To have been or not to have been...

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

As always, I appreciate your response. I was sorry to read that you don't think my genuine questions are worthy of consideration. (cf. Acts 17:2-3) But that is certainly your prerogative.

We all know what a man is...Jesus is repeatedly declared to be a man...

Just to address your one issue - "All men have sinned"...You will note that the word "all" often has exceptions

I'm sensing that I may be trying your patience, so I'll just cut to the chase. You are essentially arguing two things here:

• 1. Jesus was a man in the same sense as everyone else.
  
  2. Jesus was not a man in the same sense as everyone else.

You use argument #1 to say that Jesus could not have pre-existed and you use argument #2 to say that Jesus did not have a sinful nature.

We all know by common experience that "to err is human", but at the same time we recognize that Jesus is the exception to that universal truth. Hence, Jesus is fundamentally different from you and me and everyone else in this respect, yet this does not disqualify him from being a real human.

Why is it then that when the fundamental difference being considered between Jesus and literally every other person is pre-existence rather than sinfulness the 'Jesus-is-the-exception' argument is no longer valid in your view? If you are able to qualify each instance in scripture where Jesus is called "a man" with the implied meaning 'the only man without a sinful nature', why would it be unreasonable to similarly qualify them with the implication 'the only man with a pre-existence'?

[Greg Logan]

TJ

To clarify - I do believe your questions are totally genuine and sincere!! Please be assured of that. What I am trying to convey is that they are equally as vain and silly - despite your best intent and I know your intent is genuinely sincere. I am certain in my youth I may have gone in the same direction - but in my age - I have realized this is not Christ - He did not call us to this sort of nit-picky efforts - this sort of carnal disputation with text - Jesus is so far much more than all of this.

Since death came by a MAN - the resurrection must come by a MAN. ICor15:21.

I have no need to go beyond the clear, repeated text of scripture. With kindness I say - you are trying WAY too hard - way too hard to circumvent the simple, natural meaning of the text - the standard meaning of words. You are being forced to do this because of, well, frankly, defective exegesis in a couple instances. If the latter is resolved - the former drops into place. However, I prefer that we start - as our basic hermeneutic - with the clear texts - hold these as our basis - and then exegete the ambiguous texts according.

Best,

Greg

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

I'm not sure how any of that really pertains to what I wrote. I've received essentially the same type of response from many Trinitarians, i.e. 'it's just so obvious it doesn't require explanation'. Thanks again for your participation.

[Greg Logan]

TJ

I gave you a specific explanation to one of your issues. Do you acknowledge that?

It is true - when scripture calls Jesus a man - I don't enter into vain disputation.

I highly encourage a reading of 1, 2 Tim and Titus on the matter of vain disputation - and focus on "the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart, etc."

When you are ready to start with the man Christ Jesus - Jn8:40, ICor15:21, 45, Rom5:15, ITim2:5, etc., etc. - I will be happy to move forward.

Agape and blessings

Greg

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

I gave you a specific explanation to one of your issues. Do you acknowledge that?

You repeated what I had already said was your view. I had said, "I was sorry to read that you don't think my genuine questions are worthy of consideration." You then went on to explain that you do indeed think my questions are genuine...but that they aren't really worthy of consideration. While I appreciate your not questioning my motives, I'm not sure what all that does to add to the discussion at hand. In fact, it's a technique used to shut down discussion.

As to the inconsistency I pointed out in your actual arguments, you said nothing except to re-emphasize how Jesus is a man. I agree with that. But I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that it's valid for you to qualify the type of man he is by allowing one key difference that sets him apart from everyone else while at the same time disallowing another difference that would set him apart from everyone else.

When it comes to sin, you don't believe Jesus is simply a man like every other man. When it comes to pre-existence, you say Jesus must be a man like every other man and if anyone questions that conclusion, they aren't to be taken seriously. If pointing out that real inconsistency is to be dismissed as 'vain disputation' and I must accept your view of Jesus before you'll even discuss it further, it seems that we're at an end point, unfortunately.

I did enjoy the discussion and appreciated your patience towards me while I asked some questions. All my best.

[Greg Logan]

TJ

I addressed this issue here -

Just to address your one issue - "All men have sinned" and how this relates to Jesus as a man. Again - this is a vain, silly point that leads to nothing. However, since there is an easy answer I will provide just this one time. You will note that the word "all" often has exceptions (check out the Internal Revenue Code if you are wondering about this... ). So when scripture says that ALL will be submitted to Jesus - it is INTUITIVELY obvious based on the whole counsel of God that God Himself is NOT going to be submitted to Jesus - despite saying "ALL". Regardless, Paul goes on to specifically state - ALL here specifically EXCLUDES God. Likewise we see a similar concept when scripture says that Jesus was baptizing - or that Paul was persecuting Jesus. Yet in neither case were those statements meant to be take in an ultra-literal, physical sense (similar to "I am from above" language, etc.).

[Greg Logan]

In fact, it's a technique used to shut down discussion.

As to the inconsistency I pointed out in your actual arguments, you said nothing except to re-emphasize how Jesus is a man. I agree with that. But I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that it's valid for you to qualify the type of man he is by allowing one key difference that sets him apart from everyone else while at the same time disallowing another difference that would set him apart from everyone else.

TJ

Please re-read in 1Tim - as well as in Titus. Paul DID advocate shutting down vain and silly questions that were pointless and led to no substance. These are the type of questions he is referring to (sorry to say).

There is no "how Jesus is a man" - to even ask that is silly. TJ is a man. Greg is a man. Jesus is a man. There is nothing complex about it. Likewise there is no "type of man" - a man is a man. We are all men - that is why Jesus is not ashamed to call us his brother.

Here is the reality my brother - you have an axe to grind. And you know there is a BIG mountain standing in the way from your "promised land". Instead of accepting the reality of the mountain - you are forced because of your notion of the promised land - to pick away at the mountain in any way possible. This is all painfully obvious.

In contrast, I simply accepted the mountain - have climbed to the top - and I see that your promised land simply does not exist - but that there is indeed a promised land - just not the one you envision. That is to say, as I have said before, because of defective and errant exegesis on a couple of basic concepts and 6 - 12 passages - you now have this MASSIVE task to destroy the man Christ Jesus. Sorry to say - this simply won't happen. Jesus is alive - and not interested in being replaced by any sort of divine entity.

As you recall my point from the other blog - what is the point? You refuse to accept the man Christ Jesus - you refuse to review and adjust the painfully errant exegesis you hold in a couple key points. What then is the purpose or benefit of our interaction? I am only going to share with you the simple truth of Jesus Christ - a man who has told you the truth that He heard from God.... (Jn8:40). I really have nothing more meaningful than the human person of Jesus of Nazareth - the Lord of Glory. If He is not enough for you - there is nothing else I have. I find He is more than enough for me... always keeping me on my toes!

Best

Greg Logan

[TJ]

Hi Greg!

TJ is a man. Greg is a man. Jesus is a man.

• 1. Are you sinless? Am I? Is Jesus?
  
  2. Did you pre-exist? Did I? Did Jesus?

Please explain how the statement "Jesus is a man" allows a divergent answer for question #1, yet at the same time prohibits a divergent answer for question #2.

[Greg Logan]

Sin is not an ontological reference

Preexistence is.

[TJ]

Thanks for your reply, Greg.

Sin is not an ontological reference

Preexistence is.

I have to give a little pushback on this because we're not talking about individual sins, but rather the state of sinfulness, which is indeed an ontological reference as described at Romans 3. You and I--and all humans--exist "under sin". The man Jesus did not.

So why would the simple statement "Jesus is a man" allow Jesus to be exempt from one ontological reality--one that is binding on the entire human family--but at the same time somehow actually prohibit him from being exempted from another common ontological reality?