Preexistence

[gollamudi]

Hi 942767, wonderful post my brother. I fully agree with you. I hope Isaiah will also appreciate it.

[Lightenup]

Hi 94,
My only purpose regarding our discussion of John 1:1 was not to prove pre-existance to you but to prove that the “word” could not mean idea or plan. It is proven by the way the Greek word for “was” is. It is written in the active voice meaning the subject itself is doing the action of the verb and it is not written in the passive voice which means that the action is being done to the subject.

If the “word was with God” and the word was merely an idea or plan, it should be written in the passive voice because the action is being done to it. You have admitted that an idea doesn't do the action but the person that has the idea does the action.

Also. in the last phrase of that verse, “and the word was God” would be written differently if it were an idea. The “idea was God” doesn't make sense at all but if it said the “idea” was God's, apostrophe S, well that makes more sense provided “was” was written as a passive verb and also the word for God was written in the possessive but it is not.

Alot can be cleared up with knowledge of the construction of the Greek nouns and verbs. We would all probably be in unity and that would probably mean that we were in the millenium.:)

Love to you 94,
LU

[Lightenup]

Quote (942767 @ May 23 2008,19:40)

Quote (gsilva72 @ May 24 2008,09:55) How about John 1:2 He was in the begining with God. Hi gsilva72: My understanding of these scriptures is that Jesus was with God in that he was fore-odained.  God knew that at a specific time in the future he would conceive a Son.

Hi 94,
Again “was” written in active voice so it couldn't have been an idea. Sorry.

LU

[Is 1:18]

Quote (942767 @ May 24 2008,13:04)

Hi Brother Isaiah: You are way over my head on this kind of discussion.  I just don't believe that God would go to this extreme to conceal that Jesus was a sentient person with Him from the beginning if in fact this is the case

Brother SDN, God didn't conceal it at all, He revealed it in John 1:1 as well as John 1:3, 17:5; Phil 2:6-8; Cor 8:6, Col 1:21 and many others. The prehuman Yeshua “made all things” SDN, a fore-ordained nonentity can't make a thing.

Quote

It is obvious in John 14 Jesus was saying that he was obeying the Word of God that was coming to him from the Father.

Yes, but on numerous other occasions He said “my words” (” Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away” – Matt 24:35). He also said “All that belongs to the Father is mine.” (Matt 16:15) and “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Yes, there is a division of authority between the Father and Son, BUT there is also “oneness” between them….

Quote

Brother, God has reavealed to the church who Jesus is in Matthew 16 and that is that he is the Christ the Son of the living God.

I don't dispute this.

Quote

Jesus is a man, no, not just any man, but nevertheless a man.  The last Adam.  The man who was perfected through obedience to the Word of God.

I don't dispute this either.

Quote

God made man in His own image and Jesus is the express image of His person.

I don't think the King James translators did a great job in rendering hypostasis as “person” in Heb 1:3. “Being” or “nature” (NIV and NASB respectively) far better capture the meaning of this word in the context in which it's placed. Yeshua is identical to God the Father in His nature.

Blessings

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 24 2008,16:56)

Hi 94, My only purpose regarding our discussion of John 1:1 was not to prove pre-existance to you but to prove that the “word” could not mean idea or plan.  It is proven by the way the Greek word for “was” is.  It is written in the active voice meaning the subject itself is doing the action of the verb and it is not written in the passive voice which means that the action is being done to the subject. If the “word was with God” and the word was merely an idea or plan, it should be written in the passive voice because the action is being done to it.  You have admitted  that an idea doesn't do the action but the person that has the idea does the action. Also. in the last phrase of that verse, “and the word was God” would be written differently if it were an idea.  The “idea was God” doesn't make sense at all but if it said the “idea” was God's, apostrophe S, well that makes more sense provided “was” was written as a passive verb and also the word for God was written in the possessive but it is not. Alot can be cleared up with knowledge of the construction of the Greek nouns and verbs.  We would all probably be in unity and that would probably mean that we were in the millenium.:) Love to you 94, LU

The verb “was” (Gr: en) in John 1:1 is the imperfect tense verb for “eimi”. It denotes a continuous action, either forwards or backwards. On this point A T Robertson, probably the world’s foremost Greek grammarian, wrote this

Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse John 1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos.
(source)

So the language used by John makes explicit that whenever the “beginning” was, the logos was already in existence. By using this construction John was making it clear that logos is without a beginning, The Logos is origin-less, He had no beginning, He is time-less. Robertson also made mention of the juxtaposition of the two words used to describe the pre-incarnate existence of the Word and His incarnation is, I think. The Greek word “en” which denotes continuous action of the Logos existing in the past is in contrast to the aorist verb “egeneto” which John used to describing the incarnation (v 14), which happened at a fixed point in time. This contrast in terminology underscores the fact that John was delineating the eternal Logos from the temporal nature of the “things” (or flesh) He created.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 24 2008,17:20)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 24 2008,16:56) Hi 94, My only purpose regarding our discussion of John 1:1 was not to prove pre-existance to you but to prove that the “word” could not mean idea or plan.  It is proven by the way the Greek word for “was” is.  It is written in the active voice meaning the subject itself is doing the action of the verb and it is not written in the passive voice which means that the action is being done to the subject. If the “word was with God” and the word was merely an idea or plan, it should be written in the passive voice because the action is being done to it.  You have admitted  that an idea doesn't do the action but the person that has the idea does the action. Also. in the last phrase of that verse, “and the word was God” would be written differently if it were an idea.  The “idea was God” doesn't make sense at all but if it said the “idea” was God's, apostrophe S, well that makes more sense provided “was” was written as a passive verb and also the word for God was written in the possessive but it is not. Alot can be cleared up with knowledge of the construction of the Greek nouns and verbs.  We would all probably be in unity and that would probably mean that we were in the millenium.:) Love to you 94, LU The verb “was” (Gr: en) in John 1:1 is the imperfect tense verb for “eimi”. It denotes a continuous action, either forwards or backwards. On this point A T Robertson, probably the world’s foremost Greek grammarian, wrote this Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse John 1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. (source) So the language used by John makes explicit that whenever the “beginning” was, the logos was already in existence. By using this construction John was making it clear that logos is without a beginning, The Logos is origin-less, He had no beginning, He is time-less. Robertson also made mention of the juxtaposition of the two words used to describe the pre-incarnate existence of the Word and His incarnation is, I think. The Greek word “en” which denotes continuous action of the Logos existing in the past is in contrast to the aorist verb “egeneto” which John used to describing the incarnation (v 14), which happened at a fixed point in time. This contrast in terminology underscores the fact that John was delineating the eternal Logos from the temporal nature of the “things” (or flesh) He created.

Hi Brother Paul

Execellent post. There is no scripture anywhere that says the pre-incarnate Yeshua had a beginning.

Blessings!

[Is 1:18]

Quite right WJ. It's not even intimated.

[Admin]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 04 2008,18:54)

t8 I messed up and think I deleted this post. I hope you can fix it. I couldnt copy it from cache. Sorry! Keith For those reading the entire post is in Ptrs responce. I can piece it back.

Sorry I didn't see this post before.

If it is in a response, why not copy the text from there and paste it into the post?

If it isn't quoted anywhere, then would you like me to find it if it is in a backup? I can't promise anything though. The backups are like spagetti. Everything is tangled and fragmented.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 24 2008,17:11)

Quote Brother, God has reavealed to the church who Jesus is in Matthew 16 and that is that he is the Christ the Son of the living God. I don't dispute this.

By reason of saying that he is God is by definition saying that he is not the son of that God.

The Father is God and it is taken for granted that the son is of the Father which is the same as of God.

God is the Father. There is one God, the Father. One Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ.

John 16:27
No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.

John 16:30
Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.”

Jesus came from God. He is of God. He is the glory of God. He is the image of invisible God. He is the son of God.

The word “of” is not to be ignored.

So he is of the invisible God and he is visible.

He is not the invisible God of scripture.

[Lightenup]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 24 2008,01:20)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 24 2008,16:56) Hi 94, My only purpose regarding our discussion of John 1:1 was not to prove pre-existance to you but to prove that the “word” could not mean idea or plan.  It is proven by the way the Greek word for “was” is.  It is written in the active voice meaning the subject itself is doing the action of the verb and it is not written in the passive voice which means that the action is being done to the subject. If the “word was with God” and the word was merely an idea or plan, it should be written in the passive voice because the action is being done to it.  You have admitted  that an idea doesn't do the action but the person that has the idea does the action. Also. in the last phrase of that verse, “and the word was God” would be written differently if it were an idea.  The “idea was God” doesn't make sense at all but if it said the “idea” was God's, apostrophe S, well that makes more sense provided “was” was written as a passive verb and also the word for God was written in the possessive but it is not. Alot can be cleared up with knowledge of the construction of the Greek nouns and verbs.  We would all probably be in unity and that would probably mean that we were in the millenium.:) Love to you 94, LU The verb “was” (Gr: en) in John 1:1 is the imperfect tense verb for “eimi”. It denotes a continuous action, either forwards or backwards. On this point A T Robertson, probably the world’s foremost Greek grammarian, wrote this Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse John 1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. (source) So the language used by John makes explicit that whenever the “beginning” was, the logos was already in existence. By using this construction John was making it clear that logos is without a beginning, The Logos is origin-less, He had no beginning, He is time-less. Robertson also made mention of the juxtaposition of the two words used to describe the pre-incarnate existence of the Word and His incarnation is, I think. The Greek word “en” which denotes continuous action of the Logos existing in the past is in contrast to the aorist verb “egeneto” which John used to describing the incarnation (v 14), which happened at a fixed point in time. This contrast in terminology underscores the fact that John was delineating the eternal Logos from the temporal nature of the “things” (or flesh) He created.

Hello Is 1:18,
Imperfect
The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.”

In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.

I copied and pasted this from http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=5713&tool=grk

That is in direct opposition of what you wrote.

They can't both be right.

God bless,
LU

[GeneBalthrop]

TO ALL….Trinitarians would have you believe John was so stupid He didn't Know How to Spell Jesus, so he said (word) instead of Jesus, and Jesus didn't say “the (WORDS) i tell you (AREN'T MINE) “.

This is what these lying Trinitarians, would have you believe . They present themselves as with superior understanding like they some how know what their talking about, they simply are the blind leading the blind.

[Lightenup]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 24 2008,13:10)

TO ALL….Trinitarians would have you believe John was so stupid He didn't Know How to Spell Jesus, so he said (word) instead of Jesus, and Jesus didn't say “the (WORDS) i tell you (AREN'T MINE) “. This is what these lying Trinitarians, would have you believe . They present themselves as with superior understanding like they some how know what their talking about, they simply are the blind leading the blind.

Gene,
There is a difference between people who are deliberately misleading others and those that are trying to play the cards in their hand to their best advantage and understanding. Who appointed you as judge??? It would behoove you to love the trinitarians and especially those that spend so much time on you trying to shed some light. It is hard to believe that WJ and Isaiah 1:18 even bother.

We all have a different hand of cards from the same deck. Who knows when that next card played will be the one that changes the outcome of the whole game for everyone to win and be set free with truth. We are all sitting around the table so be a good sport to all the players and you will benefit. Good Grief!

Also, I do not think that Jesus was in the beginning with God and therefore His name wouldn't be in that passage of John 1:1. The Son of God didn't take on the Jesus role till the second part of the play. Before that He wasn't playing the Jesus role at all. The Son of God that was the spirit of Jesus existed in the first part of the play in other roles, just a change of costumes. IMO and I'm just playing my hand as I understand it.

If you do not know how to play the game of Greek nouns and verbs then I am sure that it would help you to learn about them instead of making accusations such as “those lying trinitarians” who are trying to learn and explain about such things because they realize their value.

I have shown that the “word” can not be a plan or idea. Put it to rest! Or at least challenge it with substantial evidence to prove that a plan or idea acts on its own.

The role of Jesus was predestined to enter into the second half of the play not before. His other roles were played in the first half. I hope you catch my analogy of a play to the Old and New Testament.

[942767]

Hi Lightenup:

I guess that I am a little slow to understand, but what action is the Word doing in this context?

[942767]

Hi Bro. Isaiah:

You say:

Quote

Brother SDN, God didn't conceal it at all, He revealed it in John 1:1 as well as John 1:3, 17:5; Phil 2:6-8; Cor 8:6, Col 1:21 and many others. The prehuman Yeshua “made all things” SDN, a fore-ordained nonentity can't make a thing.

If the prehuman Yeshua “made all things” then what about the following scriptures?

Quote

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

Quote

Gen 1:31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day

Quote

Hbr 1:1 ¶ God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hbr 1:2  Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

And regarding your comments to me here:

Quote

It is obvious in John 14 Jesus was saying that he was obeying the Word of God that was coming to him from the Father. Yes, but on numerous other occasions He said “my words” (” Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away” – Matt 24:35). He also said “All that belongs to the Father is mine.” (Matt 16:15) and “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Yes, there is a division of authority between the Father and Son, BUT there is also “oneness” between them….

Jesus made it quite clear that he did not teach his own thoughts.  Yes, they are one in the spirit.  And we, who are born again Christians should be one in the spirit with them also.

Quote

Jhn 17:18  As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. Jhn 17:19  And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Jhn 17:20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;  Jhn 17:21  That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

God Bless

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 25 2008,01:35)

Hello Is 1:18, Imperfect The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action. I copied and pasted this from http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=5713&tool=grk That is in direct opposition of what you wrote.   They can't both be right. God bless, LU

Not it isn't. I said an imperfect tense denotes continuous action (quoting A T Robertson, by the way), which is exactly what your source also spells out. Did you misunderstand?

Blessings

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ May 25 2008,00:01)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 24 2008,17:11) Quote Brother, God has reavealed to the church who Jesus is in Matthew 16 and that is that he is the Christ the Son of the living God. I don't dispute this. By reason of saying that he is God is by definition saying that he is not the son of that God. The Father is God and it is taken for granted that the son is of the Father which is the same as of God. God is the Father. There is one God, the Father. One Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ. John 16:27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. John 16:30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.” Jesus came from God. He is of God. He is the glory of God. He is the image of invisible God. He is the son of God. The word “of” is not to be ignored. So he is of the invisible God and he is visible. He is not the invisible God of scripture.

I have two questions:

1. In what sense is Yeshua the Son of God?

2. If the Father is God (to us) to the exclusion of Yeshua does that also mean Yehsua is Lord (to us) to the exclusion of the Father?

[Is 1:18]

Quote (942767 @ May 25 2008,08:24)

Hi Bro. Isaiah: You say: Quote Brother SDN, God didn't conceal it at all, He revealed it in John 1:1 as well as John 1:3, 17:5; Phil 2:6-8; Cor 8:6, Col 1:21 and many others. The prehuman Yeshua “made all things” SDN, a fore-ordained nonentity can't make a thing. If the prehuman Yeshua “made all things” then what about the following scriptures? Quote Gen 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth Quote Gen 1:31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day Quote Hbr 1:1 ¶ God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hbr 1:2  Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In the Genesis narrative a plural noun is used to describe YHWH, namely elohim (the “im” suffix pluralises nouns in he Hebrew language). This certainly leaves room for more than one agency being involved in the creation event. This is further supported by the “let us make man in our image” comment in Gen 1:26 (we are made in the image of God). So IMO there is no contradiction between the Genesis and NT accounts.

Blessings

[Not3in1]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 24 2008,17:11)

Quote (942767 @ May 24 2008,13:04) Hi Brother Isaiah: You are way over my head on this kind of discussion.  I just don't believe that God would go to this extreme to conceal that Jesus was a sentient person with Him from the beginning if in fact this is the case Brother SDN, God didn't conceal it at all, He revealed it in John 1:1 as well as John 1:3, 17:5; Phil 2:6-8; Cor 8:6, Col 1:21 and many others. The prehuman Yeshua “made all things” SDN, a fore-ordained nonentity can't make a thing. Quote It is obvious in John 14 Jesus was saying that he was obeying the Word of God that was coming to him from the Father. Yes, but on numerous other occasions He said “my words” (” Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away” – Matt 24:35). He also said “All that belongs to the Father is mine.” (Matt 16:15) and “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Yes, there is a division of authority between the Father and Son, BUT there is also “oneness” between them…. Quote Brother, God has reavealed to the church who Jesus is in Matthew 16 and that is that he is the Christ the Son of the living God. I don't dispute this. Quote Jesus is a man, no, not just any man, but nevertheless a man.  The last Adam.  The man who was perfected through obedience to the Word of God. I don't dispute this either. Quote God made man in His own image and Jesus is the express image of His person. I don't think the King James translators did a great job in rendering hypostasis as “person” in Heb 1:3. “Being” or “nature” (NIV and NASB respectively) far better capture the meaning of this word in the context in which it's placed. Yeshua is identical to God the Father in His nature. Blessings

Isaiah,

I've been taking a rest from actively reading and posting here. But I've been studying preexistence and decided to check in here today for any updates on the topic.

I have a question regarding the above quote from you.

If Jesus was born of a women, how can his nature be exactly like God?

Thanks,
Mandy

[Not3in1]

Oh, and I have out of town company coming any minute, so I'll have to check back after the weekend. Thanks.

[942767]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 25 2008,08:43)

Quote (942767 @ May 25 2008,08:24) Hi Bro. Isaiah: You say: Quote Brother SDN, God didn't conceal it at all, He revealed it in John 1:1 as well as John 1:3, 17:5; Phil 2:6-8; Cor 8:6, Col 1:21 and many others. The prehuman Yeshua “made all things” SDN, a fore-ordained nonentity can't make a thing. If the prehuman Yeshua “made all things” then what about the following scriptures? Quote Gen 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth Quote Gen 1:31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day Quote Hbr 1:1 ¶ God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hbr 1:2  Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; In the Genesis narrative a plural noun is used to describe YHWH, namely elohim (the “im” suffix pluralises nouns in he Hebrew language). This certainly leaves room for more than one agency being involved in the creation event. This is further supported by the “let us make man in our image” comment in Gen 1:26 (we are made in the image of God). So IMO there is no contradiction between the Genesis and NT accounts. Blessings

Hi Bro. Isaiah:

The verse in Hebrews that I quoted states:

Quote

Hbr 1:2  Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

“By whom (speaking about Jesus) also “HE” (GOD) made the worlds.”

And Verse 1:2 also states the “GOD” spoke to us through His Son.

The plural for God is used because:

Quote

Deu 10:17 For the LORD your God [is] God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

And I did not get a response from you relative to the passage of scripture that I quoted about being Jesus being “one” with the Father in the spirit and we being “one” in the spirit with them.

[Author]

Posts