To have been or not to have been...

[TJ]

Hello Greg,

Thanks for your response.

That is simply a timing issue.

It is not simply "a timing issue"! You are saying that a person that exists right now with a completely different ontological nature (or state of existence) is still a man in "the simple standard meaning" of the term. Timing has nothing to do with it!! You have changed the meaning of the term itself, i.e. what it means to be a man. That you continue to say that I am the one "working hard to avoid the simple standard meaning of words, e.g. 'man' means 'man'" while you do that very thing yourself is all the more astonishing.

The Bible, OTOH, acknowledges this change by stating explicitly that humans resurrected to the heavens will have become "sharers in divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) They are no longer humans at that point.

because you believe a pre-incarnate divine being encased in human flesh is a man.

Now here's the true "timing issue". I believe that the scriptures teach that Jesus originally existed in the heavens. He was not a man during this time. When he was sent into the world, God transferred his life so that he could be born into the human family via a miraculous birth. He was a man during this time. He was then resurrected with a divine nature to live again in the heavens. He was not a man during this time.

So you tell me Greg, which of us is not using the standard definition of "man" below, other than for a "timing issue"?

• MY VIEW:
  1. Jesus is created and lives in the heavens - NOT MAN
  2. Jesus is born to a woman and lives on the earth - MAN
  3. Jesus is resurrected and lives in the heavens - NOT MAN
  
  YOUR VIEW:
  1. Jesus is born to a woman and lives on the earth - MAN
  2. Jesus is resurrected and lives in the heavens - MAN

It is my view that identifies Jesus as a man during the time that he lived on the earth as we do. It is your view that identifies Jesus as a man during the time he does not live on the earth as we do. And so it is your definition of "man" that is stretched to include more than just what we 'see in the mirror', not mine!

"Christ also suffered...by being put to death in the flesh [MAN] but by being made alive in the spirit [NOT MAN]." (1 Peter 3:18)

[Greg Logan]

TJ

If you would read the scripture - it speaks of the MAN Christ Jesus in the PRESENT tense - both in I Cor15 in his glorified body - AND in ITim2:5. There IS one mediator - the MAN Christ Jesus.

My friend - when you mess with the Word of God - you will get cut to shreds - it is sharper than any two edged sword.

Your fatal flaw is construing a pre-incarnate divine being as a man - at best, that is sheer insanity - and that is the issue you have to wrestle with.

Regardless, scripture is clear - Jesus is a MAN right NOW.

Best
Greg

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

So rather than deal head on with my valid points above, you instead retreat again to your pet verse of 1 Timothy 2:5 which I have dealt with previously (and you also ignored previously).

If you would read the scripture - it speaks of the MAN Christ Jesus in the PRESENT tense - both in I Cor15 in his glorified body - AND in ITim2:5. There IS one mediator - the MAN Christ Jesus.

So if I say that George Washington "is" the Father of the United States (PRESENT tense), in your view that absolutely requires that the man George Washington--who died in 1799--must be living somewhere right now? That's just demonstrably false. The statement doesn't require that conclusion.

Rather, George Washington IS the Father of the U.S. (or Abraham IS the Father of the Jewish people) in the sense of legacy. Jesus' legacy in his time living on earth as a human being is that he fulfilled the Law, shed out his blood to inaugurate the new covenant and actually sacrificed his human life in our behalf. Therefore, the man Jesus IS the mediator of the New Covenant and he IS our savior. The (wonderful) consequences of that man's actions extend down to our present day. But the Bible is explicit that he 'became a spirit' when he was resurrected. (1 Cor. 15:45) He did NOT take back the human life that he had just sacrificed; if he did...what really was sacrificed???

My friend - when you mess with the Word of God

Repeatedly playing your little game of insisting that anything other than your preferred hyper-literal interpretation of your pet verse amounts to 'messing with the Word of God' comes off so hollow when you, Greg, are more than happy to play fast and free with other verses that seem to say the opposite of what you believe, e.g. Romans 3:10, 2 Peter 1:4, etc. When presented with the latter verse, your reply was "You - as all Arians I have ever met - read very simplistically and literally." And then you questioned my education. Do you really not see how you rebuke yourself if we point that cute response at how you handle your pet verse?

You argue against yourself elsewhere. For example, first you say that the standard definition of "man" is so obvious that it's as simple as what you see when you look in the mirror. That's fine, but then you turn around and completely contradict yourself by forcing it to also mean glorified spirit persons with divine natures that live in the heavens! But then you go back to accusing me of changing the standard definition of "man". (Seriously?) Then, to top it all off, when I point out how you have obviously changed the standard meaning of the term yourself, you excuse that as being somehow OK because the non-standard definition you're cramming into the term 'wasn't your focus'?! That's just a bizarre response; is it even meant to be convincing or is that your way of trying to move on to something else? I am honestly trying to follow the logic being presented even when I disagree, but I'm not sure some of what is being presented even makes sense to you.

Jesus is a MAN right NOW.

Jesus is right now a man in "the simple standard meaning" of the term?

Or is this one of the times that you feel entitled to change the standard meaning to fit your beliefs before going right back to accusing me of 'messing with the Word of God'?

[Greg Logan]

Back to reality - when you are ready to work with the sandard meaning of words - the simple clear texts of scriptures - without foolish controversies - I would love to plunge in./

Best

Greg

[TJ]

Back to reality - when you are ready to work with the sandard meaning of words - the simple clear texts of scriptures - without foolish controversies - I would love to plunge in./

In other words, I must accept your contradictory conclusions without question for this discussion to be acceptable in your view?.....Let me think about it.

In the meantime, how about offering an answer to this one question:

You said, "Jesus is a MAN right NOW." Are you using the standard meaning of the word "man" there, i.e. what you see when you look in the mirror, Yes or No?

[Greg Logan]

You are confusing categories.

Man on earth = In the mirror

Man ascended = Glorified body.

Not sure why you do not get this very simple Biblical algorithm.

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

OK, so you admit that you aren't using the standard definition of "man" when you say that 'Jesus is a man right now'.

Now, where do you see a present-tense verb in the Greek text of 1 Timothy 2:5?

[Greg Logan]

http://biblehub.com/text/1_timothy/2-5.htm

εἷς γὰρ Θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς,

The present equative is implicit and grammatically necessary in the construction.

Ask yourself - IS Jesus our mediator or not....?

You also get it here
21For since death came through a man,ad the resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

No man - no resurrection.

Also Rom5:15
Ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα, οὕτως καὶ τὸ χάρισμα· εἰ γὰρ τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἡ δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐπερίσσευσεν.

While OTOH I greatly appreciate your honestly depitcting the Arian Christology, the notion that Christ was NOT a man, then a man, then NOT a man - is, at best, absolutely insane and blindness of the very worst sort. This orientation is to despise the man Christ Jesus in a most foul manner. I have no idea how you feel into this hideous trap. I hope that God will draw you out. No man will be able to do that.

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

I've been busy the past few days, please forgive the delay.

The present equative is implicit and grammatically necessary in the construction.

So in other words, there is actually nothing in this verse itself that is explicitly present tense. Do you see how this sort of takes the air out of your argument above that this passage "speaks of the MAN Christ Jesus in the PRESENT tense" if that present tense is something you have to interpret?

Regardless, I have no problem interpreting a present tense here, but it still cannot bear the load you're trying to make it carry for you. You've been trying very hard to make this passage into your major proof text that states unequivocally that even now Jesus IS a man. But that was simply not at all the purpose of Paul's words nor do his words require such a conclusion. What Paul is saying about Jesus is just as if a first-century Jew would say "the man Moses is our Mediator". Would that be proof that Moses existed in the first century as a man? Of course not!

Saying "the man Moses is our Mediator" points to the work that Moses did in the past, i.e. ushering in the Law Covenant between God and the Jewish people. This is Paul's intention in 1 Timothy 2, as the very next verse likewise points to the work that Jesus did in the past: "the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people." So really, this statement says nothing as to Jesus' current state of existence. Yet other scriptures tell us directly that he cannot ontologically exist as a man now. For example:

"This means my [human] body, which is to be given in your behalf." (Luke 22:19)
"He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit." (1 Peter 3:18)
"The last Adam became a life-giving spirit...flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom." (1 Cor. 15:45, 50)

You also get it here
21For since death came through a man,ad the resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

No man - no resurrection.

But again Greg, if you're going to claim that this proves that Jesus MUST currently exist as a man, that would also necessitate that Adam MUST currently exist as a man in order for anyone to die. 'No man - no death.' That's nonsense.

Paul is saying that a past action done by one man is currently bringing death to all humanity, whereas a past action done by another man now currently brings life. This is not proof that these two men still exist today as non-standard-defintion human beings nor was it ever intended to be proof of that! The exact same can be said of your reference to Romans 5:15. It's what the man Jesus did in the past, i.e. his sacrifice, that brings about later consequences.

[Greg Logan]

You don't know Greek do you...