Response to Anthony Buzzard's Denial of Jesus' Pre-existence at John 17:5

[dunklaw]

A big problem here is in the very nature of the term "glory" which is extremely abstract. If we are thinking in terms of the Hebrew concrete "weight" then one interpretation would be that amongst the nation the prophecy was believed & he was expected (Luke 3:15) but when Jesus arrived (John 1:46, 4:44 Mat 13:57). So in this sense the arguments neither prove or disprove pre-existence.

[FeignofCordor]

Revelation 1:8

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

John 8:24

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins."

[21crosscheck21]

Well there's something we agree on,... that Jesus pre-existed.

[TheSavioursServant]

You completely missed Buzzard's point.

[scripturaltruths]

@TheSavioursServant Actually, I get his point completely, as became evident through weeks of interaction he and I have had on this text. He, however, has missed mine and fails to see how Jesus' language is not consistent with prolepsis. Fortunately not all socinians have...

[TheSavioursServant]

@scripturaltruths

As I suspected, you have no interest in discovering where you have failed here.

Its always good to know up front if it will be a waste of time to discuss something with someone.

[scripturaltruths]

@TheSavioursServant Way to assume motives and make assertions for which you provide no evidence.

[TheSavioursServant]

@scripturaltruths

Thanks for the confirmation.

[scripturaltruths]

@TheSavioursServant Thanks for the unsubstantiated assertion. It is not good form to post a reply, claiming somebody didn't understand something while providing absolutely no supporting evidence.

[TheSavioursServant]

@scripturaltruths

Its a very good idea. People who actually want to listen would respond make an inquiry. Those who do no wish to listen will not.

Buzzard's point is that these future disciples HAD this glory before they existed. In like manner, Jesus HAD this glory before he existed.

You read an extraneous idea into the text: that he had it and lost it and is asking for it back. But these future disciples can say "the glory HAD before I ever existed." Same idea.

[scripturaltruths]

@TheSavioursServant It is not the same. Prolepsis expresses something as already existing when it is not yet, but to say they "had" for them at that time would not be prolepsis for it would not express the future expectation as presently existing. Further, your use of had reflects back on them living in the past and does not parallel somebody expressing a proleptic thought while then alive. As pointed out, the texts Buzzard cites as parallel use the present quite correctly (mat. 6; 2cor 5).

[TheSavioursServant]

@scripturaltruths

What prolepsis? Why should I accept that proposition?

There is no reason to suppose Jesus had this glory, lost it, and now wants it back. The point of these words is that his glorification was something established before time began. In like manner, John 17:24 is a reference to the Father in "eternity past" loving the presently existing son. This presently existing human was conceived in the heart of God before creation.

[scripturaltruths]

@TheSavioursServant What you are arguing for is called prolepsis, but the concept is not consistent with Jesus' language. There is every reason to suppose exactly what you deny for that is exactly what Jesus says! If something was conceived within the heart of God for the future it does not cease to be there, but continues there until fulfillment. He would have it in the present, as Jesus does in 24, yet this is not the language used.

[TheSavioursServant]

@scripturaltruths

"What you are arguing for is called prolepsis."

No, you are making that mistaken assumption.

[scripturaltruths]

@TheSavioursServant Then you are not defending Buzzard's position and thereby not making the case that I missed his point.

[TheSavioursServant]

@scripturaltruths

No, your mistake here is to presume this is about depicting an event that has not occurred as if it has occurred (prolepsis).

Take a look at 2 Tim 1:9. Do you lose this grace which you had before time began?

[scripturaltruths]

@TheSavioursServant Prolepsis is Buzzard's position, so also with 2 Timothy. Yet the text does not actually say "you had" but "was granted us," so if it were granted them then it was not, in the present that they would have said they had it but have it.

[TheSavioursServant]

@scripturaltruths "so if it were granted them then it was not, in the present that they would have said they had it but have it."

A human does not HAVE God's grace until he receives it.  A human who became a Christian is someone who HAS God's grace. Before he was a Christian he did NOT HAVE God's grace. A Christian is also someone who HAD God's grace given before creation, before he even existed. You need to ask yourself how anyone HAD God's grace before creation, before they existed.

[scripturaltruths]

@TheSavioursServant This is simply not accurate. If God gave us something before we existed, we have had (perfect tense) since it was given. This is why Jeremiah 1:5 uses the present for know in the LXX, for God does not actually say "I knew you," but "I have known you..." How did God know Jeremiah prior to his birth and then up into his existence? The same way I have had (not simply "had," for I did not cease having it) glory since before I was born.

[scripturaltruths]

@TheSavioursServant Further, you should note the difference between 5 and 24. In 5 he does not yet have it, in 24 he does. This shows the contrast between 5, expressing reality, and 24 (as with 2Ti.), speaking proleptically.

[ProveYourFaith]

May I use clips from this video to answer you in my a response video?

[scripturaltruths]

@ProveYourFaith Of course.  Hopefully you can do so in light of the very definition of prolepsis.

[AndrewCorban]

Good video Dave.

[NazariusThe7th]

who was jesus before his human birth ????

[scripturaltruths]

@NazariusThe7th The Logos, God's primary agent.

[NazariusThe7th]

@scripturaltruths was he created according to you?

[scripturaltruths]

@NazariusThe7th He calls himself "the beginning of God's creation" (Rev. 3:14), so yes.

[NazariusThe7th]

is pretty much just a super powerful angel?

[scripturaltruths]

@NazariusThe7th No. John says he is monogenes, one of a kind (John 1:18).

[NazariusThe7th]

@scripturaltruths Isaac Newton one of the few people that inspire me was an Arian, I always held this view as a possibility, Ill have to do more research.

[reslight]

At the time of his prayer in John 17, although Jesus had the terrestrial glory (1 Cor 15:40; Hebrews 2:9), he did not have the celestial glory that he "had" when he was with his father before the world of mankind was made through him. -- John 1:10.

Thanks for this video.

[reslight]

At the time of his prayer, Jesus did have the crown of glory of a sinless man. (Hebrews 2:9) This glory was given to Jesus because his God provided a sinless body (Hebrews 10:5) that was not of this world that has been condemned in Adam. -- Romans 5:12-19.

[CristoYcruz]

@reslight This glory was given to Jesus because his God provided a sinless body (Hebrews 10:5)..

Rom 8:3..He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin's control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins.(NLT)

Rom 8:3..God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:(KJV)

Holy angels, their bodies and heart are sinless(Hbr 2:16), Jesus became like one of us.(Hbr 4:15)

[reslight]

Very good presentation. The word that takes on different shades of meaning in John 17 is the various usages of forms of the word "glory". Obviously, in John 17:5, Jesus did not have the glory that he was asking for. Before the world of mankind was made through the Logos (John 1:10), Jesus had a celestial glory (1 Cor 15:40) with his God and Father.

[1ADChristianity]

So this is what my buddy Dave looks like. >=)

Glad to see you're making videos again. =P

[scripturaltruths]

@1ADChristianity Thanks, glad to be doing it.

[1ADChristianity]

@scripturaltruths I have been extremely busy with work and haven't checked any religious websites in months. I was curious on how your second book is coming along? Is it finish yet? Have way to being finished?

This is Yuri, or Uriyah, from Paltalk. I'm going to be making new videos, starting from basics and very visual. I sometimes forget that not everybody has the knowledge I have so I have to go back and redo everything that a child can even watch and grasp the points. This is my perm ch.

[scripturaltruths]

@1ADChristianity Good to hear!

It is slowly coming along... Still a lot to go, but I think it will be worth the time and effort.

[1ADChristianity]

@scripturaltruths Good to hear. Make sure to make an adverstisement, or notification, video when you finish the book and have it up to buy for a hard copy. Hopefully I'll have my life outside the virtual world in check and be able to buy your first and second book so I can have it on my book shelf. =)

I'll be looking forward to your future video. This one here is probably my favorite one now. =P

[theapologeticfront]

Well done presentation. You should do more like this.

[kyzersoze74]

so Jesus did not have glory? how can he then say "if you see me you see the Father"?

[scripturaltruths]

@kyzersoze74 He did not have the glory he had before the world came to be. Jesus' statement about seeing the Father dealt with his character.

[kyzersoze74]

@scripturaltruths John 17.24 says he has been given it though, unless Jesus there is referring to something else other than "the glory" mentioned throughout this chapter?

[scripturaltruths]

@kyzersoze74 As he distinguishes what he had, what he will have and what he has, it would imply his current glory. Even if we take this to be having it in God's plan, this only further substantiated my point that 5 speaks of something in reality, not in God's plan.

[kyzersoze74]

@scripturaltruths as real as that of v.24 and "the glory" given already to you and me?

[scripturaltruths]

@kyzersoze74 I'm not sure I follow.

[DarkShadowM99]

Well done. Polite and respectful. 

[howdytheresir]

Another VERY important point:Jesus would be a glorified man/king/Lord with all power which would only logically be what he was praying for in John 17:5.He was NONE of those things according to your view of his pre-existence and the glory he would have had then.Therefore,he could not possibly be praying for the same actual glory you believe in when you propose a pre-existence unless you want to say "well it doesn't have be exact",which would be arbitrary.

[scripturaltruths]

@howdytheresir Indeed. I have argued before that Jesus, out of humility, asked to have back only what he had prior, but that Phil 2 shows God exalted him to a superior position.

[howdytheresir]

@scripturaltruths So Jesus was praying for something less than what he received?That's an interesting thought considering he knew the scriptures and his destiny.

[scripturaltruths]

@howdytheresir Humility.

[howdytheresir]

.I could pray,myself,"father give me the kingdom you had with you from the founding of the world."It really doesn't matter of I say "have had" or "had" because either way,God planned it and it will come to be.And both "tenses" are used in scripture in respect to God's foreordination that "was" before it came or will come to be.Also,I think you might be undermining the simplicity of the birth narratives where no one entered a womb to become a man.

[scripturaltruths]

@howdytheresir Well it matters because over seems to be proper English and one not. Jesus could have used a perfect or present to relate that it was with God then, but his language says it wasn't. Also, it isn't good to make an argument from silence. Really, the birth narratives are complicated by the fact that Mary was a virgin.

[howdytheresir]

@scripturaltruths Based on Rom. 8:30 I would say it isn't "improper" at all to view what was foreordained by God in the past tense.My "argument from silence" was taking texts at face value without adding to them.A notion you're advocating in this video which would be commendable only if there weren't scriptural principles that justify God's foreordination sometimes being referred to in the past tense.I also notice the "founding of the world" correlation with all the other foreordination texts.

[scripturaltruths]

@howdytheresir It is entirely improper. One speaks of the act of glorification, thee only speaks of having glory personally.

[howdytheresir]

@scripturaltruths So when God "glorified" Christians in his foreordination it wasn't personal?

[IvanDefendingTruth]

@howdytheresir It is almost always corporate.

[howdytheresir]

Dave,always enjoy watching your videos.I can certainly agree with your point that the Arian interpretation of Jn. 17:5 could be accurate without demanding a multipersonal God.I don't know if the "tense" is as significant as you're proposing in it's demand for your interpretation.Especially considering texts like Rom. 8:30 and Rev. 13:8 where we have past tense(at least in translation..let me know if I'm missing something)action for things that took place much later.

[scripturaltruths]

@howdytheresir Good to hear from you. Revelation 13:8 uses a prefect participle, so the action was completed in the past with the result ongoing. Romans uses aorists, but this references the act of doing it not the state of those it is done to.

[IvanDefendingTruth]

Good response. Any response by "biblical unitarians" I'm sure will presuppose an odd 'Hebrew literary' device that is unfounded in John 17:5.

[scripturaltruths]

@IvanDefendingTruth They will need to substantiate that. The ones I find commonly chief won't work because the use of prefect participles, which have a meaning entirely different than the imperfect at John 17:5.