- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2011,09:06) Hi All To deny the preexistence of Jesus is to deny a very basic fundamental truth. There are way to many scriptures that one has to explain away or give some ethereal interpretation to the text when it is obvious a litteral interpretation of the text is what is meant by the writers.
John 6:38-40
For “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will“, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.It is obvious what Jesus meant, but men who know nothing of the construction of the Greek have set out to make themselves greater than the truth by misinterpreting the clear meaning of the text in which the authors intended and which the translators translated.
The Greek construction of the text concerning the preexistence of Jesus does not allow for a “Unitarian” interpretation.
The Greek for “I have come” is Strong's G2597 – katabainō which is defined…
1) to go down, come down, descend
a) the place from which one has come down from
b) to come down“In every place the word is used it is referring to a literal action by a person and not an abstract “thought or plan”“.
katabainō is in the “perfect” tense, and the “active voice” and the “indicative” mood!
“The perfect tense” in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes “an action” which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.
Jesus' last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI (“It is finished!”) is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense, namely “It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely, once and for all time.”
Certain antiquated verb forms in Greek, such as those related to seeing (eidw) or knowing (oida) will use the perfect tense in a manner equivalent to the normal past tense. These few cases are exception to the normal rule and do not alter the normal connotation of the perfect tense stated above.
“The active voice” represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, “The boy hit the ball,” the boy performs the action.
“The indicative mood” is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood.
”For I came down (katabainō) from heaven”, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. John 6:38
The same word is used here…
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God “descending (katabainō,)” like a dove, and lighting upon him: Matt 3:16
And here…
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord “(descended (katabainō )” from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Matt 28:2
Was the Holy Spirit and the Angel a “thought or plan” come down from heaven? Or did they really descend from heaven?
Jesus said plainly that he came “From God” and “went to God”.
Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that “he was come from God, and went to God“; John 13:3
Again the Greek word come is in the “active voice” meaning Jesus did the action, and it is the indicative mood which means “the action really occurred”.
When Jesus ascended to heaven., it was Jesus that did the ascending! The scriptures do not tell us the Father took him to heaven!
Jesus words were clear, for he never said or even in the slightest way implied that he was or came from a plan or thought of the Father!
Jesus puts the nail in the coffin for those who questioned what he was saying by the following words…
What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up where he was before”? John 6:62
Again the word “Ascend” is in the present tense and active voice which means that Jesus is doing the action.
Jesus is going to “WHERE HE WAS BEFORE”!
Was he returning to a “plan or thought” or was he returning to the Father in heaven from where he came from and to the Glory that he had with the Father before the foundation of the world.
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“.The Greek word for “I had” is Strong's G2192 – echō which is defined as…
1) to have, i.e. to hold
a) to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.), to hold fast keep, to have or comprise or involve, to regard or consider or hold as 2) to have i.e. own, possess
Again “I had” is in the “imperfect tense”, the “active voice”, and the “indicative mood”, so there is no way Jesus was saying “I shared his glory because I was in his thought and plan”!
To deny the preexistence of Jesus is to deny the simple truths of the scriptures that tell us that Jesus was with the Father in the beginning of all of creation!
The Jews mumured among themselves because Jesus said he was the Bread of Life that came down from heaven and many turned back because it was a hard pill they could not swallow!
John 6:61, 62
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up where he was before“?And we know he literally ascended back where he was before.
WJ
WJit is a very good post ,but I know your affiliation to the trinity
and this must be the reason that you did not mention, Col 1;15-17,
so your post is very well developed to prove Christ preexistence but not his creation.
so 50% right you are on the right track.
Pierre
Hi Mike:
Regarding this discussion:
Hi Mike:
Since you want to teach the pre-existence of Jesus, it is up to you to substatiate it with scripture.
“I came down from heaven”. There………….consider it “substantiated”.
Quote If that satisfies you, then that satisfies me. “He said that he came down from heaven.” Teach this because this is what the Word of God states.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (mikeboll64 @ April 30 2011,20:44) Quote (kerwin @ April 30 2011,04:42) If you are speaking of the Spirit of Christ then I agree as it clearly states in the story of the old creation that the Spirit of God hovered over the waters.
Hi Kerwin,I think you are stating that God's Spirit “married” flesh, (not BECAME flesh), and was “married to” the likeness of a human being, (not WAS MADE INTO the likeness of a human being), and that it was this Spirit of God who had the glory of an only begotten Son and dwelled among us, right?
If that is the case, then I have only one question for you.
John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Who is Jesus talking about in this scripture if he already IS the Holy Spirit?mike
Mike,Consider the prayer of Jesus where he petitions God that those that believe in him be one as the God and he already are.
Jesus and God are one because the Spirit of Christ dwells in Jesus and God lives in Jesus through the same Spirit.
Those that believe are made one with God because Jesus lives in them through the Spirit and through Jesus God also lives in them.
The spirit of God can be in many places at once.
The best example of a similar happening occurs in the book of Deuteronomy when God places a portion of the spirit of Mosses into the elders of that time. Moses would have looked to Jesus as even John the Baptist did.
He is not the Spirit of Christ though it dwells within in and he subjects himself completely to God's will through it.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2011,03:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 30 2011,11:04) Good post Keith.
Thanks MIkeUnlike Irene you didn't find fault.
WJ
Keith! I found you did'nt finish the job yiou started, because you left out that He also was the firstborn of all creation.
Do I have to give you those Scriptures again? Well I don;t think so….. And I don't understand you Mike to praise Keith who like the Catholic Church believes in the trinity, and the doctrine of preexisting is one of theirs also….. But not according to all Scriptures. There leaving Col. 1;15 and Rev.3:14 out….. Peace IreneQuote (terraricca @ April 30 2011,12:03)
Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father’” ?Quote if God did not have a son then why are scriptures talked about the son, and i never say that Christ preexisted as an angel but as the first born in creation;
Hello Pierre –
Consider, if Jesus was pre-existant, and was already God's son in eternity, why does the scripture say he “became” superior to angels? He would already be so.
Consider, if Jesus was pre-existant, he would already have a superior name, he would not have to “inherit” it. You only inherit when someone dies.
Consider, if Jesus was pre-existant, Why did God say “I will be to him a Father, he shall be to me a son? Wouldn't he already be in that relationship?
And if Jesus was already the first-created, how can scripture tells us
God began with creating heaven and earth?[verse 1]; Then God created Light and dark[verse 3,4]; Then God created the firmament between heaven and earth, whence comes the rain [verse 6,7]; Then dry land [verse 9-10]; Then grass and trees [verse 11-12]; And so on- Then tells us how God created all the created things, but fails to mention how God created his son first?If he created his son in the beginning, then how is the Genesis account true? Does it not describe the beginning of creation? Or is it possible someone has misunderstood?
To be the first born of all creation does not mean one is born first. It means that in a civilization in which “firstborn” is a gift given to men to show favor, then it references someone favored of God, nor someone born or created before every one else.
Consider how it is that Israel, Ephraim, and David were all at different times, “God's “firstborn” – which cannot be so unless “firstborn” means something other than “the first one born in historical sequence.”
I maintin that scritpures teach the Jesus Christ is God's firstborn by anointing, rather than by original creation. And Scripture's point that out. Otherwise, it must be explained, who was God's firstborn among Israel, Ephraim, David, and Jesus, all of whom were at different times, God's “firstborn son.”
Paladin…………..Exactly right brother. O the Joy it bring me to here sound explanations of scriptures and sound reasonings. May God continue to use you here brother and bless you.
peace and love to you and yours Paladin……………………………………..gene
Paladin! The problem with your logic is, that there are 50 some Scriptures that you would have to interpret your way. What makes YOU think you know it better then the translators do?
Peace Irene
Quote (kerwin @ May 01 2011,00:38) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 30 2011,20:44) Quote (kerwin @ April 30 2011,04:42) If you are speaking of the Spirit of Christ then I agree as it clearly states in the story of the old creation that the Spirit of God hovered over the waters.
Hi Kerwin,I think you are stating that God's Spirit “married” flesh, (not BECAME flesh), and was “married to” the likeness of a human being, (not WAS MADE INTO the likeness of a human being), and that it was this Spirit of God who had the glory of an only begotten Son and dwelled among us, right?
If that is the case, then I have only one question for you.
John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Who is Jesus talking about in this scripture if he already IS the Holy Spirit?mike
Mike,Consider the prayer of Jesus where he petitions God that those that believe in him be one as the God and he already are.
Jesus and God are one because the Spirit of Christ dwells in Jesus and God lives in Jesus through the same Spirit.
Those that believe are made one with God because Jesus lives in them through the Spirit and through Jesus God also lives in them.
The spirit of God can be in many places at once.
The best example of a similar happening occurs in the book of Deuteronomy when God places a portion of the spirit of Mosses into the elders of that time. Moses would have looked to Jesus as even John the Baptist did.
He is not the Spirit of Christ though it dwells within in and he subjects himself completely to God's will through it.
Hi Kerwin,I don't see an answer to my question. If the Spirit is already on the earth and speaking through Jesus, then why would the Spirit prompt the man Jesus to say the Spirit would be sent at a later time?
mike
Quote (Baker @ May 01 2011,03:35) And I don't understand you Mike to praise Keith who like the Catholic Church believes in the trinity, and the doctrine of preexisting is one of theirs also
Hi Irene,Keith and I go to war over the trinity doctrine every day here. You know this. But what is wrong with praising his post about pre-existence when it was completely in line with the scriptures? He didn't bring up the origin of Jesus in his post, so why would I take him to task for something he didn't bring up? What he posted this time was completely aligned with what the scriptures teach, and it was a good, scripturally supported post.
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ May 02 2011,02:20) Quote (Baker @ May 01 2011,03:35) And I don't understand you Mike to praise Keith who like the Catholic Church believes in the trinity, and the doctrine of preexisting is one of theirs also
Hi Irene,Keith and I go to war over the trinity doctrine every day here. You know this. But what is wrong with praising his post about pre-existence when it was completely in line with the scriptures? He didn't bring up the origin of Jesus in his post, so why would I take him to task for something he didn't bring up? What he posted this time was completely aligned with what the scriptures teach, and it was a good, scripturally supported post.
peace,
mike
Mike! I said what I said because of what Keith said, that I didn't praise His post. My answer was because He didn't say that Jesus was the firstborn of all creation. Other then that it was a good post, I give Him that. Also I am very aware and upset over the fact that it is a doctrine of the Catholic Church where we used to belong to…. All of that is why I said what I did. I mean no harm to you….. or Keith for that matter…. WE have a Son in the Baptist Church, we can't convince Him either of what the trinity stands for…Peace IreneQuote (Paladin @ May 01 2011,07:48)
Consider, if Jesus was pre-existant, and was already God's son in eternity, why does the scripture say he “became” superior to angels? He would already be so.
Hi Paladin,The scripture doesn't really say that Jesus “became superior” to the [other] angels, as if he wasn't already. It says he became AS MUCH SUPERIOR to them as the new name he inherited is superior to theirs.
So imagine on a scale of 1-10, Jesus already was a 7 compared to the other angels who were 5's. After fulfilling his God's work on earth, God then exalted Jesus to a 9, which is MORE superior to the angels than he already was. That's how I read it, anyway.
Quote (Paladin @ May 01 2011,07:48)
Consider, if Jesus was pre-existant, Why did God say “I will be to him a Father, he shall be to me a son? Wouldn't he already be in that relationship?
This is a case of Paul (presumably), applying an OT scripture about Solomon to Jesus. Paul's main mission after being blinded by Christ was to immediately begin to preach in the synagogues that Jesus was the Son of God. (Acts 9:20) He didn't have a lot of OT scriptures with which to prove his case, and applied Psalm 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14 to Jesus in an effort to support his case. It doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't the Son of God until he was raised from the dead. If it did, then your own understanding would also be flawed.Quote (Paladin @ May 01 2011,07:48)
And if Jesus was already the first-created, how can scripture tells us
God began with creating heaven and earth?[verse 1]; Then God created Light and dark[verse 3,4]; Then God created the firmament between heaven and earth, whence comes the rain [verse 6,7]; Then dry land [verse 9-10]; Then grass and trees [verse 11-12]; And so on- Then tells us how God created all the created things, but fails to mention how God created his son first?
Are you forgetting that the already created angels shouted for joy at the founding of the earth? Obviously, they were existing before the events of Gen 1, so why not God's only begotten Son and the firstborn of ALL creation?Quote (Paladin @ May 01 2011,07:48)
Consider how it is that Israel, Ephraim, and David were all at different times, “God's “firstborn” – which cannot be so unless “firstborn” means something other than “the first one born in historical sequence.”
“Firstborn” has a default meaning of “the one born first”. A few times in scripture, we know from the context of the surrounding scriptures that the default meaning doesn't apply. Now if there is a scripture that suggests a different “firstborn of all creation”, you might have a point. But when you add in the fact that all things were created through this particular firstborn of all creation, it's hard to believe that something other than the default meaning applies in this case.mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 02 2011,02:20) Quote (Baker @ May 01 2011,03:35) And I don't understand you Mike to praise Keith who like the Catholic Church believes in the trinity, and the doctrine of preexisting is one of theirs also
Hi Irene,Keith and I go to war over the trinity doctrine every day here. You know this. But what is wrong with praising his post about pre-existence when it was completely in line with the scriptures? He didn't bring up the origin of Jesus in his post, so why would I take him to task for something he didn't bring up? What he posted this time was completely aligned with what the scriptures teach, and it was a good, scripturally supported post.
peace,
mike
Mike! Also did you read what Pierre said about Keith's post?Oh, well I agree with Pierre….Peace Irene
Quote (Baker @ May 01 2011,09:45) I mean no harm to you….. or Keith for that matter..
No offense was taken, Irene.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2011,05:56) Quote (942767 @ April 30 2011,13:47)
Since you want to teach the pre-existence of Jesus, it is up to you to substatiate it with scripture.
MartyWe have already given you clear scripture and the literral Greek meanings.
”For I came down (katabainō) from heaven”, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. John 6:38
The same word is used here…
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God “descending (katabainō,)” like a dove, and lighting upon him: Matt 3:16
And here…
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord “(descended (katabainō )” from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Matt 28:2
Marty, was the Holy Spirit and the Angel a “thought or plan” who came down from heaven? Or did they really “descend” (katabainō) from heaven?
WJ
Hi Keith:The definitions of the Greek do not change what I have stated.
He said that he came down from heaven. He said:
Quote John 6:27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. Quote John 6:32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Quote John 6:53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. And so, first he was talking about he the Son of man coming down from heaven, and then giving life through to the World through what he did in obedience to God in this body. It was the Word of God that was spoken to humanity through him and that he obeyed unto death on the cross which would give life to the world
He did not literally become the Son of man until he was born of the virgin Mary, and the scripture states the Eve is the mother of all living, and so, Jesus did not pre-exist as the Son of man based on this observation by the scriptures. And God did not speak to humanity through him until these last days according to Hebrews 1:1-3.
God had a plan in the beginning and that plan was to make man in his own image, and in an through Jesus was the culminiation and fulfillment of the plan. The scriptures state that all things were made by him and without him was nothing made that was made, and so, the scripture states:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”.
Genesis 1:26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Quote 1 Co 15:45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
And so, Jesus is the Last Adam who express image of the invisible God in that he is a living soul, and who through the life of perfect obedience to God's Word perflectly reflects the divine nature of God. God is love.
And so, yes he was with the Father in the beginning in that God had forseen that a particular point in time he would conceive a Son through whom he would reconcile the world unto himself. But this speaks of being foreordained not pre-existence.
Quote 1 Peter 1:18Forasmuch 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; 19But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Quote Galatians 4:4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 2.Ephesians 1:10
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:God has foreseen everything from the beginning of time and knew that he would glorify His Son in His presence at a particular point in time from the foundation of the world.
Quote Romans 4:17
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.Love in Christ,
MartyHi Marty,
What exactly do you think the “Word of God” is? God's Spirit? His very spoken words that have taken up an existence of their own? Is the Word of God a separate entity from God?
I'm curious how you understand it.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 02 2011,02:46) Quote (Paladin @ May 01 2011,07:48)
Consider, if Jesus was pre-existant, and was already God's son in eternity, why does the scripture say he “became” superior to angels? He would already be so.
Hi Paladin,The scripture doesn't really say that Jesus “became superior” to the [other] angels, as if he wasn't already. It says he became AS MUCH SUPERIOR to them as the new name he inherited is superior to theirs.
So imagine on a scale of 1-10, Jesus already was a 7 compared to the other angels who were 5's. After fulfilling his God's work on earth, God then exalted Jesus to a 9, which is MORE superior to the angels than he already was. That's how I read it, anyway.
Quote (Paladin @ May 01 2011,07:48)
Consider, if Jesus was pre-existant, Why did God say “I will be to him a Father, he shall be to me a son? Wouldn't he already be in that relationship?
This is a case of Paul (presumably), applying an OT scripture about Solomon to Jesus. Paul's main mission after being blinded by Christ was to immediately begin to preach in the synagogues that Jesus was the Son of God. (Acts 9:20) He didn't have a lot of OT scriptures with which to prove his case, and applied Psalm 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14 to Jesus in an effort to support his case. It doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't the Son of God until he was raised from the dead. If it did, then your own understanding would also be flawed.Quote (Paladin @ May 01 2011,07:48)
And if Jesus was already the first-created, how can scripture tells us
God began with creating heaven and earth?[verse 1]; Then God created Light and dark[verse 3,4]; Then God created the firmament between heaven and earth, whence comes the rain [verse 6,7]; Then dry land [verse 9-10]; Then grass and trees [verse 11-12]; And so on- Then tells us how God created all the created things, but fails to mention how God created his son first?
Are you forgetting that the already created angels shouted for joy at the founding of the earth? Obviously, they were existing before the events of Gen 1, so why not God's only begotten Son and the firstborn of ALL creation?Quote (Paladin @ May 01 2011,07:48)
Consider how it is that Israel, Ephraim, and David were all at different times, “God's “firstborn” – which cannot be so unless “firstborn” means something other than “the first one born in historical sequence.”
“Firstborn” has a default meaning of “the one born first”. A few times in scripture, we know from the context of the surrounding scriptures that the default meaning doesn't apply. Now if there is a scripture that suggests a different “firstborn of all creation”, you might have a point. But when you add in the fact that all things were created through this particular firstborn of all creation, it's hard to believe that something other than the default meaning applies in this case.mike
I have looked again, and I do not see either seven or nine. sorry!Hebrews 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
I suppose you are going to tell me he was not “made so much better than the angels” either? That he already was better than the angels?
“Was made” – “obtained” – Leaves a lopt to explain Mike.
Quote (Paladin @ May 01 2011,16:51) I have looked again, and I do not see either seven or nine. sorry!
Do you deny the possibility of my analogy?mike
Quote (Baker @ May 02 2011,01:59) Paladin! The problem with your logic is, that there are 50 some Scriptures that you would have to interpret your way. What makes YOU think you know it better then the translators do? Peace Irene
But Dear Sister, How is that a logic problem? I can have two different sentences in a story; “Josie went to town;” & “Josie stayed home.” There are plenty of ways to resolve the different accounts by relating other circumstances that show the two sentences are only related because both apply to Josie; just at different times and possibly in different places.
You have a statement that says Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. You insist it has only one meaning. I have shown you that it actually has another meaning, and you question my logic because you have fifty other verses that have more than one meaning, but insist only your solution is the right one. And you call it “logic.” And you say I would have to interpret 50 verses “my way.” How is that “logic?” Have you not interpreted them “your way?” Yet you conclude “my way” is illogical, without even telling me what your 50 verses are?
I don't think so.
I can question your logic, because so far, you have told me about your “50 verses” several times, but have never told me what they are. How is that “logical?”
And you should know also, if you show me 50 verses, and I remove 25 as easily as I removed your perspective on the “firstborn” issue just on the basis of logic, that does not mean you still have twenty-five credited to your logic. It means your logic has been shown to be faulted at least half the time.
Grace and Hope to your house form my house
Quote (Baker @ May 02 2011,01:59) Paladin! The problem with your logic is, that there are 50 some Scriptures that you would have to interpret your way. What makes YOU think you know it better then the translators do? Peace Irene
Dear sister;Have you given any thought to actually considering what I posted on your assessment of the “firstborn of every creature” problem?
Israel, Ephraim, and David were God's “firstborn” before Jesus was born. could your assessment of what that means possibly be in error? More to the point, how is it possibly correct?
Jesus is acknowledged to be the firstborn of every creature as far as the new creation is concerned, “firstborn from the dead.” but you insist it means something else without any reference whatsoever to show that this is not the correct reference. And you question my logic?
Grace and Hope to you
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
