- This topic has 25,870 replies, 115 voices, and was last updated 2 hours, 46 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 01 2008,15:33) Hi LU,
Why should God send His Son twice when He usually sent His angels to do His work?God is fair and expects us to follow Jesus.
Jesus did not have a head start having previously had a physical existence on earth IMO.
Hi Nick,
The way I see it is if God wanted us to believe that His Son was living back when Abraham was alive, He would send Him to Abraham for a visit and then further clarify it in scriptures at the proper time.You say that “Jesus did not have a head start having previously had a physical existence on earth” .
Would it be too hard for God to limit His willing Son to the confines of a human baby with no memory of anything just like a regular human baby? IMO the inner spirit of the Son moved from heavenly body to fleshly body. And, He gave up a bunch to do it too. He did it for us. The Father had to teach Him all over again and I suppose that He returned His memory to Him in bits and pieces till it was all restored. IMO
LUHi LU,
Why speculate about such matters?
Do we know the mind of God enough to predict His ways?
Surely we should rely on what can be shown rather than speculations?2 Timothy 2:23
But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.Is Jesus really talking about how old he is here??
John 8:51 I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” 52 At this the Jews exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?” 54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” 58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
Jesus is talking about being greater then Abraham because by him people could obtain eternal life.
We need to ask ourselves WHY was Abraham significant? He was significant as the ancestor of promise, where nations by him would be blessed.
Jews identified themselves as being special because of their blood and not because of their actions. Because they were of the seed of Abraham the Jews thought that they and their children would be blessed.
Abraham was a TYPE of man, he was a man of big faith in God. The Jews of whom Jesus was speaking to were not truly of Abraham. It is not by physical, but by spiritual that we are children of God. It is those by FAITH.
When the Jews asked Jesus 'ARE YOU GREATER then Abraham', Jesus was answering that he was indeed greater, because it is by Jesus that all nations would be blessed.
Jesus of Nazareth is the infant that grew in God's wisdom and overcame weak flesh, thus remaining sinless and completely loyal to God, fulfilling God's glory to make a man capable of saving the world.
Those who believe in preexistence are not listening, just like the Jews in John 8 were not listening to what Jesus is referring to.
Ask yourself, what is Jesus in Verse 56 talking about?
In verse 57 the Jews didn't hear what Jesus was saying in verse 56, this is why they ask the stupid question if Jesus had seen Abraham. Jesus responds to the idiots in a manner to leave them in their pathetic stupidity.
Listen to what Jesus is talking about. He is talking about being greater then Abraham because by him people will obtain eternal life, and eternal life is what God had planned for man since the beginning, since before Abraham.
The Jews could not see Jesus for who he was, they were too hung up on the physical.
IMO John 8:58 is not taking about how old Jesus is.
Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2008,02:09) ps, and btw LU, re the title “firstborn” elsewhere I wrote “In the Scriptures the term “first born” of course can mean the literal first born child in a chronological sense, but it can also be a title of honor… now, we know (or we should know) that the Scriptures do not contradict themselves, right? OK…. so we look at the following verse…. Genesis 41:51 (ESV) Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh. “For,” he said, “God has made me forget all my hardship and all my father’s house.”
so… pretty straightforward really……. ok… next we read….
Genesis 46:20 (ESV) And to Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, whom Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera the priest of On, bore to him. “
so…. Manasseh was first born and he had a brother whose name was Ephraim….. BUT….. we ALSO read…..
Jeremiah 31:9 (ESV) With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.”
!!!! whats this?!!! does the Bible contradict itself after all? Not if “first born” is a title of preeminence and honor…… and that is exactly the sort if description we read here….
Psalms 89:26-27 (ESV)
26 He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ 27 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.A further proof of this is the story of how Ephraim and Manasseh came to be regarded by the patriarch Israel…
Genesis 48:13-20 (ESV)
13 And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel’s left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel’s right hand, and brought them near him. 14 And Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh, crossing his hands (for Manasseh was the firstborn). 15 And he blessed Joseph and said, “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day, 16 the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.” 17 When Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it displeased him, and he took his father’s hand to move it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head. 18 And Joseph said to his father, “Not this way, my father; since this one is the firstborn, put your right hand on his head.” 19 But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great. Nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multitude of nations.” 20 So he blessed them that day, saying, “By you Israel will pronounce blessings, saying, ‘God make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh.’ ” Thus he put Ephraim before Manasseh.So Jesus being called “first born” does not HAVE to mean that He was created, or to say with the theologians, that there was a time when He was not. Rather it is very reasonable to say that the Scriptures support the idea that the Son has always existed. that He is immortal, eternal, or, that there never was a time when Jesus was not….. and that the title “first born” has nothing to do with Jesus' birth order, and everything to do with Him having the highest place of honor… and if this is so, we would expect the Scriptures to discuss the preeminence of Christ in association with the title “firstborn”, and that is exactly what we find…
Colossians 1:18 (ESV) And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.”
blessings
Ken
Hi Epistemaniac,
I'll try my hand at responding to your post regarding “Firstborn”.Let me start by saying this, I totally understand that in some instances in the Bible, firstborn was used of someone other than the oldest child because another child was chosen to have pre-eminance.
However, as you could probably have guessed, I do not think that fits Christ. He did not have an older brother.
The reason that I believe that firstborn is literal is due to what God opened my eyes and ears to see and hear regarding this term. Did you read my story? I gave you a link in my previous post to you.
As I tested this new insight, I realized that it was important for the sacrificial lamb to be the firstborn lamb, in other words, the first lamb out of the womb, without spot or blemish. Since the firstborn lamb-the animal, was a prototype of Christ being the sacrificial lamb-the human, well it is not hard to see that not only was Christ without spot or blemish, He was also the first out of the womb. He was what? Yes, He was the first out of the actual womb of God before creation of anything in heaven or on earth. Which makes Him a son BTW and also makes Him God because God begat God and also makes Him pre-existent to the Son in the flesh.
He was obviously not the God that He came from, nor was He equal to that God that He came from. For the God who always existed is unique and above anything that didn't always exist. Even above His own Son who shares His own nature.
In your other post, you mentioned that being always existent was part of God's nature. I disagree here also, sorry. You and your father have the same nature but he is older than you. Age has nothing to do with nature. The idea that the Father always existed was probably more like an aspect of His glory. That glory which He did not share with His Son.
Furthermore, how could there be an eternal (past) Son. The very idea of “son” means that he came from someone which then made that someone a father. A co-eternal father and son does not compute, Will Robinson
If Jesus always existed, He would not be a “son” and if He were not a “Son” then the Father would not be His Father. Do you get my drift here?All for now,
God bless,
LUQuote (Tiffany @ Sep. 01 2008,12:49) Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 02 2008,06:11) Quote (Tiffany @ Sep. 02 2008,04:42) H E I S B E FOR E A L L T H I N G S,
How many different ways can this be interpreted?
Mandy! To me it can only be interpet the way it is written. He is before all. When I say I am bfore you, would you understand it? But because it says all, You don't? All means all to me. Meaning even before the earth was, before the animal was. There is only one person that was before Him, and that I hope all will know is our Heavenly Father.
Peace and Love Irene
Hello Mrs,Are we told that a spirit son died for our sins?
No!
Is our eternal life promised from a spirit son?
No!
Colossians 1:12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
WHY does Jesus have supremacy, because he preexisted as a spirit son?
No, it is because he was the first man who was raised from the dead, and he is the man who brought the promise of immortality to the rest of us.
IMO you are reading 'He is before all things', completely out of context.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 01 2008,23:32) Hi LU,
Why speculate about such matters?
Do we know the mind of God enough to predict His ways?
Surely we should rely on what can be shown rather than speculations?2 Timothy 2:23
But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.
Nick,
I knew you were going to push the “why speculate” button. You give your opinion too you know in fact I was just giving my opinion when YOU asked me for it. I was responding to YOUR opinion, YOUR SPECULATION. And I quote you:Quote Jesus did not have a head start having previously had a physical existence on earth IMO. Are we not allowed to give opinions??? Are you the only one that may give opinions??? hmmmmmm
BTW I showed you that scripture says that Abraham did not seek to kill the pre-existent Son who appeared as man and brought him words of God as did those in Jesus day. It is written, not speculated.
LUHi LU,
The LORD in the OT is never Jesus. It was originally written YHWH.Jesus is not God but the Son of God YAHSHUA.
God frequently manifested among men as His angel and sometimes men thought they had met God Himself.
Nick,
What “thing” did Abraham not do that the Jews were doing? And to whom did he not do them to?John 8:39-41
” If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham. 40 “But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.
NASUMaybe you can answer this without speculating.
LUQuote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 02 2008,00:58) Hi LU,
The LORD in the OT is never Jesus. It was originally written YHWH.Jesus is not God but the Son of God YAHSHUA.
God frequently manifested among men as His angel and sometimes men thought they had met God Himself.
Nick,
You “speculate” that the third “man” in the passage was an angel but it doesn't say that. That would be mere “speculation”.Would you please answer my question regarding what Abraham did not do and to whom he did not do it in the following passage?
John 8:39-41
” If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham. 40 “But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.
NASULU
Abraham did not SEEK TO KILL, not that he did an actual killing. I believe this is the point that Kathi is making, Nick. I could be wrong but that is how I'm reading it.
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 02 2008,17:00) Nick,
What “thing” did Abraham not do that the Jews were doing? And to whom did he not do them to?John 8:39-41
” If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham. 40 “But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.
NASUMaybe you can answer this without speculating.
LU
Hi LU,
Jn8
40But now YE SEEK TO KILL ME, A MAN THAT HAS TOLD YOU THE TRUTH, WHICH I HAVE HEARD OF GOD: this did not Abraham.Hi Nick and Mandy,
Thanks Mandy for your insight here. Thanks Nick for your answer.
Now, just to clarify, Abraham did not seek to kill the pre-existent Christ who has told him the truth, which he heard of God. That is the deed he did not do.My point is why would Jesus speak of this unless He actually had been in the physical presence of Abraham and talking to him? There would have been no point if He was just a plan at that point, or a sperm. A sperm or plan or anything else that wasn't physically existent and living wouldn't be passing on words of God and looking like something that could be killed.
No Nick, I do not think that at the time the three “men” were actually flesh and blood men that appeared to Abraham and ate with him and had a conversation with him. Remember we are told that two of them were angels in fact. Obviously, heavenly beings can take on different forms, even the form of man. Perhaps they were in a similar body that Christ was in when Thomas touched the resurrected body of Christ and declared “My Lord and my God.” Flesh and bones, not flesh and blood. I know, I am speculating here. Please don't push “that button”.:O
LU
By killing Jesus they would be killing the word of God, which is something that Abraham did not do.
Abraham did not seek to distort, suppress or destroy the word of God!
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 01 2008,02:52) In the beginning was the word. That does not say that the “word” was eternal, it just says that it was in the beginning. A word has an origin, first it must be a thought. Surely there must be something more than that for those of you who believe that the Son of God always existed especially if you believe those who don't believe that are “heretics”. LU
Hi LUSo are you saying that God's Word is not eternal or from everlasting to everlasting?
Was there ever a time that God did not have a Word?
The Word of God does not have to be spoken to be his Word.
For the Word is Spirit. God is Spirit, God and his Word are One, in fact he has exalted his Word above his own name.
If Yeshua is the “Wisdom of God” and “the Truth”, was there ever a time the Father did not have “Wisdom” or “Truth”?
Yeshua is the exact representation of the Father, (John 1:1, Heb 1:3, Phil 2:6) since the Father is eternal, so is Yeshua.
He is the “eternal life”, (1 John 1:1,2) that was with the Father in the beginning.
All things were made by and through him and without him nothing was made that was made. (John 1:3) He did not make himself. If he was a creation as some claim, or born, which scripturally there is no difference, then he would be included in the “All Things”, but he is not.
Did God create or bring birth to his Word?
Where is the scripture to support this theory?
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
