Mike 2

Amen

I think it will because it is indicating to us that God has come to us in many ways over many years. In the end my splitting hairs about it should not change the importance that He does that.

OOPs this posted twice

Hi Marilyn , I'm open for discussion on this but I think if we look at the context of this passage... now this is going to sound weird if you don't meditate on it,..... .....this passage is the SON OF GOD giving us a spiritual message about who He is.... He's doing it in the created physical, (the world around him).... THROUGH the created physical (Jesus) as indicated in your quote In looking at the context of this passage, most if not all of chapter 8 is about the SON OF GOD revealing himself to the physical world around him, specifically, the people. To say "Jesus said" is correct...the person writing this passage physically observed the person speaking as Jesus. But it was THE SON OF GOD speaking through the created body known as Jesus. We are all spirits living in a body, when we act in the physical it is a result of our spirit's desire working through the physical (our bodies). The physical body cannot be "I AM" because the physical is created, it has to be the spirit within the body that is I AM. So I propose that in reading this, it is the Son of God, that is saying "before Abraham was, I AM" . yea yea I'm splitting hairs but that is what this chain is intended to do

I wish we would all do that more often. That is such a great way to live in Christ. What a blessing and it is such a natural wonderful setting to invite new people to, especially since they won't have to walk into a building. Church for people that aren't into church! Love it!!

Are there any specific references to JESUS having been alive or interacting with humans in the past (the Old Testament)....not the Christ, or the Son, but JESUS? And if so, what is the context, is it actually using the name Jesus to direct us to the Son or the Christ? Please use a reference and keep in mind context.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. You helped me to clarify that. Now, if I could be a little more clear in the rest of what I write.......

There is no specific biblical reference to "Jesus". Just a supposition that any time God works in the physical it is Jesus. What we are seeing is THE SON OF GOD creating these things, not the Christ (which by definition is a"job / purpose") or Jesus. I am not saying that this paper and explanation is wrong except it was not "Jesus" but the Son/Word.....well, I guess I am. Jesus did not physically appear in the Old Testament, the Son of God, on behalf of the Father did. It is a matter of definition, but I think for some it can create confusion in trying to understand how the same physical person walking around 2000 years ago was also walking around thousands of years before that and completely miss the spirituality of God. On another note: Among other things, the writers second and also last paragraphs add to the confusion...he is calling the physical appearance pre-incarnation. In both paragraphs he himself is giving evidence of incarnation/ taking on flesh and is as much as saying so. This in itself is contradictory because if this were an incarnation then the appearance of Jesus would then be...... POST incarnation?!?. I think both you and I understand what he is saying in using the word Jesus, but he is using what I believe is a misleading description. Not sure we're going to find any references to Jesus coming to earth either (now anyone looking to show that there is, please look at the context in how the word Jesus is being used).

Sinplejeff I think what you are saying here is exactly why I have asked this question. There is confusion in the way we use the name Jesus. You have jumped to the statement that I am having a problem confessing Jesus as Master when that is far from the truth. What I am trying to do is get us talking about what we mean when we talk about Jesus, particularly the context in which we use his name. You see for some, saying the name Jesus encompasses the Son of God incarnate in the body of Jesus and doing the work of the Messiah. For others it is someone that walked the earth for about 35 years. Many people trying to understand Christianity just cannot comprehend what we are talking about when we say "Jesus lived in eternity past" because they are correctly seeing Jesus as someone that was born and died on a cross. How could he possibly be alive through eternity past? Now when we understand that Jesus is the chosen physical form...in the flesh (incarnation) of the Father, we then look at "Jesus" as the Son of God/ the Word, who has lived in eternity past doing the work of the Father in creation. When we talk about Jesus as Lord and Savior we are actually talking about The Son of God as Lord and Savior we see living in creation in the body of Jesus. No different than you and I are living in the bodies known as Mike and Jeff. I think Yowm understands what I am getting at. This is not a hill I am ready to die on and I most certainly don't want to ruffle any feathers in trying to share my understanding. I just think it is something we should be aware of when someone is trying to understand how someone that is obviously a human (Jesus) can be said to have lived in eternity past. Logically because we are talking about something created it can't be possible. Once we see that it is the Son of God (who has lived in eternity past) creating (Col 1:16 created all things) we understand that every time we "see God" in the physical all through the Old Testament we are seeing The Son of God, not "Jesus", creating something in the physical (like arms or a burning bush) to do the Fathers work. This is something I think is biblical, but,.. ..... we are so used to interchanging the words Jesus, Christ and the Son to describe what God was doing at the times of the cross that we don't realize that each of those words have a separate meaning and function. I don't have any problem at all describing Jesus as my Lord and Savior, but I know I am ultimately talking about God coming to me as my Savior. There is a reason we don't see reference to Jesus interacting with man in the OT, because it was the Son of God that did the interacting. It can create confusion for someone seeking, heck even for believing Christians. In the end, I don't see it as a big deal for most people, but for some........

Ahhh, yes. I can agree with that. To rephrase 1 Peter...before time, God had decided that at some point in time a Messiah would be needed. We come to know Jesus as the one that works as the Messiah. We know the Messiah was decided upon before the foundations of the world and assume, I believe rightly that it would be in the form of Jesus, but that wasn't until the time of the cross "in these last times for you". Not the Old Testament.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are saying (I'm sure others can). Can you rephrase what you said? Thanks

I can agree with that, in the sense of what they mean and stand for, starting 2000 years ago. I don't think I can before that though, because then Jesus would have had to be alive in eternity past.

Thanks for bringing that up. I have edited my OP to identify that I am looking for references to occurrences in the Old Testament

I agree the WORD was made flesh, that He became flesh (something created) To say "The Word, before He became flesh even spoke with and wrestled with Jacob, and named him Israel.".... would indicate that the Word had to become flesh in order to wrestle with Jacob. I understand that you are saying that the Word became physical at another time before incarnating as Jesus. The passage you have highlighted indicates a time that God choose to manifest (create) in the form of a man to wrestle with Jacob. But there isn't anything indicating it was "Jesus". I think I see the assumption that if the Word became flesh in the NT and we know that to be Jesus then any manifestation in the OT is Jesus, but was the burning bush and the arm that BacKaran referred to in his post above Jesus......or the Son, at work?

So if The Son created everything, when we see the burning bush or the arm for example...are you saying we are seeing the Christ created, or are we seeing a burning bush and an arm ? (and the angel and the lunch guest) Do these passages say that what we are seeing is Jesus? Or is this the Son of God at work?

I've posed these questions in another thread but it may be appropriate to ask it separately. Are there any specific references to JESUS having been alive or interacting with humans in the past (the Old Testament)....not the Christ, or the Son, but JESUS? And if so, what is the context, is it actually using the name Jesus to direct us to the Son or the Christ? Please use a reference and keep in mind context.

Whenever you read Christ insert "the" in front of it. Christ is not his last name rather it describes a purpose. In this case what was done. Learn and know what was done and walk through your life knowing that was done for you. Once you know that, it will change the way you look at other people and things that happen in your life.

Although it would not be wrong to consider the talents as material possessions and apply the story to how we are stewards of them we must keep in mind that parables are primarily intended to use physical examples to point at spiritual truths. Jesus told his disciples that he used parables so that those with a spiritual ear (my words) would understand their spiritual meaning, everyone else would only understand them in a physical (worldly) way.

Perhaps read the parable in light of James 2. What are you doing with the information you do have, not what someone else has, what you have?

Was it Billy Graham that would not even get in an elevator alone with any other woman than his wife. Just to make sure nothing could be said or even perceived.

I have been in debates with Your closest friendnt before, I have found them thought provoking and challenging. One of the biggest challenges is in the way he writes and trying to determine his actual intention. I know I have misunderstood him a couple of times in the past. I can't help but wonder if the word discretion would be the word Your closest friendnt intended to use and he is caught up in trying to defend a misunderstood/ miscommunicated word term. I have a professor friend who tells me over and over again that there is always a question behind a question. In other words people don't always clearly say what is on their mind. I know I definitely fall into that category (that's probably why he keeps bringing it up) so.... 1) based on the examples that Your closest friendnt has presented I wonder if there is a mix up in the understanding of the word hypocrisy. 2) in clearing that up will it then be possible to understand the point being made. Is there something interesting in what he is bringing up. I think it is important in apologetic's to really make the effort to understand another's point of view and its basis. Just because someone may not be using the correct terminology doesn't mean what they are saying is invalid. If we are not willing to do that, we may get stuck and miss out on an opportunity to learn. I myself do not agree with Your closest friendnt's understanding of hypocrisy (if this is what he truly means) but I think he is on to something....whatever we may choose to call it. I look at the life of Jacob for example and how before he was born his mother was told that he would would have precedents over his brother....yet he is called a liar for using what was available to him to claim it.... There is a reason for debates/ apologetic's maybe this thread is an area where, in a small way, how we can take a look at it in a different way, say as a fair and informative way to learn from debating, to edify rather than beat someone down into submission/ defeat like so many of them do. Otherwise........I understand the OP......what's the purpose?

When I hear a JW bring this up I ask...what's the big deal...doesn't it all mean the same? What are your thoughts about whether the name has been changed or not? Is there a significant change in meaning?

I think that God was ingenious in the way that he has revealed himself to us. There are some simple minded people in the world that hear the gospel in a very simple way and get it. There are also some very intelligent people that hear the gospel in a very simple way and get it. God intended it to be very simple. I believe too that God has also revealed himself and the way we should live out our lives, in such a way that we can spend lifetimes trying to understand. In doing that we will constantly be seeking him. When it comes to the debates around apologetics I feel it is important to know who it is we are debating with, where they are in regards to salvation and be aware that trying to press home our understanding for the sake of being right can completely miss the mark that God wants us to hit. If we are not care full we can be knocking someone down rather than building them up. For me, simply put, if God was simply put, I would simply put him to bed, check the box and move on. Fortunately he has done things in such a way that after salvation there is soooo much more. I love thinking deeper about him and I find debates one of the ways to do that.

Neighbour I picture myself hiking up this long winding path, up a mountain, switchback after switchback slowly inching myself up from the valley down below, going up into the cloud banks past meadows of mountain flowers then up into the rocky crags. Yes I see myself going around a bend on that mountain path and coming upon a small oasis and there you are sitting there. I say this not to mock you but to say that I don't often hear such beautiful words of wisdom. God bless you brother. and thank you Mike2

Islam will not allow someone to leave without persecution sometimes death....it is serious. You are more likely to be compelled to join Islam or both of you will suffer. If you really want to know how strongly Muslims are entrenched in their religious culture I suggest reading "Seeking Allah Finding Jesus" by Nabeel Qureshi. It is an easy and informative read , giving explanations and definitions as you go along. Nabeel does a very good job of describing how Islam is taught to Muslims is entrenched in every aspect of their lives and the repercussions for turning away from it. Nabeel in the end becomes a Christian and he writes about that journey, its risks and the struggles he went through as he dealt with the realization that to choose Christianity would mean turning away from not only Islam but everyone he knows and loves. He paid a heavy price in loosing his family and friends. If you are not willing to turn away from Jesus and what He stands for as your Lord and Savior, you have to make that a deal breaker and your friend has to be willing to do what Nabeel has done, turn from Mohamed and Allah to Jesus.