Preexistence

[kenrch]

Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 25 2007,09:25)

Quote Ok let me see if I'm understanding you.  The Son of God had the Holy Spirit (God's Spirit) then when conceived in Mary God gave the Son of God an additional Human spirit.  So Jesus was born with the Spirit of God AND the spirit of man. So if Jesus was born having the Spirit of God what was it that HE received when HE was baptized?  Did the Spirit leave then come back? Steve I'm not being “smart” far from it I'm just trying to understand. God bless, Ken Ken; The miracle of the Holy Spirit conceiving Christ was certainly that of a body.  A body thou hast prepared for me.  As human beings we have a spirit given to us from God.  He lights every man that comes into the world.  When a person is born again the human spirit is joined with the Lord and he that is joined with the Lord is one spirit according to Paul.  The infilling of the Holy Spirit as taught by many is subsequent to being born again with the evidence of speaking in tongues, etc.   Christ was given the Spirit without measure and that may have occurred at his baptism, but the scriptures are silent as just to when it occurred.  Just as the scriptures are silent with regards to when exactly got lights up an unborn in the womb.  I do not claim to have an answer for when it occurs.   The whole point of my post was to show that God lights every man so why would it be so difficult for God to incarnate his son by the spirit in Mary.  The exact whys and hows which you are attempting to understand is beyond the scope of my post. Steven

So if Jesus was born having the Spirit of God what was it that HE received when HE was baptized? Did the Spirit leave then come back?

So you don't know?

[Mr. Steve]

Ken;

At the baptism of Christ may have been when Christ received the spirit without measure. That does not mean the spirit ever left him. We only have the spirit by measure, that's why we have gifts of the spirit, not the fullness.

Steven

[Mr. Steve]

Ken;

On another note, Christ definitely had his own spirit. Remember, when he was on the cross he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit. He was given up the holy spirit, it was the spirit that was given to him as a man when he came into the world. The Father lights every man, even his own son, that comes into the world.

Steven

[Mr. Steve]

Quote

He was given up the holy spirit…

Should have read, “He was not giving up the Holy Spirit”

[kenrch]

Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 25 2007,12:11)

Ken; At the baptism of Christ may have been when Christ received the spirit without measure.  That does not mean the spirit ever left him.  We only have the spirit by measure, that's why we have gifts of the spirit, not the fullness. Steven

Then Jesus was born with the “Spirit” He had before as the Son of God in heaven AND a human spirit as you and I?

[david]

comments?

Quote

Ok, I looked up that word myself. I'm not used to strong's concordance, but it is #3784 for those who care or know what that means. Hbr 2:17 Wherefore [3606] in [2596] all things [3956] it behoved him [3784] (5707) to be made like [3666] (5683) unto [his] brethren [80], That number or word apparently means: 1. to owe 1. to owe money, be in debt for 1. that which is due, the debt 2. metaph. the goodwill due How can a plan “owe” or how could a plan be “behooved” to do this? A person can be obligated or behooved to do something. this is the way NAS translates that word in various places: had 1, have 1, indebted 2, must 1, obligated 3, ought 15, owe 4, owed 4, owes 1, responsible 1, should 2 And, here's how the KJ translates that word in various places: ought 15, owe 7, be bound 2, be (one's) duty 2, be a debtor 1, be guilty 1, be indebted 1, miscellaneous 7 How can a plan “ought” to do anything? How can it be obliged or behooved to do something? How can it be bound or responsible to do anything? A person can be any of these things. A plan cannot.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 25 2007,08:46)

The Word was made flesh…..the Word became Jesus. It wasn't already Jesus. This is where the confusion comes in for me. Jesus did not come on the scene until he was conceived. So, JESUS couldn't have been with the Father prior to his earthly birth. So what was with the Father? The “spirit” of Jesus? Curious….

In other words Jesus is just a man (albeit a perfect man).
If that is the case, then he is lower than the angels.

i.e., under this hypothesis, angels are spirit beings who are older than men and higher than men and that would have to include Jesus.

I guess if Satan is a fallen angel, then he might think he has a chance against a mere man.

But in actual fact the Jesus who defeated the enemy is greater than all the angles, even the archangels.

God created all things through him and for him. He is the firstborn of all creation, not just among men, and he is the image of the invisible God and only he can see him and declare him.

So if Jesus didn't preexist as the Logos that was with God or at least if he wasn't the first of God's works, then no one could no about the invisible God pre-2000 or so years ago.

Scripture says that he existed, this is the mystery. To believe otherwise means to throw out some scripture and it also doesn't make sense if he is the only one who can declare the invisible God.

1 Timothy 6:15-16
15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

John 6:46
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

Luke 20:41-44
41 Then Jesus said to them, “How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David?
42 David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:
” 'The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
43 until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.” '
44 David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?”

[Proclaimer]

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 22 2007,10:50)

You can't even see what you are supporting. By separating Unitarians from Christians, you are saying that they are not Christians, and by implication, lost.

Incorrect kejonn.

They call themselves Unitarians and Trinitarians and they have these names because they wish to be separate in identity with other Christians because of their unique beliefs.

I am only accepting that reality and working with it. I know it is not perfect, but that is what men have done.

I didn't create this or do it myself.

What you say I imply is incorrect. I know it is incorrect, because I know why I said what I said, and your reason was certainly not it.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 22 2007,10:50)

You say you don't like to be labeled but if you choose to label others, can you not see your own hypocrisy? T8, this may hurt, but you are giving yet another example of why people are fleeing Christianity in droves: hypocrisy.

Kejonn.

I don't label myself, but others like to label me so as to put me in a box.

Trinitarians and Unitarians have labelled themselves. I am addressing this as a reality and showing them that I think labels, denominations, are futile because they put themselves in a box.

What is it then, if I point out the box and call them by the label that they have given themselves. Am I not really trying to set them free by showing them the cage that they sit inside?

After all, Jesus called the Pharisees and Sadducees by their name and then also pointed out to them a few woes because of what they held to and practiced.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 22 2007,10:50)

In my experience, Arians are considered heretics right next to Unitarians. Welcome to the club. Too bad you think that your arian ways are superior and more deserving of the appellation of “Christian” than those who do not believe as you.

That may be so, but I am not an Arian.

Because most contemporary written material on Arianism was written by its opponents, the nature of Arius' teachings is difficult to define, so therefore how can I be a follower of someone who's teachings are not fully known?

I understand that Arius did say “We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.”

I do agree with that statement, but that surely doesn't make me an Arian.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 22 2007,10:50)

Your “truth” is highly subjective and personal. I have been around many boards on the Net and the bulk of Unitarians do not match your suppositions. You are reading an opinion of me into the typical Unitarian. I would ask that you not do that. I am not a Unitarian. I am something totally different as you may see one day.

Not sure what suppositions you are referring too.

Also I have never said you were a Unitarian, but I did note that you sounded like one. i.e., that your posts were similar in content and spirit. But I never said you were a Unitarian.

In fact Kejonn, I thought you started off so well here and your attitude was equally great with your approach to learning the truth. You even questioned whether you would become greater than thou for respecting the Sabbath like some groups or people you met do. How many people consider such things? I thought you were wise with the steps you took.

Then as quick as anything you came here and starting teaching that Jesus didn't preexist and competed against the views that said he did, with what appeard to be a better than thou attitude. I am being honest, that is how it looked.

So what did you expect? That people would just roll over and accept a new doctrine? I was also a bit surprised that you took this stance so quickly, but then again I knew it was possible. I have seen it before.

This website contains writings that prove to some people that the Trinity is a load of rubbish. But waiting in the wings are the Unitarians hoping to pluck up some of these people for themselves. But then again, every man has a free will and if he wants to become a Unitarian, then he is entitled to such, but what has such a person learned? All he has done is swapped one
problem for another.

Anyway Kejonn, you were challenged and rightly so, because if the elementary teachings of Christ are wrong, then building on that is vain. Also when plucking up the Trinity doctrine, the enemy will not take that defeat lightly and will seek to plant another tree in is place. Sometimes when a stronghold of the enemy is destroyed, then what can take its place can even be worse. This the LORD has shown me and that is why I believe that it must be followed up by a planting of the LORD.

Your posts were very similar to the posts that Unitarians make. I noted that much and admit that this is what I perceived.

But hey, you said it, “I am not a Unitarian.”

Great I am happy about that. I will take your word. I did wonder though. I am being honest. It was hard to tell the difference.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 22 2007,11:37)

Then stop using labels of others, unless you are willing for others to categorize you.

kejonn.

The difference is that some people label themselves, so I am talking to people with labels on their forehead. It stands to reason that if I wish them to remove the label, that I should give them a good reason why.

I belong to no denomination or label. So if a man labels me, then he has in effect, judged me. But if I call a Catholic a Catholic, or a Trinitarian a Trinitarian, then I am only calling them by the name/authority that they teach and I am allowed to challenge them and their authority/name.

But I come in the name of Yeshua/Jesus. That doesn't mean that I am perfect or that I am infallible, but it does mean that I claim to be under his authority because I do what I do in his name. Therefore if you call me a follower of Christ, or a believer then that is apt. But calling me an Arian is also saying that the authority I teach with is in the name and authority of a man.

You seem to be all worked up about this, but the reality is that you call me an Arian, and in truth I didn't call you a Unitarian. So why keep going on this. It is you who needs to apologise if that is why you are carrying on with this.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 25 2007,12:14)

Ken; On another note, Christ definitely had his own spirit. Remember, when he was on the cross he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit. He was given up the holy spirit, it was the spirit that was given to him as a man when he came into the world. The Father lights every man, even his own son, that comes into the world. Steven

Hi Steve.

You are right. Christ has/had a spirit.

We do too.

Romans 8:14
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

So we have a spirit and God's Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are God's children.

In fact this is how we commune with God, in spirit. Our spirit is connected with God's Spirit. This is how we are one. This is how we can be in each other. It is how Christ and God are in us.

Now men who do not have the Spirit of God, do have a spirit or the breath of God. That is why they are alive. God breathed into Adams nostrils and he lived.

But when we are baptised in the Spirit of God, it is a continual baptism. His Spirit is like a river that refreshes us. A river of life.

I also like to think of spirit like water. A drop of water dropped into a pool of water becomes one. As water can become one, spirit can too. Jesus said that he had living water, and drinking from it would mean that you would never thirst. And what do we suppose this water was?

[Mr. Steve]

Quote

Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 25 2007,12:11) Ken; At the baptism of Christ may have been when Christ received the spirit without measure. That does not mean the spirit ever left him. We only have the spirit by measure, that's why we have gifts of the spirit, not the fullness. Steven Then Jesus was born with the “Spirit” He had before as the Son of God in heaven AND a human spirit as you and I?

Jesus pre-existed with the Father so it is reasonable to conclude that many of the characteristics of his person were the same as in heaven, but the scriptures are only absolutely conclusive on one point – He was the Son of God prior.

It is interesting to note that Christ had certain powers on earth that he didn't manifest publicly or teach, but manifest privately to certain disciples. On the Mount of Transfiguration his garment turned whiter than any natural color a fuller could whiten them. This was probably the glory of God that penetrated his garments. These are all just hints as to how Christ was different. He even appeared walking on the water and was thought to be a spirit. The bible doesn't say he looked like a spirit or just that the disciples reasoned that he was a spirit. The central truth to hold is that he was the Son of God prior.

If he was not the Son of God prior then he was not the Son of God because that's exactly what he said and if he lied than he could not be the Son of God.

Many are holding that he did not pre-exist, which would make Christ a liar because he was with the Father before the foundation of the world.

Some hold that he was the Word before, which is just another way of stating he did not pre-exist because the Word is God, not the Son of God. If he was God and became the Son of God, this would make Jesus a liar, too, because he said the Father sent him from above, not that he was God and became the Son of God. Ifr a person holds that he was God and became the Son of God their holding God came himself, not that God gave his only begotten Son. What's really amazing are the anti-pre-existers that claim to be trinitarian when trinitarians hold that all three eternally co-exist. Eternal co-existence of the three in one view also denies Christ sonship because if Christ is eternal he had no beginning so he could not be a Son of God, he would have to be God.

When you understand the truth, you can almost instantly capsize any of these false claims.

Take care

Steven

[Mr. Steve]

Quote

Hi Steve. You are right. Christ has/had a spirit. We do too. Romans 8:14 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. So we have a spirit and God's Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are God's children. In fact this is how we commune with God, in spirit. Our spirit is connected with God's Spirit. This is how we are one. This is how we can be in each other. It is how Christ and God are in us. Now men who do not have the Spirit of God, do have a spirit or the breath of God. That is why they are alive. God breathed into Adams nostrils and he lived. But when we are baptised in the Spirit of God, it is a continual baptism. His Spirit is like a river that refreshes us. A river of life. I also like to think of spirit like water. A drop of water dropped into a pool of water becomes one. As water can become one, spirit can too. Jesus said that he had living water, and drinking from it would mean that you would never thirst. And what do we suppose this water was?

T8;

Thank you for your response.

Take care

Steven

[Morningstar]

Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 26 2007,07:08)

Quote Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 25 2007,12:11) Ken; At the baptism of Christ may have been when Christ received the spirit without measure.  That does not mean the spirit ever left him.  We only have the spirit by measure, that's why we have gifts of the spirit, not the fullness. Steven Then Jesus was born with the “Spirit” He had before as the Son of God in heaven AND a human spirit as you and I? Jesus pre-existed with the Father so it is reasonable to conclude that many of the characteristics of his person were the same as in heaven, but the scriptures are only absolutely conclusive on one point – He was the Son of God prior. It is interesting to note that Christ had certain powers on earth that he didn't manifest publicly or teach, but manifest privately to certain disciples.  On the Mount of Transfiguration his garment turned whiter than any natural color a fuller could whiten them.  This was probably the glory of God that penetrated his garments.  These are all just hints as to how Christ was different.  He even appeared walking on the water and was thought to be a spirit.  The bible doesn't say he looked like a spirit or just that the disciples reasoned that he was a spirit.  The central truth to hold is that he was the Son of God prior.   If he was not the Son of God prior then he was not the Son of God because that's exactly what he said and if he lied than he could not be the Son of God. Many are holding that he did not pre-exist, which would make Christ a liar because he was with the Father before the foundation of the world. Some hold that he was the Word before, which is just another way of stating he did not pre-exist because the Word is God, not the Son of God. If he was God and became the Son of God, this would make Jesus a liar, too, because he said the Father sent him from above, not that he was God and became the Son of God.  Ifr a person holds that he was God and became the Son of God their holding God came himself, not that God gave his only begotten Son.  What's really amazing are the anti-pre-existers that claim to be trinitarian when trinitarians hold that all three eternally co-exist.  Eternal co-existence of the three in one view also denies Christ sonship because if Christ is eternal he had no beginning so he could not be a Son of God, he would have to be God. When you understand the truth, you can almost instantly capsize any of these false claims. Take care Steven

Yes, God had a Son and sent him.

Not really that hard to see once you remove the metaphorical glasses of man made doctrines that most of us in the past have unfortunately been given a prescription for by Dr. Tradition.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 26 2007,07:08)

Quote Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 25 2007,12:11) Ken; At the baptism of Christ may have been when Christ received the spirit without measure.  That does not mean the spirit ever left him.  We only have the spirit by measure, that's why we have gifts of the spirit, not the fullness. Steven Then Jesus was born with the “Spirit” He had before as the Son of God in heaven AND a human spirit as you and I? Jesus pre-existed with the Father so it is reasonable to conclude that many of the characteristics of his person were the same as in heaven, but the scriptures are only absolutely conclusive on one point – He was the Son of God prior. It is interesting to note that Christ had certain powers on earth that he didn't manifest publicly or teach, but manifest privately to certain disciples.  On the Mount of Transfiguration his garment turned whiter than any natural color a fuller could whiten them.  This was probably the glory of God that penetrated his garments.  These are all just hints as to how Christ was different.  He even appeared walking on the water and was thought to be a spirit.  The bible doesn't say he looked like a spirit or just that the disciples reasoned that he was a spirit.  The central truth to hold is that he was the Son of God prior.   If he was not the Son of God prior then he was not the Son of God because that's exactly what he said and if he lied than he could not be the Son of God. Many are holding that he did not pre-exist, which would make Christ a liar because he was with the Father before the foundation of the world. Some hold that he was the Word before, which is just another way of stating he did not pre-exist because the Word is God, not the Son of God. If he was God and became the Son of God, this would make Jesus a liar, too, because he said the Father sent him from above, not that he was God and became the Son of God.  Ifr a person holds that he was God and became the Son of God their holding God came himself, not that God gave his only begotten Son.  What's really amazing are the anti-pre-existers that claim to be trinitarian when trinitarians hold that all three eternally co-exist.  Eternal co-existence of the three in one view also denies Christ sonship because if Christ is eternal he had no beginning so he could not be a Son of God, he would have to be God. When you understand the truth, you can almost instantly capsize any of these false claims. Take care Steven

mr steve

You say…

Quote

If he was not the Son of God prior then he was not the Son of God because that's exactly what he said and if he lied than he could not be the Son of God.

Where did Jesus say he was the Son of God before he was born a son?

You say…

Quote

Some hold that he was the Word before, which is just another way of stating he did not pre-exist because the Word is God, not the Son of God.

If the Word was God and not Yeshua then you are saying the Word was the Father. Therefore you are saying the Father was with the Father. Jn 1:1,2

Jn 1:2
The same (Father) was in the beginning with God.

Then that means you are saying that the Father was made flesh. Jn 1:14

Jn 1:14
And the Word (Father) was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Plus John who wrote John 1:1 also wrote Rev 19:13 before he wrote the GoJ which I believe is where he borrowed the name “Word” from and used it speaking of Yeshua in Jn 1:1.

Not to mention the first chapter of John is talking about the “Word” not the Father with over 40 pronouns.

John also confirms who the Word is in John 20:28 and 1 Jn 1:1-3 and 1 Jn 5:20.

And if this is not enough for you then look at the folowing concerning the Greek translation and the evidence that the Word is God and Yeshua.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….75;st=0

You say…

Quote

Ifr a person holds that he was God and became the Son of God their holding God came himself, not that God gave his only begotten Son.

Look at your previous statement…

You say…

Quote

Some hold that he was the Word before, which is just another way of stating he did not pre-exist because the Word is God, not the Son of God.

However you are saying the Father was made flesh.

The Word/God did come in the flesh, Yeshua. And he will come again according to Zech 14:3-9.

Unless you believe the that the Father who is the Invisible God has feet and is the King who sets on the throne for all to see.

Ah yes but he iwill set on the throne for all to see for Yeshua is the “Image of the invisible God”. The Word/God has come in the flesh.

Or maybe you believe that the Father was pierced according to Zech 12:10 and John 19:33-37….
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1311

1 Tim 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Thomas knew who he was in John 20:28.

Yeshua is the Word. Spoken of in Rev 19:13 and 1 John 1:1-3 and 1Jn 5:20. He is and was the “Eternal life” that was with the Father in the beginning and is and shall be with the Father forever.

[IM4Truth]

AND SO WILL WE, AMEN.
1 CORINTH. 15:28

Peace and Love Mrs.

[GeneBalthrop]

T8….>I left a post for you on the trinity thread Ill try to post it here

Basically If you hold to the scripture that God created all things through and for Christ. And use that as one of your proof text of Jesus' prexistence, then what do you do with this.

Isa 44:24 ..> Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer and He that formed you From the (womb), I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretches forth the heavens (ALONE); that spreadeth abroad the earth (BY MYSELF).

you either have to say we have a conunterdiction in scripture or Beleive WJ explanation of Jesus being God. But you can not believe He preexisted as some super being or as Michael the arch angle, as David say's.

The problem as i see it is that the scripture you used does not Say Jesus but Christ and Jesus may be the annointed but is not Himself the annointing, the annointing is the Spirit oF God.

So i submitt to you that your scripture you used was saying that it was God's Spirit which is the (Christo's) or annointing
that's is what God created all things through, and not Jesus.

The same applies to the rock that followed the childern of Israel in the wilderness, the rock was the Christo's or Spirit and that was what was following them in the wilderness.

You either have to accept the trinitarian idology or reject the who idea that Jesus preexisted as a person before He was born or the scriptures are counterdicting them selves.

IMO…..peace gene

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 26 2007,15:31)

T8….>I left a post for you on the trinity thread Ill try to post it here Basically If you hold to the scripture that God created all things through and for Christ. And use that as one of your proof text of Jesus' prexistence, then what do you do with this. Isa 44:24 ..> Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer and He that formed you From the (womb), I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretches forth the heavens (ALONE); that spreadeth abroad the earth (BY MYSELF). you either have to say we have a conunterdiction in scripture or Beleive WJ explanation of Jesus being God. But you can not believe He preexisted as some super being or as Michael the arch angle, as David say's. The problem as i see it is that the scripture you used does not Say Jesus but Christ and Jesus may be the annointed but is not Himself the annointing, the annointing is the Spirit oF God. So i submitt to you that your scripture you used was saying that it was God's Spirit which is the (Christo's) or annointing that's is what God created all things through, and not Jesus. The same applies to the rock that followed the childern of Israel in the wilderness, the rock was the Christo's or Spirit and that was what was following them in the wilderness. You either have to accept the trinitarian idology or reject the who idea that Jesus preexisted as a person before He was born or the scriptures are counterdicting them selves. IMO…..peace gene

GB

You quote..

Quote

Basically If you hold to the scripture that God created all things through and for Christ. And use that as one of your proof text of Jesus' prexistence, then what do you do with this. Isa 44:24 ..> Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer and He that formed you From the (womb), I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretches forth the heavens (ALONE); that spreadeth abroad the earth (BY MYSELF).

I have asked this of him many times. He says he has answered it, however I must be missing it because it seems that he always resorts back to “ye must be gods” or YHWY is the God of gods etc.

When I last pressed for an answer then he insinuated I wanted to crucify him so I let it go.

As far as I can tell he never addresed the scripture you refer to or these…

Gen 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 1:26
And God said, Let *us* make man in *our* image, after *our* likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth

Isa 37:16
O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest [between] the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.

Isa 45:18
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; *and there is none else*.

Job 9:8
Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

[Author]

Posts