalid to see the son of man coming with the clouds from Daniel's vision as the return of Yeshua? I think this is exactly what the NT authors thought - Matt 24:30; 26:64; Rev. 1:7. Look, if you have a different take on Dan. 7:13, fine, but don't act like it is illegitimate to take it the way I do, like only your preterist interpretation is valid. The judgment scene in Dan. 7:9-12, imo, is taking place on earth (it's really just a vision meant to convey some reality, namely, that the nations will be judged and God will strip them of their authority and his kingdom will reign supreme). A similar thing is seen in Joel 3:12.
Do you not realize your perception of The Bible removes God revealing himself to the World? Moreover, do you not realize your interpretation gets rid of the Savior? Even more, do you not realize by claiming Jesus Christ is just an exalted man, simply a prophet, you take away him fulfilling every prophecy in the Old Testament as to what the Messiah would do? Riding a donkey, where he'd be born, that he'd be pierced... All these things you scoff at, as though he is just another man.
Finally. by denying Jesus Christ as God, the Father, the Word, in the flesh, you take away the lamb. There is no sacrifice to save mankind, outside of God himself making a way. There is no man worthy of the crown Jesus Christ wears.
This teaching is simply the same train of thought Islamic teachers are on.
You'll never respond to me, I realize this, because you know it's a conversation you don't want to entertain.
Jesus Christ is GOD. That is the revelation. That is the clear truth to His sheep.
Hi Joseph, I believe that God has made himself known uniquely in and through the man Christ Jesus. The God who has made himself known through the man Christ Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, known in Hebrew by the letters יהוה and especially in the New Testament as "The Father". Hope that helps.