Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[mikeboll64]

Kerwin,

Doesn't it seem to you that the Owner of the vineyard already had His beloved Son way before He sent other messengers first?

Read verse 13 of the Luke passage you posted again.  God sent these other messengers for thousands of years before He finally sent His own Son, thinking they would for sure respect him.

You understand it to mean that these other messengers (prophets of old), were sent with little success so then AFTER THAT, God decided to beget a Son and send him.

I understand it to mean that the Owner's Son was with Him the whole time he was sending the “lessor” messengers, and as a last resort, the Owner finally sent His Son.

mike

[Baker]

OK Marty, and that Word became flesh…..verse 14……Then John tells us in

Jhn 6:38   For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.  

He came from Heaven, and He will come again as the Word of God and King of Kings…..Rev. 19

funny He is the Word in Rev. 19, but not in John 1, even though it says in verse 14 that He became flesh….. it all fits….Peace Irene

[Paladin]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 07 2011,01:14)

Quote (Paladin @ May 06 2011,12:25) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2011,02:06) 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. Are you aware of the meaning of “ethereal” WJ? It means to define in “out of this world terms.” It is a reference to a realm beyond earth, of almost a fairy-story quality.” Now, WJ, please tell me how a “pre-existant” Jesus is somehow not “ethereal.” You are trying to convince us he is from outside the world, “ethereal” by definition. I would say you are correct on that one, WJ. It certainly gives an   “ethereal” explanation to the scriptures. It is unfortunate you have chosen to attack the Greek of those with whom you disagree, because your application of Greek in your statement is almost totally wrong. First you give a translation of a Greek text, instead of the Greek or some part thereof. Quote John 6:38-40For “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. Then you mount an attack upon those with whom you disagree, by characterizing them as “men who know nothing of the construction of the Greek have set out to make themselves greater than the truth.” You attempt to make your case without making your case, but simply asserting it; Quote 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. You fail to explain that in many cases it is the translators who are at fault, rather than the authors. Then you formulate your attack by assertion, with no evidence from the Greek text, which from your argument, we would expect to see some examples therefrom. And you throw in terminology without explaining what it means. “Unitarian” interpretation, for example, means exactly what? Quote The Greek construction of the text concerning the preexistence of Jesus does not allow for a “Unitarian” interpretation. Quote The Greek for “I have come” is Strong's G2597 – katabaino… There are at least 33 Greek words that are translated “come” in one form or another, and nearly sixty compound meanings formed by other Greek words.[anabainw;aperxomai;apobainw;ginomai;deuro;deute;dierxomai;einai;eiserxomai;ektoreuo mai;enisteemi;ezerxomai;eperxomai;epibainw;epiporeuomai;erxomai;esomai;esti;ephisteemi;eek w;katantaw;katerxomai;paraginomai;pareimi;parerxomai;paristeemi;proserxomai;sunerxomai;phe rw;phthavw;xwrew;wn; plus many compound forms translated “come” in one context or another. And none of them are translated “I have come.” My copy of Strong's concordance shows under #2597 – katabainw – to descend (lit. or fig.) – come (get, go, step) down, descend, fall (down). [NOTE: in those instances in which “w” is printed in Greek words, it isa interlinear form of the Greek letter omega; many folks put in its place a letter omicron (o) with a dash over the top, but I haven't figured out my keybord well enough to try putting 'o' with a – on top. Anyway, Strong's # and definition is not too big a deal, because there are so many editions, some with corrections, some with abbreviated information, I do not make it a test of fellowship over a Strong's definition. I just posted it becasue it is different from what you posted. I am not even saying you are wrong on this, only that my copy of Strong's says otherwise. “Katabaino” actually means to come down (like descending a staircase) or fall down. If you type into bible program's word processor “I have come” you will not get “katabaino” as a preferred Greek source. You will get “erxomai.” So it is a little misleading to say “The Greek for “I have come” is Strong's “katabaino.” Quote The Greek for “I have come” is Strong's G2597 – katabaino 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”“. Then please explain Mat 7:25 & 7:27 [rain]; 11:23 a city; Luke 8:23, a storm; & 9:54 fire; Acts 8:26, a highway; 10:11 & 11:5 – a certain vessel; or James 1:17 gifts from God; or Rev 3:12 a city, or 12:12, the devil. Tell us who this person is in each reference, that “came down.” Quote katabaino is in the “perfect” tense, and the “active voice” and the “indicative” mood! Again, a misleading statement. “katabebeeka” is the perfect, indicative, active form of katabaino. It is found in two verses in the new testament; John 6:38 and John 6:42 And only in two verses Quote “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. The Greek “perfect” references a completed action, with results that carry into the present. The Greek “perfect” tense has no exact equivalent in English. [This is not all there is to say about the Greek “perfect” – it is all that applies to this report] Quote 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. Greek past tense or english past tense? There is no Greek past tense. Quote “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 (katabaino) from heaven”, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. John 6:38 John 6:38 For I katabebeeka [came down] from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. [katabebeeka indicative perfect active form of (katabainw) -1s] Quote 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 (katabaino,)” like a dove, and lighting upon him: Matt 3:16 Not by a long shot – Mat 3:16 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 katabainon [descending] like a dove, and lighting upon him: [katabainon = present active participle accusative neuter form of katabainw] It is not the same form of the same word. And since it is the same root word, it is not improper to reference it as the “same word” but for one thing. You introduced the tense and mood and voice, so you should have stuck to words of the same tense and mood and voice when you say it is the same word. You cannot make a broad statement about a root word, and apply it to words that differ in form. It is misleading. Quote And here… And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord “(descended (katabaino )” from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Matt 28:2 This is now twice you claim “The same word is used here…” when it is not the same word. It is another form of the same word, because they share a root, but the form changes and when the form changes so does the meaning. Mat 28:2 “And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord katabas [descended] from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.” Correct translation would actually be.. “for the angel of the Lord, descending and rolling back the stone…” “Descending” and “rolling” are both participles, and in English that translates to a verb of (“-ing”) (as compared with (ed); i.e., rolling not rolled, descending, not descended. And it is aorist active,not perfect active, so it is not saying the same thing. The “perfect” tense is telling us that the result of the perfect tense is carried over to the present. The aorist simply tells us the action took place. Quote 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”. But the verb is not in the “perfect” tense, it is aorist. Consider another verse in which the verb is in the perfect tense – “There was a man sent from God…” – “Sent” is from the Greek “apestalmenos,” which is the perfect passive form of the Greek participle (“-ing” word equivalent to (being sent) form of apostellw. (There's that “w” that is pronounced like long o). This man was being sent from God, and the result influenced the present, from a completed action. Quote When Jesus ascended to heaven., it was Jesus that did the ascending! The scriptures do not tell us the Father took him to heaven! Excuse me! The scriptures  do not tell us the Father took Jesus to heaven? Is not Eph 1:20 part of the scriptures? Ephesians 1:20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, WHO DID IT? That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, WHAT DID HE DO? 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, WHAT DID HE DO WITH US? 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, by grace ye are saved; 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:[Eph 1:17-2:6] Quote 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! SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN TO ME “As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.[Gen 17:4-5] SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN TO ME “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. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.” [Rom 4:17-21] SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN TO ME “The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” [Deut 18:15,18-19] SOUNDS LIKE JOHN KNEW OF THE PLAN “And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. 25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?” [John 1:21-25] SOUNDS LIKE THE EARLY PREACHERS KNEW OF THE PLAN OF GOD “For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. 24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.” [Acts 3:22-24] Quote 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”! John 6:62 What and if ye [behold] the Son of man [ascending] where he was [at first]? ye behold…[Greek thewreete = present active subjunctive] at first….[Greek proteron = comparative adjective] This is the same word used by Paul “Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.” [Gal 4:13] And again the author of Hebrews uses it this way – “Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:” [Heb 4:6] And “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.” [Heb 7:27] Now, notice, I did not say it is never translated “before,” I am simply showing you how, in my opinion, it is more consistant to use it in keeping with how it is used in these passages. The reason it needs to be understood this way, is because Paul's explanation of Jesus ascending and descending uses it this way – “Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?  10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.” [Eph 4:8-10] [NOTE: “proteron is not found in some manuscripts in this passage] “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye [thewrew] see me have.” [Luke 24:39] Jesus himself testifies to his witnesses, as to how he wants them to perceive his resurrection, not “blepo” nor “eidw” – but “thewrew” – which is what he asked them way back in John 6:62 Quote 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. Not according to his own testimony in Luke 24:39; he was returning to the Apostles where he spent some forty days and nights with them, explaining to them all that the prophets and Moses had written about him. “The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:” [Acts 1:1-3] I will save the rest of this for another time, or forget it in the interest of staying with my OP. Paladin…………An excellent presentation brother. Your Scholarship in the Greek language is truly need here to help straighten out some wrong concepts here, and perhaps will help us all come to a more excellent understand of God's Words. peace and love to you and yours Paladin……………………gene

Well my friend, it seems obvious to me I have not cleared up anything at all. I have showed all the places WJ contradicted scripture; I have showed where he was wrong in saying there was no plan; I have showed that he claims way too many references to the perfect active form of “I come” when there are only two in scripture; I don't know what it takes to make it clear. I guess they want me to destroy a brother to prove a point, and I hesitate to do such a thing.

I sent WJ an e-mail hoping he would check out some things and salvage his post but it seems he misread it, and instead, attacked my character.

So be it.

He said that 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.

I told him that the indicative mood is also used to tell lies, speak of “if” situations, which may or may not happen, and it is used to describe false testimony, so to continue to insist that his post is correct, is simply false.

His unwarranted attack upon those who disagree with his preconceived notion of Greek is a complete fabrication. He says “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 a text…” and now some on the board quote his an an authority on Greek text.

Peter denied his Lord publickly three times, in the indic
ative perfect active form, but he was certainly not stating a fact, nor an action that really occurred, yet that is WJ's testimony about the indicative perfect active form.

The Jews lied to Jesus when they claimed “We be Abraham's seed and have not been in bondage to any man.” they had been in bondange to Egypt, To the medo-Persian empire, the Greeks, and the Romans. Beside the fact that for over 400 years, they were under bondage to nations when the judges came in and relieved their oppression, over a period of over four hundred years.

“We have not been in bondage” is indicative perfect active, and it is a lie.

As for John's question about ascending where he was at first, it is not a statement of a factual happening, but is a “what if” question. John said, “What if” ye shall see…

“If” situations are also in the indicative perfect active form.
Romans 6:5 “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:”

2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. This is in the indicative perfect active form. It is not a statement of fact, it is a declaration about an “if” situation, “If this is so…then that results.”

Some testified falsely against Apostles – in the indicative perfect active form – Acts 6:11 “Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. “We have heard” is a lie, but it is in the form discussed.

One of the greatest insults ever recorded in scripture was a lie, and was presented in the indicative perfect active form-
“Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil.” [John 8:52] they did not “know” any such thing.

So for WJ to claim that the indicative perfect active form proves Jesus was actually in heaven, and came down from physical heaven, is false.

Lies, false testimony, blasphemy, purjury and a host of other bad things are all recorded in the indicative perfect active form. And what makes it so bad, is when someone actually attackes those with whom he disagrees, by questioning their Greek ability.

There is one way Jesus came down from heaven, and that is the same way the baptism of John comes from heaven and not from men…it is a question of authority, What Jesus and his apostles were and did, came from the authority of heaven, not from men.

Jesus testified that this is so, and said that his apostles are not of this world “even as I am not of this world.”[John 17:16]

For those on the board who claim “we do not need a Greek lesson” I say simply, then don't be so insistant your position is correct, and do not be so mean to those who offer you an opportunity to learn some simple facts, that can be checked in a very many places.

I am deeply dissappointed in some on this board. If you don';t know Greek, there is no shame in that, it is simply called “ignorance” which we all have in some form or another. Bt to jump on the bandwagon when someone gets it so wrong, and applaud error when it is so blatant, certainly makes it discouraging for we who try to make it plain.

And then of course ther eis my own inability to do just that. I do not blame anybody for not understanding my rambling way. I just do not know how to make it any plainer.

[Paladin]

Quote (terraricca @ May 07 2011,03:41)

Quote (Paladin @ May 07 2011,06:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 06 2011,14:16) To me it seemed like a whole bunch of words that in the end, still didn't give a different meaning to “I came down from heaven” than the only obvious one. Paladin,  we don't need a lesson in the Greek language…………unless there is something in your post that makes “I came down from heaven” mean something other than “I came down from heaven”.  The Jews Jesus said this to seemed to understand that he was saying he came down from heaven…………..why don't you? mike Well, let's go back to a previous lesson you ignored, and see if you will answer it this time. The baptism of John – from heaven, or of men? Whence cometh it? paladin Mk 11:30 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!” so it was requested by heaven that he come to baptize,to fulfill scriptures, but john was not from heaven or from above ,or came down,and his father was not God. Pierre

I have reread my question seventy times seven, and it still does not ask where did John come from.

How plain must I state it for you to read what is actually there?

“The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?”

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 07 2011,12:40)

Quote (Paladin @ May 06 2011,06:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 06 2011,14:16) To me it seemed like a whole bunch of words that in the end, still didn't give a different meaning to “I came down from heaven” than the only obvious one. Paladin,  we don't need a lesson in the Greek language…………unless there is something in your post that makes “I came down from heaven” mean something other than “I came down from heaven”.  The Jews Jesus said this to seemed to understand that he was saying he came down from heaven…………..why don't you? mike Well, let's go back to a previous lesson you ignored, and see if you will answer it this time. The baptism of John – from heaven, or of men? Whence cometh it? Hi Paladin, The only Greek lesson I remember discussing with you was the one where I showed you to be mistaken about God magnifying His Word over His own name.  I don't remember being asked this current question before, but the answer is “FROM HEAVEN”.  (See how that's done, Paladin?  Someone asks a direct question, and the other actually answers it.  Try the answering part sometime, okay?  Because I believe you've “ignored” many of my direct questions.)   As far as your last post, I'm still wondering…………out of all the different Greek words, tenses and forms you went on about, which specific word or form changed the meaning of the words “I came down from heaven”? I did notice that you showed a definition of “descended” instead of “came down from”, but that only strengthens our case – because it shows a DIRECT correlation between Jesus saying he DESCENDED from heaven, and then implying that he would later ASCEND to where he was before. So…………..which part of your Greek lesson makes “I came down from heaven” mean something else?  I would ask Gene and Marty the same thing, since they both praised your post.  Maybe they saw something I missed? peace, mike

So, Mike, do you understand baptism is in heaven?

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 07 2011,12:40)

Quote (Paladin @ May 06 2011,06:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 06 2011,14:16) To me it seemed like a whole bunch of words that in the end, still didn't give a different meaning to “I came down from heaven” than the only obvious one. Paladin,  we don't need a lesson in the Greek language…………unless there is something in your post that makes “I came down from heaven” mean something other than “I came down from heaven”.  The Jews Jesus said this to seemed to understand that he was saying he came down from heaven…………..why don't you? mike Well, let's go back to a previous lesson you ignored, and see if you will answer it this time. The baptism of John – from heaven, or of men? Whence cometh it? Hi Paladin, The only Greek lesson I remember discussing with you was the one where I showed you to be mistaken about God magnifying His Word over His own name.  I don't remember being asked this current question before, but the answer is “FROM HEAVEN”.  (See how that's done, Paladin?  Someone asks a direct question, and the other actually answers it.  Try the answering part sometime, okay?  Because I believe you've “ignored” many of my direct questions.)   As far as your last post, I'm still wondering…………out of all the different Greek words, tenses and forms you went on about, which specific word or form changed the meaning of the words “I came down from heaven”? I did notice that you showed a definition of “descended” instead of “came down from”, but that only strengthens our case – because it shows a DIRECT correlation between Jesus saying he DESCENDED from heaven, and then implying that he would later ASCEND to where he was before. So…………..which part of your Greek lesson makes “I came down from heaven” mean something else?  I would ask Gene and Marty the same thing, since they both praised your post.  Maybe they saw something I missed? peace, mike

You are wrong if you think you showed I am mistaken about Psalm 138 and God's words placed above the name of God.

You claimed it, but you failed to show it.

[Paladin]

Quote (Baker @ May 07 2011,08:02)

Marty and Kerwin!   I read tyour posts, and in no way is anything settled. just because someone comes and says He knows Greek, doesn't make it so.  you both can check out on the internet to the Blue Letter Bible and it will tell you the Greek or the Hebrew.  And I did so.  It is not what Paladin is saying…..I also caught Him in a contradiction of Scriptures.  since that is the case, I will not believe what He says….The 50 Scriptures that prove the preexisting of Jesus is real, to deny it is not of God….Period Peace Irene

Care to put on the board all this misinformation you are finding in my post?

[shimmer]

Quote (kerwin @ May 07 2011,07:33)

Quote (shimmer @ May 06 2011,12:18) Quote (kerwin @ May 06 2011,13:08) Confusion is not necessary bad as to admit it means you are admitting you have more to learn from God.   To clear up your confusion need to test what you hear and make sure it conforms to seeking God and his kingdom.  Anything else comes from the Devil. Kerwin, Iv looked at this from all different views, Too confusing though! Simplified, the Son of God came down from Heaven. I believe Him. Confusion can be good, as I found with the eternal hell doctrine. But it was eating at me emotionally so it was different. This confusion over pre-existance however was different again, and to me, was not good, and all I had to do was return to what God showed me way back, and it was all in scripture. Jesus came down from Heaven, the details we don't know. Shimmer, The debate is actually over whether Jesus is a human being or a spiritual being.  Some argue that he is a spiritual being that transformed into a spiritual being. I am convinced it is an important issue because it bears on having faith that a human being can put on a new man created like God in true righteousness and holiness. edited to spell out more clearly what I previously implied.

Hi Kerwin and Paladin and all.

Thanks for your thoughts Kerwin.

And Paladin, I respect what you have writen here and I apologise I havent read much of it, (havent had a chance to).

I have my beliefs but rather than get in a debate I think i'll stay out.

I admire all of your patience and behaviour here! God bless.

[Tim Kraft]

Thanks to all, very informitive. One point of interest you all might want to know. In Heb.2:8, the scripture quoted was from Psalms 8:5.

If you look up the Hebrew word used for “angels” in Psalms 8:5, the Hebrew word is “Elohiym” Plural as in “gods”! Great series, IMO, TK

[Paladin]

Quote (Tim Kraft @ May 07 2011,21:53)

Thanks to all, very informitive. One point of interest you all might want to know. In Heb.2:8, the scripture quoted was from Psalms 8:5. If you look up the Hebrew word used for “angels” in Psalms 8:5, the Hebrew word is “Elohiym” Plural as in “gods”! Great series, IMO, TK

Very astute my friend.

The issue covered by the O.T. is in the fact God produced one revelation to lead the Jews to Christ, and then produced another revelation designed to confuse the Jews so they would not believe, justifying his bringing in the Gentiles.

[GeneBalthrop]

Paladin………I have brought out before about Jesus telling his Apostles they were not of this World just as he was not for this world and they were from above also.  What Generally happens when these things are brought out is people just ignore them, and go right on as if they were never presented. WJ has done that with what you have put forth to consider , Mike also does that to and Irene and Pierre do it also, Once i ask Irene about her assumption of Wisdom being Jesus  and Showed Her that wisdom was (personified) as a She and Jesus was a he, and that wisdom is an attribute not a real person. but she just ignored and insisted Wisdom was Jesus Himself, I did the same with the Lucifer thing where it say He was a Man in the book of Isiah. So there seems no head way is made here, it is as if everyone has already made up their minds, even though scriptures says we see and understand only in part. It would be much better if we all have a teachable attitude, while each of us can contribute thoughts and explore each others reasonings we can still be teachable and learn new things and come to a more sound and surer foundation of Faith.

I am not a Greek Scholar and admit it, but what i find interesting is how i percieve what you say the Greek meanings are clearly, and that is amazing to me. What you have brought out I seem to have been taught by the Spirit of GOD already. “Brethern you have no need of a teacher , the spirit itself will teach you all things” What i find is that what you bring out edifies me and i believe all who are truly seeking the truth also are edified by your posts brother. My desire is that all of us come to the full measure of the stature of Christ.  My hope and prayer is the you do not get to discouraged and leave the site as many Have over the years.

Peace and love to you and yours Paladin…………………………………………….gene

[Baker]

Quote (Paladin @ May 07 2011,20:58)

Quote (Baker @ May 07 2011,08:02) Marty and Kerwin!   I read tyour posts, and in no way is anything settled. just because someone comes and says He knows Greek, doesn't make it so.  you both can check out on the internet to the Blue Letter Bible and it will tell you the Greek or the Hebrew.  And I did so.  It is not what Paladin is saying…..I also caught Him in a contradiction of Scriptures.  since that is the case, I will not believe what He says….The 50 Scriptures that prove the preexisting of Jesus is real, to deny it is not of God….Period Peace Irene Care to put on the board all this misinformation you are finding in my post?

Why should I, you don't believe it anyway…. Irene

[Paladin]

Quote (Baker @ May 07 2011,23:45)

Quote (Paladin @ May 07 2011,20:58) Quote (Baker @ May 07 2011,08:02) Marty and Kerwin!   I read tyour posts, and in no way is anything settled. just because someone comes and says He knows Greek, doesn't make it so.  you both can check out on the internet to the Blue Letter Bible and it will tell you the Greek or the Hebrew.  And I did so.  It is not what Paladin is saying…..I also caught Him in a contradiction of Scriptures.  since that is the case, I will not believe what He says….The 50 Scriptures that prove the preexisting of Jesus is real, to deny it is not of God….Period Peace Irene Care to put on the board all this misinformation you are finding in my post? Why should I, you don't believe it anyway…. Irene

HA!

So we should all just believe your accusation? Without evidence?

Get real!

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 06 2011,20:40)

Quote (Paladin @ May 06 2011,06:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 06 2011,14:16) To me it seemed like a whole bunch of words that in the end, still didn't give a different meaning to “I came down from heaven” than the only obvious one. Paladin,  we don't need a lesson in the Greek language…………unless there is something in your post that makes “I came down from heaven” mean something other than “I came down from heaven”.  The Jews Jesus said this to seemed to understand that he was saying he came down from heaven…………..why don't you? mike Well, let's go back to a previous lesson you ignored, and see if you will answer it this time. The baptism of John – from heaven, or of men? Whence cometh it? Hi Paladin, The only Greek lesson I remember discussing with you was the one where I showed you to be mistaken about God magnifying His Word over His own name.  I don't remember being asked this current question before, but the answer is “FROM HEAVEN”.  (See how that's done, Paladin?  Someone asks a direct question, and the other actually answers it.  Try the answering part sometime, okay?  Because I believe you've “ignored” many of my direct questions.)   As far as your last post, I'm still wondering…………out of all the different Greek words, tenses and forms you went on about, which specific word or form changed the meaning of the words “I came down from heaven”? I did notice that you showed a definition of “descended” instead of “came down from”, but that only strengthens our case – because it shows a DIRECT correlation between Jesus saying he DESCENDED from heaven, and then implying that he would later ASCEND to where he was before. So…………..which part of your Greek lesson makes “I came down from heaven” mean something else?  I would ask Gene and Marty the same thing, since they both praised your post.  Maybe they saw something I missed? peace, mike

Good points Mike. That is the whole issue. He cannot prove that Jesus is not speaking in literal terms but instead a  parable.

Paladin has attacked me and my writings which are only the writings of the best Greek Scholarship of our day. I don't claim to be a Greek expert or even that I know much about all the tenses, moods etc. But I do know what the scholars has written and I rather choose them over Paladin any day. And I do know the clear meaning of English words that were translated from the Greek.

Paladin says I chose to attack his character yet practically his whole post attacks me and the scholarship of 1000s.

I have my plate full at the moment but I will address some of his points and prove that Jesus was speaking literally when he said “I Came down from heaven”.

WJ

[terraricca]

Quote (Paladin @ May 08 2011,03:23)

Quote (terraricca @ May 07 2011,03:41) Quote (Paladin @ May 07 2011,06:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 06 2011,14:16) To me it seemed like a whole bunch of words that in the end, still didn't give a different meaning to “I came down from heaven” than the only obvious one. Paladin,  we don't need a lesson in the Greek language…………unless there is something in your post that makes “I came down from heaven” mean something other than “I came down from heaven”.  The Jews Jesus said this to seemed to understand that he was saying he came down from heaven…………..why don't you? mike Well, let's go back to a previous lesson you ignored, and see if you will answer it this time. The baptism of John – from heaven, or of men? Whence cometh it? paladin Mk 11:30 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!” so it was requested by heaven that he come to baptize,to fulfill scriptures, but john was not from heaven or from above ,or came down,and his father was not God. Pierre I have reread my question seventy times seven, and it still does not ask where did John come from. How plain must I state it for you to read what is actually there? “The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?”

Paladin

the baptism of John the (order)came from a angel or a vision

but there is no baptism in heaven,

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ May 07 2011,03:27)

So, Mike, do you understand baptism is in heaven?

No. I understand that the baptism that John provided was from heaven. I understand that to mean John's baptism was according to God's plan, and not the imagined idea of a mere man.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ May 07 2011,03:29)

You are wrong if you think you showed I am mistaken about Psalm 138 and God's words placed above the name of God. You claimed it, but you failed to show it.

Really?  Shall we do it again Paladin?

emegalunav…………………magnified

V-AAI-2Sepi…………………above

PREPpan……………………..every

A-ASNonoma………………..name

N-ASNto………………………the

T-ASNlogion………………….word

N-ASNsou…………………….of you

P-GS

Here's the Hebrew:כִּֽי־ ki- 3588…………………. for
הִגְדַּ֥לְתָּ hig·dal·ta 1431………………………….. have magnified
עַל־ al- 5921 ……………………. above
כָּלשִׁ֝־ ka·l·shi- 3605…………………….. all
מְךָ֗ me·cha 8034 …………………. name
אִמְרָתֶֽךָ׃ im·ra·te·cha. 565………………..your word

Now compare that to these scriptures:
Revelation 19:13
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

Ephesians 1:21
far above…………..every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.

Philippians 2:9
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,

What you have done Paladin, is to point us all to another scriptural reference to the mighty Word of God – Jesus.   But when it is said that God magnified His Word above every name, it is understood that this does not include the Name of YHWH Himself – for nothing is above that Name. 

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 07 2011,09:30)

Good points Mike. That is the whole issue. He cannot prove that Jesus is not speaking in literal terms but instead a  parable.

Hi Keith,

It would be absurd to think it was a parable of any kind.  It was a literal teaching that he himself came down from heaven.  The Jews he was teaching this to were perplexed because they couldn't understand why this Jesus of Nazareth, the family of whom they all knew, would all of a sudden start claiming that he came down from heaven…………..but they definitely understood that this is what he was claiming.

The facts are that the person Jesus said HE came down from heaven.  He didn't say “the spirit inside me” or “the thought of me in God's head”………….but “I came down from heaven”.  Then he made an referrence to the future when some of the very ones he was speaking to would see him ascend to where he was before. And we all know from scripture where those ones saw him ascend to.

mike

[Paladin]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 08 2011,02:30)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 06 2011,20:40) Quote (Paladin @ May 06 2011,06:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 06 2011,14:16) To me it seemed like a whole bunch of words that in the end, still didn't give a different meaning to “I came down from heaven” than the only obvious one. Paladin,  we don't need a lesson in the Greek language…………unless there is something in your post that makes “I came down from heaven” mean something other than “I came down from heaven”.  The Jews Jesus said this to seemed to understand that he was saying he came down from heaven…………..why don't you? mike Well, let's go back to a previous lesson you ignored, and see if you will answer it this time. The baptism of John – from heaven, or of men? Whence cometh it? Hi Paladin, The only Greek lesson I remember discussing with you was the one where I showed you to be mistaken about God magnifying His Word over His own name.  I don't remember being asked this current question before, but the answer is “FROM HEAVEN”.  (See how that's done, Paladin?  Someone asks a direct question, and the other actually answers it.  Try the answering part sometime, okay?  Because I believe you've “ignored” many of my direct questions.)   As far as your last post, I'm still wondering…………out of all the different Greek words, tenses and forms you went on about, which specific word or form changed the meaning of the words “I came down from heaven”? I did notice that you showed a definition of “descended” instead of “came down from”, but that only strengthens our case – because it shows a DIRECT correlation between Jesus saying he DESCENDED from heaven, and then implying that he would later ASCEND to where he was before. So…………..which part of your Greek lesson makes “I came down from heaven” mean something else?  I would ask Gene and Marty the same thing, since they both praised your post.  Maybe they saw something I missed? peace, mike Good points Mike. That is the whole issue. He cannot prove that Jesus is not speaking in literal terms but instead a  parable. Paladin has attacked me and my writings which are only the writings of the best Greek Scholarship of our day. I don't claim to be a Greek expert or even that I know much about all the tenses, moods etc. But I do know what the scholars has written and I rather choose them over Paladin any day. And I do know the clear meaning of English words that were translated from the Greek. Paladin says I chose to attack his character yet practically his whole post attacks me and the scholarship of 1000s. I have my plate full at the moment but I will address some of his points and prove that Jesus was speaking literally when he said “I Came down from heaven”. WJ

Please give me the reference where “the best Greek Scholar of the day” said any such thing as you put in your post.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 07 2011,15:27)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 07 2011,09:30) Good points Mike. That is the whole issue. He cannot prove that Jesus is not speaking in literal terms but instead a  parable. Hi Keith, It would be absurd to think it was a parable of any kind.  It was a literal teaching that he himself came down from heaven.  The Jews he was teaching this to were perplexed because they couldn't understand why this Jesus of Nazareth, the family of whom they all knew, would all of a sudden start claiming that he came down from heaven…………..but they definitely understood that this is what he was claiming. The facts are that the person Jesus said HE came down from heaven.  He didn't say “the spirit inside me” or “the thought of me in God's head”………….but “I came down from heaven”.  Then he made an referrence to the future when some of the very ones he was speaking to would see him ascend to where he was before.  And we all know from scripture where those ones saw him ascend to. mike

Agreed! That is why we read the “English” translations of the text the way we do. Because if the Greek would have meant what Paladin is claiming then they could have easily translated it that way.

They could have written it like this…

…[For the thought and plan of God] came down from heaven, not to do [its] own will, but the will of him that sent [it]. John 6:38

WJ

[Author]

Posts