John 6:62

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ July 29 2010,12:53)

The “HolySpirit” is indeed “The Word”; does this information help you(Irene) to understand now? (Mark 4:12)

Hi Ed,

It seems to me that Isaiah is talking about Jehovah having bloody clothes from stomping the Edomites to death.

That is a big contrast from Jesus looking like a slaughtered bloody lamb, don't you think?

Or am I missing something here?

mike

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
Yes quite a lot.
Undersatnding of the Spirit's ways does seem to go over your head at the moment.

[martian]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2010,12:35)

Quote (martian @ July 29 2010,10:39) Sorry got ahead of myself. Before I invest more time on this forum I need to ask you a question. Mike, Are you willing to follow these principles I have posted? If not then post some alternatives. If you will not tell me why? Do you not want to be careful with the text of scripture? Hi Martian, Look, I don't mean to be rude, but how I come by my understanding of a particular scripture is my business.  I research the Greek or Hebrew words to the extent necessary.  Now I read the words in John 6:62 just as they are written, and I even checked for alternate definitions to be sure. If you bring up some evidence I haven't discovered, then I will surely look into it.  But that doesn't mean I want to read pages and pages of conjecture by some mere man that I don't know anything about just because he happens to agree with your view. This sentence is pretty straightforward, and there is nothing in context that I see that would make it mean something other than what it says. So, go ahead and try to make it null and void.  I'm waiting. But before you start, please DIRECTLY answer the bolded two parts of my last post like I asked. mike

You say-
Look, I don't mean to be rude, but how I come by my understanding of a particular scripture is my business.

Reply-
But you are being very rude! It is extremely rude to get on a public forum and presume to teach without so much as showing us the process you went through to form your conclusions. Even if all you are doing is voicing your opinion you still need to display on what basis you formed that opinion. Anything else is just arrogant and dishonest.

You say-
I research the Greek or Hebrew words to the extent necessary. Now I read the words in John 6:62 just as they are written, and I even checked for alternate definitions to be sure.

If you bring up some evidence I haven't discovered, then I will surely look into it. But that doesn't mean I want to read pages and pages of conjecture by some mere man that I don't know anything about just because he happens to agree with your view.

Reply-
You are a fount of contradiction!!!
You say you check the Greek and Hebrew words? Who do you think wrote those dictionaries and lexicons if not “mere men.” So what you are really saying is that anything that disagrees with your doctrine is downgraded to being written by mere men. (as if that is some bad thing)
Not going to read pages and pages. What you are really saying is that I do not need to be thorough because I have already decided what it true without deep research. I want instant gratification but only if it agrees with me. More dishonesty.

You say-
This sentence is pretty straightforward, and there is nothing in context that I see that would make it mean something other than what it says.

Reply-
I guess it would seem straightforward to me too if I were willing to be totally dishonest with my approach to it’s study.
Did you check paralel scriptures that speak on the same subject? That is a must to say you have checked context. Did you check your conclusions in light of the Hebrew culture in which it was written? I doubt that you did either one.

You say-
But before you start, please DIRECTLY answer the bolded two parts of my last post like I asked.

Reply-
Your questions have no importance at all if I am dealing with a dishonest researcher.

Your process of interpretation is a sham, invented to snare scripturally uneducated into your false doctrine. I am not saying this personally about you but your process of interpretation disgusts me.

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2010,13:04)

Quote (Ed J @ July 29 2010,12:53) The “HolySpirit” is indeed “The Word”; does this information help you(Irene) to understand now? (Mark 4:12) Hi Ed, It seems to me that Isaiah is talking about Jehovah having bloody clothes from stomping the Edomites to death. That is a big contrast from Jesus looking like a slaughtered bloody lamb, don't you think? Or am I missing something here?   mike

Hi Mike,

          “Father: The Word“(Isaiah) = “HolySpirit“(Rev.)

You seem to be missing the authentic Biblical connection between
Rev.19:11, 19:13-16 and Isaiah 63:2-4, 63:9-10; don't you 'think'?

Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā  hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[martian]

Mike says he checks the context. This is untrue. Context means you check any other scriptures having to do with the subject. To say that Christ ascended to a literal place he was before presupposes that he was there to begin with.

John 6:33

“For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven.”

John 6:38

“I came down from heaven.”

John 6:51

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven.”

John 6:58

“This is that bread which came down from heaven.”

Problem:

These passages are considered to be proof that Jesus existed in heaven prior to his coming to the earth.

Solution:
1.The words of this chapter were an “hard saying” (vs. 60) and as a result “many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him”. (vs. 66). An understanding of the analogy with the manna provides the key to the right understanding of this passage.
2.The bread “from heaven” (vs. 31) did not mean that it was actually manufactured in heaven and descended through the atmosphere, but rather that it was produced on the earth by God's Holy Spirit power.
3.Similarly, Christ came down from heaven, not literally, since it was the Holy Spirit which descended upon the virgin Mary to effect the conception. (Luke 1:35). “From heaven” emphasizes he was sourced from God (i.e., his father was God) and his teaching was also sourced from God
4.. Unlike the manna which profited only temporarily, his words were “spirit” and “life”. (vs. 63).
To help us understand Jesus' words in John 6, it is useful to compare them with those of John 16:28-30

John 16:28 “I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again, and going to the Father.” 29 His disciples said, “Lo, now You are speaking plainly, and are not using a figure of speech. 30 “Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.”

In John 16:28, Jesus stated that he “came forth from the Father”. The Father, of course, is in heaven. So when Jesus makes mention that he (Jesus) came down from heaven, it means the same thing as “coming forth from the Father”. So then, what does it mean to “come forth from the Father”? One should not take his words literally, but rather Jesus' statement should be read figuratively. How do we know this for certain? In John 16:30 notice how the disciples understood Jesus' statement. When the disciples heard Jesus say, “I came forth from the Father”, they understood these words NOT to mean that Jesus pre-existed in heaven, and came down and took up habitation in Mary's womb. No! Rather, the disciples understood Jesus' statement as meaning, “We know that you know all things, and have no need for anyone to question you; by THIS we believe that You came from God.” The disciples did not take Jesus' statement literally. They understood Jesus as speaking in figures.

This figure of speech is also repeated in John 6. In John 6:42 the Jews ask, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?” The Jews stumbled over Jesus' words, for they took Jesus statement literally. In trying to explain what he meant, Jesus quotes from the OT…

John 6:45 “It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught of God.'

So we see that “being taught of God” is what is meant by “coming forth from God”. It is a figure of speech, and not to be taken literally. If we continue to read in John 6, we will see that Jesus often speaks figuratively…

In John 6, you will see that Jesus is comparing himself to the manna from heaven. John 6:51 says, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven.” So we see that Jesus is speaking figuratively…not literally…he compares himself to bread/manna. Jesus later says that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, but Protestants do not take his words literally, do we? In John 6:31 the manna is referred to as “bread from heaven”. The literal translation is “bread out of the heaven”. Does one think that the manna was baked by the angels in heaven, and then was hurled by the Father towards the earth at the speed of light, and then landed on the desert floor? When something (or someone) is described as having come from God, it means that its/his source can be attributed to God. The source of the manna can be attributed to God, therefore the manna is described as “bread out of heaven”. The “source” of Jesus is the Father, and therefore Jesus could correctly state that he came from heaven (i.e. from God). But such a statement does not mean that Jesus pre-existed in heaven before his birth, no more than it means that the manna pre-existed in heaven before it appeared in the desert.

 

Jesus was misunderstood by the Jews, for the Jews took him literally. As a result, many of Jesus' disciples forsook him. In spite of all this, it is worth noting what Peter said at the conclusion of John 6…

John 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.



From the context of Hebrew Culture –
The Bible is filled with picture stories describing certain truths and concepts. This is in line with the concrete way in which the Hebrews thought. The Gospels are full of parables taught by Christ. In this case comparing himself to the bread of life. (manna)

Jesus speaking to his disciples –
“So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”
Were these disciples sent from heaven too? Are they going to ascend to where they came from?

I come to these conclusions by this method.
1. I read the verse and form a hypothesis and then I test it.
2. I considered the context both immediate and throughout all of scripture. Including any verses that talk about the same subject.
3. I studied the words in their original language.
4. I searched out any impact the Hebrew culture of the time might have.
5. I looked for any way that my conclusions might negatively impact the character of God or the mission of Christ.
6. (much like 5) I looked for fruit good or bad from my conclusions.
—AND FINALLY —
7. I researched what teachers and other students have said about these verses. (sometimes I find their words more clear and concise then mine and I use them)
Sometimes (depending on the subject) I even employ debate forums to see what other say.

How does Mike come to his conclusions? It’s none of your business!!!!!

[martian]

Another truth to understand is the close connection between Mike’s theories and the Geek philosophy of Dualism.
Dualism (in a simple definition) is the belief that there are two different realms in creation. The heavenly transcendental realm that is pure and holy and the lower natural Earthly realm which has no redeeming qualities. For this reason they insist that Christ have an origin from another realm for nothing good could come from the natural realm. He must have preexisted from the heavenly realm for no one from the natural realm, even sourced from God’s own spirit, could ever be good enough to be the Messiah.
This higher kingdom of God is where God is and he only visits here to deal with us.
This concept is totally false.
Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God is here. Meaning all around us.
To say that this upper kingdom is holy is also false. Satan lived there and he sinned.
To say that the natural realm is bad is false. God created the world and said it was Good. If someone insists that the fall polluted the world then they are saying that man can ruin God’s handiwork.
God is omnipresent. That means present everywhere. To say that Christ was sent from somewhere else is false. He was sent from God who is ever present around us.
The ancient Hebrews never saw this dual kingdom but saw God as all around them in every single manifestation of creation and they described him from a totally natural Earthly way.

Jesus being sent from or returning to God/heaven in no way proves that he preexisted or that he literally came from another place.

[NickHassan]

Hi M,
The kingdom of heaven and God is in heaven and the will of God is done there.
We are to pray that that kingdom is extended to earth and His will done here too,[Mt6]

[martian]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 30 2010,06:22)

Hi M, The kingdom of heaven and God is in heaven and the will of God is done there. We are to pray that that kingdom is extended to earth and His will done here too,[Mt6]

Really? So the fall of Satan from heaven was the will of God?
Come on Nick, you are muddling up the works again.

[Arnold]

Quote (Ed J @ July 29 2010,12:53)

Quote (Arnold @ July 29 2010,11:54) Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 28 2010,10:34) Hi JA, As soon as we share a basis we can dialogue. But we have to debuild so much nonsense Nick  The one that writes a lot of nonesense is you…..How many times have I pointed you to the Word of God, in Rev. 19 and yet you still deny it, why? Irene Hi Irene, You have a lot of trouble understanding “Rev.19:11-21” is talking about The “HolySpirit”; but I can help!                                   “Father: The Word“ = “HolySpirit“                                                Isaiah means: (YHVH=63) “Ya is Savior”                                                     (Click Here) Isaiah 63:2-10 Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel(Jer.4:30), and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat? I (HolySpirit) have trodden the winepress alone (Rev.19:15); and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments(Rev.19:13), and I will stain all my raiment. For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come. And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me(Job.40:10-14); and my fury, it upheld me. And I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down their strength(Ez.28:9) to the earth. I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, and the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his loving- kindnesses. For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Savior. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled, and vexed his HolySpirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he(HolySpirit) fought against them. The “HolySpirit” is indeed “The Word”; does this information help you(Irene) to understand now? (Mark 4:12) Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17) יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā  hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm! Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 27:4-5) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

No Ed, I have no problem in knowing who The Word of God is. And it is not God's Holy Spirit. From verse 11 to 16 of Rev. 19 it plainly explains who Jesus is. How He will come again as. Not as God's Holy Spirit, but as KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS…..Question, is there another person who is in Heaven with a robe dipped in blood? No, and it is not God's Holy Spirit who died for us, it was Jesus, The Word of God who came from Heaven to do the will of His Father John 6:38-40. He emptied Himself of being a Spirit Being and came in the flesh Phil 2:5 and John
1:14. What I really dislike is your numbers, the Bible is not written in numbers, but in Scriptures. We have several Bibles and also a German Bible since that is my Home Country, I will look up what it says there….. it says…”Er war gekleided mit einem blutgetraunkten Gewand, und sein Name heisst Das Word Gottes…..Which means the same….. Also in verse 19 it is the same in German then it is in English. I also checked out the Rye Study Bible and it says the same thing…..My understanding is that the Rye Study Bible is the closest to the original Transcript….. In the the St. James Moffatt Translation it says “The Logus of God.” and my King James say “The Word of God.”
Not one Bible says anything about the Holy Spirit of God….
Peace and Love Irene

[942767]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2010,12:40)

Quote (942767 @ July 29 2010,11:13) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2010,10:02) Quote (942767 @ July 29 2010,09:46) And so, bread of life that came down from heaven = words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life Hi Marty, So is it your contention that it was the “spirit” saying it would ascend to where it was before? mike Mike: He said that it was the Father that gave them the bread of life.  Hebrew 1 states that the Father has spoken to humanity through His Son in these last days. The words that he was speaking came from heaven, and we know also that his body was conceived by the Holy Ghost.   He existed in the heart of the Father from the very beginning.  God knew that a particular point in time he would bring forth a Son to be the Saviour of His children.  God made all things having forseen that He would fulfill his plan for humanity through Jesus. Love in Christ, Marty Hi Marty, So is it your contention that it was the “spirit” saying it would ascend to where it was before? mike

No, Jesus said what if I, the son of man, ascend where I was before, and he is body, soul and spirit.

But the question that you asked is if this scripture was proof that Jesus pre-existed, and I gather that you mean as a sentient person, and the answer to that is, no he did not.

He existed in the heart of the Father who knew that a particular point in time He would conceive a Son in the womb of the virgin Mary, and he knew what He would speak His Word to humanity through him, and He knew that Jesus would obey this same Word without sin even unto death on the cross.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[mikeboll64]

Quote (martian @ July 30 2010,02:35)

You say- But before you start, please DIRECTLY answer the bolded two parts of my last post like I asked. Reply- Your questions have no importance at all if I am dealing with a dishonest researcher. Your process of interpretation is a sham, invented to snare scripturally uneducated into your false doctrine. I am not saying this personally about you but your process of interpretation disgusts me.

Coward!  

Come on Martian……this is only the second of about 15 scriptures I'm going to hit you guys with.  Are all 15 wrong?  Am I interpreting all 15 wrong?  Am I using the wrong definition in all 15?  Am I missing something in the context in all 15 of them?

This is what I want to find out.  So, one by one, enlighten me on the error of my ways O great one!  

Show me your Hebrew and Greek culture expertise and answer my only two questions I've asked of you.

And stop trying to run using the guise of “your methods of study aren't up to my standards, so I'm not going to debate with you”.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ July 30 2010,02:58)

You seem to be missing the authentic Biblical connection between Rev.19:11, 19:13-16 and Isaiah 63:2-4, 63:9-10; don't you 'think'?

I don't know. Why don't you spell it our for me.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (942767 @ July 30 2010,12:28)

He existed in the heart of the Father who knew that a particular point in time He would conceive a Son in the womb of the virgin Mary, and he knew what He would speak His Word to humanity through him, and He knew that Jesus would obey this same Word without sin even unto death on the cross.

Hi Marty,

And you know this how?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (martian @ July 30 2010,03:13)

Mike says he checks the context. This is untrue. Context means you check any other scriptures having to do with the subject. To say that Christ ascended to a literal place he was before presupposes that he was there to begin with. John 6:33 “For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven.” John 6:38 “I came down from heaven.” John 6:51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven.” John 6:58 “This is that bread which came down from heaven.” Problem: These passages are considered to be proof that Jesus existed in heaven prior to his coming to the earth. Solution: 1.The words of this chapter were an “hard saying” (vs. 60) and as a result “many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him”. (vs. 66). An understanding of the analogy with the manna provides the key to the right understanding of this passage. 2.The bread “from heaven” (vs. 31) did not mean that it was actually manufactured in heaven and descended through the atmosphere, but rather that it was produced on the earth by God's Holy Spirit power. 3.Similarly, Christ came down from heaven, not literally, since it was the Holy Spirit which descended upon the virgin Mary to effect the conception. (Luke 1:35). “From heaven” emphasizes he was sourced from God (i.e., his father was God) and his teaching was also sourced from God 4.. Unlike the manna which profited only temporarily, his words were “spirit” and “life”. (vs. 63). To help us understand Jesus' words in John 6, it is useful to compare them with those of John 16:28-30 John 16:28 “I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again, and going to the Father.” 29 His disciples said, “Lo, now You are speaking plainly, and are not using a figure of speech. 30 “Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.” In John 16:28, Jesus stated that he “came forth from the Father”. The Father, of course, is in heaven. So when Jesus makes mention that he (Jesus) came down from heaven, it means the same thing as “coming forth from the Father”. So then, what does it mean to “come forth from the Father”?  One should not take his words literally, but rather Jesus' statement should be read figuratively.  How do we know this for certain?  In John 16:30 notice how the disciples understood Jesus' statement. When the disciples heard Jesus say, “I came forth from the Father”, they understood these words NOT to mean that Jesus pre-existed in heaven, and came down and took up habitation in Mary's womb. No! Rather, the disciples understood Jesus' statement as meaning, “We know that you know all things, and have no need for anyone to question you; by THIS we believe that You came from God.”  The disciples did not take Jesus' statement literally.  They understood Jesus as speaking in figures. This figure of speech is also repeated in John 6.  In John 6:42 the Jews ask, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?” The Jews stumbled over Jesus' words, for they took Jesus statement literally. In trying to explain what he meant, Jesus quotes from the OT… John 6:45 “It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught of God.' So we see that “being taught of God” is what is meant by “coming forth from God”. It is a figure of speech, and not to be taken literally. If we continue to read in John 6, we will see that Jesus often speaks figuratively… In John 6,  you will see that Jesus is comparing himself to the manna from heaven. John 6:51 says, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven.”  So we see that Jesus is speaking figuratively…not literally…he compares himself to bread/manna.  Jesus later says that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, but Protestants do not take his words literally, do we?  In John 6:31 the manna is referred to as “bread from heaven”. The literal translation is “bread out of the heaven”.  Does one think that the manna was baked by the angels in heaven, and then was hurled by the Father towards the earth at the speed of light, and then landed on the desert floor?   When something (or someone) is described as having come from God, it means that its/his source can be attributed to God. The source of the manna can be attributed to God, therefore the manna is described as “bread out of heaven”. The “source” of Jesus is the Father, and therefore Jesus could correctly state that he came from heaven (i.e. from God). But such a statement does not mean that Jesus pre-existed in heaven before his birth, no more than it means that the manna pre-existed in heaven before it appeared in the desert. Jesus was misunderstood by the Jews, for the Jews took him literally. As a result, many of Jesus' disciples forsook him.  In spite of all this, it is worth noting what Peter said at the conclusion of John 6… John 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. From the context of Hebrew Culture – The Bible is filled with picture stories describing certain truths and concepts. This is in line with the concrete way in which the Hebrews thought. The Gospels are full of parables taught by Christ. In this case comparing himself to the bread of life. (manna) Jesus speaking to his disciples – “So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” Were these disciples sent from heaven too? Are they going to ascend to where they came from? I come to these conclusions by this method. 1. I read the verse and form a hypothesis and then I test it. 2. I considered the context both immediate and throughout all of scripture. Including any verses that talk about the same subject. 3. I studied the words in their original language. 4. I searched out any impact the Hebrew culture of the time might have. 5. I looked for any way that my conclusions might negatively impact the character of God or the mission of Christ. 6. (much like 5) I looked for fruit good or bad from my conclusions. —AND FINALLY — 7.  I researched what teachers and other students have said about these verses. (sometimes I find their words more clear and concise then mine and I use them) Sometimes (depending on the subject) I even employ debate forums to see what other say. How does Mike come to his conclusions?  It’s none of your business!!!!!

This whole post is a bunch of poppycock written by who knows.  It is all conjecture that is so far reached it is actually trying to rewrite the scriptures.

And NONE of it answers my two simple questions I've asked you.  Answer the questions DIRECTLY or concede this scripture.

Do you ever take scriptures at face value Martian?  If scripture quoted a man who said, “Today, I turned 50 years old”, you would be arguing that it was a parable, or 50 really meant 5 in the Hebrew culture, or years meant “ages”, or some other dumb crap.

I will answer briefly to your long post.  In the future, please try to go a point at a time.

Quote

2.The bread “from heaven” (vs. 31) did not mean that it was actually manufacture d in heaven and descended through the atmosphere, but rather that it was produced on the earth by God's Holy Spirit power.

Prove that statement scripturally.

Quote

3.Similarly, Christ came down from heaven, not literally, since it was the Holy Spirit which descended upon the virgin Mary to effect the conception.

How does this statement about the Holy Spirit and Mary deny that the pre-existent Jesus was reborn as flesh?  And how does it refute the adult Jesus saying he would ascend to where he was before?  What does the word “ascend” mean anyway, Martian?

The rest of the post was unfounded opinions like this:

Quote

The disciples did not take Jesus' statement literally.

How do you know that?

Try a little harder, shorter and more to the point Martian.  If you think any of this hogwash is credible, re-post it one point at a time.  I won't play the “everything at the speed of light” confusion game with you.

mike

[barley]

Quote (942767 @ July 29 2010,09:46)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,14:28) Hello All, Does John 6:62 prove Jesus pre-existed?  I say yes.  What say you all? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! mike Hi Mike: No, it does not prove that he preexisted as a sentient person. Granted it is a little difficult to understand what Jesus meant by the scripture that you quote, but if you will read it in context you will understand. First of all he said this: 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 6:51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Quote John 6:56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him Quote John 6:62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. And so, bread of life that came down from heaven = words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life And we know that his body was conceived of the Holy Ghost, and it was the Father who spoke through him (the bread of life = the words that he spoke that are spirit and are life), and the blood that he shed for us at calvary is the “drink indeed” to which he refers.  “Eat his flesh and drink his blood”. I hope that this will help you to understand. Love in Christ, Marty

942767,

Great job.

From whence was the manna?  Might it be useful to point out that Moses' bread was from heaven.  Psalm 78:23-24.

This is kind of a silly line of thought, yet is it no less silly than “preexistence”.

Does that literally mean that God has a bakery next to his throne, and some angels or cherubims were given the task of baking manna?  If the manna literally came from heaven, why?  Couldn't God find some way of producing it here on earth?

What if the manna ascended back up to where it was before?  

Certainly, as you have pointed out, a more honest look at scripture would do everyone well.

barley

[barley]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2010,12:36)

Quote (barley @ July 29 2010,10:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,14:28) Hello All, Does John 6:62 prove Jesus pre-existed?  I say yes.  What say you all? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! mike Mikeboll64, Nope! barley Hi barley, Why not? mike

Mikeboll64,

Rather than repeat.  See 942767's posts.

He does a marvelous job of expounding on that scripture and the context.  I see no reason to add or modify his posts.

barley

[mikeboll64]

Quote (barley @ July 30 2010,13:57)

Does that literally mean that God has a bakery next to his throne, and some angels or cherubims were given the task of baking manna?  If the manna literally came from heaven, why?  Couldn't God find some way of producing it here on earth? What if the manna ascended back up to where it was before?

Hi barley,

How do you know God doesn't have a bakery?  Seriously, how do you know the specifics of how God supplied the manna?

You said:

Quote

What if the manna ascended back up to where it was before?

Now you're getting somewhere.  What if it did?  What would that mean to you?  Think about it……..ASCENDED to where it was before, added to the fact it came FROM HEAVEN.  Hmmm……Since you apparently KNOW God “made the manna on earth” somehow, how would you answer the “ascended” part?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (barley @ July 30 2010,14:05)

Mikeboll64, Rather than repeat. See 942767's posts. He does a marvelous job of expounding on that scripture and the context. I see no reason to add or modify his posts. barley

Okay, I can live with your answer to the “manna” post for now.

mike

[martian]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2010,13:06)

Quote (martian @ July 30 2010,02:35) You say- But before you start, please DIRECTLY answer the bolded two parts of my last post like I asked. Reply- Your questions have no importance at all if I am dealing with a dishonest researcher. Your process of interpretation is a sham, invented to snare scripturally uneducated into your false doctrine. I am not saying this personally about you but your process of interpretation disgusts me. Coward!   Come on Martian……this is only the second of about 15 scriptures I'm going to hit you guys with.  Are all 15 wrong?  Am I interpreting all 15 wrong?  Am I using the wrong definition in all 15?  Am I missing something in the context in all 15 of them? This is what I want to find out.  So, one by one, enlighten me on the error of my ways O great one!   Show me your Hebrew and Greek culture expertise and answer my only two questions I've asked of you. And stop trying to run using the guise of “your methods of study aren't up to my standards, so I'm not going to debate with you”. mike

Sorry charlie,
In my world I do not put dishonest people in charge of telling me what I will post and what I will not. I do not care what you think of my posts. I am not posting to satisfy your ego. (As if it needed any more inflation)
There are people out there reading that see very clearly the dishonest way you treat scripture. They may not be able to articulate it but they can understand and say amen to my posts.

[martian]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2010,13:34)

Quote (martian @ July 30 2010,03:13) Mike says he checks the context. This is untrue. Context means you check any other scriptures having to do with the subject. To say that Christ ascended to a literal place he was before presupposes that he was there to begin with. John 6:33 “For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven.” John 6:38 “I came down from heaven.” John 6:51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven.” John 6:58 “This is that bread which came down from heaven.” Problem: These passages are considered to be proof that Jesus existed in heaven prior to his coming to the earth. Solution: 1.The words of this chapter were an “hard saying” (vs. 60) and as a result “many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him”. (vs. 66). An understanding of the analogy with the manna provides the key to the right understanding of this passage. 2.The bread “from heaven” (vs. 31) did not mean that it was actually manufactured in heaven and descended through the atmosphere, but rather that it was produced on the earth by God's Holy Spirit power. 3.Similarly, Christ came down from heaven, not literally, since it was the Holy Spirit which descended upon the virgin Mary to effect the conception. (Luke 1:35). “From heaven” emphasizes he was sourced from God (i.e., his father was God) and his teaching was also sourced from God 4.. Unlike the manna which profited only temporarily, his words were “spirit” and “life”. (vs. 63). To help us understand Jesus' words in John 6, it is useful to compare them with those of John 16:28-30 John 16:28 “I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again, and going to the Father.” 29 His disciples said, “Lo, now You are speaking plainly, and are not using a figure of speech. 30 “Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.” In John 16:28, Jesus stated that he “came forth from the Father”. The Father, of course, is in heaven. So when Jesus makes mention that he (Jesus) came down from heaven, it means the same thing as “coming forth from the Father”. So then, what does it mean to “come forth from the Father”?  One should not take his words literally, but rather Jesus' statement should be read figuratively.  How do we know this for certain?  In John 16:30 notice how the disciples understood Jesus' statement. When the disciples heard Jesus say, “I came forth from the Father”, they understood these words NOT to mean that Jesus pre-existed in heaven, and came down and took up habitation in Mary's womb. No! Rather, the disciples understood Jesus' statement as meaning, “We know that you know all things, and have no need for anyone to question you; by THIS we believe that You came from God.”  The disciples did not take Jesus' statement literally.  They understood Jesus as speaking in figures. This figure of speech is also repeated in John 6.  In John 6:42 the Jews ask, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?” The Jews stumbled over Jesus' words, for they took Jesus statement literally. In trying to explain what he meant, Jesus quotes from the OT… John 6:45 “It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught of God.' So we see that “being taught of God” is what is meant by “coming forth from God”. It is a figure of speech, and not to be taken literally. If we continue to read in John 6, we will see that Jesus often speaks figuratively… In John 6,  you will see that Jesus is comparing himself to the manna from heaven. John 6:51 says, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven.”  So we see that Jesus is speaking figuratively…not literally…he compares himself to bread/manna.  Jesus later says that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, but Protestants do not take his words literally, do we?  In John 6:31 the manna is referred to as “bread from heaven”. The literal translation is “bread out of the heaven”.  Does one think that the manna was baked by the angels in heaven, and then was hurled by the Father towards the earth at the speed of light, and then landed on the desert floor?   When something (or someone) is described as having come from God, it means that its/his source can be attributed to God. The source of the manna can be attributed to God, therefore the manna is described as “bread out of heaven”. The “source” of Jesus is the Father, and therefore Jesus could correctly state that he came from heaven (i.e. from God). But such a statement does not mean that Jesus pre-existed in heaven before his birth, no more than it means that the manna pre-existed in heaven before it appeared in the desert. Jesus was misunderstood by the Jews, for the Jews took him literally. As a result, many of Jesus' disciples forsook him.  In spite of all this, it is worth noting what Peter said at the conclusion of John 6… John 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. From the context of Hebrew Culture – The Bible is filled with picture stories describing certain truths and concepts. This is in line with the concrete way in which the Hebrews thought. The Gospels are full of parables taught by Christ. In this case comparing himself to the bread of life. (manna) Jesus speaking to his disciples – “So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” Were these disciples sent from heaven too? Are they going to ascend to where they came from? I come to these conclusions by this method. 1. I read the verse and form a hypothesis and then I test it. 2. I considered the context both immediate and throughout all of scripture. Including any verses that talk about the same subject. 3. I studied the words in their original language. 4. I searched out any impact the Hebrew culture of the time might have. 5. I looked for any way that my conclusions might negatively impact the character of God or the mission of Christ. 6. (much like 5) I looked for fruit good or bad from my conclusions. —AND FINALLY — 7.  I researched what teachers and other students have said about these verses. (sometimes I find their words more clear and concise then mine and I use them) Sometimes (depending on the subject) I even employ debate forums to see what other say. How does Mike come to his conclusions?  It’s none of your business!!!!! This whole post is a bunch of poppycock written by who knows.  It is all conjecture that is so far reached it is actually trying to rewrite the scriptures. And NONE of it answers my two simple questions I've asked you.  Answer the questions DIRECTLY or concede this scripture. Do you ever take scriptures at face value Martian?  If scripture quoted a man who said, “Today, I turned 50 years old”, you would be arguing that it was a parable, or 50 really meant 5 in the Hebrew culture, or years meant “ages”, or some other dumb crap. I will answer briefly to your long post.  In the future, please try to go a point at a time. Quote 2.The bread “from heaven” (vs. 31) did not mean that it was actually manufactured in heaven and descended through the atmosphere, but rather that it was produced on the earth by God's Holy Spirit power. Prove that statement scripturally. Quote 3.Similarly, Christ came down from heaven, not literally, since it was the Holy Spirit which descended upon the virgin Mary to effect the conception. How does this statement about the Holy Spirit and Mary deny that the pre-existent Jesus was reborn as flesh?  And how does it refute the adult Jesus saying he would ascend to where he was before?  What does the word “ascend” mean anyway, Martian? The rest of the post was unfounded opinions like this: Quote The disciples did not take Jesus' statement literally. How do you know that? Try a little harder, shorter and more to the point Martian.  If you think any of this hogwash is credible, re-post it one point at a time.  I won't play the “everything at the speed of light” confusion game with you. mike

You say-

Do you ever take scriptures at face value Martian? If scripture quoted a man who said, “Today, I turned 50 years old”, you would be arguing that it was a parable, or 50 really meant 5 in the Hebrew culture, or years meant “ages”, or some other dumb crap.

Reply-
No I do not take English translations at face value as you do. Nor do I try to form conclusions about them without research. Nor do I try to understand them from a Western Cultural perspective when they were written in a totally different Eastern culture. Nor do I take one scripture out of context and put a conclusion to it.
I do not need to do those dishonest things. That’s why we have you?

[Author]

Posts