Preexistence

[Not3in1]

Quote (dirtyknections @ June 03 2008,14:42)

To deny the pre-existence of Christ is to seek to deny the capacity of the host to be brought down to the pit and to be resurrected. It seeks to place Christ on a separate level and effectively deny the position of humans to become co-heirs with Christ, and for God to become all in all.

DK,
It's interesting that you say “To deny the pre-existence of Christ is to seek to deny….” and then you go on to list some things. I quite feel the opposite. To believe the preexistence of Christ is to deny those very things that you listed.

Funny how two people reading the same book and supposedly have the same Spirit – can see two different and opposing ideas.

God bless ya,
Mandy

[Lightenup]

DK,
Thank you for your post. I am so glad you are here!
God bless you,
LU

[dirtyknections]

Hey lighten…

Blessings….I believe there is truth in everything everyone has said in this thread…there are parts missing that keep us from agreement…whos version has some truth missing? you,me, and everyone else here…we should keep in mind that only God has absolute truth…and we should keep seeking that truth until he leads us to it…when will we attain it? Thats in Gods jurisdiction..

Remember Christ said, “There are many things i would like to tell you but you are not ready”…

So I wait patiently until God reveals to me all that he has for me to know…

[Lightenup]

Quote (gollamudi @ June 02 2008,06:38)

Hi LightenUp, You are completely out of Bible in interpreting these scriptures like Jn 1:1 or Gen 1:1-3. By claiming the 'word' as separate being other than one God you are making yourself another trap of creating more than one God like JW. Please be careful in interpreting scriptures like this. Even a Trinitarian will laugh at your interpretation like you did above. Don't deviate from monotheism what Jesus taught us ” One God created us without any one's help”. I don't want to hurt you personally but your interpretations are going in wrong direction by creating another begotten God. Sorry to bother you Adam

GM,
Do you not know anything about the active voice or passive voice regarding Greek verbs? You ought to learn it because you would see that a “plan” can not “exist” on its own action.
I have written several posts on this, go back and read them.

Do you not know that monogenes can be and typically is translated as “only begotten”?

Do you not know that Theos is translated “god/God”.

Do you not know that “monogenes Theos” is in the first chapter on John, specifically John 1:18?
John 1:17-18
18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father,
NASU

Did you not know that John says that Jesus is the True Light?
This is also in the first chapter of John, specifically John 1:9. Also see John 8:12-13

Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, ” I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”
NASU

Did you not know that Paul refers to the Heavenly Father's beloved Son as the Firstborn of all creation which means the first to be born and be alive?

Did you not realize that the Light on day one of creation was the first-born of all creation in otherwords, the first to be alive of all creation?
Col 1:15

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
NASU

Did you not realize that “let there be light” was the WORD in the beginning and actually the first word said by the Most High God in the beginning of Genesis? Also see in John 1 that the word in the beginning was with God and was God and was the true light that became flesh.

Do you realize that a true begotten God could never be a true unbegotten and always existing God and never be His equal and that the unbegotten God would ALWAYS be the only ONE TRUE Most High God?

Do you not realize these things? You must not have by what you say in your post. No wonder you do not understand my interpretation.

No, you do not hurt me personally but you hurt yourself and I am sorry for that, I tried to help you and so did John and Paul (the John and Paul of the book of John and Colossians).

Quote

I don't want to hurt you personally but your interpretations are going in wrong direction by creating another begotten God.

I am not creating “another” begotten God, you overestimate my ability.
There is only one begotten God and that is the Son of the Most High God who became the Messiah. I do not believe that He was created but instead He was born. God begat God, hence, the begotten God. God didn't begat trees, He created trees. He didn't beget man, He created Him. Man begets man. My children were born of me, I did not create them. The Son of God was born of God, God did not create Him. God had everything He needed to reproduce one of His own kind always within Himself. That “reproduction” could never be the original or always existent like the original.

Heb 1:3
3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature…
NASU

The exact representation of the nature of something is a reproduction, and not the original, IMO.

By golly, Golla, I want to be your friend that helps you and not one that does you harm, please believe me.

God bless,
LU

[Lightenup]

Quote (dirtyknections @ June 03 2008,11:40)

Hey lighten… Blessings….I believe there is truth in everything everyone has said in this thread…there are parts missing that keep us from agreement…whos version has some truth missing? you,me, and everyone else here…we should keep in mind that only God has absolute truth…and we should keep seeking that truth until he leads us to it…when will we attain it? Thats in Gods jurisdiction.. Remember Christ said, “There are many things i would like to tell you but you are not ready”… So I wait patiently until God reveals to me all that he has for me to know…

Well said DK and I agree. When He lead us to truth then we can lead others.
God bless,
LU

[Not3in1]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,03:48)

Do you not know anything about the active voice or passive voice regarding Greek verbs? You ought to learn it because you would see that a “plan” can not “exist” on its own action.

There are many of us in the camp that believe Jesus existed as a “plan” with God before the worlds were. However, I can only speak for myself when I say that I have never believed that the “plan existed on it's own action.” I have never believed that.

John 1 tells us that the word was with God and was God. And so therefore the plan/word could not have existed on it's own. I realize this is just the tip of the iceberg here, but it's been a long night for me and I'm pretty pooped today.

[Not3in1]

Quote (dirtyknections @ June 04 2008,03:40)

Hey lighten… Blessings….I believe there is truth in everything everyone has said in this thread…there are parts missing that keep us from agreement…whos version has some truth missing? you,me, and everyone else here…we should keep in mind that only God has absolute truth…and we should keep seeking that truth until he leads us to it…when will we attain it? Thats in Gods jurisdiction.. Remember Christ said, “There are many things i would like to tell you but you are not ready”… So I wait patiently until God reveals to me all that he has for me to know…

Well, hallelujah brother!

Preach it!
Mandy

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,03:48)

Quote (gollamudi @ June 02 2008,06:38) Hi LightenUp, You are completely out of Bible in interpreting these scriptures like Jn 1:1 or Gen 1:1-3. By claiming the 'word' as separate being other than one God you are making yourself another trap of creating more than one God like JW. Please be careful in interpreting scriptures like this. Even a Trinitarian will laugh at your interpretation like you did above. Don't deviate from monotheism what Jesus taught us ” One God created us without any one's help”. I don't want to hurt you personally but your interpretations are going in wrong direction by creating another begotten God. Sorry to bother you Adam GM, Do you not know anything about the active voice or passive voice regarding Greek verbs? You ought to learn it because you would see that a “plan” can not “exist” on its own action. I have written several posts on this, go back and read them. Do you not know that monogenes can be and typically is translated as “only begotten”? Do you not know that Theos is translated “god/God”. Do you not know that “monogenes Theos” is in the first chapter on John, specifically John 1:18? John 1:17-18 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, NASU Did you not know that John says that Jesus is the True Light? This is also in the first chapter of John, specifically John 1:9. Also see John 8:12-13 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, ” I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.” NASU Did you not know that Paul refers to the Heavenly Father's beloved Son as the Firstborn of all creation which means the first to be born and be alive? Did you not realize that the Light on day one of creation was the first-born of all creation in otherwords, the first to be alive of all creation? Col 1:15 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. NASU Did you not realize that “let there be light” was the WORD in the beginning and actually the first word said by the Most High God in the beginning of Genesis? Also see in John 1 that the word in the beginning was with God and was God and was the true light that became flesh. Do you realize that a true begotten God could never be a true unbegotten and always existing God and never be His equal and that the unbegotten God would ALWAYS be the only ONE TRUE Most High God? Do you not realize these things? You must not have by what you say in your post. No wonder you do not understand my interpretation. No, you do not hurt me personally but you hurt yourself and I am sorry for that, I tried to help you and so did John and Paul (the John and Paul of the book of John and Colossians). Quote I don't want to hurt you personally but your interpretations are going in wrong direction by creating another begotten God. I am not creating “another” begotten God, you overestimate my ability. There is only one begotten God and that is the Son of the Most High God who became the Messiah. I do not believe that He was created but instead He was born. God begat God, hence, the begotten God. God didn't begat trees, He created trees. He didn't beget man, He created Him. Man begets man. My children were born of me, I did not create them. The Son of God was born of God, God did not create Him. God had everything He needed to reproduce one of His own kind always within Himself. That “reproduction” could never be the original or always existent like the original. Heb 1:3 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature… NASU The exact representation of the nature of something is a reproduction, and not the original, IMO. By golly, Golla, I want to be your friend that helps you and not one that does you harm, please believe me. God bless, LU

lightenup………And do you not realize you have added words and thought and textual inferences to meet your own trinitarian view points. So what you have is the trinity thats obivious given to you by the lying trinitarians.

Gollamudi ……has the simple Truth. Given Him by GOD simple and clear and doesn't have to contort scriptures to see things that are not specifically there like you and the rest of the trinitarians do. When God's Spirit is guiding you it's easily understood things.

IMO……………gene

[Not3in1]

Bro Gene,

I might be mistaken, but I don't think Kathi calls herself a trinitarian? However I have always agreed that the preexistent theory is closely related to trinity doctrine.

Anyway, if we can keep discussing the truth with love I believe there will be some unity amongst all of us. Even if we agree to disagree and keep encouraging one another we will have fulfilled one of the greatest commandments to love one another.

Grace extended is such a beautiful thing amongst the brethren. I believe it's how we recognize who is his – by our love.

Press on bro. And remember the most excellent way…….love.
Mandy

[Lightenup]

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 03 2008,12:24)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,03:48) Do you not know anything about the active voice or passive voice regarding Greek verbs?  You ought to learn it because you would see that a “plan” can not “exist” on its own action. There are many of us in the camp that believe Jesus existed as a “plan” with God before the worlds were.  However, I can only speak for myself when I say that I have never believed that the “plan existed on it's own action.”  I have never believed that. John 1 tells us that the word was with God and was God.  And so therefore the plan/word could not have existed on it's own.  I realize this is just the tip of the iceberg here, but it's been a long night for me and I'm pretty pooped today.

That is good Mandy that you do not believe that the “plan existed on it's own action.” That is why I say that the “word” in John 1:1 could not be a “plan” spoken about. The “word” is the subject of each of the three clauses in John 1:1:

In the beginning, WAS (the past tense verb in the ACTIVE voice in Greek) the WORD (the subject of the clause),

and the WORD WAS with God, (the subject does the action when the verb is written in the ACTIVE voice) (the subject receives the action when written in the PASSIVE voice) “was” in this verse, in each clause, is written in the active voice.
Mandy, if it were a plan, the verb would be in the PASSIVE voice. The subject would be causing the plan to exist. I do not think that you understand this from your post. So you follow this now?

and the WORD WAS God. If the “word” was a plan of God's then why isn't it written the “word was God's” With an apostrophe s and with Theos in the Genitive case (the case that show's possession).

The “word” is the subject and is doing the action which in these three clauses the action is “was” which is a past tense state of being. A plan does not do its own existing.

If the “word” is the “light”, well the “light” can do the action of existing with God.

LU

[Lightenup]

Gene,
For you to think that I am a trinitarian, well, that tells me that you are not reading my posts with open eyes or you do not fully know what a trinitarian believes. They do not believe that the Son of God had a beginning, I do.
LU

[Lightenup]

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 01 2008,13:45)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 01 2008,18:19) Hey Mandy, It couldn't be just any body that the Son of God took.  Just any old body would have had the sin passed into it from the earthly father.  Jesus could not have had a body with the inherited sin.   Just my opinion. And about the cookies, why don't you come to the bbq for my son's graduation and help yourself:) I'd love to have you. Kathi Great explaination, thank you. However Nick's theory about Jesus surrounds the idea of him being re-born or inhabited by God's spirit at the Jordan.  Meaning, Jesus was a mere “vessel” which God took over, so to speak, or worked through?  It's unclear, exactly.  The dogma takes a while to work. With his idea, any body would have done.  Any body could have been reborn at the Jordan and filled with God's spirit.  There was no need for special conceptions and a virgin.  His theory is actually a lot less work for God, if you think about it. But your saying that in fact, it was important for Jesus to be conceived by God and Mary.  Your reason is that he would not have sin passed on to him in this way.  But are you forgetting that he was born of a women (mankind).  And not just any women – a women who was under the Law. This is where it gets muddy for those who do not believe God conceived a literal son with Mary.  In order to hold to your belief, you must deny that Jesus was actually conceived as the gospels teach.  You MUST apply a different definition to conception. Conception is the fusing of two sources.  DNA is mixed and divided.  A new individual (never before on any scene) is the product of both parents.  Any other definition won't due and isn't one that anyone on earth recognizes.  We know God by his creation.  This is how we know him.  He wouldn't mess with that, imo. Thanks for listening, Mandy

Hi Mandy,
It is my impression that it is the fathers that pass on the curse of sin to their sons and daughters. I do not think that the mothers pass it on eventho they also sin.

Ex 34:5-7
6 Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the INIQUITY OF FATHERS on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”
NASU

Why does it not say anything about the iniquity of mothers being passed on to the next generation even though the mothers also receive the curse of sin and also sin themselves?

Also read this keeping in mind that Eve was the first to eat of the forbidden tree.
Rom 5:12-21

12 Therefore, just as through one MAN sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned– 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of ADAM (not Eve written here), who is a type of Him who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the ONE (not two) the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from ONE transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
NASU

We are told that Eve fell into transgression but did so because she was deceived. Adam fell into transgression out of disobedience. Adam's action spread death to all men not Eve's action apparently eventho she was involved. The above passage speaks of ONE transgression-Adam's.

1 Tim 2:13-15
14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
NASU

Therefore, I think that it is the male's contribution to the fertilized egg that continues the curse to the next generation. That is why I think that Jesus had to be conceived by the Holy Spirit so He did not automatically have the curse of sin but that He willingly took on the curse of our sin. Hallelujah! He didn't have to die, he willingly died for us.

I hope you can see this also, Mandy. I think that it explains the reason for Jesus to not come from a normal earthy man but instead to come from the heavenly Father.

Also, regarding Jesus being filled with God's spirit, I think Jesus was always filled with His Father's spirit. At His baptism at Jordan is when the Holy Spirit descended ON Him (not IN Him). That is when He started His ministry. It's like us when we receive “our calling”.

God bless,
LU

[NickHassan]

Hi lU,
Are you saying that no sin was passed from Mary's father or grandfather etc?

[Lightenup]

Nick,
No I am not saying that NO sin was passed from Mary's father or grandfather. What I understand is that the “curse of sin” was passed to Mary by her father but she did not pass the curse on to any of her children (nor does any other mother), the earthly father of her children passed that on except the Father of her first child which was not an earthly father. The Heavenly Father did not pass the curse of sin to His child that was conceived in Mary.

I hope that I am saying this clear enough.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,05:54)

Therefore, I think that it is the male's contribution to the fertilized egg that continues the curse to the next generation. That is why I think that Jesus had to be conceived by the Holy Spirit so He did not automatically have the curse of sin but that He willingly took on the curse of our sin. Hallelujah! He didn't have to die, he willingly died for us. I hope you can see this also, Mandy. I think that it explains the reason for Jesus to not come from a normal earthy man but instead to come from the heavenly Father.

I absolutely agree, Kathi. Thank you.
Mandy

[Not3in1]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,08:26)

The Heavenly Father did not pass the curse of sin to His child that was conceived in Mary. I hope that I am saying this clear enough.

Loud and clear, Kathi!

This is why I believe that Jesus is literally conceived by God and Mary. And this is why I don't believe Jesus preexisted OR that he was just a sperm that God provided (and not the contribution or DNA of God himself).

Jesus was truly conceived and given the attributes and DNA from his Father. This is how he indeed avoided the curse.

Good work, sis!
Mandy

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,08:31)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,08:26) The Heavenly Father did not pass the curse of sin to His child that was conceived in Mary. I hope that I am saying this clear enough. Loud and clear, Kathi!   This is why I believe that Jesus is literally conceived by God and Mary.  And this is why I don't believe Jesus preexisted OR that he was just a sperm that God provided (and not the contribution or DNA of God himself).   Jesus was truly conceived and given the attributes and DNA from his Father.  This is how he indeed avoided the curse. Good work, sis! Mandy

Hi Mandy!

So do you think the Father has DNA?

DNA is a created thing, Isnt it?

What do you think?

[Not3in1]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,08:39)

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,08:31) Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,08:26) The Heavenly Father did not pass the curse of sin to His child that was conceived in Mary. I hope that I am saying this clear enough. Loud and clear, Kathi!   This is why I believe that Jesus is literally conceived by God and Mary.  And this is why I don't believe Jesus preexisted OR that he was just a sperm that God provided (and not the contribution or DNA of God himself).   Jesus was truly conceived and given the attributes and DNA from his Father.  This is how he indeed avoided the curse. Good work, sis! Mandy Hi Mandy! So do you think the Father has DNA? DNA is a created thing, Isnt it? What do you think?

We are made in his image?

[Not3in1]

Also it said he walked in the garden, so he must have had feet?

I know scripture teaches us that God is not a man, but I'm positive that he has a “make-up” even if it is totally divine. He provided what was needed – and this case it was a divine sperm. Wow, think of that.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,08:41)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,08:39) Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,08:31) Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,08:26) The Heavenly Father did not pass the curse of sin to His child that was conceived in Mary. I hope that I am saying this clear enough. Loud and clear, Kathi!   This is why I believe that Jesus is literally conceived by God and Mary.  And this is why I don't believe Jesus preexisted OR that he was just a sperm that God provided (and not the contribution or DNA of God himself).   Jesus was truly conceived and given the attributes and DNA from his Father.  This is how he indeed avoided the curse. Good work, sis! Mandy Hi Mandy! So do you think the Father has DNA? DNA is a created thing, Isnt it? What do you think? We are made in his image?

Mandy

Being made in his image and likeness does not mean the Father is flesh and blood, does it?

[Author]

Posts