Responding to Aaron Welch Again (Preexistence Response, Part II)

 Concerning ‘An In-Depth Response to “GerudoKing” Concerning When Christ’s Existence Began (Part One)’ Part 2

So, we’re still not out of the Old Testament. Aaron continues:

Now, according to GK, the reason why the Old Testament is “not concerned with” the revelation that Christ “existed beforehand” is because, at the time the Hebrew Scriptures were being written, it was Israel’s “allotment to be ruled, not to rule.” The problem with the reason he gives is that the same thing could be said concerning Israel during both the time of Christ’s earthly ministry and the time of the apostles (when the Greek Scriptures were being written).

And, again, all I can say is that I had not said that there is no indication of His prior existence, but that Scripture is not going to state this as directly as Paul does throughout his epistles to mature believers. And, furthermore, John the Baptist clearly understood that He held a prior existence (John 1:1, 1:10-14, 3:17, 5:31, 6:33, 6:38, 6:58, 6:62, 8:58, 16:28, etc.) How did John learn this? I don’t care. Ask me how Moses learned about what he wrote in Genesis 1. I’m not at all afraid to claim, “God revealed it to him,” as Paul received his revelations in similar fashion (Gal. 1:1.)

Also, I hadn’t really dived into the Old Testament because I didn’t (and still don’t) feel the need to get into an erratic pissing contest concerning the OT’s contents. I think sticking to the proof texts provided should be sufficient, and didn’t see much of a reason for us to be sending 700-page exhortations to each other.

Shortly before Christ’s ascension to heaven, Christ’s disciples asked him, “Lord, art Thou at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6) Christ’s response implies that the time had not yet come for him to do this. In other words, the time had not yet come for Israel to rule; Israel’s “allotment to rule” will not be received by the saints among God’s covenant people until after Christ returns to earth at the end of the eon.

Nice. So what?

So right away we find a glaring inconsistency in GK’s defense of his position. His claim is essentially that we shouldn’t expect to find a revelation of Christ’s pre-existence in the Old Testament because it was not yet Israel’s time to rule.

I’m sorry, but that was an oversimplification. I believe, first, that I said that it is faithful “Israel’s allotment to be ruled, not to rule.” There’s this entire lineage throughout the book of Judges, and 1 and 2 Kings, that clarify just how man’s rule fails, and that Christ must be the Ruler. This statement made by Welch does not represent my view, as such, and misses the point of what I was saying. I was saying that it is not yet Israel’s place to know the heart of God, or to receive an explanation from Him at this time. They hardly understand any of what Paul is talking about, even in the apostolic era (2 Pet. 3:15-16,) because they could only grasp the celestial realm – not its secrets (Rom. 16:25, 1 Cor. 4:1, 15:51, Eph. 1:9-11, 3:4, Col. 1:26.)

*   *   *

Now, let’s take another look at Psalm 45:2-7:

You are lovely beyond the sons of humanity; Grace is poured out upon Your lips; Therefore Elohim has blessed You for the eon. Gird Your sword on Your thigh, O Master, Your splendor and Your honor. And in Your honor prosper, ride forth On behalf of truth and humility and righteousness; Then may Your right direct You in fear inspiring deeds. Your arrows being whetted, Peoples, beneath You shall they fall, Struck in the heart of the King’s enemies. Your throne, O Elohim, is for the eon and further; A scepter of equity is the scepter of Your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore Elohim Your Elohim has anointed You With the oil of elation beyond Your partners.

I had mentioned that this passage is referring to David speaking to someone (namely because, David is clearly speaking to someone. Hard to praise something nonexistent.) Here’s Aaron:

If there’s anything said in the present tense phrases found in Psalm 45 that wasn’t true of Christ at the time when David wrote, then this fact would completely undermine GK’s view that the present tense phrases (to which he draws the reader’s attention) imply that Christ existed at the time that David wrote Psalm 45. And this is precisely what we find to be the case.

So! Let’s clarify: the present tense statements I had mentioned are verbs. Here they are (excluding participles, for times’ sake):

“You are lovely beyond…” – yapa, in the perfect type, as a “completed action”

“Is poured…” – yasaq, in the perfect type, as a “completed action”

“Has blessed…” – barak, in the perfect type, as a “completed action”

“Gird…” – hagar, in the imperative type, as a “direct request”

“Ride…” – rakab, in the imperative type, as a “direct request”

“direct...” – root form yara, in the imperfect type, as an incomplete action

“fall…” – napal, in the imperfect type, as an incomplete action

“love…” – ahab, in the perfect type, as a “completed action”

“hate…” – sane, in the perfect type, as a “completed action”

“anointed” – masah, in the perfect type, as a “completed action”

I will, again, draw your attention to the completed actions, that He is lovelier than the sons of man. Complete. Hard for David to make this claim if there is no Christ by which to contrast the sons of man! Grace is poured on His lips. Complete. God has blessed Him. Complete.

Moreover, check out the requests David asks! Do you ask the nonexistent cat not to jump on the counter?? The nonexistent dog not to bark at the mailman?? Is David schizophrenic??

Jokes aside, Aaron says:

The throne of Christ mentioned in this prophecy (“Your throne”) is the throne on which Christ will be sitting during the future eons, and the kingdom of Christ that’s mentioned (“Your kingdom”) is a future kingdom.

Okay. So what? The term “throne” is a noun. It is applicable to anything at any time. I could say, “Your apartment, Aaron, has a one-year lease.” Whether the apartment is established or not does not change the fact that Aaron is established (unless I’m talking to a bot… in which case, I’d be really concerned at the exponential growth in A.I. and I may have to hide from Arnold Schwarzeneggar.) Just because Christ’s kingdom is future does not at all mean that Christ is future, but that His administration is (Eph. 1:10.) Notice, God has blessed Christ for the eon; the eon does not have to occur yet for the Person being spoken to to exist.

“I have bought you some cookies, Aaron!” I say. “I will give you a hundred bucks when I visit the ATM, Stephen!” Aaron replies. This interaction was entirely fact, and it did indeed happen; Aaron said he’d give me a Benjamin. Anyway,

It’s also evident that being anointed by his God “with the oil of elation beyond [his] partners” is Christ’s reward for loving “righteousness” and hating “wickedness” (or “injustice” in Hebrews 1:9).  Since it’s only by faithfully obeying God and doing what pleases him that one can truly be said to “love righteousness and hate wickedness,” we can conclude that Christ’s being anointed with “the oil of elation beyond [his] partners” is a reward for his faithful obedience.

Wait. So He couldn’t love righteousness and hate wickedness before His sojourn on earth? This sounds like an unnecessary limitation, presuming that Christ’s faithful obedience can only be on earth.

Yes, I can say this. Christ’s faithful obedience is something I know Aaron and co will use to try and say that Christ was only Man, because they perceive “faith” solely as a man-made characteristic. Yet it is not merely a defining characteristic of man, but a trait of God. Observe Rom. 3:4:

For what if some disbelieve? Will not their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God?

And also, 1 Cor. 10:13–

Now, faithful is God…

God can be faithful, and He is most certainly not man, so don’t tell me that ‘faith is only a concept for men.’ I get the sense that this is why Aaron added in “faithful” to “obedience,” here (not because he said it, of course, so I can’t completely assume, but because folk in the ‘non-preexistence’ sect have used this claim.) Christ obeys, always, regardless of form. Otherwise, we cannot faithfully say that we are being conformed to imitate God (Eph. 5:1.)

And, why are we assuming that God and Christ hold a conditional relationship?? Is it because we are only sticking to the circumcision evangel? You don’t always present yourself and your members as implements of righteousness to God (Rom. 6:12-14,) and yet God’s not placing condition on you. God is not merely explaining some conditionality, but explaining it this way to faithful Israel, who, again, is not yet allotted to know the secrets of God. This quote that Aaron presents is not at all in relation to a conditionality in creation, but a terrestrial glory that would, per Psalm 45, be implemented at a later time.

Moreover, we read in Hebrews 2:10 and 5:8-9 that Christ was “perfected” through his sufferings and “learned obedience from that which He suffered.”

In the flesh (circumcision.) And, He is educated on humility during His earthly ministry, yes (Phil. 2:8.) “Image” of God is not God, but the Just Representative.

Thus, what we read concerning Christ in Psalm 45 couldn’t have been true of Christ prior to his death and resurrection (and certainly not eons before his life on earth began).

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you come to believe that Christ is not as powerful as Paul said He is. Christ’s “obedience” is simply not on display in Ps. 45:7. This is an assumption made by Aaron to contribute to his view. The verse does not say, “Christ obeyed this or that, and as a result, God anointed Him.” The verse is not prophesying His death on the cross. The verses are displaying, not an individual action or trait, but Christ’s character, and the effect of Christ’s character therein. It’s not His job to hate wickedness and love righteousness. It’s His nature.

Now, the reason I will not go around saying, “Oh, obviously, Christ’s existence before His physical birth is written out in Psalm 45!” is because God implies it, but does not directly say it. If I did go around saying this, Norm would go on about binitarians and Jason would need to make a video series on Psalms. The character of Christ is discussed, and He is clearly being spoken to, but the reason we understand that David is clearly speaking to Him (Matt. 22:41-46,) is because Paul, our apostle, directly clarifies Christ’s existence beforehand (Col. 1:15-17.) This fills in the gaps and explains why many of the verbs in Psalm 45 are a perfect or imperative type.

Since the celestial being that GK believes Christ pre-existed as would’ve undoubtedly enjoyed a more blessed and exalted existence than any of his “partners” during the time of his celestial “pre-existence,” wouldn’t he have already had “the oil of elation beyond his partners”?

“But if God is God, wouldn’t He already have the adoration of Israel?”

“But if Christ is currently subjecting all, wouldn’t He already subject all?”

“But if God is love, wouldn’t He eliminate sin immediately?”

“If Christ exists beforehand, wouldn’t He already have the throne to rule Israel?”

“If God is already operating all in all, then why would His goal be to be All in all?”

It’s almost like all of these questions ignore the relative perspective. Many of us in Christ understandably struggle with the relative, believing it to be a byproduct of the absolute, or a gateway to solely dwell on and in the absolute perspective. The absolute perspective is that God has told the story. The relative perspective, however, is that God desires to tell this story, and Christ is His representative (2 Cor. 4:4, 5:20, Col. 1:15, John 1:1.) If Christ is His visual representative, and Christ didn’t exist, what are you claiming of God? And if God desires to tell the relative story, why do so many of His chosen ignore that this necessary distinction? The relative is just as crucial to God as the absolute. Do you see the detail in this relative life? Here’s God, in Job 38:12-13–

In all your days, have you ever instructed the morning? Have you made known to the dawn its place, that it might take hold of the wings of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?

And again, in Job 38:25-27–

Who has divided off a trench for overflowing rains, and set a pathway for the thunderbolts, to bring rain on a land where no man is, a wilderness with no human in it, to satisfy areas of ruination and wasteness, and to cause verdure to sprout from the arid place?

Sounds like God gives a shit, simply put. He cares more about this relative creation of His more than His called ones care to proclaim. And yet, the relative is cast aside by Aaron here because he only has an eye for the absolute on this topic, and believes that, if God is absolute, then I must also be proclaiming Christ to be absolute, when I did no such thing. I have said that Christ is the Image of the invisible God, the visual reflection, through Whom God has created the eons (Heb. 1:2.) I have not gone beyond this, and refuse to. Don’t ignore, then, that in Psalm 45, God is speaking declaratively and powerfully, yes, but relatively, as He does in most of Scripture. His dominance is always present in the absolute, but slowly unveiled through Christ as the story progresses.

*   *   *

Aaaaaanyways, now there’s this whole section where Aaron tries to delineate what I meant by “we should not be seeking to understand celestial observations in Christ in the Old Testament.” By this I was, again, trying to say that, with little exception, the circumcision Scriptures are concerned with Christ’s flesh, not His spiritual disposition. There are verses that reference His spiritual disposition, sure, but they are completely incomprehensible if not for Paul’s revelations. This is long enough as it is, and I believe I’ve clarified my point, so I’m moving on to the next big point. Here’s Aaron:

Now, among the Old Testament passages that provide us with a prophetic basis for what I consider to be the true “celestial understanding of Christ” is the very next passage to which GK draws our attention (i.e., Psalm 110). In this prophecy we read that Christ would be invited by Yahweh to sit at his right hand, and thus reside in the celestial realm where God sits enthroned. Similarly, it’s foretold in Daniel 7:13-14 that Christ would, at some future time, come to be in the presence of Yahweh in the celestial throne room.

It’s funny that Aaron quotes this, as it’s the very verse that Jesus uses to prove the opposite point that Aaron had made in the previous article. And, notably, Psalm 110 quite literally does not concern us with an unfolding of Christ’s celestial glory. It explicitly discusses:

-         A rod of Christ’s strength is sent from Zion, a terrestrial location (110:2)

-         A reference to His people (Israel) (110:3)

-         His priesthood for the eon (110:4, Heb. 4:14-5:4)

-         Melchizedek, who is most certainly not in the celestial realm (110:4, Heb. 5:5-8:2)

-         The day of Yahweh’s anger (110:5, Rom. 1:18)

-         A literal proclamation of Yahweh dealing with the earth through David’s Lord (110:6.)

Where, pray tell, are the celestial revelations of Christ as unveiled in Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians in this chapter?? And what does His relative administration of the complement of the eras have to do with His existence before His physical birth?? See, this is my problem. Aaron keeps correlating Christ’s “administration” with His entire existence. “Christ” is not inherently rooted to His specific administration, because neither is God tied down to His specific administration, and Christ is “SIMULATE”-ing God during the eons. Pretending He didn’t exist yet because His kingdom is proclaimed here does not change the fact that Yahweh is proclaiming to David’s Lord, which again, is exactly what Jesus is talking about in Matt. 22:41-46, when He says:

“How, then, is David, in spirit, calling Him Lord, saying, ‘Said the Lord to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right, Till I should be placing Thine enemies underneath “Thy feet!”’?

And again, what is that term, “averring?” Oh, it’s the act of proclaiming something from one person to another.

GK is assuming that, if Christ didn’t exist at the time Psalm 110 was written, then it would mean that Yahweh was speaking to a non-existent person. But that’s simply not the case. When David wrote this psalm, Yahweh had not yet declared the quoted words that are addressed to his risen and exalted Son (i.e., “Sit at My right Until I should set Your enemies as a stool for Your feet”). That is, the quoted declaration of Yahweh to Christ in Psalm 110:1 is itself part of what’s being prophesied by David (and therefore was, in David’s day, still future).

To this I reply: David is calling Someone his Lord. Someone aside from Yahweh. Something that Jesus literally needed to point out to the Pharisees and go, “Hey, yeah, I’m the Lord David was taking ownership of!” Never have I ever heard something so incredulous as, “David has a Lord, but that Lord doesn’t actually exist yet, so he’s just, like, speaking of Him proleptically.” What kind of Back-to-the-Future nonsense is this?? How can David actually have his Lord, the Master which he serves, not actually exist??

That this is something that is proclaimed to be spoken by Yahweh in a future period of time does not change the fact that David undoubtedly proclaims that Christ is His Lord. I’m sure Aaron and co will try and argue that this is a statement that reflects David’s future disposition toward Christ, when this conversation is fulfilled. Yet, using Acts 2:33-35, the very verses Aaron quotes, the text reveals that this conversation, though future, occurs while David is very much not alive. So why would David be calling Christ His Lord for a future conversation that he’s not alive to witness?

*sigh*

Anyways, let’s revisit Hebrews 1:5–

For to whom of the messengers said He at any time, “My Son are You! I, today, have begotten You”? And again, “I shall be to Him for a Father and He shall be to Me for a Son”?

In my original articles, I spent a fair bit of time in the book of Hebrews breaking down that, though I am not an expert on the letter, the argument made is covering the ascended Christ’s terrestrial glories, and unveiling His current celestial position to Israel. Now, over time I have grown more knowledgeable in the letter, but I still find no reason to believe that Hebrews denies Christ’s existence before His physical birth, as Aaron claims in his response.

What’s being affirmed here is that God begat his Son on a certain day (hence the word “today”). However, it wouldn’t be true (and wouldn’t make any sense) to say that a son was begotten by his father on a certain day if the son was already in existence at the time.

Why not? Aaron doesn’t really explain this statement, but moves on to the next point immediately, using this as a grounds to stand on. The only statement he gives concerning begettal is a little later on:

…“begettal” is simply the way in which beings who have fathers are created, or brought into existence. Thus, while not every created thing has been begotten, every begotten being has been created.

Hi! So wouldn’t that mean that the term “begettal” is largely situational, limited heavily to relative scenarios, and could easily apply to Christ even if He existed beforehand, when you consider the context by which He is begotten? Aaron himself quotes Acts 13:32-33, where Paul says:

And we are bringing to you the evangel which comes to be a promise to the fathers, that God has fully fulfilled this for our children in raising Jesus, as it is written in the second psalm also, ‘My Son art Thou; I, today, have begotten Thee.’

Hi! So if He is “only-begotten” by God before His resurrection (John 3:16,) and proclaims to Nicodemus that, if one is to perceive the kingdom of God, He must be begotten-anew (3:4,) kind of like the way He is begotten anew in His resurrection (John 20:14, Luke 24:16,) then what’s the glitch Aaron has with Heb. 1:5, if it’s clearly a relative and situational phrase?? Last I checked, Jesus was still very much God’s Son before His resurrection, too??

The entire book of John covers Him as the “Son of God,” which is why John starts with “In a beginning.” Jesus undergoes a change, or, “BECOME”s something else. He was only-begotten in His shift from form of God to form of slave (John 1:14.) He is resurrected to yet a different form, no longer obedient unto death, into His exaltation. This is being “begotten.” Christ’s purpose shifts with God’s purpose. I’m going to quote a longer passage from Knoch on this, but I feel it’s necessary to get this point across:

“[Christ] is the Impress of all God’s assumptions. It is vain and vicious to drive in a wedge, as we so often do, between the Son and the Father, as though there were as little sympathy between them as there is in the average human family. He and His Father are one, just as He and His saints are one. This unity is one of spirit, not identity of personality.

Failure to apprehend the truth that our Lord is the Impress of all the divine assumptions, has led to many a self-imposed difficulty. Some passages prove that He is Adonai, not Yahweh. Other passages make it clear that He is Yahweh. Still others give Him the title El or Elohim.

Let us note the words of Psalm 110:1: “The averring of Yahweh to my Lord…” (cf. Matt. 22:44). This seems to show clearly that David’s Lord was not Yahweh. Yet it is David who speaks of the crucified One: “I poise Yahweh in front of me continually (Ps. 16:8; cp. Acts 2:25.) Thus, while we infer from one of David’s utterances that He was not Yahweh, we have clear evidence from another passage that He is.

The same is true of the title Elohim. In Hebrews 1:9, Elohim is called His God. Yet in the preceding verse, He Himself is called Elohim (Ps. 45:6, 7.)

In His distress on Calvary He calls upon El, “Eloi, Eloi” (Matt. 27:46,) yet in the very same book He Himself is called Immanuel – El with us (Matt. 1:23). This, too, is the title given the Son as the Creator (Heb. 1:10, Ps. 102:24-27).

In the Greek Scriptures, Master or Lord is used indiscriminately of the Adonai or Yahweh of the Hebrew; yet this is the peculiar title which is used to distinguish Him from His God. “For even if so be that there are those being termed gods, whether in heaven or on earth, even as there are many gods and many lords, nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, our of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him” (1 Cor. 8:5-6.)

Often is God spoken of as the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Yet the title God is not denied the Son. Thomas acknowledges Him to be his Lord and his God, and is not rebuked for his confession (John 20:28.) There is a strong probability that He is called “the Only Begotten God” in the first chapter of John’s account (1:18.) The same apostle tells us that He is the true God (1 John 5:20.)

Indeed, while the title “Father” is the one most distinct from the Son, He is the Emblem of the divine fatherhood, too. He told His disciples, “‘If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also. And henceforth you know Him and have seen Him.’ Philip is saying to Him, ‘Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficing us.’ Jesus is saying to him, ‘So much time I am with you, and you do not know Me, Philip! He who has seen Me has seen the Father, and how are you saying, Show us the Father? Are you not believing that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The declarations which I am speaking to you I am not speaking from Myself. Now the Father, remaining in Me, He is doing His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me…” (John 14:7-11).

From all of these examples, it is evidently beside the mark to seek to limit any divine characterization to Deity proper, for we cannot hear Him apart from His Expression; we cannot see Him apart from His Image; we cannot perceive the characters He assumes apart from the Emblem of His assumptions. This does not obliterate manifest differences of identity and personality. Indeed, we are forced to distinguish between the Image and its invisible Original; we cannot confuse the Expression with the One Who speaks; and we are not distressed when the Emblem is spoken of in the same terms as the Assumption. The One great Mediator between God and humanity is fully authorized to speak and act as God; and to receive the honors which are due to Him only. And this because His will and ways and words are not His own, but His Who sent Him.

From this it is manifest how unscriptural is the theological theory of a “trinity.” We are asked to believe that there are three God-persons whose three wills act in unity. Scripture knows of but one God whose will is supreme and needs no subordination or compromise or harmony with any other will. The Son of God always did the will of His God, and never presumed to cooperate with Him. As the Expression of God, He does not announce His own will; and He renounces any will of His own as the Emblem of the divine assumptions.”

The different shifts and changes Christ, the Image of the Deity, goes through, are different forms of Expression from God. He is the true Representative of our Father. When you are called out, you are not being called out to be the body of ‘just another dude that God willed to learn righteousness,’ but the Image of the Deity, turned flesh. Did the Expression of God exist before Jesus’ physical birth, or are we to proclaim that God is unable to express Himself the way He says He does (Unv. 19:13, Col. 1:15-17?)

Now, how we are reaching the conclusion that “begotten” in Hebrews 1:5 somehow proving that Christ couldn’t exist beforehand is a mystery to me. The context, indeed, discusses Jesus resurrected, relating this use of “begettal” to that. Yet there are hundreds of other verses discussing Christ as “Son” before His resurrection.

This would go on to show us that “begettal” does not merely revolve around “being created,” but, per the literal Greek element of the word, to “become” something. This does not mean that, in “being begotten,” one did not previously exist. You are a new creation in Christ, but not physically. Thus, begotten. Did you not previously exist before being called out in Christ? You become something new. Similarly, the word of God clearly exists, and becomes flesh (John 1:14.) “Jesus” Christ, the Man, obviously was not originally flesh, and is begotten as a slave. But His spirit most certainly existed, and His form has changed (Phil. 2:5-8.)

Now, here is the definition of “only-begotten” on blue letter bible:

Only-begotten – single of its kind, only

To be only-begotten, is to be the single of its kind. Christ is, truly, unique, in being the only-begotten Son (John 3:16.) This Son is unique. What sets Him apart? Could it be, perchance, that He is not merely a part of the eons (Gen. 2:7, John 15:19,) but the Expression of God through which creation is established (Heb. 1:2?) I’m not “obedient unto death.” He was the only One that willingly chose such a burden. As we are in Adam, we are all dying, and have no say in the matter (Rom. 5:12.) To proclaim that Jesus is just like one of us is to say that He, merely a man in creation, managed to obey despite God’s curse. How to drive a wedge between God and His Christ?

Yes, I know Heb. 1:5, specifically, says “begotten,” not “only-begotten,” but again, this is still in relation to His resurrection. There’s a relative perspective in focus, here, not a limitation on Christ’s use in and through the eons.

When GK writes that “Christ…becomes man, which leads Him to being Son of God,” he seems to be saying that Christ wasn’t the Son of God during the time that he thinks Christ pre-existed as a non-human, celestial being (and that he only became the Son of God when he was begotten, which occurred when he was conceived).

I’ll end on this note, and it’s that I should not have said that becoming man led Him to being a Son of God. That was my own inference, and to err is human. The “Word of God” is a title, per Unv. 19:13. It is the title Christ has from the very start (John 1:1, which I may have to elaborate on in these articles.) It is my own mistake to proclaim that the Son would not be the “Son” until becoming human. To limit Him like this, as if He has to look like us in order to be considered a Son, would be foolhardy and disingenuous, not to mention could lead me to worship the creature instead of the Creator. Rom. 1:23. Even in existing before His physical birth, He is indeed the Son of God, though in a different form (Phil. 2:6.)

Due to the misapprehension of the term “begotten,” here, I guess this is just where we won’t see eye to eye on the subject matter. Christ “becoming man” is Him being begotten, or, “BECOME”-ing flesh. Aaron spends a bit of time elaborating on this, the difference, of course, being that he believes that God was lying about having an Emblem, or Effulgence, until a couple thousand years ago. Understanding Col. 1:15-17 should clarify that this does not mean He was not previously a Son of God, but that His position in the relative story has shifted (Phil. 2:5-8.)

(to be continued)

- GerudoKing