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

The "Biblical Uninitarian" denies Jesus' preexistence. This video provides a response to Sir Anthony Buzzard's attempt to avoid preexistence in John 17:5 The video being responded to can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agJYbseSdQA.

Interestingly, Buzzard objects to Jesus as a 'second divine figure,' yet relates him as just that in his book The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound, p. 292.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Socinianism
• Biblical Unitarian
• Jesus
• Christology
• Bible
• Theology
• Preexistence
• Anthony Buzzard.

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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 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

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

[TheSavioursServant]

@scripturaltruths

"What you are arguing for is called prolepsis."

No, you are making that mistaken assumption.