Why do Evangelical tracts urge the new convert

[Elijah John]

Why do Evangelical tracts often urge the new convert to begin their Bible studies with the Gospel of John? (Bill Bright's Four Spiritual Laws pamphlet is an example).

Why not where the Bible begins, the book of Genesis?

Why not where the New Testament begins, the Gospel of Matthew?

Why not with the earliest Gospel, the Gospel of Mark?

Why begin with the latest Gospel, John?

Is there an agenda? What is it?

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 9 by steveb1]

Jesus was a pre-existent heavenly angelic being, but not God.

Everything else in your post makes sense, but this idea that Jesus was "pre-existent" doesn't make sense to me, nor this idea that he was a heavenly angelic being. I don't see anything in the biblical texts to indicate anything that precise.

Jesus is the name given to a person who "was the word". The texts state that the word "became flesh", but there is nothing to indicate that what became flesh was named or could be identified as Jesus before then.

if the word "was" prior to becoming flesh, then it doesn't "pre-exist". The word exists, or perhaps more accurately is existence.

Heavenly angelic beings are created, and the introduction to John's gospel indicates that all things are created, yet the word is doing the creating, therefore it cannot be what it creates. If angelic beings are created then the word is not an angelic being.

I've investigated "biblical unitarianism" a la Anthony Buzzard et al, and I think they are correct except on the point of contention you bring up, namely Christ's pre-existence. I don't think they can adequately explain the following without reference to pre-existence - not to eternal divine existence - but just to pre-existence.

1 Jesus returning the the glory he enjoyed with the Father before the world was made. To, me this is a clear reference to a literal pre-existence - not to a symbolic "Messiah existing in God's mind as a blueprint of what was to come".

2 Paul's citation of the christological hymn in Philippians, which references Jesus in heaven in a glorified, "Adamic" state, like Adam, "equal with God" in a sense, which Jesus then abandons through an act of self-emptying kenosis, reversing Adam's attempt to "grasp at equality with God", and then, for our sake, taking on the "form" of a man and then the "form" of a servant obedient to death on the cross. If that's not pre-existence, I don't know what is.

However, obviously, since I don't know everything, maybe it's not about pre-existence. But the only other category I can think of is that it is describing the incarnate, historical, Gospel Jesus, whose holiness and humility permitted him to sacrifice, temporarily, his perfect Adamic, sinless nature until his resurrection. However, that does not quite jibe with the hymn's insistence that Jesus by nature was first in the form of God, and only later put that aside when he incarnated as "man" and "servant".

I believe that the Word was considered to be a pre-existent angelic being - certainly by Jesus's near-contemporary, Philo, who called the Logos a "second god", but not ontologically YHWH, and from whom John may have received his Logos-christology as presented in the prologue to his Gospel. The Logos may have been "in the beginning" with God and shared godlike qualities, but still might be thought of as a secondary being who "proceeds from the Father" while not Itself being the Father-creator. So, too the Word can be the Father's agent of creation - the Father being the Creator, while the Logos/Son carried out the specifics as God's agent. The pre-existent Word-Logos/Son is the agent of God's creative act(s), not their originator, as some kind of "First Cause".

This notion of the Logos/Son being a pre-existent, primordial, godlike, angelic being appears in the Synoptics. Jesus himself attests not only to the existence and validity of this conception, but he actually identifies himself with it - namely, the heavenly Son of Man, who in the Jewish Bible is a pre-existent angelic being who presents himself, or is presented to God, "the Ancient of Days" in the book of Daniel. His habitation is the clouds of heaven. He is there associated with being God's agent of creation, but is certainly a primordial pre-existent Being in God's throne room, as follows.

Jesus, in his trial before the Sanhedrin - and elsewhere in the Synoptics - seems to identify himself with this pre-existent, heavenly, angel-like figure, when he tells the assembly that they will see:

the Son of Man

coming in/on the clouds in glory

"with Power"

Here Jesus is identifying with the pre-existent One, who dwells in the clouds of heaven. More, he claims to be - like the Angel of the Lord, Yahoel - the judge of the very people who are putting him on trial. Eventually, in the NT, he will also, like Israel's Great Angel, bear the Name of the Lord as well as execute eschatological judgment.

Of course, that kind of claim, that kind of terminology, was sufficient for the high priest to tear his robe. Jesus was not claiming to be ontological God, but was, rather, claiming to be God's primordial "sidekick" who had been reverently written of by the Prophets. How could a mere man claim to be a pre-existent figure at the right hand of God (who will come "with Power" - a term signifying God's living Presence)? No wonder the Sanhedrin condemned this "heavenly Son of Man" claiming to be standing before them.

Speaking of this subject, I can highly recommend one new, short, pertinent and convincing book, if you would be interested:



...which is much more specifically about Jesus claiming to be the pre-existent Son of Man than it is about the Gospels' generalized Jewish aspects.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 9 by steveb1]

Jesus was a pre-existent heavenly angelic being, but not God.

Everything else in your post makes sense, but this idea that Jesus was "pre-existent" doesn't make sense to me, nor this idea that he was a heavenly angelic being. I don't see anything in the biblical texts to indicate anything that precise.

Jesus is the name given to a person who "was the word". The texts state that the word "became flesh", but there is nothing to indicate that what became flesh was named or could be identified as Jesus before then.

if the word "was" prior to becoming flesh, then it doesn't "pre-exist". The word exists, or perhaps more accurately is existence.

Heavenly angelic beings are created, and the introduction to John's gospel indicates that all things are created, yet the word is doing the creating, therefore it cannot be what it creates. If angelic beings are created then the word is not an angelic being.

I've investigated "biblical unitarianism" a la Anthony Buzzard et al, and I think they are correct except on the point of contention you bring up, namely Christ's pre-existence. I don't think they can adequately explain the following without reference to pre-existence - not to eternal divine existence - but just to pre-existence.

1 Jesus returning the the glory he enjoyed with the Father before the world was made. To, me this is a clear reference to a literal pre-existence - not to a symbolic "Messiah existing in God's mind as a blueprint of what was to come".

2 Paul's citation of the christological hymn in Philippians, which references Jesus in heaven in a glorified, "Adamic" state, like Adam, "equal with God" in a sense, which Jesus then abandons through an act of self-emptying kenosis, reversing Adam's attempt to "grasp at equality with God", and then, for our sake, taking on the "form" of a man and then the "form" of a servant obedient to death on the cross. If that's not pre-existence, I don't know what is.

However, obviously, since I don't know everything, maybe it's not about pre-existence. But the only other category I can think of is that it is describing the incarnate, historical, Gospel Jesus, whose holiness and humility permitted him to sacrifice, temporarily, his perfect Adamic, sinless nature until his resurrection. However, that does not quite jibe with the hymn's insistence that Jesus by nature was first in the form of God, and only later put that aside when he incarnated as "man" and "servant".

I believe that the Word was considered to be a pre-existent angelic being - certainly by Jesus's near-contemporary, Philo, who called the Logos a "second god", but not ontologically YHWH, and from whom John may have received his Logos-christology as presented in the prologue to his Gospel. The Logos may have been "in the beginning" with God and shared godlike qualities, but still might be thought of as a secondary being who "proceeds from the Father" while not Itself being the Father-creator. So, too the Word can be the Father's agent of creation - the Father being the Creator, while the Logos/Son carried out the specifics as God's agent. The pre-existent Word-Logos/Son is the agent of God's creative act(s), not their originator, as some kind of "First Cause".

This notion of the Logos/Son being a pre-existent, primordial, godlike, angelic being appears in the Synoptics. Jesus himself attests not only to the existence and validity of this conception, but he actually identifies himself with it - namely, the heavenly Son of Man, who in the Jewish Bible is a pre-existent angelic being who presents himself, or is presented to God, "the Ancient of Days" in the book of Daniel. His habitation is the clouds of heaven. He is there associated with being God's agent of creation, but is certainly a primordial pre-existent Being in God's throne room, as follows.

Jesus, in his trial before the Sanhedrin - and elsewhere in the Synoptics - seems to identify himself with this pre-existent, heavenly, angel-like figure, when he tells the assembly that they will see:

the Son of Man

coming in/on the clouds in glory

"with Power"

Here Jesus is identifying with the pre-existent One, who dwells in the clouds of heaven. More, he claims to be - like the Angel of the Lord, Yahoel - the judge of the very people who are putting him on trial. Eventually, in the NT, he will also, like Israel's Great Angel, bear the Name of the Lord as well as execute eschatological judgment.

Of course, that kind of claim, that kind of terminology, was sufficient for the high priest to tear his robe. Jesus was not claiming to be ontological God, but was, rather, claiming to be God's primordial "sidekick" who had been reverently written of by the Prophets. How could a mere man claim to be a pre-existent figure at the right hand of God (who will come "with Power" - a term signifying God's living Presence)? No wonder the Sanhedrin condemned this "heavenly Son of Man" claiming to be standing before them.

Speaking of this subject, I can highly recommend one new, short, pertinent and convincing book, if you would be interested:



...which is much more specifically about Jesus claiming to be the pre-existent Son of Man than it is about the Gospels' generalized Jewish aspects.

I'm not making myself clear. My bad. It isn't that Christ doesn't exist prior to his incarnation. It is that Christ, the word exists eternally. The problem is that while we may both agree that this quality of eternal existence seems to be right in line with divnity or God himself, the bible clearly indicates that God is to be associated with the origin, source, or cause of life and everything that exists, while Christ is the means by which everything comes into existence. The problem is that this term "pre-exist" indicates an existence from an earlier time, and that doesn't go far enough back for the biblical authors. They show that the word already "was" in the beginning before time began. Again, it isn't God Who was in the beginning, but the word. God isn't associated with existence except by or through the word. This makes logical sense when God is depicted as the origin or source of what exists. God is not the means by which everything exists.

The thing to remember is that the origin or source of existence cannot in and of itself exist. There can't even really be a self originating from existence. God can only exist in the word which is why John's chronology of events unfolds the way it does. The word is the beginning and the end, and exists "with God", and when John then says that "the word was God", it shows that God can only exist within the word. Only what exists can be formed, and neither God nor the word are a "what". They are a "who".

There's all the difference in the world between saying that the word was God and saying God was the word, and yet there are quite a few who are effectively saying that God was the word.

Another problem is this ideas of a Christology rather than the reality of a Christophany. Christ isn't a doctrine. I used to think that there was a verse in the new testament that said, "There is only Christ'. That verse doesn't exist, but that idea is pervasive throughout the texts. There is no relationship outside of Christ. He is the Symbol, the Metaphor, the copula, the Icon, the mediator, the medium, the equal sign that allows there to be an equation in the first place. From a biblical perspective, this isn't God; it's Christ.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 12 by shnarkle]

"The thing to remember is that the origin or source of existence cannot in and of itself exist. There can't even really be a self originating from existence. God can only exist in the word which is why John's chronology of events unfolds the way it does."


Okay, thanks for the clarifications. I think I'm beginning to catch with the idea self is not a derivative of existence per se. Aquinas probably had something to say about this issue, but I really don't recall. Anyway, thank you for giving me some new ideas to think about.

[brianbbs67]

I would posit, does it matter if christ was God or a messenger? God's message still gets across, regardless. God did say He would make a new covenant different from the old. Although , I have noticed, His terms of the contract have only changed in our favor. Remember, " teaching the as doctrine the commandments of men" in Isiah.

[steveb1]

I would posit, does it matter if christ was God or a messenger? God's message still gets across, regardless. God did say He would make a new covenant different from the old. Although , I have noticed, His terms of the contract have only changed in our favor. Remember, " teaching the as doctrine the commandments of men" in Isiah.

It matters to mainstream Christians, who as Trinitarians, insist that Jesus was not only the Son of God, but God the Son. They cannot tolerate a non-divine Christ. But as you say, the message is the central factor and it doesn't require that God become man.

[Elijah John]

I would posit, does it matter if christ was God or a messenger? God's message still gets across, regardless. God did say He would make a new covenant different from the old. Although , I have noticed, His terms of the contract have only changed in our favor. Remember, " teaching the as doctrine the commandments of men" in Isiah.

Also, if Christ is not God, wouldn't "Jesus-worship" then become a violation of the first commandment, having another "god" before YHVH? Isn't that what is at stake?

Putting Jesus before Jehovah does in effect, seems to be what has happened. After all, look at all the hymns directed to the praise and worship of Jesus as compared to those directed to the glory of the Father.

And how many people praying to Jesus, instead of praying to the Father, as Jesus taught. The Four Spiritual Laws booklet concludes with a prayer to Jesus for salvation, not to the Father.

And praising the name of Jesus above all others, while the name of the Father is either ignored, or not pronounced.

The RCC has even eliminated the name "Yahweh" from hymns, prayers and liturgy, out of deference to the Rabbinic prophibition against pronouncing the Divine name, a tradition of men.

The Church has replaced their Jerusalem Bible, and New Jerusalem Bibles with the New American Bible and others that use the term "LORD" instead of "Yahweh".

All this amounts to putting Jesus before Jehovah. So, whether or not Jesus is "God", this practice certainly seems to go against the spirit of what Jesus taught.

Jesus taught worship, prayer and service to YHVH alone, not to himself.

And to bring it back to the OP, the Four Spiritual Laws includes diagrams that suggest putting "Christ" on the throne of one's life, instead of one's ego. Why not suggest putting Father God (YHVH) on the throne, instead of "Christ".

Paul, and his spiritual offspring, have made a God out of "Christ". In practice and effect, if not intent.