Preexistence (Part 2)

This topic contains 7,587 replies, has 46 voices, and was last updated by  t8 2 hours, 47 minutes ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #225828
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 882
    • Total replies 18,096

    This is a continuation of the topic Preexistence (Part 1).

    #225830
     Ed J 
    Participant
    • Topics started 155
    • Total replies 27,845

    Hi Everyone,

                            Our Preexistence

    Yes, we all preexisted our physical flesh!
    Thanks very much for your concern in this matter!
    2Tm.1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling,
    not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace,
    which was given [[[us]]] in Christ Jesus before the world began, (John 15:27)

                           “The Word” in us!

    John 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness (by the HolySpirit),
    because [[[ye]]] have been with me from the beginning.
    Acts 12:24 But “The word” of God grew and multiplied.

                             More evidence:  

    Jer.1:5 Before I(YHVH) formed thee in the belly I knew thee;
    and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee,
    and I(YHVH) ordained thee(Jeremiah) a prophet unto the nations.

    Jude:1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you,
    feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of
    winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

    God bless
    Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
    http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

    #225831
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 77
    • Total replies 24,861

    JA:

    Quote
    Mike,

    Only two questions…

    Jesus is directly created from God, you say,…so he is God from God.

    And, you say, God created the Angels through Jesus.

    1) What higher glory can a God from God have?

    2) If Jesus is God from God, how would anyone want to compare him to that which he had a hand in creating – Angels.
    (Is the Potter compared to the Pots he created?
    Is the Potter said to be greater than the pots he created?
    Is the Potter put in authority over the pots he created?
    Is God said to be greater than the Angels?
    IS God said to be greater than Jesus (Note  – Not Jesus is NOT as Great as God…!))

    (These questions will be raised again)

    Hi JA,

    1)  Jesus is not “God from God” anymore than your son would be “JA from JA”.  None of King David's sons were “King David from King David” either.  Nor would the President's son be “The President from The President”.

    Jesus is the Son of God.  God is THE ALMIGHTY ONE.  Jesus is a mighty one in his own right, but not THE ALMIGHTY ONE.  And since you know “a god” means “a mighty one”, I don't understand the dilemma here.  Jesus is “a mighty one” who is the Son of THE ALMIGHTY ONE.

    2)  Jehovah is “compared” to angels, and so are men.  I don't get your point here.

    peace and love,
    mike

    #225832
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 882
    • Total replies 18,096

    There are 2 ways in which you can use the word God (theos).

    Qualitatively and as an identifier.

    If you say theos from theos in quality or nature then that would not be the same as THEOS from THEOS which would mean GOD from GOD which means we now have 2 Gods.

    Theos as in THE THEOS or Theos is God unless it talks about another God such as God of this age.

    Surely if Jesus was the first work and came from God himself, then that would make him theos in nature.

    Scripture talks about many gods (theos) but says that there is only one Almighty Theos IDENTIFIED as the Father.
    So yes there are many who partake in divine nature, but there is only one is the Divine.

    Similarly (in a language sense) there is only one who is THE DEVIL or Devil, yet there are many devils including Judas who was called a devil. So again in identity there is only one, in nature or quality there are many.

    This understanding clears up most of the debates in this topic and the Trinity topic. But many seem to ignore this. Yet this is how scripture is constructed. It is there for all to see if they want.

    #225838
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 77
    • Total replies 24,861

    Quote (t8 @ Nov. 21 2010,09:18)
    Scripture talks about many gods (theos) but says that there is only one Almighty Theos IDENTIFIED as the Father.
    So yes there are many who partake in divine nature, but there is only one is the Divine.


    Hi t8,

    We've discussed this briefly before, and I'm still not on board with this “nature” thing.  Idols were “gods” to many people, yet an idol doesn't “partake in divine nature”, does it?

    And Jesus was called THE begotten god in John 1:18.  That doesn't imply “nature” or “qualifyer” to me, but an “identity”.

    God simply implies “a mighty one”.  And many can and have been INDENTIFIED as “mighty ones”.  And not all of them have a “divine nature”.

    But we do agree that in the midst of many “mighty ones”, there is only ONE “ALMIGHTY ONE”.

    peace and love,
    mike

    #225842
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 882
    • Total replies 18,096

    Mike.

    There are many identified as theos that is not in a nature or qualitative sense, that is true.
    e.g., idols are in identity false gods. Satan is in identity the God of this age.
    So yes all gods being identified are false with the exception of the one true God.
    So yes there are many gods, but there is only one true God.

    Other mentions of theos where God the Father is not be talked of, and where it is not a false God can be explained as theos in a qualitative or nature sense. Such as when Jesus said, “ye are thoes”. He was talking to those who held Moses seat and therefore their ministry qualified them as “theos”. They were not false gods, even though they didn't recognize Jesus.

    To confirm that, we have the Greek language which uses the definite article to identify and lack of it to qualify.

    So when Jesus said, “ye are gods”. You can bet that he didn't say, “Yes are THE God”.

    Does that make more sense now?

    What part doesn't?

    #225843
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 882
    • Total replies 18,096

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 21 2010,10:04)
    God simply implies “a mighty one”.  And many can and have been INDENTIFIED as “mighty ones”.  And not all of them have a “divine nature”.


    Did you know that there is no indefinite article 'a' in Greek. It is added in by translators to make the sentence legible in English. So when Jesus said “one of you is a devil” he was actually saying “one of you is devil” and he was qualifying Judas as having the nature or characteristics of the Devil. He wasn't actually saying that he was the Devil or even a devil/demon.

    #225845
     terraricca 
    Participant
    • Topics started 67
    • Total replies 28,224

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 21 2010,17:04)

    Quote (t8 @ Nov. 21 2010,09:18)
    Scripture talks about many gods (theos) but says that there is only one Almighty Theos IDENTIFIED as the Father.
    So yes there are many who partake in divine nature, but there is only one is the Divine.


    Hi t8,

    We've discussed this briefly before, and I'm still not on board with this “nature” thing.  Idols were “gods” to many people, yet an idol doesn't “partake in divine nature”, does it?

    And Jesus was called THE begotten god in John 1:18.  That doesn't imply “nature” or “qualifyer” to me, but an “identity”.

    God simply implies “a mighty one”.  And many can and have been INDENTIFIED as “mighty ones”.  And not all of them have a “divine nature”.

    But we do agree that in the midst of many “mighty ones”, there is only ONE “ALMIGHTY ONE”.

    peace and love,
    mike


    Mike
    the two natures;
    i understand “nature” like in your nature,this would say in your human nature,but it also imply in your character,
    so i believe that many are flipping from one to the other,

    idols they are made in stone(or other substance) they have a nature of stone,(or other substance)
    since they do not think for themself they do not have the other nature,

    all creation dwells in is own nature according to what god has given ,and i think it is also the same with Christ

    since the angels, human and the son of God are created with freewill to serve God or not, i would be inclined to say that it is there character THAT would be there nature ,and not there structure,reason for structures do not proclaim God glory,

    and so we should pay more attention to the character of those who are created to glorify God name than looking at dead matter or structures used by the characters.

    Pierre

    #225846
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 882
    • Total replies 18,096

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 21 2010,10:04)
    And Jesus was called THE begotten god in John 1:18.  That doesn't imply “nature” or “qualifyer” to me, but an “identity”.


    Mike look at the Greek.

    18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him .

    the only begotten Son part is the monogenes.

    The definite article precedes monogenes.

    Therefore it is identifying him as THE Only begotten son, not as THE Begotten God.

    The word for son is 'huios' and it is not using the word 'theos'.

    #225848
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 882
    • Total replies 18,096

    Do you have any other verses that you think do not fit what I am saying?

    #225850
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 77
    • Total replies 24,861

    Quote (t8 @ Nov. 21 2010,10:59)
    The word for son is 'huios' and it is not using the word 'theos'.


    Hi t8,

    This info is from NETNotes:

    Joh 1:181tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

    http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Joh&chapter=1&verse=18#

    Have fun with all that mumbo-jumbo! :)

    mike

    #225851
     terraricca 
    Participant
    • Topics started 67
    • Total replies 28,224

    T8

    can we bring a copy of all our scriptures that we have collected right here in the begining so we do not have to search for them in a other place

    pierre

    #225853
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 77
    • Total replies 24,861

    Quote (t8 @ Nov. 21 2010,11:00)
    Do you have any other verses that you think do not fit what I am saying?


    Hi t8,

    Here are just a few.

    John 8:44
    You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

    Acts 28:6 NIV
    6The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

    Acts 12:22
    They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.”

    1 Corinthians 8:7
    But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled.

    1 Corinthians 14:33
    For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

    While the Greeks did not use the indefinite article “a”, English translators add it in each and every time it is necessary for us to read the passage sensibly.  That is………every time but one – John 1:1.

    You seem to be picking and choosing here t8.  When in reference to an idol, then you say the word “a” should be added, but understood it refers to “A” false god.

    But when used of others besides idols, you want to leave the “A” out and call it “nature” or “a qualifyer”.  

    So was Herod speaking like “A” god, or did he have the nature of God Himself?  Did the people on Malta think Paul was “a god”, or that he had the nature of God Himself?

    And what about 1 Cor?  Does it mean God is not “A” God of disorder, or that God is not “the nature of God” of disorder?

    And which one makes more sense when Paul calls Satan the god of this age?  Is Paul calling Satan “A” god or mighty one, or is he saying he has the “nature of God”?

    The way I see it, the English translators are right to add the “A” in all of the above scriptures so they make sense to us.  It just makes me wonder why the NWT seems to be the only translation that is not afraid to stick with the formula and also add it in John 1:1.  Actually, it doesn't make me wonder at all – we both know that “the Word was God” makes a much more compelling case for the trinitarians.

    As far as our discussion goes, if you agree that the above scriptures should have the “A” added, then why would you just assume for some reason that it SHOULDN'T also be added in John 1?

    peace and love,
    mike

    #225854
     mikeboll64 
    Participant
    • Topics started 77
    • Total replies 24,861

    Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 21 2010,11:26)
    T8

    can we bring a copy of all our scriptures that we have collected right here in the begining so we do not have to search for them in a other place

    pierre


    Hey Pierre,

    I'll add the last few in by order and post it here for us. I'm sure t8 won't mind.

    mike

    #225857
     terraricca 
    Participant
    • Topics started 67
    • Total replies 28,224

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 21 2010,18:38)

    Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 21 2010,11:26)
    T8

    can we bring a copy of all our scriptures that we have collected right here in the begining so we do not have to search for them in a other place

    pierre


    Hey Pierre,

    I'll add the last few in by order and post it here for us.  I'm sure t8 won't mind.

    mike


    mike

    thanks brother

    pierre

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 7,588 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2018 Heaven Net

or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account