Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[942767]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2011,13:23)

Marty, Gene, Kerwin, Any reply to the 4th post down on page 78? mike

Hi Mike:

The only comment that I have is that I cannot believe that you keep insisting on a pre-existent Jesus after all that has been discussed on this thread.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[mikeboll64]

Hi Marty,

There has been nothing addressed on this thread that erases the 55 scriptures we've compiled.  There has never been anything discussed on this entire site that would make “I came down from heaven” mean something different than what it says.  Or that would make “what if you see me ascend to where I was before” mean anything different than what it says.

I had asked a specific question of you Marty.  Can you show me even one scripture that prohibits Jesus from pre-existing?

If you can't, then please just say so.

mike

[terraricca]

Quote (942767 @ April 14 2011,20:49)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2011,13:23) Marty, Gene, Kerwin, Any reply to the 4th post down on page 78? mike Hi Mike: The only comment that I have is that I cannot believe that you keep insisting on a pre-existent Jesus after all that has been discussed on this thread. Love in Christ, Marty

Marty

I do not believe that you have let yourself drag to not believe in Jesus preexistence ,

and not be able to justify your believe in the otherwise.

Pierre

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2011,08:56)

Hi Marty, There has been nothing addressed on this thread that erases the 55 scriptures we've compiled.  There has never been anything discussed on this entire site that would make “I came down from heaven” mean something different than what it says.  Or that would make “what if you see me ascend to where I was before” mean anything different than what it says. I had asked a specific question of you Marty.  Can you show me even one scripture that prohibits Jesus from pre-existing? If you can't, then please just say so. mike

Actually you should state there is nothing on this thread that erases  your understanding of those 55 scriptures.

Any scripture that calls Mary his mother or states he was conceived in her womb since that means he did not exist before her or before he was conceived depending on the Scripture.

[kerwin]

To all,

As the commentary on Philo’s work that Dennison quoted earlier mentions the logos tenet the Philo expressed and that written in the first chapter of John sound the same.   Unlike John Philo explained his tenet as the logos being the Spirit of Christ which ruled over the angel.  He was not speaking of a spiritual being but of God’s Spirit.

I am not claiming that John was influenced by Philo’s writing or visa versa  since it is my belief that their individual tenets came from a common source.   I believe that Philo’s tenet gives us a possible interpretation of what John assumed his readers already knew.  

The first question to be asked is whether Philos claim that the Spirit of God ruled the angels of heaven.  That should be self-evident in that the angels who did not fall all live by the Spirit of Holiness and thus are in share in the unity of the Spirit.  

Was the Spirit with Elohim in the beginning?  Scripture attests that it hovered over the water in the beginning.  

Was the Spirit Elohim in the beginning?  Scripture attests that the Spirit is part of the unity of the Spirit.

Is the Spirit the Word?  Scripture calls the Word.

All things stated about the Word are true of the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God is called the word of God so John and Philo may well have believed in the same tenet.

Does Scripture tell us that the Spirit of Christ dwelled within the mortal Jesus?  I am confident it does.

Reference:

Dennison wrote:

Quote

Philo and Plato Philo was similar to Plato in his thinking by making a distinction between the material world and the ideal world of eternal forms. But he took the important steps of interpreting Plato's eternal forms as being the very thoughts of God Himself, whereas Plato had left any hope of relationship between God and the ideal world somewhat uncertain.16 Dodd notes that as well as Philo's logos doctrine, there are also many other similarities with Johns gospel throughout.17 For example, both use the word 'light' as a symbol of deity (John 1:9, 8:12. c.f. De Somn 1:75). Also symbolized is the idea that God is the fountain from which all life streams (John 5:24-26 c.f. De Somn I1:245).18 Although the similarities between John and Philo are undoubtedly remarkable, there is no evidence that John was directly influenced by his writings.19 But it is certainly plausible that John's use of a familiar Greek philosophy was in mind. The evangelist assumes that when he used the word 'Logos',20 his readers would understand its meaning in different ways. This is clearly seen in view of the fact that the prologue does not explain the meaning of the word.21 Philo also differed from John in his use of logos in a number of ways. Philo believed that God's involvement with the world came through the means of a number of intermediary beings of which the greatest was the logos.22 Nash points out the lack of consistency in the way Philo uses the logos. Sometimes he applies it exclusively, but at other times he uses it to refer to any of several mediators, as well as describing a principle subordinate to God.23 Harris notes how Philo's logos tends to lack “the full personality and explicit pre-existence” that is evident in John (1:1, 14, 8:58).24 Probably the most obvious difference was that Philo reasoned that the logos could be called a second god, something that was far removed from John's Jewish/Christian monotheistic background.25 Before Philo, the Old Testament already had a theology of the word (dabar) of God. This word of Yahweh was of the supreme importance to the Jewish people because it represented a force or divine power that went fourth to accomplish His will (Ps. 33:9, Isa. 55:11).26 This word was active in the creation and ordering of the universe (Ps. 33:6 c.f. Gen. 1:3). This same word was also seen as having a significant function in the work of the prophets as they proclaimed God's revelation and warned of coming judgment ( Jer. 2:1).27 Dodd observes that in Hebrew thinking, there was a tendency to ascribe an existence to the word of God that would lead an individual to view it as having a substantive existence and activity of its very own.28 This expression of Yahweh's word is in accordance with the emphasis that the Jews would place on will and action as being an essential manifestation of life.29 ……….. Concept of Logos according to John: Despite all of these possibilities as to a background, or influence in Johannine thought, it is evident that John's concept of the Logos was unique. He moves beyond Hellenistic and Jewish speculations by identifying the Logos with Jesus of Nazareth.40 However, the Prologue of the Gospel is not so concerned with the earthly origins of Jesus, but with His heavenly pre-existence as the transcendent Logos, which is seen in view of the fact that the title does not occur as Christolgical designation in the rest of the Gospel.41 In John 1:1, the Logos is not merely seen as a thought, or wisdom, or a Gnostic demi-urge, but as God Himself (c.f. v. 18, 20:28). Barrett observes how the whole of John's Gospel is to be read in the light of this opening verse to introduce the reader to the reality of the words and deeds of Jesus as being the words and deeds of God Himself.42 Barrett also recognizes that if Jesus is not God, the entire Fourth Gospel would have to be dismissed as blasphemous.43 Because of the absence of the definite article in the Greek text of John 1:1, some have argued that the text should be translated 'a god', and not 'the' God (most notably the Jehovah's Witnesses). With regards to this, Michaels correctly notes that there are good reasons why Word has the definite article and God does not: “To indicate that the Word is the subject of the clause, even though in Greek it follows the verb to be (i.e., “…the Word was God” and not 'God was the Word')”44 It should also be observed that the evangelist intended to distinguish the Word from the Father, although both are God and share the same nature and attributes.45 Even liberal scholars, like Bultmann, strongly reject any polytheistic translation of John 1:1 and recognizes that the status of the Logos is one of equality with God.46 Verse 2 of the prologue emphasizes the eternal nature of the Logos, and with the appearance of the Greek word 'egeneto' in v. 3, prominence is then given to the role that the Logos has in creation (c.f. Col. 1:15-20). It is evident that all of creation bears the impression of God's Word, and is clearly discerned by humanity (Rom. 1:19, 20). Moreover, this role of creation means that Jesus has the right of ownership to it, but as v.v. 10, 11 state, this ownership is rejected.47 The full revelation of God's grace is seen in the climax of the prologue where the Logos takes on flesh and pitches his tent amongst humanity (v. 14).48 The incarnation of the Logos drew a tangible distinction between all previous Logos philosophy, declaring that the Son of God was made flesh. In the light of this verse, the Johannine concept of the Logos stands unique in the historical person of Jesus, providing the ultimate possibility for the salvation of humanity.49 There can be no doubt that the Logos was a familiar concept meaning different things for different people; having a rich philosophical background in Hellenistic and Jewish thinking. Knowing this, the Evangelist startles those familiar with the word when he proclaims how this Logos took on flesh and became incarnate in the historical person of Jesus Christ, to bring redemption to the world. http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/logos.htm ————– Con Mucho Amor (Romans 8:2 8 “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” ) Dennison

[kerwin]

Mike,

You wrote a lot.  I will respond by writing what I have discovered so far using Philo’s beliefs about the Logos.   I have already posted some based on information Dennison supplied earlier.  

Now the Logos being the Spirit of Christ, “the archetypal and governing idea of creation”, embodied itself in Jesus the mortal according to John 1:14 and the embodied Holy Spirit which had come from God lived among us.  

The Holy Spirit being the first born of God’s creation is still the first born incarnated in the human being Jesus.   John is speaking of the embodied Spirit of God when he states “This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.”

Based on that another way to word verse 17 could be phrased is:

For the law was given by Moses, but the Spirit came by Jesus Christ.”

Other scripture testifies to that.

And hypothetically verse 18 may mean

No man hath seen God at any time, the (embodied?) Spirit which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Note:  From what I understand Philo stated the Logos was called Angel.

Here and here are my sources on Philo.

[Paladin]

Quote (Wispring @ April 14 2011,11:05)

hmmm my understanding of bound infinity is that which is infinite bound to a finite space. What is yours?

That infinity will never make it beyond the next decimal place.

PI = 3.1 but will never make it to 3.2; therefore infinity is trapped between 3.1 and 3.2

PI = 3.141597…
take any two decomal places, and PI will never make to the next higher value in any given decimal place.

3.14 to infinity will never approach 3.15
3.141 to infinity will never approach 3.142
3.1415 to infinity will never approach 3.1416
3.14159 to infinity will never approach 3.14160
3.141597 to infinity will never approach 3.141598 etc.

Infinity is forever bound between the decimal values and can never attain the next plateau of value above even one stated decimal value along the way.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2011,13:56)

Hi Marty, There has been nothing addressed on this thread that erases the 55 scriptures we've compiled.  There has never been anything discussed on this entire site that would make “I came down from heaven” mean something different than what it says.  Or that would make “what if you see me ascend to where I was before” mean anything different than what it says. I had asked a specific question of you Marty.  Can you show me even one scripture that prohibits Jesus from pre-existing? If you can't, then please just say so. mike

John 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

TRINITY ARGUMENT: Since Jesus said that he was going to return back up to where he was before, he must have been in heaven, and therefore, must have been God.

REBUTTAL: Jesus did not say he was going “back” to anything, or anywhere. Paul tells us that before he ascended, he descended, not to Earth from Heaven, but from earth to the lower parts of Earth, or the grave. His reference is to his death, burial, visit to the “spirits in prison,” and finally his resurrection. His ascention into Heaven came later. Jesus himself told the Jews that they would see this “sign of Jonas,” which took place at his resurrection.

John 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

NOTE: This cannot refer to some pre-existant state, because his designation of “Son of Man” only applies to his being a man.
Therefore, what, about his being a man, was changed, then
changed back? Or, to put it another way, what descended, and was raised back to its previous state?

Eph 4:9 Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

A SIGN TO THE NINEVITES:…A SIGN TO THIS GENERATION:
Luke 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. 30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.

Mat 16:1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting, desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. 3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather today: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? 4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the
prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

THE CHANGE THAT WAS CHANGED BACK; THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION: Mark 9:10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.

1 Cor 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once;… 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

And please Mike, Understand I am not calling you a trinitarian. But the position you defend is a trinitarian position, and any argument agains the position whether made from a trinitarian or a pre-existent Jesus defender, the rebuttal is the same.

[Baker]

Quote (Paladin @ April 14 2011,21:06)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2011,13:56) Hi Marty, There has been nothing addressed on this thread that erases the 55 scriptures we've compiled.  There has never been anything discussed on this entire site that would make “I came down from heaven” mean something different than what it says.  Or that would make “what if you see me ascend to where I was before” mean anything different than what it says. I had asked a specific question of you Marty.  Can you show me even one scripture that prohibits Jesus from pre-existing? If you can't, then please just say so. mike John 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? TRINITY ARGUMENT: Since Jesus said that he was going to return back up to where he was before, he must have been in heaven, and therefore, must have been God. REBUTTAL: Jesus did not say he was going “back” to anything, or anywhere. Paul tells us that before he ascended, he descended, not to Earth from Heaven, but from earth to the lower parts of Earth, or the grave. His reference is to his death, burial, visit to the “spirits in prison,” and finally his resurrection. His ascention into Heaven came later. Jesus himself told the Jews that they would see this “sign of Jonas,” which took place at his resurrection. John 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? NOTE: This cannot refer to some pre-existant state, because his designation of “Son of Man” only applies to his being a man. Therefore, what, about his being a man, was changed, then changed back? Or, to put it another way, what descended, and was raised back to its previous state? Eph 4:9 Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? A SIGN TO THE NINEVITES:…A SIGN TO THIS GENERATION: Luke 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. 30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation. Mat 16:1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting, desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. 3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather today: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? 4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed. THE CHANGE THAT WAS CHANGED BACK; THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION: Mark 9:10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean. 1 Cor 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once;… 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. And please Mike, Understand I am not calling you a trinitarian. But the position you defend is a trinitarian position, and any argument agains the position whether made from a trinitarian or a pre-existent Jesus defender, the rebuttal is the same.

Paladin! I have seen you doing with this one

Jhn 6:62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

This scripture only tells us that He first died, and went to the grave, not what you want it to say.

Eph 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth

Again, just about Jesus dying for us…..just like today all don't believe Jesus died for us, like the Jewish people….

Luk 11:29 ¶ And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.

Math. is the same thing then Luke's

1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Jhn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.

You gave some Scriptures and proved only that Jesus died for us, and was raises and went to Heaven after three days and was seen by many….

As far as the positio of the trinitarian is concerned, you too don't understand that they don't believe that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation ,but that Jesus always existed. Mike, Pierre and I do not believe in the trinity. And I for one take offense of that. I have prove that the trinity is false, and you want to tell US we are like them. Give me a break. I do not interpret Scripture like you just did and apply them to my view. I take them how they are written….YOU do not……
Go to the debate section and look at all those Scriptures, they explains it how we believe those Scriptures.
Jesus came down from Heaven to do the will of Him that send Him. There are several Scriptures in John that say, ” He send Me” paraphrasing………
Irene

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike………..That is why i have said that the Trinitarians and the Preexistence are from the same view point concerning the preexistence of Jesus , Irene got upset with me on that saying i was calling her a Trinitarian , i was not calling her that, but as Paladin brought out the preexistence teaching is the same overall teachings of the trinitarians concerning preexistence , it is also the same teaching of the Gnostic's because they believed Jesus was sent from the pelora of GODS , so that alone means that to them Jesus preexisted his berth on earth.

The preexistence of Jesus was the point i was driving at, and this view is a view of
seperation Because it seperates Jesus the Son of Man from the rest of the Sons of Man, makes him a destenct seperate kind of person then we are, it also destroys the work of GOD (IN) mankind, because this false teaching say Jesus preexisted as something different and therefore can not be compared to the rest of humanity, it moves him away from our identity. Which to me and i believe John is the Spirit (intellect) of Antichrist. I believe John was making that statement when he coined the phrase Antichrist, it is this view of Jesus being a preexistence being of some kind and making him the Logos that separates the Logos from being in Mankind as GODS Presence existing in mankind. The Man Jesus was a 100% pure Son of Man in every way identical to all of Us, so that potential exist with us just as it did with Jesus the first of mankind to be perfected by the Logos or Spirit of GOD. It is this seed of GOD that makes us Sons of the Living GOD,just as it did Jesus. Therefor all who have this Logos or Spirit of the living GOD in them are Son of the living GOD IMO now> “know you not that now we are the sons of the living God”.

Peace and love to you and yours Mike……………………………………gene

[Baker]

Quote (kerwin @ April 14 2011,16:08)

To all, As the commentary on Philo’s work that Dennison quoted earlier mentions the logos tenet the Philo expressed and that written in the first chapter of John sound the same.   Unlike John Philo explained his tenet as the logos being the Spirit of Christ which ruled over the angel.  He was not speaking of a spiritual being but of God’s Spirit. I am not claiming that John was influenced by Philo’s writing or visa versa  since it is my belief that their individual tenets came from a common source.   I believe that Philo’s tenet gives us a possible interpretation of what John assumed his readers already knew.   The first question to be asked is whether Philos claim that the Spirit of God ruled the angels of heaven.  That should be self-evident in that the angels who did not fall all live by the Spirit of Holiness and thus are in share in the unity of the Spirit.   Was the Spirit with Elohim in the beginning?  Scripture attests that it hovered over the water in the beginning.   Was the Spirit Elohim in the beginning?  Scripture attests that the Spirit is part of the unity of the Spirit. Is the Spirit the Word?  Scripture calls the Word. All things stated about the Word are true of the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God is called the word of God so John and Philo may well have believed in the same tenet. Does Scripture tell us that the Spirit of Christ dwelled within the mortal Jesus?  I am confident it does. Reference: Dennison wrote: Quote Philo and Plato Philo was similar to Plato in his thinking by making a distinction between the material world and the ideal world of eternal forms. But he took the important steps of interpreting Plato's eternal forms as being the very thoughts of God Himself, whereas Plato had left any hope of relationship between God and the ideal world somewhat uncertain.16 Dodd notes that as well as Philo's logos doctrine, there are also many other similarities with Johns gospel throughout.17 For example, both use the word 'light' as a symbol of deity (John 1:9, 8:12. c.f. De Somn 1:75). Also symbolized is the idea that God is the fountain from which all life streams (John 5:24-26 c.f. De Somn I1:245).18 Although the similarities between John and Philo are undoubtedly remarkable, there is no evidence that John was directly influenced by his writings.19 But it is certainly plausible that John's use of a familiar Greek philosophy was in mind. The evangelist assumes that when he used the word 'Logos',20 his readers would understand its meaning in different ways. This is clearly seen in view of the fact that the prologue does not explain the meaning of the word.21 Philo also differed from John in his use of logos in a number of ways. Philo believed that God's involvement with the world came through the means of a number of intermediary beings of which the greatest was the logos.22 Nash points out the lack of consistency in the way Philo uses the logos. Sometimes he applies it exclusively, but at other times he uses it to refer to any of several mediators, as well as describing a principle subordinate to God.23 Harris notes how Philo's logos tends to lack “the full personality and explicit pre-existence” that is evident in John (1:1, 14, 8:58).24 Probably the most obvious difference was that Philo reasoned that the logos could be called a second god, something that was far removed from John's Jewish/Christian monotheistic background.25 Before Philo, the Old Testament already had a theology of the word (dabar) of God. This word of Yahweh was of the supreme importance to the Jewish people because it represented a force or divine power that went fourth to accomplish His will (Ps. 33:9, Isa. 55:11).26 This word was active in the creation and ordering of the universe (Ps. 33:6 c.f. Gen. 1:3). This same word was also seen as having a significant function in the work of the prophets as they proclaimed God's revelation and warned of coming judgment ( Jer. 2:1).27 Dodd observes that in Hebrew thinking, there was a tendency to ascribe an existence to the word of God that would lead an individual to view it as having a substantive existence and activity of its very own.28 This expression of Yahweh's word is in accordance with the emphasis that the Jews would place on will and action as being an essential manifestation of life.29 ……….. Concept of Logos according to John: Despite all of these possibilities as to a background, or influence in Johannine thought, it is evident that John's concept of the Logos was unique. He moves beyond Hellenistic and Jewish speculations by identifying the Logos with Jesus of Nazareth.40 However, the Prologue of the Gospel is not so concerned with the earthly origins of Jesus, but with His heavenly pre-existence as the transcendent Logos, which is seen in view of the fact that the title does not occur as Christolgical designation in the rest of the Gospel.41 In John 1:1, the Logos is not merely seen as a thought, or wisdom, or a Gnostic demi-urge, but as God Himself (c.f. v. 18, 20:28). Barrett observes how the whole of John's Gospel is to be read in the light of this opening verse to introduce the reader to the reality of the words and deeds of Jesus as being the words and deeds of God Himself.42 Barrett also recognizes that if Jesus is not God, the entire Fourth Gospel would have to be dismissed as blasphemous.43 Because of the absence of the definite article in the Greek text of John 1:1, some have argued that the text should be translated 'a god', and not 'the' God (most notably the Jehovah's Witnesses). With regards to this, Michaels correctly notes that there are good reasons why Word has the definite article and God does not: “To indicate that the Word is the subject of the clause, even though in Greek it follows the verb to be (i.e., “…the Word was God” and not 'God was the Word')”44 It should also be observed that the evangelist intended to distinguish the Word from the Father, although both are God and share the same nature and attributes.45 Even liberal scholars, like Bultmann, strongly reject any polytheistic translation of John 1:1 and recognizes that the status of the Logos is one of equality with God.46 Verse 2 of the prologue emphasizes the eternal nature of the Logos, and with the appearance of the Greek word 'egeneto' in v. 3, prominence is then given to the role that the Logos has in creation (c.f. Col. 1:15-20). It is evident that all of creation bears the impression of God's Word, and is clearly discerned by humanity (Rom. 1:19, 20). Moreover, this role of creation means that Jesus has the right of ownership to it, but as v.v. 10, 11 state, this ownership is rejected.47 The full revelation of God's grace is seen in the climax of the prologue where the Logos takes on flesh and pitches his tent amongst humanity (v. 14).48 The incarnation of the Logos drew a tangible distinction between all previous Logos philosophy, declaring that the Son of God was made flesh. In the light of this verse, the Johannine concept of the Logos stands unique in the historical person of Jesus, providing the ultimate possibility for the salvation of humanity.49 There can be no doubt that the Logos was a familiar concept meaning different things for different people; having a rich philosophical background in Hellenistic and Jewish thinking. Knowing this, the Evangelist startles those familiar with the word when he proclaims how this Logos took on flesh and became incarnate in the historical person of Jesus Christ , to bring redemption to the world. http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/logos.htm ————– Con Mucho Amor (Romans 8:28 “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” ) Dennison

kerwin! That is so ridiculous. I don't care what any other man thinks of John and The Word of God. You agreed that The Word of God in Rev. 19 is speaking of Jesus, but yet deny that in John 1:1 it is not Jesus who became flesh. Niow you go the the extreme to quote a Philosopher. I care less what they believe. I go by the Bible ONLY. We take Scriptures to apply to what WE believe. You just ignore them. And I for one have no idea why?
Since you ignore them, you are also calling Jesus a liar…… And why??
Jesus said He came down from Heaven to do the will of His Father who SEND Him.
Just take this Scripture alone, and tell me what I don't see? Or you don't see?
Irene

[942767]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2011,13:56)

Hi Marty, There has been nothing addressed on this thread that erases the 55 scriptures we've compiled.  There has never been anything discussed on this entire site that would make “I came down from heaven” mean something different than what it says.  Or that would make “what if you see me ascend to where I was before” mean anything different than what it says. I had asked a specific question of you Marty.  Can you show me even one scripture that prohibits Jesus from pre-existing? If you can't, then please just say so. mike

Hi Mike:

I have already been over all of this with you, and so, I see not point in re-hashing the same thing over and over again.

None of those scriptures that you have say that he pre-existed. You may interpret them to mean that, but they do not specifically state that.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[GeneBalthrop]

To All………..”The kingdom of God is likened unto to ten Virgins, five were wise and five were foolish” , the wise took oil or fuel with them for their lamps IMO

peace and love to you ALL…………………………………gene

[GeneBalthrop]

To All………….All who want to separate Jesus from themselves and their exact identity will indeed get separated from Him, by their own words, they have done this, they can't blame it on no one but their own selves, my appeal to all who have bought into the Preexistence LIE is to repent now while there is time. It is sorrowful to me that some here can not understand this, my GOD help then and us all. IMO

peace and love to you all……………………………………….gene

[terraricca]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 15 2011,12:12)

To All………..”The kingdom of God is likened unto to ten Virgins, five were wise and five were foolish” , the wise took oil or fuel with them  for their lamps IMO peace and love to you ALL…………………………………gene

Gene

if the oil was the logos or spirit why they would waiting for it then?

Pierre

[terraricca]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 15 2011,12:19)

To All………….All who want to separate Jesus from themselves and their exact identity will indeed get separated from Him, by their own words, they have done this, they can't blame it on no one but their own selves, my appeal to all who have bought into the Preexistence LIE is to repent now while there is time. It is sorrowful to me that some here can not understand this,  my GOD help then and us all. IMO peace and love to you all……………………………………….gene

Gene

you have made your mind up to not believe in about 50 scriptures and so now preach that all of us should do the same thing ?

I do not want to do that this would place me on refusing Gods word and only accept what I see fit.

this would leave me deficient in the true understanding of Gods word.

and it says all scriptures are inspired ,No?

Pierre

[GeneBalthrop]

Terriccia……….You original scriptures are inspired by GOD , but those who interpret them may not necessarily be. Another thing no where doe it say the five wise were waiting for it (the oil in their flasks) they had it already, it was in them and it supplied the Light (intellect or spirit) in them , there bodies are symbolic for their vessels or flasks , they contained the oil of the Spirit of God (IN) their own selves symbolized as their flasks or vessels. Pierre you are a prime example of what i am talking about , you simply do not get it brother. May God have mercy and help you to see brother. IMO

peace and love…………………………….gene

[terraricca]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 15 2011,15:00)

Terriccia……….You original scriptures are inspired by GOD , but those who interpret them may not necessarily be. Another thing no where doe it say the five wise were waiting for it (the oil in their flasks) they had it already, it was in them and it supplied the Light (intellect or spirit) in them , there bodies are symbolic for their vessels or flasks , they contained the oil of the Spirit of  God (IN) their own selves symbolized as their flasks or vessels.  Pierre you are a prime example of what i am talking about , you simply do not get it brother. May God have mercy and help you to see brother.  IMO peace and love…………………………….gene

gene

MT 25:5 “Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep.

Quote

Another thing no where doe it say the five wise were waiting

and also I never mention any number ,

your interpretation is not true .

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Hi Paladin,

It seems to me that your understanding of John 6:62 is that Jesus is speaking of “ascending” from Sheol to where he was before on the earth, right?

Breifly acknowledge if this is what you're saying please.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ April 13 2011,22:20)

Any scripture that calls Mary his mother or states he was conceived in her womb since that means he did not exist before her or before he was conceived depending on the Scripture.

Hi Kerwin,

I agree that Jesus didn't exist in the flesh until he was born of Mary. But how can you just ignore Phil 2, which explains how he was existing in the form of God BEFORE he was made in the likeness of human being?

mike

[Author]

Posts