Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[terraricca]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,20:39)

Pierre, Did you actually quote somebody and do it right?!?    So you CAN teach old dogs new tricks!   Good scriptural answers to Adam being “before Christ”. peace and love, mike

Mike

it is never to late,

Pierre

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 19 2011,07:43)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2011,20:39) Pierre, Did you actually quote somebody and do it right?!?    So you CAN teach old dogs new tricks!   Good scriptural answers to Adam being “before Christ”. peace and love, mike Mike it is never to late,   Pierre

Hahahah,

CONGRATS!!!!!

I give you 2 POINTS!

[SimplyForgiven]

Hi Paladin,
Your post are better organized thanks for the effort.
now add color! haha

Quote

1.I also do not believe Jesus is “just a man;” neither do I believe he is “God equal with God.” Since he was begotten of the Holy spirit [Mat 1:20] and “that which is begotten of the spirit is spirit” [John 3:6] how can any man say Jesus is “only a man?” 2.But, just as those offspring of God's sons and daughters of men were called “men” [Gen 6] and not “Gods” so also Jesus is called “man” and not “God.” 3And though God speaks of resurrected Jesus with titles previously devoted solely to God himself, it does not mean Jesus is God equal to God. It means he is now Elohim (immortal); and Adown [Lord], and El [Mighty one].

Threefold response.
1. Good now we understand eachother better, or now I understand a bit where you coming from.
Now give me a explianation of who Jesus Christ is to you?
2.  The offsprings of God are called men? You mean “adam”
ARe we offsprings or created?  
are you reffering to the Offspring of Adam and eve who are nothing like Jesus??
3.  Dont you find that Odd that A living being can have the same titles of God?
How can you honestly admit that Jesus shares the Same title as God and who also claims to be “ONE with God” is not God?
Thats a logical fallacy which leads to belittle titles to fit an idea.

Quote

Because John 1:1 is not about Jesus, but is about “ho logos” which is personified in every saint who yields his life to Christ so that it is no longer they that live, but Christ lives in them, the logos of God is personified agian, and will each time unto perpetuity.

Im sorry but thats more of your Speculations not what John intended.  Your quoting Paul to prove what John meant to say?  That doesnt make any sense at all.

Nothing you said really proved your interpretation.
Let me use Context to prove why I believe it speaks of Jesus.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
John later mentions that Jesus is that life.
John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 6:53
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Basically John correlates “ha logos” with the life that is given to men, which is given by Christ alone.

John 1:9
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
These verse claim that this “ha logos” which is called the “True light” in the following verse speaks of it coming down into this world.  (WHICH WAS MADE BY HIM)
He came to his own and his own received him not.
This is again speaking of the Testimony of Jesus Christ.

So it makes no logical sense if the Context is speaking of Jesus Christ that John 1:1 is not infact calling Jesus the “word of God”
Revelation 19:13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God
Revelations which is also written by John, calls Jesus the Word of God.

You do realize, that much that you have responded are extra-contextual ideas compared to the direct context of what is written?

Quote

Well, produce the verse that says so, or the verses that teach the concept.

I have already.

Quote

Oh, my friend, I have all of that. I know Jesus was at the beginning. I just disagree as to what beginning he is talking about. “But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.” [John 16:4] Here, Jesus is talking about the beginning of the gospel, which John is also referencing in 1:1.

So everytime beggning is mentioned it needs to be interpreted by its context, so therefore your arguement doesnt hold unless your stating that every instance that the beginning is mentioned is in reference to Johns beginning or Genesis.
Than again Johns discription of the beginning almost matches Genesis beginning verse by verse, so therefore one can conclude that John was in fact orginally quoting Genesis.

Quote

Excuse me! Which verse of Phil 2 are you saying references “day?” Actually the bible even tells us “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,” [Luke 3:23]; And I suppose I know that there are many “beginnings” spoken of in the gospels, all of which are identified by modifiers, as to what they are referencing. When John uses the term, he is talking about the beginning of the gospel unless he tells us otherwise by using modifiers. And he used no modifiers in John 1:1. He did in John 16:4

No, i was proving my point.  That obvisouly Phil 2 speaks of a “day” before he was actually born in the flesh.

Also the Modifiers are there, unless you want to ignore the context of John 1:1.
You have no indication that he was speaking of solely of the gospel.

Quote

That's why we spend so much time learning their terminology. And your question was not legitimate because I had already posted the connection between Psalm 2:7 and Acts 13, which you jumped over to ignore. Then asked me to “Also check this out” and remarked “You should read the context of this day my friend,” which obviously I had already done

I think you quoted this out of order which makes your point untopical.
But nevertheless i will answer.
I did not ignore your psalms 2:7, nor Acts 13, if anything i added Hebrews to show you that Jesus existed before this day.
Thats all i was proving.
Therefore being begotten doesnt mean he had a beginning he already existed.
Which in context again proves that Jesus created the worlds.

Quote

Fair question. “Love” and “God” are not convertible terms, that's why. In the Greek, if you have referenced two nouns, one with the definite article, and the other without it, they are not convertible terms, are not interchangeable, cannot be switched in the identity. One is articulated, the other is not. Let me see if I can explain it –   The Greek says “The God is love.” But it is not saying that all of God is all of love. “The fruit of the spirit is love” would be saying God is a fruit of the spirit of God. That's nonsense. So is “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” In other words, “Love” is not all there is to being God, and not all love is God.You can love jelly donuts, or your favorite magazine, but that is not God being expressed.

That depends on your definition of Love and God.
First of all not everything we call Love, really means is Love.
and not Everything we call God, is God.
but the bible claims that this Love is God,
therefore the bible also claims that the fact that “we love, is beacuse he has loved us first”
God is Love, and Love is God.
You cant have one without the other, or you do not have God.
16And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
What we Call “love of this world” is not True love.  
God is also TRUTH, therefore the Love of the world is not established as truth, and is based on our own pride and loathfulness.

So of course they are convertable terms if God wants it to be so. God is Love, therfore God must hate, therefore there must be Truth, and there must be something to hate that isnt Truth.

Quote

If “ho logos” is interchangeable with “Theos” then when “ho logos” became flesh, all of God became flesh. This was one of the early heresies. You would have the Father became flesh; the son became flesh; the Holy Spirit became flesh. That is why it cannot be converted, exchanged, or equalized.

Like the Tabernacle?
Wasnt all of God inside the Tabernacle that was made by men?  Where Moses spoke with God face to face?
WHAT is all of God?
Why can God not be Physical?  Does he not have the power to do so?

Quote

Because there is more than one flesh. “1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.” John did not say “the logos became man.” That would be   “aneer” or “anthropos.” John said “sarx.” And the reason John used “Sarx” instead of “anthropos” is so men would not try to say the logos became a particular man.

σαρξ(4561) sarx
1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts 2) the body 2a) the body of a man 2b)
You didnt say Why can the Flesh (body) cannot be the Word.

Quote

Well, you see SF, you have just defended something I did not say. I did not mention “Elohim as singular” because Elohim is Hebrew and plural; and I was working in the Greek, and did say “Theos is singular.” And you do not agree with a single-person version of God. Did I fail to point out that “first-person-singular” means how many persons are involved? Nope! I just rechecked the post and it's in there. Maybe you did not understand the significance of it. It states that there is only one person who is God. And that, you do not believe, and it is your words I use here, not my own opinion. I will respond to one more of your errors, and rest awhile

Oh ok Great, than thats Awesome.
Than I find your proof to be untopical sense Isaiah was written in Hebrew.
I mentioned that “you believe” that Elohim is Singular, I already know its plural.
Are you sure i dont believe in a single God?
It really doesnt matter, The thing is I find that Jesus and God to be the one and the Same God, so therefore since my belief is that, than i have nothing to defend from Isaiah.

Quote

There are 140 references to “whether” in the bible, and in every case, it is a reference to a choice of one thing or the other thing, never both, and never neither. One or the other. 140 references never consider a word study complete by researching one verse. Even when there is only one reference to a word being used, there are always considerations to be researched that goes beyond the one use of one word. I am cutting the rest out because it is getting too long for me to work with. Thank you for the interest.

Based on what is it not both?
Whether its catfish, sharks or jelly fish, its all seafood.
Thats not a choice between one or the other but all within things within the same category.

Like i said before Paladin.
All your explainations are based on things you believe, not that they are biblical true.
In other words your using the non-biblical to explain the biblical.
Your using colors to explain math.

I can go all day, and tell you what i believe, but the issue is not based on your own set doctrine but putting it aside and dealing with the issue on hand with proof.

Just mention anything about church and you WILL HEAR MY SOAPBOX.

Your molding words to fit your belief, instead the Word should be your belief.
Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

[SimplyForgiven]

Mike,
Can you confirms Paladins warrent that John 1:1 speaks of “ha Logos” and not “logos”
Becauese from what i have dug up there is not such claim.

[GeneBalthrop]

Paladin………Don't let them get to you down brother, they simply do not understand it has not been given unto them. They simple go around chasing their own tails in circles never coming to any sound understanding.

You have done a great Job explaining it to them, but if it ain't there it just ain't there Brother. Just the blind leading the blind. They have a long time ago bought into the False teachings of the Apostate Churches and it is so ingrained into their thinking it totally captivates them and they are unable to see the truth of God or Jesus for that matter. It reminds me of where Jesus said to the Pharisees they could not recieve his words because they simply were not of GOD or they could easily understand them , but it simply was not given them to understand them.

peace and love to you and yours………………………………………gene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 19 2011,02:14)

Mike, Can you confirms Paladins warrent that John 1:1 speaks of “ha Logos” and not “logos” Becauese from what i have dug up there is not such claim.

Hi D,

“HO” is Greek for “THE”.  He is claiming that “ho logos” (the word) is not THE God in 1:1.  Because if THE WORD is THE GOD, then when THE Word became flesh, then THE God also became flesh.  And John says that no one has seen THE God AT ANY TIME.

But along with his claim that “ho logos” isn't God Himself, (with which I agree), Paladin also claims that “ho logos” isn't Jesus, (with which I disagree).

Ask him what other “word of God” BECAME flesh, dwelled among us, and had the glory of an only begotten Son from the Father.  

I would be willing to bet that he goes for Gene's scripture-changing explanation that it doesn't mean the Word actually BECAME flesh, but “CAME TO BE IN SOMEONE WHO WAS FLESH”.  

But that's not what the scripture really says, unless you add your own words into it.  The scripture clearly says “the Word BECAME flesh”.  This same Word dwelled among us and had the glory of an only begotten Son.

The spokesman for the King of Abyssinia held the title “The Word of The King” because he relayed the words of the king to the people.  This spokesman was a human being who was “The Word” in title only – not because he was a literal spoken word that the king uttered.  

This is an historical FACT, yet these non-preexisters cannot seem to grasp the fact that “Word of God” is a title for God's main spokesman, even though he is clearly called by this title by the same author in Revelation.  This author, John, had his revelation years before he penned his gospel about Jesus.  So knowing before-hand that Jesus was the “Word of God”, why is it so hard to understand that he would have used this title for Jesus in his gospel about the life of Jesus?

mike

[Paladin]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 18 2011,05:39)

Quote He is one of the few posters to reveal the meanings of the words in the Hebrew and Greek texts. Hi Wispring Actually most of us here do. Espeacialy Myself, Mike, WJ, KJ, David, Francis, and many others. We had a WHOLE debate and several threads based on hebrews and greek terms. Espeacially “Elohim” '”Theos” “Monogenes” and many other terms. Just sayin, the hebrew and greek debates are common here.

Yes my friend, and it is a big help in understanding when you get it right, and when you get it wrong. I'm hoping my own exegesis does the same for me.

Thanks!

[Paladin]

(P)

Quote

I think Jesus had glory in prospect as prophecy. (Mike) Does what you think fit the scripture?  Jesus asks to be glorified with the [same] glory he had before the world. First of all, your understanding means that Jesus was asking for the glory of a “prophetic prospect”.  Was he saying he wanted to go back to being a DNA who is foreordained for some future glory?   Secondly, your understanding does not compute with the very words Jesus spoke, which were “the glory……..I HAD…………ALONGSIDE YOU………..BEFORE THE WORLD EXISTED. 1.  The PERSON of Jesus apparently had this glory, for it is the PERSON of Jesus saying “I HAD”. 2.  The PERSON of Jesus was ALONGSIDE GOD when HE HAD this glory.   3.   The PERSON of Jesus was ALONGSIDE GOD, and HE HAD glory, BEFORE THE WORLD EVEN EXISTED.

Bear with me for a moment Mike, while I try to put another verse into the same clothes you are dressing John 17:5 in. Then watch the effect of the possible prayers I could pray as Jesus prayed –

1) Glory was ordained for us before the world was.
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:”[1 Cor 2:7]

I could pray the same type of prayer Jesus prayed in John 17:5 “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”

Paladin 17:5 “And now, O Father, give me the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”

2)We were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.
“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:” [Eph 1:4]

I could pray the same type of prayer Jesus prayed in John 17:5 “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”
Paladin 1:4 “And now, O Father, make me thy choice as thou hast chosen me before the foundation of the world.”

3) We were called according to the purpose of God before creation.
“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,” [II Tim 1:9]

I could pray the same type of prayer Jesus prayed in John 17:5 “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”

[II Paladin 1:9] “And now, O Father, Call me with that calling by which you called me before the world began”

4) God promised us eternal life before the world was. “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;” [Titus 1:2]

I could pray the same type of prayer Jesus prayed in John 17:5 “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”

[Paladin 1:2] “And now, O Father, give me eternal life you promised me before the wrold began.”

5) Jesus was forordained as our redeemer before the foundation of the world.
I Pet 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.”

Jesus was foreordained. Peter does not say “Jesus was our redeemer before the foundation of the world.” He says, Jesus was foreordained before the foundation of the world, as our redeemer.”

6) Look at what God provided “before the world was.”
a)wisdom ordained to our glory, but we were not there to receive it
b)We were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.
c)We were called according to the purpose of God before the world was.
d)God promised us eternal life before the world was.
e)Jesus was forordained as our redeemer before the foundation of the world.
f)God provided glory for Jesus before the world was.
“with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”

(Mike)

Quote

What happened was that Jesus asked for his former glory back, and God exalted him even higher than that.

Jesus said “Give me” he did not say “give me back.” And Jesus said “The glory” – he did not say “The former glory.” Why is it proper for you to call it “former” glory, but improper for me to call it “promised” glory? I have shown you several things that were gifts from God in prospect, promise, or plan. You have shown me none that required the presence of the recipient to aknowledge the gift before the world began.

(Mike)

Quote

Paladin, you can pretend the words of scripture say whatever forms around YOUR OWN understanding.  I see it on this site all the time.  But if you can't solidly explain why Jesus said “the glory I HAD at your side” instead of “the glory that was promised to me at your side” , then you are rewriting the words of scripture to fit your own understanding.

Mike, if you can't supply the verse that says “former” and “give me back,” how can you explain how it is I am interpreting John 17:5 to fit my understanding, but you are not? I freely admint that is what I am doing, and I also provided five examples from scripture that seem to be saying a similar thing. You have only provided that which you forbid to me. Am I being unreasonable here?

(Mike)

Quote

Taken exactly as they are, the words of Jesus very clearly teach us that HE HAD glory ALONGSIDE his God BEFORE THE WORLD EXISTED.  Those are the words Jesus spoke.  I take them as they were spoken.  I have no need to come up with strange new alternate meanings for these words, because they are very clear to start with.

Only if you mix and match different translations to find one that fits what you need it to say. If you stick to what the Greek allows, you will not find it.

In fact, my friend, With reference to John 17:5, Consider “eixon” indicative imperfect active, translated “had” should have been translated “was having,” as it references a continuing action in the past. Completed action would be “had.”

Then consider the present infinitive “einai” which stresses the fact “the world is in the proccess of continuous being,” so “before the world was” is inappropriate for the Greek. It should be saying, “Now, O Father, Glorify me with thine own self with the glory I was having before the whole world that is being” [right in front of the whole word, i.e., in prophecy the whole world can see]

There is no excuse other than doctrinal bias, for translating “pro tou kosmon einai”
as “before the world was” as though it relates to time, when it is telling us about something that existed “before” as in “in front of” the world that is in existence. There is no inference of “was” in the passage. “einai” is a present active genitive infinitive, and pro is a genitive preposition, meaning “in front of” in passages such as [Acts 12:6] pro tees thuras “before the door”][gen Prep w/gen]
and [Mat 11:10 pro prwsopou sou “before thy face”][gen prep w/gen]

(Mike)

Quote

Is 9:6 speaks of a child who HAS BEEN BORN.  But Jesus wasn't LITRALLY born until 700 years later. (Pal)”and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.” I don't think this is a child who has been born. (Mike) Was that “slight of hand”?  You purposely avoided the part of the scripture I asked you about………….why?

Because it is a prophecy previously introduced in Isa 7:14
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.”

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
to be fulfilled later.

Perhaps you do not know, many of the old testament prophecies had two fulfillments, one contemporary with the prophet, and one contemporary with the time of Jesus.

While it is true, Isaiah had a second son many think fulfilled the prophecy, it is clear that the prophecy as articulated in Isa 9:6 was not about Isaiah's second son. And I don't think Isaiah's wife, the mother of his first son, was a virgin in begetting the second son. It is prophetic in speaking of a thing yet to be done, as though it is already fact.

Your own notes tells you the same thing;
From NETNotes: The Hebrew perfect (translated “has been born” and “has been given”) is used here as the prophet takes a rhetorical stance in the future age and describes future events as if they have already occurred.

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 17 2011,15:12)

See Mike, you said the same thing. “Jesus was born from her seed.” You did not say Jesus was born from the seed of her descendant.” You agree with me, Jesus was born from her seed. (Mike) Paladin, everyone who was ever human came from the seed of Eve.  As I understand it, you are trying to say Jesus began existing from the day Eve was tempted by Satan.  I don't even consider Gen 3:15 to be a Messianic prophecy in the first place, but even if it is, you have nothing in scripture to imply Jesus began to exist at that point.

Sure I do. I already told you, when God said in Gen 17:4  
“Thou shalt be a father of many naitions,” and in the next verse says about the same prophecy “I have made thee a father of many nations” while as yet he had no child.

“And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, 3 And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. 4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. 5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him,when as yet he had no child.”

This is an early demonstration of how God relates to what he has already spoken.

(Mike)

Quote

What you have is strange logic claiming that a DNA is an incarnate person who exists.  And that strange logic ignores many clear scriptures, one of which is John 17:5.

I said the alleged incarnation began then. And it is tied to the prophetic seed, not the factual DNA. If in fact, my words say something else, consider this a correction of a concept. If in fact, this is what I previously said, consider this a confirmation of a concept.

[Paladin]

Hello Tim;

It is good to see others are thinking. All who post on the board are thinkers, who are trying to explain not what they think, so much as why they think it. I like that.

Thanks

As to your question:

Quote

Is it possible that each time Jesus referred to “the world” he was referring to the “world order of that time” or the “religious world order” the “world order of the Jews”, the old religious way of the old covenant. I do not see that he is referring to the cosmos or universe. In John chap.15-V18 Jesus makes referrence to…if the world hate you, it hated me before it hated me before you….v19..if ye were of the world….you are not of this world….I have chosen you out of this world…therefore the world hateth you….and so on to V25 when Jesus said….that the word might be fulfilled that is written in “their law”….they hated me without cause. The law was unto the Jews! Religiously speaking it was a Jewish run religious world order at that time! Neither Jesus nor his disciples nor we are of that old religious world. IMO, just a thought. Bless all, TK

Whatever world God sent Jesus into, is the world Jesus sent his disciples into.

“As thou hast sent me into the kosmos, even so have I also sent them into the kosmos.”[John 17:18]

When his reference is to the ages, he uses aiwnos, not kosmos, though mostly it is mistranslated “world” as though it references “kosmos.”

For example in Heb –
Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the aiwnas;

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the aiwnas  were (adjusted) framed by the reema of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

The first one is most often used to prove Jesus made the world, but it  is a reference to the fac tthat the timing of the end of the Jewish age, and the beginning of the Christian dispensation were dependant upon the timing of Jesus' mission and its successful completion.

The second reference is to the fact that Jesus adjusted (tweaked as it were) the ages by his influence upon governments and peoples as they reacted to his ministry and teaching.

[Paladin]

Quote (Wispring @ Mar. 19 2011,09:21)

To Paladin,   Your elucidation of the words “in the beginning” has really cleared up alot things for me. The bible as a cohesive whole is starting to make much more rational sense to me now. Thank you. I trusted the bible for the most part in blind faith(excepting the words of Jesus Christ because my soul knew he spoke truth)before, now the scales are starting to drop from my eyes. Most likely not all of them, but, a few in any case. I would like to Jesus and God for this, and of course, yourself for this. So…hey, thanks.                                                                     =================================================================== New standard of rule: Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.   This could also be called a new standard of social behaviour imho. It truly wasn't new when Jesus taught it. google “The golden rule” to become more educated on this ethic of reciprocity. Or not…only you can decide how well you wish to be educated about things. =================================================================== New standard for the Altar: Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.   Just my humble opion here. When I first read this verse I understood it to mean that I should first reconcile my differences with my brother(people) so that I would truly have something righteous to be thankful for. The very same being my reconciliation with my brothers.                                                                                                          With Love and Respect,                                                             Wispring

Thank you my friend. Perhaps it would help if you know the following;

The approximate chronology of the new testament as inspired to be written:

And if the chronology of the New Testament
is approximately along the lines of –
THEO'S.CHRONOLOGY…………..SCHAFF'S CHRONOLOGY
A.D………BOOK……………A.D.

45……….JAMES…………..44-62
48……….GALATIANS……….57
50……….JERUS COUNCIL……50
50……….I THESS…………52-53
51……….II THESS………..52-53
52……….MATHEW………….60-70
54……….I COR…………..57
55……….II COR………….57
56……….ROMANS………….58
58……….LUKE……………60-70
60……….COLOSSIANS………61-63
60……….EPHESIANS……….61-63
60……….PHILEMON………..61-63
61……….PHILIPPIANS……..61-63
61……….ACTS……………60-70
64/65…….I TIMOTHY……….64-67
64/65…….TITUS…………..64-67
64/65…….I PETER…………64-67
66/67…….II PETER………..64-67
67/68…….II TIMOTHY………64-67
69……….APOKALYPSE………68-69
70……….HEBREWS…………70
70……….MARK……………60-70
75……….JUDE……………64-67
85/90…….I JOHN………….80-90
85/90…….II JOHN…………80-90
85/90…….III JOHN………..80-90
96……….GOSPEL JOHN……..80-90

For clarification – “Schaff” is a reference to the greatest church historian, named Philip Schaff. His chronology differs from mine, but in fairness to the reader, please, make up your own mind about the issue.

If you study the bible in the order suggested, you will come to an entirely different understanding than you will studying by the “orthodox” chronology.

[Paladin]

Quote (Baker @ Mar. 19 2011,09:54)

Paladin!  I see you are interpreting Scriptures to your view.  So when Jesus said the He came from Heaven to do the will of His Father it does not say so?  And when Scriptures say that He was the firstborn of all creation, it is not so?   Col 1:14   In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:   Col 1:15   Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:   Col 1:16   For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:   Col 1:17   And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.   Jesus was not only the firstborn of all creation, He was also the firstborn of the death.  So He may have preeminence, meaning He was first in all. Col 1:18   And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence   Rev 3:14 ¶ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;   Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.   Jhn 1:2   The same was in the beginning with God.   Jhn 1:3   All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Rev 19:13   And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.   Rev 19:14   And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.   Rev 19:15   And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.   Rev 19:16   And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.   If there wouldn't be Rev. 19 then I could say maybe you could be right denying this.  But Rev. makes it clear it is Jesus The Word of God.  All titles…Both John 1;1 and Rev. 19…..He is the Spoken Word of God, because nobody has seen Almighty God or heard His voice.   Jhn 5:37   And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.   Jhn 6:40   And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.   Jhn 8:57   Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?   Jhn 8:58   Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.   I believe what Jesus told us…Not what any men do…… And what glory does Jesus have now?  Is He not a Spirit being now, after His resurrection, He asked this Jhn 17:4   I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.   Jhn 17:5   And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.   Peace Irene

Dear sister; I have tried to enlighten you to the best of my ability, but you still hold tightly to what you already knew. Not that it is a fault, you should not jump about to join every wind of doctrine. But after a time, some of it should begin to make sense to you.

Did you know that scripture was not written for the purpose of making things easy? It was never, for example, intended as a handbook to be handed out to unbelievers who are told
“here, study this and you will understand.” Why? Because no book of the new testament was ever written to unbelievers. They were all written to straighten out believers who had raised questions, or had problems in the congregation that were too deep or too subtle for the eldeers to control.

Paul's atitude about it seems to be, when someone says “we have heard such and such and are interested in hearing more, send us a letter we can read and decide better,” Paul would not send them a letter, which were reserved for believers, but he would send them a Christian, and say, Here is “Christ” read him.

It was Paul who said;2 Corinthians 3:1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; 6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” [II Cor 3:1-6]

Why would I expect you to observe the letters written by the apostles, and not let you see “Christ living in me,” and expect you to understand what it is that drives me? It is not the letter, dear sister, it is the spirit of Christ as I live my life such that “I” am no longer expressed in daily living, but
“Christ” is expressed in my words, my actions, and my thought proccesses.

If you will consider giving up that doctrine which drives your understandingl and read the bible in the order published elsewhere on this board, you will begin to see a much deeper doctrine as it is applied to the lives of the saints, instead of to the pages of a written document.

As a matter of fact, I took a new testament, and took it apart, and re-arranged the pages to conform to the pattern I understoand to be the approximate chronological order of their appearance on history's pages.

I gave copies to my children, and to my grandchildren. They live a much better life and have a far deeper understanding and appreciation of what the scriptures teach, and are much, much happier than they ever were when memorizing scripture and repeating doctrines and creeds to fill their soul's hungers.

[Paladin]

Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 25 2011,00:29)

If I understand this “Incarnation” trinity theory, you are telling me that Jesus preexisted with the Father in eternity, then “incarnated” by the Holy spirit in the womb of Mary. Scripture tells a far different story. At least three times in three different accounts, we are told that Jesus is the seed of Adam or the woman (Eve), in Messianic prophecies. We are told of the seed promise beginning with Gen 3:15, where the woman is told “Thy seed” so the incarnation begins with this woman of prophecy. Then her progeny carry that seed, and passed it on through several generations till Abraham is specifically mentioned by name, as one in a long line of the “seed carriers.” He is promised that “through thy seed” all nations will be blessed. It is similar to the promise first made to “the woman” of Gen 3:15. Then Abrahams line begins in turn, to carry that seed from father to son to son to son through a long line of seed carriers. It goes in promise through Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Judah, Jesse, David, Mary, of whom it is said Jesus “was made of a woman” just like the promise began way back in Gen 3:15. If there is indeed an “incarnation” where did it take place. I contend it would have been in the woman of Gen 3:15, because each carrier of the seed would be “carnate” and the seed would be within, or “incarnate.” The seed had to be passed from generation to generation, for each generation in turn would “excarnate” so the seed would have to have been passed prior to that “excarnation” event. The passing of the seed is parammount to comprehension of the “incarnation” of the Christ.

To All who believe in a trinity, or triune God;

I keep seeing in responses to my posts, the statement that trinitarians believe all of the scriptures, and I am constantly asked why I do not.

The reality is, I believe all of the scriptures, I understand many of them.

Now, let's test the theory that has you telling me you believe all of the scriptures:

John says “In the beginning was the logos”[Jn 1:1]

Trinitarian says, “See, John said Jesus was in the beginning.”

Jesus says “I was with you (disciples) in the beginning.”[Jn 16:4]

Now, where should I understand Jesus was in the beginning of which John and Jesus are speaking?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11)

I could pray the same type of prayer Jesus prayed in John 17:5 “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”

No, you actually couldn't pray that unless you are CONSCIOUSLY aware of some glory that you held IN GOD'S PRESENCE before the world existed.  Are you aware of such glory?  How was it demonstrated to you?  Did people in heaven bow to you, or what?  Here's the best translation to understand it:

John 17:5 NRSV ©
So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.

Here's what the NETNotes scholars have to say about it:

The use of παρά (para) twice in this verse looks back to the assertion in John 1:1 that the Word (the Λόγος [Logos], who became Jesus of Nazareth in 1:14) was with God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν, pro” ton qeon). Whatever else may be said, the statement in 17:5 strongly asserts the preexistence of Jesus Christ.

Why do you suppose Jesus used “para” twice?  Whatever “in your presence” he referred to then is apparently the same “in your presence” he had glory in before the world existed.

Paladin, your list of would be prayers are poor attempts at making a very clear scripture have some alternate meaning.  Unless any of those prayers ARE actually in the scriptures, it was a wasted effort on me.  From now on, stick to scriptural facts, okay?

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11)

Jesus said “The glory” – he did not say “The former glory.” Why is it proper for you to call it “former” glory, but improper for me to call it “promised” glory?

“I HAD” makes it “former” glory.  “I HAD” doesn't make it a promised glory that he himself hasn't yet HAD.

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11)

You have shown me none that required the presence of the recipient to aknowledge the gift before the world began.

I think his words “the glory I had IN YOUR PRESENCE” requires Jesus to have been IN GOD'S PRESENCE when HE HAD this glory.

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11)

Consider “eixon” indicative imperfect active, translated “had” should have been translated “was having,” as it references a continuing action in the past. Completed action would be “had.”

The imperfect tense of “echo” in that verse could also be translated into English as a regular past tense, as if often the case in the Greek scriptures.  But go ahead and keep “I was having”, what's the difference?  If he WAS HAVING this glory in the presence of God before the world existed, then I would say he HAD that glory at that time, wouldn't you?

Paladin, don't play smart with the words and tenses unless it changes the outcome.  I have resources too.  This discussion we're having could be resolved in 1000 words or less.  Yet you're turning it into a novel by flooding your posts with thousands and thousands of words that are useless to resolving the conflict.  Such as Greek grammar rules that don't even change the context.  Or make-believe scriptures that don't actually exist.

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11)

It is prophetic in speaking of a thing yet to be done, as though it is already fact.  Your own notes tells you the same thing;

Really?  All that pomp explaining this to me just to arrive at what I explained to YOU?    So are you getting my point about prophetic and poetic speaking yet?  Do you understand what “Consider it done” means?  Have you grasped the knowledge that just because God can traverse through time and speak of future things as if they've already happened, it doesn't really mean they've happened from OUR viewpoint?  Because if you're understanding this that I've been saying for awhile now, then you're ready to understand that Jesus didn't really EXIST from the time he was prophesied about.  He began to exist as flesh when he was born, and not before.  And if you can understand THAT, then Micah 5:2 will take on a whole new meaning for you.

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11)

Sure I do. I already told you, when God said in Gen 17:4   “Thou shalt be a father of many naitions,” and in the next verse says about the same prophecy “I have made thee a father of many nations” while as yet he had no child.

But you just said, “It is prophetic in speaking of a thing yet to be done, as though it is already fact.”     What gives?

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11)

I said the alleged incarnation began then. And it is tied to the prophetic seed, not the factual DNA.

Call it what you will.  You are making a point that Jesus began his existence when God spoke the words of Gen 3:15.  But you can't even prove 3:15 is a Messianic prophecy in the first place.  And secondly, you have nothing but prophetic, poetic speech to base your understanding on.

I wouldn't even care if your understanding didn't change the meaning of Micah 5:2.  If you want to think Jesus actually BEGAN his EXISTENCE as a prophecy, then more power to you.  But you are using this “DNA incarnation” thing to change the meaning of Micah 5:2, which is a clear scripture that speaks of the pre-existence of Jesus.  You are making that scripture null and void with this theory of yours.

But let's let that slide for now and see how you respond to the John 17:5 points I just made.

mike

[Baker]

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 20 2011,10:11)

Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 25 2011,00:29) If I understand this “Incarnation” trinity theory, you are telling me that Jesus preexisted with the Father in eternity, then “incarnated” by the Holy spirit in the womb of Mary. Scripture tells a far different story. At least three times in three different accounts, we are told that Jesus is the seed of Adam or the woman (Eve), in Messianic prophecies. We are told of the seed promise beginning with Gen 3:15, where the woman is told “Thy seed” so the incarnation begins with this woman of prophecy. Then her progeny carry that seed, and passed it on through several generations till Abraham is specifically mentioned by name, as one in a long line of the “seed carriers.” He is promised that “through thy seed” all nations will be blessed. It is similar to the promise first made to “the woman” of Gen 3:15. Then Abrahams line begins in turn, to carry that seed from father to son to son to son through a long line of seed carriers. It goes in promise through Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Judah, Jesse, David, Mary, of whom it is said Jesus “was made of a woman” just like the promise began way back in Gen 3:15. If there is indeed an “incarnation” where did it take place. I contend it would have been in the woman of Gen 3:15, because each carrier of the seed would be “carnate” and the seed would be within, or “incarnate.” The seed had to be passed from generation to generation, for each generation in turn would “excarnate” so the seed would have to have been passed prior to that “excarnation” event. The passing of the seed is parammount to comprehension of the “incarnation” of the Christ. To All who believe in a trinity, or triune God; I keep seeing in responses to my posts, the statement that trinitarians believe all of the scriptures, and I am constantly asked why I do not. The reality is, I believe all of the scriptures, I understand many of them. Now, let's test the theory that has you telling me you believe all of the scriptures: John says “In the beginning was the logos”[Jn 1:1] Trinitarian says, “See, John said Jesus was in the beginning.” Jesus says “I was with you (disciples) in the beginning.”[Jn 16:4] Now, where should I understand Jesus was in the beginning of which John and Jesus are speaking?

Dear Brother! I am very much aware of Christ living in me. Coming out of a Church that had so many false doctrines, I was very much aware of Jesus coming into my life. Satan was very much upset, and He pestered me a lot, and still does…. He is real, just in case You too don't believe in him, like your friend Gene….Do i know whether Christ lives in you, no…. How you interpret scriptures according to your view, makes me wonder however…
When Scripture plainly says that Jesus BY HIS OWN WORDS, says that He had a glory with His Father before the world was? I wonder. I know Jesus is a Spirit being now, and that is what Jesus says He wants to be again, with His Father. AND MORE.. He now has immortality, and will never die again…When Jesus says I have come down from Heaven, I wonder….When I have shown you the Scripture in Rev. 19 that shows that Jesus is The Word of God, just to compare with John 1:1… But no. it is intellect, or something…. how wrong can you get….I have followed along with the debate with you and Mike…..He is right….
You are correct that not all Scriptures are according to the letter of the Law. But we are talking about the LAW, nothing else….My Husband has studied Ancient History, and you want to tell me what to do, no my friend. I know how much the first Christians suffered, and I know the wrong doctrines that Constantine enforced. But you see we don't believe Jesus always existed. He is the firstborn of all creation. Which BTW they don't believe. We have studied this, before we came to believe in it. It did not happen over night. I also know how God's Holy Spirit has to show us, I can't do it. Therefore my friend I will close this subject with you. You take care…
Peace and Love Irene

[Baker]

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 20 2011,10:11)

Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 25 2011,00:29) If I understand this “Incarnation” trinity theory, you are telling me that Jesus preexisted with the Father in eternity, then “incarnated” by the Holy spirit in the womb of Mary. Scripture tells a far different story. At least three times in three different accounts, we are told that Jesus is the seed of Adam or the woman (Eve), in Messianic prophecies. We are told of the seed promise beginning with Gen 3:15, where the woman is told “Thy seed” so the incarnation begins with this woman of prophecy. Then her progeny carry that seed, and passed it on through several generations till Abraham is specifically mentioned by name, as one in a long line of the “seed carriers.” He is promised that “through thy seed” all nations will be blessed. It is similar to the promise first made to “the woman” of Gen 3:15. Then Abrahams line begins in turn, to carry that seed from father to son to son to son through a long line of seed carriers. It goes in promise through Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Judah, Jesse, David, Mary, of whom it is said Jesus “was made of a woman” just like the promise began way back in Gen 3:15. If there is indeed an “incarnation” where did it take place. I contend it would have been in the woman of Gen 3:15, because each carrier of the seed would be “carnate” and the seed would be within, or “incarnate.” The seed had to be passed from generation to generation, for each generation in turn would “excarnate” so the seed would have to have been passed prior to that “excarnation” event. The passing of the seed is parammount to comprehension of the “incarnation” of the Christ. To All who believe in a trinity, or triune God; I keep seeing in responses to my posts, the statement that trinitarians believe all of the scriptures, and I am constantly asked why I do not. The reality is, I believe all of the scriptures, I understand many of them. Now, let's test the theory that has you telling me you believe all of the scriptures: John says “In the beginning was the logos”[Jn 1:1] Trinitarian says, “See, John said Jesus was in the beginning.” Jesus says “I was with you (disciples) in the beginning.”[Jn 16:4] Now, where should I understand Jesus was in the beginning of which John and Jesus are speaking?

What makes you bring this subject up here. The trinity has nothing to do with the preexisting of Jesus. i don't believe in the trinity, nether does Mike. You are knocking on the wrong door, it belongs in trinity tread and not here….There are plenty of Scriptures that the trinity is wrong, and one doctrine that Constantine enforced….
Peace Irene

[Baker]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 20 2011,10:42)

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11) I could pray the same type of prayer Jesus prayed in John 17:5 “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” No, you actually couldn't pray that unless you are CONSCIOUSLY aware of some glory that you held IN GOD'S PRESENCE before the world existed.  Are you aware of such glory?  How was it demonstrated to you?  Did people in heaven bow to you, or what?  Here's the best translation to understand it: John 17:5 NRSV © So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed. Here's what the NETNotes scholars have to say about it: The use of παρά (para) twice in this verse looks back to the assertion in John 1:1 that the Word (the Λόγος [Logos], who became Jesus of Nazareth in 1:14) was with God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν, pro” ton qeon). Whatever else may be said, the statement in 17:5 strongly asserts the preexistence of Jesus Christ. Why do you suppose Jesus used “para” twice?  Whatever “in your presence” he referred to then is apparently the same “in your presence” he had glory in before the world existed. Paladin, your list of would be prayers are poor attempts at making a very clear scripture have some alternate meaning.  Unless any of those prayers ARE actually in the scriptures, it was a wasted effort on me.  From now on, stick to scriptural facts, okay? Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11) Jesus said “The glory” – he did not say “The former glory.” Why is it proper for you to call it “former” glory, but improper for me to call it “promised” glory? “I HAD” makes it “former” glory.  “I HAD” doesn't make it a promised glory that he himself hasn't yet HAD. Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11) You have shown me none that required the presence of the recipient to aknowledge the gift before the world began. I think his words “the glory I had IN YOUR PRESENCE” requires Jesus to have been IN GOD'S PRESENCE when HE HAD this glory. Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11) Consider “eixon” indicative imperfect active, translated “had” should have been translated “was having,” as it references a continuing action in the past. Completed action would be “had.” The imperfect tense of “echo” in that verse could also be translated into English as a regular past tense, as if often the case in the Greek scriptures.  But go ahead and keep “I was having”, what's the difference?  If he WAS HAVING this glory in the presence of God before the world existed, then I would say he HAD that glory at that time, wouldn't you? Paladin, don't play smart with the words and tenses unless it changes the outcome.  I have resources too.  This discussion we're having could be resolved in 1000 words or less.  Yet you're turning it into a novel by flooding your posts with thousands and thousands of words that are useless to resolving the conflict.  Such as Greek grammar rules that don't even change the context.  Or make-believe scriptures that don't actually exist. Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11) It is prophetic in speaking of a thing yet to be done, as though it is already fact.  Your own notes tells you the same thing; Really?  All that pomp explaining this to me just to arrive at what I explained to YOU?    So are you getting my point about prophetic and poetic speaking yet?  Do you understand what “Consider it done” means?  Have you grasped the knowledge that just because God can traverse through time and speak of future things as if they've already happened, it doesn't really mean they've happened from OUR viewpoint?  Because if you're understanding this that I've been saying for awhile now, then you're ready to understand that Jesus didn't really EXIST from the time he was prophesied about.  He began to exist as flesh when he was born, and not before.  And if you can understand THAT, then Micah 5:2 will take on a whole new meaning for you. Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11) Sure I do. I already told you, when God said in Gen 17:4   “Thou shalt be a father of many naitions,” and in the next verse says about the same prophecy “I have made thee a father of many nations” while as yet he had no child. But you just said, “It is prophetic in speaking of a thing yet to be done, as though it is already fact.”     What gives? Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11) I said the alleged incarnation began then. And it is tied to the prophetic seed, not the factual DNA. Call it what you will.  You are making a point that Jesus began his existence when God spoke the words of Gen 3:15.  But you can't even prove 3:15 is a Messianic prophecy in the first place.  And secondly, you have nothing but prophetic, poetic speech to base your understanding on. I wouldn't even care if your understanding didn't change the meaning of Micah 5:2.  If you want to think Jesus actually BEGAN his EXISTENCE as a prophecy, then more power to you.  But you are using this “DNA incarnation” thing to change the meaning of Micah 5:2, which is a clear scripture that speaks of the pre-existence of Jesus.  You are making that scripture null and void with this theory of yours. But let's let that slide for now and see how you respond to the John 17:5 points I just made. mike

Hi Mike! You are doing a great job, keep up the good work….

Peace and Love Irene

[mikeboll64]

Thank you Irene.

Where's Georg been? I haven't read a post from him in a while.

peace and love,
mike

[Paladin]

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11)

I could pray the same type of prayer Jesus prayed in John 17:5 “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (Mike) No, you actually couldn't pray that unless you are CONSCIOUSLY aware of some glory that you held IN GOD'S PRESENCE before the world existed.  Are you aware of such glory?  How was it demonstrated to you?  Did people in heaven bow to you, or what?  Here's the best translation to understand it:

Says who? I am consciously aware of the promises God made before the world began. Are you unconsciously aware that he promised eternal life?

God's promises are as real to me as predestination is to him.  
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” [Rom 8:29]

Does that mean God chose me as an individual? No! It means God placed upon all men the standards for qualification, and those who meet that standard, or modify their being to meet the standard, become eligible for fellowship in the kingdom of those who are qualified; as they submit themselves to the guidance of his dear son.

(M)

Quote

John 17:5 NRSV © So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.

Why do you suppose John left out of 17:5 “meta tou proswpou sou” [In the presence of you][Psa 16:11]? Could it be because it is only found in the commentaries?

(M)

Quote

Here's what the NETNotes scholars have to say about it: The use of παρά (para) twice in this verse looks back to the assertion in John 1:1 that the Word (the Λόγος [Logos], who became Jesus of Nazareth in 1:14) was with God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν, pro” ton qeon). Whatever else may be said, the statement in 17:5 strongly asserts the preexistence of Jesus Christ.

Please indicate which words in John 1:14 you are using to read “Jesus of Nazareth,” [Ieesoun ton Nazwraion][John 18:5]
because John didn't even say “kai ho logos anthrwpos egeneto” [and the word man became.]John said “kai ho logos sarx egeneto” [and the word flesh became]. This was deliberately generic so no one would claim ho logos became one particular person, to which none of the commentaries ever pay attention.

Paul went even further than John to demonstrate the generic application of the flesh issue. “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.”

If you want to understand the logos and the flesh issue, try reading the books in order, my friend, and I do not mean the commentaries. You will find nothing there but scholarship. I rely upon inspiration, not scholarship.

Pay attention to the bold emphasis:
In 48 a.d. paul wrote “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” [Gal 2:20]

“My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,” [Gal 4:19]

In 55 a.d. Paul wrote: “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” [II Cor 13:5]

In 60 a.d. Paul wrote that he had preached to the whole world: “If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:” [Col 1:23-24]

And that he was given a mission to “fully preach' (fulfill) the logos of God: “Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the logos of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:” [Col 1:25-27]

“The logos of God” is a concpet of saints living so that they no longer express their own natural man, but Christ living in them. And every time another saint yields to Christ, the logos of God is personified among men again. Why is that so hard to understand?

In 69 a.d. John tells us of a new (kainon) name which is to be given to resurrected Jesus: “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.” [Rev 3:12] [That word “kainon” means
“New, not previously known”]

“His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is calledThe logos [Word] of God.” [Rev 19:12-13]

In 85 a.d. John wrote: “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in flesh is of God:” [In this verse John uses (eleeluthota perfect active accusative masculine singular form of the verb participle erxomai) The use of the perfect active participle is to show the continuing result in an active way, of Christ coming in flesh of the saints; i.e., the personification of the logos of God. [NOTE: “Flesh” does not have the article; it is “flesh” [generic] not “the flesh [specific].”

“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” II John 7][This time john uses (erxomenon present middle or pass deponent accusative masculine singular form of verb participle erxomai) to show the ongoing effect of Christ in flesh as saints give over control of their life to Jesus.

This was not something Jesus did once and left to go to heaven, it is something he left for us to share in, Himself dwelling in our flesh.

(M)

Quote

Why do you suppose Jesus used “para” twice? Whatever “in your presence” he referred to then is apparently the same “in your presence” he had glory in before the world existed. That again is a commentator's choice, not the reality of scripture.  “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven” [Mat 6:1] If you check “para” in this verse, you will see that the one praying is not in heaven with the father, but receives gifts “of” the father, and Again in Mat 18:19. Then we find this – “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, [para] With men this is impossible; but [para] with God all things are possible.” [Mat 19:26]. I don't think the commentators are being forthright with you as to the meaning and application of Greek terminology. (M) Quote Paladin, your list of would be prayers are poor attempts at making a very clear scripture have some alternate meaning.  Unless any of those prayers ARE actually in the scriptures, it was a wasted effort on me.  From now on, stick to scriptural facts, okay? You mean like the examples you just showed me? Jesus taught “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”[John 5:39] The only use I have for commentaries is to use the scholars words against the scholars. Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11) Jesus said “The glory” – he did not say “The former glory.” Why is it proper for you to call it “former” glory, but improper for me to call it “promised” glory? (Mike) “I HAD” makes it “former” glory.  “I HAD” doesn't make it a promised glory that he himself hasn't yet HAD. “as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. 1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” [II Cor 6:16b-7:1] Why did the saints cleanse themselves? Because the “had” the promises of God. Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11) You have shown me none that required the presence of the recipient to aknowledge the gift before the world began. (Mike) I think his words “the glory I had IN YOUR PRESENCE” requires Jesus to have been IN GOD'S PRESENCE when HE HAD this glory. I know. That was not the issue though was it? My presence was not required in pre-creation heaven for me to receive the promise of eternal life, that God gave before the earth was. Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11) Consider “eixon” indicative imperfect active, translated “had” should have been translated “was having,” as it references a continuing action in the past. Completed action would be   “had.” The imperfect tense of “echo” in that verse could also be translated into English as a regular past tense, as if often the case in the Greek scriptures.  But go ahead and keep “I was having”, what's the difference?  If he WAS HAVING this glory in the presence of God before the world existed, then I would say he HAD that glory at that time, wouldn't you?

Try reading my remark in its entirety, Mike –
(P)

Quote

In fact, my friend, With reference to John 17:5, Consider “eixon” indicative imperfect active, translated “had” should have been translated “was having,” as it references a continuing action in the past. Completed action would be “had.” Then consider the present infinitive “einai” which stresses the fact “the world is in the proccess of continuous being,” so “before the world was” is inappropriate for the Greek. It should be saying, “Now, O Father, Glorify me with thine own self with the glory I was having before the whole world that is being” [right in front of the whole word, i.e., in prophecy the whole world can see] There is no excuse other than doctrinal bias, for translating “pro tou kosmon einai” as “before the world was” as though it relates to time, when it is telling us about something that existed “before” as in “in front of” the world that is in existence. There is no inference of “was” in the passage. “einai” is a present active genitive infinitive, and pro is a genitive preposition, meaning “in front of” in passages such as [Acts 12:6] pro tees thuras “before the door”][gen Prep w/gen] and [Mat 11:10 pro prwsopou sou “before thy face”][gen prep w/gen]

The tense and application of “echo” is tied directly to the tense and application of “eimi.” I “eimi” is present active and echo is imperfect, you cannot force “before the world was” out of the terminology. You can only get “while the world continued. The difference Mike, is not how you word it, so much as what picture you present for consideration, in this case, the world was already “being,” so it cannot have been before creation. Promise and Prophecy is the only other way things could possibly be had before (in front of) the world of being.

(M)

Quote

Paladin, don't play smart with the words and tenses unless it changes the outcome.  I have resources too.  This discussion we're having could be resolved in 1000 words or less.  Yet you're turning it into a novel by flooding your posts with thousands and thousands of words that are useless to resolving the conflict.  Such as Greek grammar rules that don't even change the context.  Or make-believe scriptures that don't actually exist.

You mean like –
(M)

Quote

The use of παρά (para) twice in this verse looks back to the assertion in John 1:1 that the Word (the Λόγος [Logos], who became Jesus of Nazareth in 1:14) was with God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν, pro” ton qeon). Whatever else may be said, the statement in 17:5 strongly asserts the preexistence of Jesus Christ.

and

Quote

Why do you suppose Jesus used “para” twice?  Whatever “in your presence” he referred to then is apparently the same “in your presence” he had glory in before the world existed.

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11)

It is prophetic in speaking of a thing yet to be done, as though it is already fact.  Your own notes tells you the same thing;

(M) Really?  All that pomp explaining this to me just to arrive at what I explained to YOU?  So are you getting my point about prophetic and poetic speaking yet?  Do you understand what “Consider it done” means?  Have you gr
asped the knowledge that just because God can traverse through time and speak of future things as if they've already happened, it doesn't really mean they've happened from OUR viewpoint?  
Because if you're understanding this that I've been saying for awhile now, then you're ready to understand that Jesus didn't really EXIST from the time he was prophesied about.  He began to exist as flesh when he was born, and not before.
And if you can understand THAT, then Micah 5:2 will take on a whole new meaning for you.[/quote]

So now you accept that Jesus did not exist in pre-history? That is after all, the whole point of this little exercise.

As for “all that pomp explaining to you” Measure your posts agains mine, but include in the measure how many times I have had to repeat the same information to even get you to respond to it.

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11)

Sure I do. I already told you, when God said in Gen 17:4   “Thou shalt be a father of many naitions,” and in the next verse says about the same prophecy “I have made thee a father of many nations” while as yet he had no child. (Mike) But you just said, “It is prophetic in speaking of a thing yet to be done, as though it is already fact.”     What gives?

What gives? What are you asking? I have repeatedly told you (“all that pomp”) that when God speaks a thing in promise or prophecy, it is as good as a done deal, or words to that effect. How does that differ from “as though it is already a fact?” [“As good as…” – “as though it is…”]

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:11)

I said the alleged incarnation began then. And it is tied to the prophetic seed, not the factual DNA. (Mike) Call it what you will.  You are making a point that Jesus began his existence when God spoke the words of Gen 3:15.  But you can't even prove 3:15 is a Messianic prophecy in the first place.  And secondly, you have nothing but prophetic, poetic speech to base your understanding on. I wouldn't even care if your understanding didn't change the meaning of Micah 5:2.  If you want to think Jesus actually BEGAN his EXISTENCE as a prophecy, then more power to you.  But you are using this “DNA incarnation” thing to change the meaning of Micah 5:2, which is a clear scripture that speaks of the pre-existence of Jesus.  You are making that scripture null and void with this theory of yours.

It is not I who is making Micah say Jesus' “goings forth are from everlasting” means Jesus existed in eternity. I am simply tellin gyou that the words Micah are using are also used to reference ancinet landmarks, mountains, ancient civilizations, and a host of other “very old things.” Now, if you think there were mountains and landmarks, and civilizations around when you pre-existant jesus was around, feel free. But do not accuse me of messing with the truth. If you use “ow-lam” to mean “very old” when talking about mountains, etc, then switch to “eternal” or “everlasting” when speaking of Messiah, again, feel free, but do not expect me to remain silent about it.

(Mike)

Quote

But let's let that slide for now and see how you respond to the John 17:5 points I just made.

Well, but you didn't “let it slide” did you Mike? You posted it. Then you chide me for my “many words.”

[Paladin]

Quote (Baker @ Mar. 20 2011,12:15)

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 20 2011,10:11) Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 25 2011,00:29) If I understand this “Incarnation” trinity theory, you are telling me that Jesus preexisted with the Father in eternity, then “incarnated” by the Holy spirit in the womb of Mary. Scripture tells a far different story. At least three times in three different accounts, we are told that Jesus is the seed of Adam or the woman (Eve), in Messianic prophecies. We are told of the seed promise beginning with Gen 3:15, where the woman is told “Thy seed” so the incarnation begins with this woman of prophecy. Then her progeny carry that seed, and passed it on through several generations till Abraham is specifically mentioned by name, as one in a long line of the “seed carriers.” He is promised that “through thy seed” all nations will be blessed. It is similar to the promise first made to “the woman” of Gen 3:15. Then Abrahams line begins in turn, to carry that seed from father to son to son to son through a long line of seed carriers. It goes in promise through Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Judah, Jesse, David, Mary, of whom it is said Jesus “was made of a woman” just like the promise began way back in Gen 3:15. If there is indeed an “incarnation” where did it take place. I contend it would have been in the woman of Gen 3:15, because each carrier of the seed would be “carnate” and the seed would be within, or “incarnate.” The seed had to be passed from generation to generation, for each generation in turn would “excarnate” so the seed would have to have been passed prior to that “excarnation” event. The passing of the seed is parammount to comprehension of the “incarnation” of the Christ. To All who believe in a trinity, or triune God; I keep seeing in responses to my posts, the statement that trinitarians believe all of the scriptures, and I am constantly asked why I do not. The reality is, I believe all of the scriptures, I understand many of them. Now, let's test the theory that has you telling me you believe all of the scriptures: John says “In the beginning was the logos”[Jn 1:1] Trinitarian says, “See, John said Jesus was in the beginning.” Jesus says “I was with you (disciples) in the beginning.”[Jn 16:4] Now, where should I understand Jesus was in the beginning of which John and Jesus are speaking? What makes you bring this subject up here.  The trinity has nothing to do with the preexisting of Jesus.  i don't believe in the trinity, nether does Mike.  You are knocking on the wrong door, it belongs in trinity tread and not here….There are plenty of Scriptures that the trinity is wrong, and one doctrine that Constantine enforced…. Peace Irene

I stand corrected.

I though all who believe in a pre-existent Christ had to be trinitarians. What was Jesus before creation?

If you do not believe he was God, where was he standing?

If you do believe he was God, how is that not a trinity, or do you eliminate the Holy spirit?

I do not know how you can see pre-existent Jesus without seeing trinity.

I am open to education.

[Baker]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 20 2011,15:23)

Thank you Irene. Where's Georg been?  I haven't read a post from him in a while.   peace and love, mike

Hi Mike! Georg is doing great, at 73…He said thank you for asking…He has gone back to work to help our Daughter out. Next month She will be Graduating from College. Our Nurse. I am very proud of Her. Better later then never. Georg also don't like to debate much. He has studied the Bible like 4 hrs. in a row, and has a good memory, which I lack. I ask Him all the time if I forget where certain Scriptures are. I know that there in the Bible, and use the Concordance too, but find it easier just to ask Georg.
I want to tell you that 2 JW come to our Home all the time. The last time, when Georg was sleeping I did not hear the Doorbell, so they got worried that something happened to us. So the next day they came just to check to see if we were fine. The couldn't stay. Georg loves to talk to them. Mostly about Prophesy which He loves….
Take care….Peace and Love Irene

[Author]

Posts