Preexistence

[seek and you will find]

Mandy! Whatever the truth is about this subject we will one day know, until then I am given up posting about it, I am so tired of going back and forth, there is no sense in that. So lets agree we disagree.
Peace and Love Irene
P.S. Maybe Kathi will debate with you, she is much healthier then I am.

[Not3in1]

Quote (seek and you will find @ May 05 2008,14:35)

Mandy! Whatever the truth is about this subject we will one day know, until then I am given up posting about it, I am so tired of going back and forth, there is no sense in that. So lets agree we disagree. Peace and Love Irene P.S. Maybe Kathi will debate with you, she is much healthier then I am.

Actually I wasn't debating you on the subject at all. I was merely pointing out that other's have addressed your scriptures (because you keep saying they haven't).

But I guess I'm being nit-picky with you and I'm sorry.

Hope you're feeling better,
Mandy

[Lightenup]

Hello Mandy, WJ, and Ptr,
I'm overwhelmed by the questions I need to respond to during such a busy time right now for me with softball, soccer, track, end of school year stuff, and graduation details coming up for my high school senior not to mention a wood carving project coming due that has been two years in the making and work and home schooling. I guess that I am getting old and can't keep juggling as many balls up in the air as I used to. I may be slow to get to answering ya'll but your questions are on my mind. I'll try to get to some of them tonight.

[GeneBalthrop]

To all…….I think our biggest problem is reading into text, and slightly forcing it to say what it doesn't specifically say and thats easy to do epically if the exact words were using aren't there. I have come to see that whole doctrines have been built on things that aren't really said, or on translations that aren't totally understood, in their true context, not to mention our present translations have whole sentences that have been added and due to transliterations have changed there original meanings.

Somethings are clear others are not, Preexistence to me is not clear at all.

peace to you all…………….gene

[Lightenup]

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 03 2008,17:53)

Kathi, What do you think “Yahweh” means?

Mandy,
I think the best definition is Yahweh = “the existing One”.

[GeneBalthrop]

lightenup……the mechanical translation of Jeff Benner says's that also…Yahweh= He exists.

and elohyeim =Powers , a plural form of power, and Lord God , should be translated (HE Exists with powers) According to Mr. Benner, thats the way the ancient Hebrew saw God. The bible does say there are Seven Spirits of God, that go to and fro throw out the earth, maybe each Spirit equals a power he has. Just speculation but interesting.

peace to you and your…………….gene

[Lightenup]

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 03 2008,17:52)

Hi Kathi, Thanks for sharing all that you believe. I will not pick a part your belief system.  Suffice it to say that we do not agree with one another.  I do not believe that Mary was just a flesh-factory that allowed Jesus to don skin, but that she actually contributed to her son and added her DNA.  This is true conception and birth.  Otherwise, why would God even bother to have his son go through this process?  Why not just “beam him down”? That being said though, I can see where the scriptures point towards your belief.  I also see where they point towards mine.  Nothing is, “clear” as some are led to believe.  Therefore, I truly cannot find fault with your belief other than to say we do not agree and I see it a bit different, which I have shared. Take care, Mandy

Mandy,
Thanks for your reply.

I agree, I do not believe that Mary was just a”flesh-factory” that allowed Jesus to don skin either.

I believe that she actually did contribute her DNA to the conception. It was her ovum afterall that was fertilized by the power of the Holy Spirit with God's holy seed. This seed did not carry the sinful part of the nature of man with it.

And, just like us, this embryo was given a spirit.

Now, I understand the spirit of a man as something that God puts in him and does not come from the contribution of the sperm and egg.

It is my belief that the spirit that God put in this particular child actually had a beginning and was living and active before the foundation of the world. It was the spirit of the only begotten Son of God which possibly, before this baby, embodied a variety of “tents”.

At the appointed time, this spirit of the Son emptied himself and humbled himself to prepare for his mission as a man.

This spirit of the Son was sent by His Father and went willingly to fill this human baby “tent” and was named Jesus.

He had the limits of a baby. A baby's brain has instincts or memory and is without knowledge. So, I think that Jesus did not have knowledge of His pre-existence while he was a baby.

The Most High God, the Father of this child, took His Son and showed Him all necessary things and gave Him all necessary things and filled Him with His own spirit. God, His father,as well as Mary and Joseph taught Jesus and He grew in wisdom.

This child was much like us except that He had no inherited sin, and the spirit within Him was the spirit of the only begotten Son of God that existed long before the conception of His earthly body.

This is my understanding and I am but clay in the hands of a potter. This is not meant to appear dogmatic, it is just the way I see it through my “glasses”. I have prayerfully sought the understanding I have.

There ya go Mandy, my two cents worth

[Lightenup]

Mandy,
I meant to say:
A baby's brain has instincts but no memory and is without knowledge.
Editing rights would be nice.

[seek and you will find]

Kathi Just ask t8 for editing rights He will give it to you, that is how I got mine. Just send t8 a P.M. Editing rights does come in handy.
Love Irene

[GeneBalthrop]

lightenup…..why woulds God do it that way, what example would that be for us if He took a preexisting perfect being , killed him and rebirth him in Mary, how does that relate with Us seeing we weren't perfect in a preexisting life as you say Jesus was. He wouldn't actually be in (every way) like his brethren would he then.

Now let's look at it from the perspective of a really Human being who came into existence like us, with the only difference being God Formed His DNA in Mary's womb, and a truly human being come into existence, and God was with Him from berth, because He was the Planned child God ordainded to come from the beginning.

With that senerio i see how he was in every way like me in all things and God the Father can keep a person like me from sinning Just like He did Jesus, because Jesus had no advantage over me except the Father was with him in the beginning, and keep Him from sinning.

So i have hope God the Father can do for me what He did for Jesus and i truly can grow to the (FULL MEASURE) of Christ.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 05 2008,16:39)

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 03 2008,17:53) Kathi, What do you think “Yahweh” means? Mandy, I think the best definition is Yahweh = “the existing One”.

Hi Kathi,

Then how can two be called this? Unless, God is the existing One, and Jesus is also the existing One? That tends to lean towards trinity beliefs to me?

Hey, I comletely understand about the hectic schedule. You do what is best for you. We're always here…..debating something or other.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 05 2008,18:55)

I believe that she actually did contribute her DNA to the conception. It was her ovum afterall that was fertilized by the power of the Holy Spirit with God's holy seed. This seed did not carry the sinful part of the nature of man with it.

Wow, what a great 2 cents worth, thank you!

Regarding what you said above, ponder this and give me your thoughts when you have time:

If Jesus was a preexistent son and then placed inside of Mary, and then Mary added her DNA to the mix…..what would that make Jesus? Would he be the “same” preexistent son as before? Or would he be altered by the addition of Mary's DNA?

It is my belief that he was altered. And therefore there was really no need for him to preexistent in the first place.

When a man and women come together and create a child, that child is the product of both parents. A new individual (never before alive in any way). This child now is a fusion, if you will, of both Mom and Dad. Therefore he also carries with him the inherited values of each parent. He may look like his Dad and have the musical ability of his Mom, for instance.

Do you see how this preexistent view and the view that Jesus underwent true conception do not mix? They oppose one another, in my opinion.

Thanks, Kathi. I value your view and your time. Take care,
Mandy

[seek and you will find]

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 31 2007,03:55)

Quote (Adam Pastor @ May 31 2007,03:22) Because of (a) the obvious meaning of the word genesis; and (b) the fact that Matthew uses this word twice to describe the genesis i.e. beginning of Jesus the Christ [Matthew 1:1,18] which of course contradicts trinitarian (as well as arian) preexistence/theology … Catholic scribes therefore added an extra 'n' to genesis in verse 18 in order to change the context from beginning/origination to birth Source: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehrman, (1993), p. 75-76; Like I said, FYI Adam, interesting stuff!  Thank you for adding this; I'll do some ivestigating on my own with this information. By the way, your Avatar (is that what our little pictures by our names are?) freaks me out a little bit – I like it   Feel free to jump in here anywhere, Adam.  I know that you have studied some of the same authors and Unitarians that I have and have come to some of the same conclusions that I have.  What I am trying to do by chatting with Nick and t8 is to see if what I adopted as truth can stand up under their truth (which is different than mine).  So far, I feel like my truth is holding it's own.  It's not about pride in being right, it's about knowing God and his Son – the who and the what.  That is what I desire so badly in my inner most heart.  To know him and his Son who he sent. Have a good one, today!  It's supposed to be 80 degrees here today.

Here you said ” who He send, where did He send Him from?”
Love Irene

[seek and you will find]

Quote (t8 @ May 04 2008,21:57)

The real issue is that scripture teaches that Jesus had glory with the Father before the world began and when he died here on earth he returned to that glory. It doesn't say that he entered into that glory for the first time. He is also the offspring of David. But he is also the root. He came down from Heaven and Jesus even says “to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen”. For me it is a matter of believing what is written rather than twisting that which is written to fit a predefined theology. If a scripture doesn't make sense to me, or contradicts what I may believe about something, then I do not ignore it or change its meaning. I believe it is better for me to change than try and change that which is inspired by God.

Mandy  It really makes me sad that when scriptures states that Jesus was the firstborn of all creation, some will read something else in it. When it says that Jesus created all things
which are in Heaven and that are in  the earth, some just don't get it.
When it says that Jesus was first in all, firstborn of all creation, that includes the Angels, and firstborn of the dead. So what, sO HE WILL HAVE PREEMINECE IN ALL.
What is preeminence? First in all. He now sits at the right hand of the Father in glory which He had before the world was.
Why is that so hard to understand?
When it says in John 1:1 ” In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and He was with God. Gen. says that it was US that created man, and it was in OUR image.
Some will say that that teaches the trinity. But if you understand that God is a title, we will know the truth.
 There are many God's, like the God of this world, who is Satan etc. Since there are other sciptures that tell us that the Father is greater then the Son, we have to remember that.
Not only that one day we to will be calleds God's when in 1  
Corinth. 15:28……. that God will be all in all.”
One day also we all will be in unity with all of the word of God, right now only a few. Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount said that much. The road ist steep and few will find it. How few, I don't know. Neither do I think that I know it all. We all fall short of the flory of God. If we had the Holy Spirit full strenght we would understand, but not all has been revealed.
Only to the saints has God revealed all of the truth, and who they are, who knows. Again I think most of us want to believe we have all of the truth, but I don't think so.
Peace and Love Irene
P.S. You are saying He came down from Heaven but do you believe that? So much for making a short Posts.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Ptr

It seems to me you are not new around here. Whose alias are you?

Is that you kejonn? Nope can’t be kejonn, he doesn’t believe in a family of “god’s”.

Morningstar? Could be, for he definitely believes in a “family of god’s”. So who are you?   Oh well, it really doesn’t matter anyway.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 04 2008,11:06)

Didn’t Jesus say…? To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Luke 23:43

Quote (Ptr745 @ May 04 2008,21:59)

Actually, that isn't what he said, the words have been twisted around in the English to twist what he was saying, to fit the doctrine of the English translators. This is what the Greek says… CLV Lk 23:43 And Jesus said to him,  “Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise.”

What is this obscure version “CLV”? I have looked and this is all I can find.

Wikipedia
The Concordant Literal Version is an English translation of the Bible, started by Adolph Ernst Knoch. The concordant method is an attempt to translate every Greek or Hebrew word in only one word in English, which fits in all appearances. The target is that the influence of the personal view of the translator or editor gets lower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordant_Literal_Version

Of course the obvious question is who is Adolph Ernst Knoch, and how is it that his “personal view” of which single English word to be used should invalidate the works of hundreds of scholars?

Wikopedia has no information on this guy. In fact there is very little info on him. The following link gives some general info on him but tells nothing of his scholarly credentials or abilities to translate Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.
http://www.studyshelf.com/knoch.htm

However, I did find some information about some of his work which doesn’t shed a very good light on his ability to interpret the scriptures.
http://www.1john57.com/knoch.htm

Adolph Ernst Knoch, tells of his method for translation…

“Thus it was that the idea of a concordant version suggested itself to my mind. Instead of correcting current translations occasionally by a concordance, why not make a version which is already concordant, so that the simple reading of it will give all the benefits otherwise won by prolonged and arduous study?”
http://www.scripture4all.org/ISA_hel….hod.htm

So unless you can show me anymore info, from what I can see this guy “decides” which definition of a word is more accurate. Why should I trust his opinion?

It seems to me he is saying that we have no need to look anywhere else in Greek or Hebrew because the buck stops here!

So this begs the question, “I suppose he is the final authority in how a Greek word is to be translated?”

So let’s look and see how his opinion of the verse in question here stacks up.

KJV Luke 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
King James Version 1611, 1769

NKJV
And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

NLT
And Jesus replied, “I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

NIV
Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society

ESV
And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

NASB
And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation

RSV
And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.

ASV
And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.
American Standard Version 1901 Info

Young
and Jesus said to him, `Verily I say to thee, To-day with me thou shalt be in the paradise.'
Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info

Darby
And Jesus said to him, Verily I say to thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info

Webster
And Jesus said to him, Verily I say to thee, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info

HNV
Yeshua said to him, “Assuredly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info

This is only a few of the translations and none of them imply what Mr. Knoch does in the CLV.

In fact I couldn’t find any other translation that matches Mr. Knock’s translation.

More translations disagreeing with CLV is found here…
http://scripturetext.com/luke/23-43.htm

Besides, it would make no sense for Jesus to say “Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise”. That would be like me saying “I am telling you today that you will be with me fishing next week.”

Further proof that he didn’t say it this way is the fact that every time he used the term “Verily to you I am saying”, he never includes Today. Check it out for your self. Whenever Jesus used the word “verily” at the beginning of a discourse it meant “truly” and he followed it up with “I say unto you”.
An example of this is…

Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, “That this night”, before the #### crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Notice he didn’t say, “Verily this night I say unto you”, and of course it was that very night that Judas betrayed him.

There are no examples anywhere of Mr. Knoch’s rendering of the verse found anywhere in the Greek NT.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 04 2008,11:06)

Jesus also said… Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. (John 10:17, 18) Notice the reaction of the people to these words in John 10:19-21).

Quote (Ptr745 @ May 04 2008,21:59)

And this is exactly why we are told to search the scriptures. Read the Greek, it doesn't say he will raise himself again, it says he lays down his life, but that he will get it back again… CLV Jn 10:17 “Therefore the Father is loving Me, seeing that I am laying down My soul that I may be getting it again. 18 No one is taking it away from Me, but I am laying it down of Myself. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to get it again. This precept I got from My Father.”

Again the CLV has it wrong.

KJV Jn 10:17
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
King James Version 1611, 1769
 
NKJV – Jhn 10:17 – “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

NIV – Jhn 10:17 – The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life–only to take it up again.
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society

ESV – Jhn 10:17 – “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

NASB – Jhn 10:17 – “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again.
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation
 
RSV – Jhn 10:17 – For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.
ASV – Jhn 10:17 – Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.
American Standard Version 1901 Info

Young – Jhn 10:17 – `Because of this doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that again I may take it;
Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info

Darby – Jhn 10:17 – On this account the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again.
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info

Webster – Jhn 10:17 – Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info

HNV – Jhn 10:17 – Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.

Here is some more…
http://biblecc.com/john/10-17.htm

Anyway this would line up beautifully with John 2:19-21 where Jesus said…

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

I love the way you skirted around this when you said…

Quote (Ptr745 @ May 04 2008,21:59)

“Again, most of what Jesus said were the words of the Father, not of himself.”

But why didn’t Jesus just say my Father will raise it up? Can you give me any example where it was the Father speaking in him and not Jesus himself? John and the disciples must have been confused for John says…

But he (Jesus) spake of the temple of his (Jesus) body.

When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which **Jesus had said**.

Ptr, let me save the two of us some time. I haven’t addressed your other points for this reason.

A while back I told another brother here that if he doesn’t accept the current translations as grounds for the discussions that we were having then it was a waste of our time. Because every time he would disagree with the Translation then he would just resort to accusing the translators of corruption and bias. This in my opinion is very weak and sets up a dichotomy in which there is no level playing field.

In fact I noticed that in a previous post you quoted…

Quote (Ptr745 @ May 04 2008,17:23)

Acts 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Acts 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. Acts 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly; Acts 13:33  God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. 1Corinthians 6:14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. 1Corinthians 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 1Peter 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Psalms 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (sheol – the grave); neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Peter explains that Ps 16:10 is a prophecy from David, not speaking of himself, but speaking of Jesus Christ…. ACTS 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (hades – the grave), neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.

All this was in KJV. Yet you run to the CLV for verses that doesn’t suit your belief and totally ignore all the other translations calling them corrupt and biased.

See how frustrating that could be trying to have dialogue only for one of us to claim “corrupt and biased” when a scripture doesn’t agree with our doctrine?

I am always amazed at the apologist that come here with no abilities in interpreting Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages who make arguments against the 100s of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic scholars most of whom gave their entire lives and 1000,s of hours to bring us the current translations which we have with very little variances.

But if you want to bring in your CLV fine, however bring it with some solid evidence as to why it should be interpreted that way, rather than just making statements like…

Quote (Ptr745 @ May 04 2008,21:59)

Actually, that isn't what he said, the words have been twisted around in the English to twist what he was saying, to fit the doctrine of the English translators. and The jesus you are speaking of is the Jesus of the English translators

Modern day Christendom is based on the current “English” translations we have. Like it or not, this is the truth. If you or anyone else doesn’t like the current versions then write a new one and start a new religion like the JWs, or at least show me some credentials for translating Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

At least give me some concrete evidence that can be measured against what we have, and not ambiguous apologetics.  

So if you want to criticize the translators and the many English translations, that is your right, however, I do not want to chase rabbit trails or delve outside of the translations we have into some obscure world of apologetics. I would rather give you the ball and leave the field.

Blessings!

[Not3in1]

Quote (seek and you will find @ May 06 2008,08:35)

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 31 2007,03:55) Quote (Adam Pastor @ May 31 2007,03:22) Because of (a) the obvious meaning of the word genesis; and (b) the fact that Matthew uses this word twice to describe the genesis i.e. beginning of Jesus the Christ [Matthew 1:1,18] which of course contradicts trinitarian (as well as arian) preexistence/theology … Catholic scribes therefore added an extra 'n' to genesis in verse 18 in order to change the context from beginning/origination to birth Source: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehrman, (1993), p. 75-76; Like I said, FYI Adam, interesting stuff!  Thank you for adding this; I'll do some ivestigating on my own with this information. By the way, your Avatar (is that what our little pictures by our names are?) freaks me out a little bit – I like it   Feel free to jump in here anywhere, Adam.  I know that you have studied some of the same authors and Unitarians that I have and have come to some of the same conclusions that I have.  What I am trying to do by chatting with Nick and t8 is to see if what I adopted as truth can stand up under their truth (which is different than mine).  So far, I feel like my truth is holding it's own.  It's not about pride in being right, it's about knowing God and his Son – the who and the what.  That is what I desire so badly in my inner most heart.  To know him and his Son who he sent. Have a good one, today!  It's supposed to be 80 degrees here today.   Here you said ” who He send, where did He send Him from?” Love Irene

Can God not send his son by giving him life and causing him to go through the birthing process? Why does he already have to exist to be “sent”? I believe this is an interpretation thing.

Where did he send him from? Where do sons come from?

[Not3in1]

Quote

Mandy It really makes me sad that when scriptures states that Jesus was the firstborn of all creation, some will read something else in it. When it says that Jesus created all things which are in Heaven and that are in the earth, some just don't get it.

Essentially what you are saying is that it makes you sad that other's do not believe like you do. And that other's must be lacking because they “….just don't get it.” You are still not open to hear that other has valid views of the same scriptures that you find so “clear”. There is really no discussing anything with you until you are open enough to even consider there may be another view other than your own. Sorry, but it's true.

Quote

When it says that Jesus was first in all, firstborn of all creation, that includes the Angels, and firstborn of the dead. So what, sO HE WILL HAVE PREEMINECE IN ALL. What is preeminence? First in all. He now sits at the right hand of the Father in glory which He had before the world was. Why is that so hard to understand?

Why is this so hard to understand? Because you have only one view on these certain scriptures and you will see no other. Still, I will say again that there are other ways to interpret “firstborn”. It doesn't have to mean that Jesus was literally the firstborn over creation (this world). Other's have interpreted as meaning that he is the firstborn (and many brothers will follow) of the second world. This to me makes more sense.

Quote

When it says in John 1:1 ” In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and He was with God. Gen. says that it was US that created man, and it was in OUR image.

Again, if you are willing to entertain another view, pick up any NIV Study Bible and read their interpretation of those passages. You may be surprised as to what they think “us” and “our” point to.

Quote

P.S. You are saying He came down from Heaven but do you believe that?

I most certainly believe that Jesus came from his Father. His Father is in heaven. So, yes, he came down from heaven.
Thanks,
Mandy

[Ptr745]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 06 2008,09:59)

Ptr It seems to me you are not new around here. Whose alias are you? Is that you kejonn? Nope can’t be kejonn, he doesn’t believe in a family of “god’s”. Morningstar? Could be, for he definitely believes in a “family of god’s”. So who are you?   Oh well, it really doesn’t matter anyway.

I'm am nobody's alias.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 04 2008,11:06)

What is this obscure version “CLV”?

This is simply a literal concordant version, straight from the greek, with the words in there propper order, and there literal greek meanings.

This is how the KJV has it…

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradis

This is the order and meaning of the words in greek..

and he-said to-him amen to-you I-AM-Saying today with me you-shall-be in the paradise

Here is the Concordant literal version…

CLV Lk 23:43 And Jesus said to him,  “Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise.”

Now which one would you say is a more accurate version?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 04 2008,11:06)

Besides, it would make no sense for Jesus to say “Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise”. That would be like me saying “I am telling you today that you will be with me fishing next week.”

Well if that's what he meant, why wouldn't he say “you shall be with me today in paradise”? He didn't say it like that did he? And there is a little problem with that, because Jesus himself didn't go to paradise that day did he? He went to the grave for three days and three nights. Also, there is another problem. Paul says everyone is raised from the dead in their order, and who is raised first?

1CORINTHIANS 1522 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Did the thief on the cross not have to wait for the resurrection like everybody else, and since Jesus was not raised to life again for another three days, was this thief rasied…….BEFORE JESUS?? Also, if you believe what Jesus was talking about was heaven when he said paradise, and not the coming kingdom of God, notice that even after three days and three nights, what did Jesus say?

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

There are way too many glaring contradictions in your belief that he went that day with Christ to paradise.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 04 2008,11:06)

Again the CLV has it wrong. KJV Jn 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. King James Version 1611, 1769   NKJV – Jhn 10:17 – “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson NIV – Jhn 10:17 – The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life–only to take it up again. New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society ESV – Jhn 10:17 – “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles NASB – Jhn 10:17 – “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation   RSV – Jhn 10:17 – For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952. ASV – Jhn 10:17 – Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. American Standard Version 1901 Info Young – Jhn 10:17 – `Because of this doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that again I may take it; Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info Darby – Jhn 10:17 – On this account the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again. J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info Webster – Jhn 10:17 – Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. Noah Webster Version 1833 Info HNV – Jhn 10:17 – Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.

Look into the meaning of the word translated as as “take”, it means to get, to take, to receive. This has nothing to do with Jesus rasing himself from the dead. Jesus earned the right to recieve his life again. Many scriptures state plainly who raised Jesus from the dead., such as…

1Peter 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 06 2008,09:59)

Anyway this would line up beautifully with John 2:19-21 where Jesus said… “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. I love the way you skirted around this when you said… Quote (Ptr745 @ May 04 2008,21:59) “Again, most of what Jesus said were the words of the Father, not of himself.” But why didn’t Jesus just say my Father will raise it up? Can you give me any example where it was the Father speaking in him and not Jesus himself? John and the disciples must have been confused for John says… But he (Jesus) spake of the temple of his (Jesus) body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which **Jesus had said**.

I've skirted around nothing…

1. Jesus said that the words, works and miracles were not his, but of his father.

2. The words the Father gave, came out of the mouth of Jesus, so yes it was Jesus who spoke them in the physical realm, and anyone referring to them would have said “the words that Jesus spoke”

4. Now if the Father speaks through Jesus, and Jesus said that he will destroy his body and raise it again in three days, and many
clear scriptures from the third person say it was God who raised Jesus from the dead, and none say that Jesus raised himself from the dead, who's words then were “destroy this body and in three days raise it again”?

To me it's not that difficult. If God did the raising, just as the scriptures plainly say, then these were the words of the Father.

As for an example of where it says God the father was talking through Christ,

John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can  do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 06 2008,09:59)

Ptr, let me save the two of us some time. I haven’t addressed your other points for this reason. A while back I told another brother here that if he doesn’t accept the current translations as grounds for the discussions that we were having then it was a waste of our time. Because every time he would disagree with the Translation then he would just resort to accusing the translators of corruption and bias. This in my opinion is very weak and sets up a dichotomy in which there is no level playing field.

I only disagree with a verse translation when it diverges with what it says in the original greek, and contradicts other more plainly stated verses, such as who raisded Jesus, who did the creating etc, which all point point to God.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 06 2008,09:59)

In fact I noticed that in a previous post you quoted… Acts 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Acts 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. Acts 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly; Acts 13:33  God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. 1Corinthians 6:14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. 1Corinthians 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 1Peter 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Psalms 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (sheol – the grave); neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Peter explains that Ps 16:10 is a prophecy from David, not speaking of himself, but speaking of Jesus Christ…. ACTS 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (hades – the grave), neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. All this was in KJV. Yet you run to the CLV for verses that doesn’t suit your belief and totally ignore all the other translations calling them corrupt and biased. See how frustrating that could be trying to have dialogue only for one of us to claim “corrupt and biased” when a scripture doesn’t agree with our doctrine?

Like I said, I only disagree with the translation of a verse when it diverges from or twists what is said in the greek, and contradicts other verses. Most of it is correct and accurate, except for the verses they twist around to fit their set doctrine. It is up to us to search the scriptures and see which ones are acurate. If your doctrine hinges on particular verses, which contradict others, it is your duty to search those scriptures to see if they are correct. If I have quoted any verse in the KJV, and you can show me that the greek version is different, then please do so.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 06 2008,09:59)

I am always amazed at the apologist that come here with no abilities in interpreting Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages who make arguments against the 100s of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic scholars most of whom gave their entire lives and 1000,s of hours to bring us the current translations which we have with very little variances.

You know what comes to mind when I hear statements like that? The scribes of the time of Jesus. What did he have to say about them? Instead of pointing the finger at me, why don't you do some research yourself into what I'm talking about. Prove me wrong. Look into the greek words where it is translated in English saying that Jesus did the creating etc, see for yourself if that is exactly what it is saying.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 06 2008,09:59)

But if you want to bring in your CLV fine, however bring it with some solid evidence as to why it should be interpreted that way,

Interpreted what way? The very definition of CLV is the literal words and meanings of the original greek, before it gets twisted to fit predetermined doctrine. What would make things interesting is if it were you who brought evidence that your verses should be translated in the way you believe, since it is your beliefs that hang on them, for instance, show me a verse where it literally says Jesus raised himself from the dead, with the meanings of these greek words the verse was translated from. But I'll save you some time, you won't find it. They all say God raised him. The verse you claim to be Jesus saying he will raise himself are God speaking through Jesus, so it is easy to twist them, but every verse from a third person, like peter or paul, makes a direct distinction that it was God the father who raised Jesus. Were Peter and Paul wrong? because what you believe
about Jesus raising himself contradicts what they said, no matter what version you want to look in. If we let the Bible interpret the Bible, we know who was speaking when jesus said “in three days I will raise it up”, it was his Father, speaking through him. I guess it is easier for some to believe that Peter or Paul could be wrong, than being wrong themselves.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 06 2008,09:59)

Modern day Christendom is based on the current “English” translations we have. Like it or not, this is the truth. If you or anyone else doesn’t like the current versions then write a new one and start a new religion like the JWs, or at least show me some credentials for translating Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

Yep, and this is exactly why modern Christianity is so splintered and screwed up. Everyone believes what they're spoon-fed instead of searching the scriptures like we're told to. They follow tradition more than they do scripture. Sunday worship, christmas, good friday, easter sunday, statues, religious titles, robes, veneration of saints, the belief of going to heaven when we die instead of returning to dust, I could go on forever. “Like it or not”….no, I quite destest it, all of it.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 06 2008,09:59)

So if you want to criticize the translators and the many English translations, that is your right, however, I do not want to chase rabbit trails or delve outside of the translations we have into some obscure world of apologetics. I would rather give you the ball and leave the field. Blessings!

I'm going back to bedrock, there is nothing obscure about it.

[GeneBalthrop]

ptr747…… welcome to my world, i and others have went over and over these same scriptures with WJ and others, They simply refuse to accept or even conceder any truth other then there twisted and counterdicting doctrinal views.

you have proved beyond a shadow of dought that when Jesus spoke the words, destory this temple and in three days I Shall raise it up. God conciders us Temples He indwells and He was indwelling Jesus and Spoke first person through Jesus' Mouth, and like you said there are plenty of other scriptures that back up tha God raised Jesus From the Dead.

But what good does it do, because no matter how much proof is presented they Just refuse to except it, Why? because it not about the truth with then it about ingrained doctrinal concepts
and a somberness to even think outside their box.

Believe me brother i feel your frustrations, you have presented good sound reason and facts but to no avail. sorry.

peace to you and yours…………….gene

[Jodi]

Quote (seek and you will find @ April 30 2008,09:15)

745 First of all how would you explain all the scriptures that tell me that Jesus preexisted? Second of all you are forgetting that Jesus gave His glory up and became a man just like we are.

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.

If Yeshua was a preexisting God as Trinitarians believe, this scripture makes no sense whatsoever. If he was God, he would not only have the same Will as the Father, but he would have said that he sent himself.

This scripture says that Yeshua says he came from God, not that he came from being a preexisting Son. If Yeshua did preexist then according to this scripture, he did not come on his own will, but Yah forced him to come. If it was not Yeshua's will to come, then what does that tell us about his preexistence?

We know that Yeshua's corruptible flesh and blood was like ours and it's desire was to serve itself, but Yeshua denied that will, overcoming it with Yah's Spirit working in him. Upon receiving immortality that will was destroyed and Yeshua's will was fully reunited with Yah's.

For those who believe in Yeshua's preexistence, why was his will not united with Yah's when he was in the form of a preexisting Son?

[Author]

Posts