Preexistence

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2008,17:47)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,09:13) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2008,16:55) Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,08:46) I guess not.  What do you think it means? Anyway, I do believe that God is the source of everything (including his own Son, Jesus).  Because Jesus is human, he provided what was needed.  Pure and simple.  In my opinion, of course.   Mandy The creation of man was twofold. God formed him from the dust of the ground and then breathed into him the breath of life and man became a living soul/spirit. What makes Yeshua Divine is not his body which the Lord prepared for him, (Heb 10:5) which was purely physical. It is the Eternal Spirit which was with God. John 1:1 So Yeshua is the Word/Spirit which was made flesh or tabernacled among us. John 1:14, Phil 2:4-6 Blessings! Hi again WJ, You say eternal spirit and this is one point where I disagree with you.  If He was eternal, He would be no one's son.  He might be a partner but not a son. LU LU Yeshua's sonship started here… And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Lk 1:35 The Holy thing that was to be born would be called the “Son of God”! In response to this I thought Is 1:18 had a good answer Here. “I don't mind replying. I don't hold that Yeshua was the perpetual Son. I think scriptures like Luke 1:35, Romans 1:4 and Hebrews 1:5 unmistakably bear out that the sonship of Yeshua relates to His earthly birth. That is not to say that He did not preexist the incarnation – He did! As the Logos”. Endure sound teaching….. http://bibletools.org/index.c….NT Blessings.

Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,10:35)

Hello again WJ, I read this with a different emphasis: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Lk 1:35 I think that this clears up any misunderstanding that might call the child the biological son of Joseph. “…therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” and not the son of Joseph. His sonship as Yeshua started with Mary. Matt 1:21 21 “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, NASU

Agreed!

Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,10:35)

His sonship as the begotten God started before creation as the “firstborn of all creation”. He was the first to be BORN before the rest of creation.

I assume your reference is to Col 1:15.

There are several scriptures that may seem to imply that Yeshua had a beginning before his natural birth. I will be using KJV unless otherwise noted. Here they are…

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Col 1:15

There they are!!! You may be asking yourself, “did you leave some out”? No I didn’t leave any out.  This is the only scripture found that even hints at Yeshua being born or having a beginning (besides the ambiguous Prov. quote) before he came in the flesh.

Many on this sight have quoted this verse to support the Idea that the pre-existing Yeshua had a beginning, or that he was created. Most of the time it is quoted as being in opposition to the Trinitarian view.

Lets look at its context and see if that is at all what this verse is saying. This is the verse quoted in its context…

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 18 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Col 1:15-17

NET
1:15  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn 28 over all creation, 29 1:16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him – all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers – all things were created through him and for him. 1:17 He himself is before all things and all things are held together  in him.

The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prwtotokos) could refer either to first in order of time, such as a first born child, or it could refer to one who is preeminent in rank. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (EGGNT), 43, expresses the meaning of the word well: “The ‘firstborn’ was either the eldest child in a family or a person of preeminent rank. The use of this term to describe the Davidic king in Ps 88:28 LXX (=Ps 89:27 EVV), ‘I will also appoint him my firstborn (πρωτότοκον), the most exalted of the kings of the earth,’ indicates that it can denote supremacy in rank as well as priority in time. But whether the πρωτό- element in the word denotes time, rank, or both, the significance of the -τοκος element as indicating birth or origin (from τίκτω, give birth to) has been virtually lost except in ref. to lit. birth.” In Col 1:15 the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus’ rank as over and above creation (cf. 1:16 and the “for” clause referring to Jesus as Creator).
29tn The genitive construction πάσης κτίσεως (pash” ktisew”) is a genitive of subordination and is therefore translated as “over all creation.” See ExSyn 103-
Source

So we see that “Firstborn doesn’t necessarily speak of the first to be born and in fact in context here is not.
Paul uses the same word (prwtotokos) in the next verse…

1:18 He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the firstborn32 from among the dead, so that he himself may become first in all things.33

32tn See the note on the term “firstborn” in 1:15. Here the reference to Jesus as the “firstborn from among the dead” seems to be arguing for a chronological priority, i.e., Jesus was the first to rise from the dead.
33tn Grk “in order that he may become in all things, himself, first.” Source

Now we know that Yeshua wasn’t the first person to rise from the dead, but he was the first person to rise from the dead in the New Creation.
Simply put, Yeshua is the firstborn because he is the first in all things! By and through him all things were created and without him nothing was made that was made. That would not include him for he didn’t create himself.

Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,10:35)

Always a Son of God.

Again, is there a scripture for this?

Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,10:35)

A firstborn lamb is also the first male to come out of the womb.  The firstborn lamb sacrifice was an example of what the Son of God would be for us.

Yeshua didn’t become the lamb until he took on the likeness of sinful flesh without sin.

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: Heb 1:4, 5

Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,10:35)

Colossians tells us that the Son of God was born before anything was IN heaven or ON earth.  There s you scripture that makes Him a son before Mary.

Don’t think so. Colossians is talking about his preeminence. By him all things were made, “Invisible and visible”, and as John clearly shows in John 1:3 without him was not anything made that was made. He is the firstborn in rank over all creation.

Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,10:35)

His sonship with power and authority started at His resurrection:

Huh? So he has 2 sonships?

Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,10:35)

Acts 13:30-35 30 “But God raised Him from the dead; 31 and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. 32 “And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33 that God has fulfilled this promise  to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.' 34 “As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ' I WILL GIVE YOU THE HOLY and SURE blessings OF DAVID.' NASU With all due respect, LU

These scriptures are post incarnation. No sonship of Yeshua before he was born a Son!

With all due respect,

WJ

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
The monogenes Son was sent into the world.
1Jn4

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,08:55)

Isn’t that all that the woman contributes anyway? Who does the creating? The woman? Who does the forming?

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,17:02)

Unless we are talking about the same thing we will never come to an understanding.  When talking about conception, we have to at least agree what conception is.  It sounds like we believe it means two different things.  Obviously a women doesn't just contribute SKIN.  Come on, now.  Give us more credit than that.  What we know of reproduction gives us a lot more credit than that!

Sorry Mandy. Woman bear children in pain because of the fall. The woman doesn’t do the creating or forming or the giving of the life, God does through his creative process called seed bearing seed. The Lord breathes the breath of life in the embryo. Adam and Eve were the only created humans without being born, all other creatures who are born are created.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,08:55)

But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine. Isa 43:1

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,17:02)

Forming a nation of people is a little different than fathering a son.

You left a scripture out. Here ill give you another one also.
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Jer 1:5

Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. Isa 44:2

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,08:55)

A woman’s body and the sperm doesn’t birth the soul and Spirit, which God breathes into the body and man becomes a living soul/spirit

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,17:02)

I disagree.  I believe that the union of the two parents provide all that is needed for the new individual – including their personality and spirit (life).  It gets pretty dicey when you want to take a human a part and ascribe “sections” of the human and who contributed what.

Nothing dicey at all. Man is a Spirit who has a soul who lives in a body that is called the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said that which is flesh is flesh, and that which is Spirit is Spirit.

The flesh of Mary or a woman doesn’t begat Spirit.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,08:55)

God doesn’t have sperm. God creates sperm. God doesn’t have DNA God creates DNA.

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,17:02)

This is perhaps true, however, it still doesn't negate God providing what was needed as the source of Jesus.

There is no scripture that says God is the source of Yeshua’s Spirit. The spirit of Yeshua is the Spirit of God. Rom 8:9

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,08:55)

Could it be it causes problems with yours?

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,17:02)

I won't lie to you, the scriptures say that Jesus is conceived and I believe them. If for some strange reason I find out differently or find that the scriptures are wrong……I'll have a problem with that. Thanks for the chat, Mandy

But it seems your Idea of conception is purely physical and not spiritual. God is Spirit. So it would stand to reason that what ever God begets would be Spirit also.

Blessings.

[942767]

Hi:

I would like to ask the following question and that is can the word “monogenes” as used in John 1:18 be translated “unique” rather than “only begotten”? If so, then that scripture would read the unique God who is in the “bosom of the Father” he hath declared Him.

[NickHassan]

Hi 94,
There are two parts to the word
MONO
and
GENES

Unique may relate to the first but GENES is to do somehow with beginnings[genesis]

[gollamudi]

Hi all pre-existence and non-trinitarian believers, see the explanation of WJ on Col 1:15-18, it talks about Jesus' pre-eminence not that he was born first. I now have to laugh at this. That's why I was telling repeatedly you can not be in between rather on two boats like one side believing in pre-existence of Jesus and rejecting the Trinitarianism. It is a utter confusion you create to scriptures by assuming that 'Light was Jesus that God first created or begot whatever you think like that'. Instead of believing such dogma better you appreciate Trinitarianism because they are better in interpreting scriptures, though I personally belive in monotheism. As Wj rightly quoted the verses like Heb 1:5; Acts 13:30-35 or Ps 2 all these are post -Jesus' birth on this earth (I don't use the term incarnation).
Please don't confuse others by misinterpreting the scriptures like that.
Peace to you
Adam

[dirtyknections]

Ok…I have a question for everyone who believes in “NO pre existence”…Prove it using 10 scriptures..treat me like a new bible student you are studying with…also provide references to the 1st century congregation, that show that those immediate followers of Jesus and the Gospel also believed in “NO pre existence”…

When I'm researching I always like to see what the 1st century congregations thought, believed, and taught..

Also, lets see what the Post 1st century Pre Constantine Christians believed…

And I'll do the same research…and post it…and lets see where the evidence points

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (942767 @ June 04 2008,19:44)

Hi: I would like to ask the following question and that is can the word “monogenes” as used in John 1:18 be translated “unique” rather than “only begotten”?  If so, then that scripture would read the unique God who is in the “bosom of the Father” he hath declared Him.

Hi 94

In a response I made earlier to LU, I think was a reply to you from her, I explain this Here.

NH is right, keeping in mind he was called “Unique” after he came in the flesh.

Blessings!

[Lightenup]

Hi 94,
I looked in 5 or 6 Bible versions and didn't find the word unique in any of them in the whole New Testament. I also do not see “unique” listed in the Strong's definitions.

http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=3439

NT:3439

monogenes (mon-og-en-ace'); from NT:3441 and NT:1096; only-born, i.e. sole:

KJV – only (begotten, child).

NT:3441

monos (mon'-os); probably from NT:3306; remaining, i.e. sole or single; by implication mere:

KJV – alone, only, by themselves.

NT:1096

ginomai (ghin'-om-ahee); a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen”- erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.)

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright  1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

The term used is monogenhv qeov it is not mono qeov. I do not see that “unique God” would be an accurate translation.

Let it be 94, only begotten God.

[gollamudi]

Hi DK
Yes I can quote many verses like these
1) 1 Pet 1:20 “Jesus was predestained before the foundations of the world”
2) Gal 4:4 “when fullness of time came …Jesus was born through a woman”
3) Rom 1:3-4 “born of a descendant of David…declared the son of God ..by the resurrection from the dead”
4) Heb 1:1-2 ” …in these last days He spoke to us in His son”
5) Eph 1:4-5 “… He chose us in him(christ) before the foundations of the world”
6) Jn 17:5 “..glorify me ..with the glory which I had before the foundations of the world”
7) Jn 17:24 ” ..for thou didst love me before the foundations of the world”
8) 2 Sam 7:12-16 ” …I will be a father to him and he will be son to me”
9) Ps 2:7 ” Today I have begotten thee..”
10) Isa 11:1-5 ” a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse”
Like this I can quote many scriptures that prove that there is no pre-existence of Jesus whatsoever except he was foreordained in the plan of God to take birth through a woman when the fullness of time comes according to Paul in Gal 4:4. I know you may interpret some of these scripture towards your pre-existence, then I leave to your dogma. The glory Jesus was mentioning in Jn 17:5 was pre-ordained glory for Jesus on his successful completion of God's will in his life not the pre-existing glory as you believe. Jesus was raisen to the level of this glory only after he rose from the dead not that he was already sitting with the father before his birth. Where do you find such verses to support that dogma?
Hope you will study these scripture in details and submit your anology.
Adam

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,10:35)

Quote (942767 @ June 04 2008,19:44) Hi: I would like to ask the following question and that is can the word “monogenes” as used in John 1:18 be translated “unique” rather than “only begotten”?  If so, then that scripture would read the unique God who is in the “bosom of the Father” he hath declared Him. Hi 94 In a response I made earlier to LU, I think was a reply to you from her, I explain this Here. NH is right, keeping in mind he was called “Unique” after he came in the flesh. Blessings!

Hi WJ,
Where was the term unique used? I looked at several different Bibles and didn't see that word anywhere in the New Testament.
LU

[dirtyknections]

Quote (gollamudi @ June 05 2008,02:53)

Hi DK Yes I can quote many verses like these 1) 1 Pet 1:20 “Jesus was predestained before the foundations of the world” 2) Gal 4:4 “when fullness of time came …Jesus was born through a woman” 3) Rom 1:3-4 “born of a descendant of David…declared the son of God ..by the resurrection from the dead” 4) Heb 1:1-2 ” …in these last days He spoke to us in His son” 5) Eph 1:4-5 “… He chose us in him(christ) before the foundations of the world” 6) Jn 17:5 “..glorify me ..with the glory which I had before the foundations of the world” 7) Jn 17:24 ” ..for thou didst love me before the foundations of the world” 8) 2 Sam 7:12-16 ” …I will be a father to him and he will be son to me” 9) Ps 2:7 ” Today I have begotten thee..” 10) Isa 11:1-5 ” a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse” Like this I can quote many scriptures that prove that there is no pre-existence of Jesus whatsoever except he was foreordained in the plan of God to take birth through a woman when the fullness of time comes according to Paul in Gal 4:4. I know you may interpret some of these scripture towards your pre-existence, then I leave to your dogma. The glory Jesus was mentioning in Jn 17:5 was pre-ordained glory for Jesus on his successful completion of God's will in his life not the pre-existing glory as you believe. Jesus was raisen to the level of this glory only after he rose from the dead not that he was already sitting with the father before his birth. Where do you find such verses to support that dogma? Hope you will study these scripture in details and submit your anology. Adam

Now research and see if the 1st century congregation…who were immediate followers of jesus and the apostles…and see if they understood those scriptures that way….

Also look at the “post-1st century-pre constantine” era Christians…and then get back to me…

Notice the eras I want you to research are “Pre 300ce aka Constantine aka Counsel of Nicea aka Trinity”..

Thats important because you say our thoughts are more in line with trinatarians…once YOU do some REAL research….then I will respond…

Remember Jesus prophecied a “Great Apostacy”..so its important we get the understandings and beliefs of those as close to Jesus as possible..not that we have to believe them, but rather they may help us come to a greater appreciation for scripture.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2008,02:53)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,10:35) Quote (942767 @ June 04 2008,19:44) Hi: I would like to ask the following question and that is can the word “monogenes” as used in John 1:18 be translated “unique” rather than “only begotten”?  If so, then that scripture would read the unique God who is in the “bosom of the Father” he hath declared Him. Hi 94 In a response I made earlier to LU, I think was a reply to you from her, I explain this Here. NH is right, keeping in mind he was called “Unique” after he came in the flesh. Blessings! Hi WJ, Where was the term unique used?  I looked at several different Bibles and didn't see that word anywhere in the New Testament. LU

LU

“unique”

1: being the only one : sole
2 a: being without a like or equal : unequaled b: distinctively characteristic : peculiar 1

Source

There are many words not found in the Bible which we use to describe a Biblical truth.

For instance “Bible”, “Rapture” “Omniscient” Etc.

The dictionary seems to agree with these…

NLT John 1:18
No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart; he has told us about him.
Footnote:
Some manuscripts read his one and only Son.
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

NIV
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
Footnote:
a Or the Only Begotten
b Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son

ESV
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
Footnote:
a Greek in the bosom of the Father
b Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

NET
No one has ever seen God. The only one,45 himself God, who is in closest fellowship with46 the Father, has made God47 known.48
Footnote
45tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ �1,13 � lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. �75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in �66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenh”) see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.

Blessings!

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2008,17:38)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,09:13) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2008,16:55) Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,08:46) I guess not.  What do you think it means? Anyway, I do believe that God is the source of everything (including his own Son, Jesus).  Because Jesus is human, he provided what was needed.  Pure and simple.  In my opinion, of course.   Mandy The creation of man was twofold. God formed him from the dust of the ground and then breathed into him the breath of life and man became a living soul/spirit. What makes Yeshua Divine is not his body which the Lord prepared for him, (Heb 10:5) which was purely physical. It is the Eternal Spirit which was with God. John 1:1 So Yeshua is the Word/Spirit which was made flesh or tabernacled among us. John 1:14, Phil 2:4-6 Blessings! Hi again WJ, You say eternal spirit and this is one point where I disagree with you.  If He was eternal, He would be no one's son.  He might be a partner but not a son. LU Hi LU There is no scripture that says Yeshua was a son before he was born a son. Sons of God in the Hebrew scriptures are said to be angels. This may explain why the JWs believe Yeshua was Michael. For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 1 John 1:2 John goes on to confirm in this Epistle who it is that was with the Father. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life. 1 John 5:20 NET Foot note. The pronoun This one (οὗτος, Joutos) refers to a person, but it is far from clear whether it should be understood as a reference (1) to God the Father or (2) to Jesus Christ. R. E. Brown (Epistles of John [AB], 625) comments, “I John, which began with an example of stunning grammatical obscurity in the prologue, continues to the end to offer us examples of unclear grammar.” The nearest previous antecedent is Jesus Christ, immediately preceding, but on some occasions when this has been true the pronoun still refers to God (see 1 John 2:3). The first predicate which follows This one in 5:20, the true God, is a description of God the Father used by Jesus in John 17:3, and was used in the preceding clause of the present verse to refer to God the Father (him who is true). Yet the second predicate of This one in 5:20, eternal life, appears to refer to Jesus, because although the Father possesses “life” (John 5:26, 6:57) just as Jesus does (John 1:4, 6:57, 1 John 5:11), “life” is never predicated of the Father elsewhere, while it is predicated of Jesus in John 11:25 and 14:6 (a self-predication by Jesus). If This one in 5:20 is understood as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to “the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” Thus it appears best to understand the pronoun This one in 5:20 as a reference to Jesus Christ. The christological affirmation which results is striking, but certainly not beyond the capabilities of the author (see John 1:1 and 20:28): This One [Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life. There simply is no unambiguous scripture that says the pre-incarnate Yeshua had a begining. Blessings.

Hey WJ,
Are you saying that the “son of God” did not begin till His conception within Mary?

I thought that the trinity speaks of an eternal Son. If the Son didn't always exist then the second person of the trinity shouldn't be called the “Son”. Was there a triune God, (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the Old Testament times? How could there be if there were no Son, as you yourself have pointed out?

Blessings to you!
LU

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,11:13)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2008,02:53) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,10:35) Quote (942767 @ June 04 2008,19:44) Hi: I would like to ask the following question and that is can the word “monogenes” as used in John 1:18 be translated “unique” rather than “only begotten”?  If so, then that scripture would read the unique God who is in the “bosom of the Father” he hath declared Him. Hi 94 In a response I made earlier to LU, I think was a reply to you from her, I explain this Here. NH is right, keeping in mind he was called “Unique” after he came in the flesh. Blessings! Hi WJ, Where was the term unique used?  I looked at several different Bibles and didn't see that word anywhere in the New Testament. LU LU “unique” 1: being the only one : sole 2 a: being without a like or equal : unequaled b: distinctively characteristic : peculiar 1 Source There are many words not found in the Bible which we use to describe a Biblical truth. For instance “Bible”, “Rapture” “Omniscient” Etc. The dictionary seems to agree with these… NLT John 1:18 No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart; he has told us about him. Footnote: Some manuscripts read his one and only Son. New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust NIV No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,,who is at the Father's side, has made him known. Footnote: a Or the Only Begotten b Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son ESV No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. Footnote: a Greek in the bosom of the Father b Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles NET No one has ever seen God. The only one,45 himself God, who is in closest fellowship with46 the Father, has made God47 known.48 Footnote 45tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ �1,13 � lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. �75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in �66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text. tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονο& #947;ενής (monogenh”) see the note on “one and only” in 1:14. Blessings!

WJ,

So that would be no verses that actually use the word “unique”.

You seem to like this translation so I will ask you a question using it also.

ESV
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
Footnote:
a Greek in the bosom of the Father
b Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

If Jesus is “the only God, who is at the Father's side,” then the Holy Spirit is not also God at the Father's side.

This post and my last post to you are pointing out problems with your understanding if there truly is a triune God. You are contradicting your own doctrine.

LU

[gollamudi]

Hi Dk, the verses I quoted were written by the first century christians and apostles like Peter, John, Paul who else you need I don't follow the dogma of Nicea or any other historicals like Arians who made utter confusion in understanding God. See the scriptures with God's Spirit not with human dogma because the wise of this world will be caught in their dogma.
Take care
Adam

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2008,03:17)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2008,17:38) Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,09:13) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2008,16:55) Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,08:46) I guess not.  What do you think it means? Anyway, I do believe that God is the source of everything (including his own Son, Jesus).  Because Jesus is human, he provided what was needed.  Pure and simple.  In my opinion, of course.   Mandy The creation of man was twofold. God formed him from the dust of the ground and then breathed into him the breath of life and man became a living soul/spirit. What makes Yeshua Divine is not his body which the Lord prepared for him, (Heb 10:5) which was purely physical. It is the Eternal Spirit which was with God. John 1:1 So Yeshua is the Word/Spirit which was made flesh or tabernacled among us. John 1:14, Phil 2:4-6 Blessings! Hi again WJ, You say eternal spirit and this is one point where I disagree with you.  If He was eternal, He would be no one's son.  He might be a partner but not a son. LU Hi LU There is no scripture that says Yeshua was a son before he was born a son. Sons of God in the Hebrew scriptures are said to be angels. This may explain why the JWs believe Yeshua was Michael. For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 1 John 1:2 John goes on to confirm in this Epistle who it is that was with the Father. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life. 1 John 5:20 NET Foot note. The pronoun This one (οὗτος, Joutos) refers to a person, but it is far from clear whether it should be understood as a reference (1) to God the Father or (2) to Jesus Christ. R. E. Brown (Epistles of John [AB], 625) comments, “I John, which began with an example of stunning grammatical obscurity in the prologue, continues to the end to offer us examples of unclear grammar.” The nearest previous antecedent is Jesus Christ, immediately preceding, but on some occasions when this has been true the pronoun still refers to God (see 1 John 2:3). The first predicate which follows This one in 5:20, the true God, is a description of God the Father used by Jesus in John 17:3, and was used in the preceding clause of the present verse to refer to God the Father (him who is true). Yet the second predicate of This one in 5:20, eternal life, appears to refer to Jesus, because although the Father possesses “life” (John 5:26, 6:57) just as Jesus does (John 1:4, 6:57, 1 John 5:11), “life” is never predicated of the Father elsewhere, while it is predicated of Jesus in John 11:25 and 14:6 (a self-predication by Jesus). If This one in 5:20 is understood as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to “the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” Thus it appears best to understand the pronoun This one in 5:20 as a reference to Jesus Christ. The christological affirmation which results is striking, but certainly not beyond the capabilities of the author (see John 1:1 and 20:28): This One [Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life. There simply is no unambiguous scripture that says the pre-incarnate Yeshua had a begining. Blessings. Hey WJ, Are you saying that the “son of God” did not begin till His conception within Mary? I thought that the trinity speaks of an eternal Son.  If the Son didn't always exist then the second person of the trinity shouldn't be called the “Son”.  Was there a triune God, (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the Old Testament times?  How could there be if there were no Son, as you yourself have pointed out? Blessings to you! LU

LU

I think I have already explained what I am saying.

I do not hold to the creeds that speak of Yeshua as being the Son eternally generated from the Father.

There is no scriptural evidence Yeshua was declared to be the Son of God before he took on the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man. I believe There was the Father, and the Word (who now is named Yeshua) that was with God and was God, and the Holy Spirit were One YHWH, Three persons In One God.

If you study this you will see that Yeshua was the One who appeared to all of the Prophets and Patriarchs as YHWH.

For no man could come to the Father but by who we now know as Yeshua, which means “YHWH” is salvation.

Here is a link a sight that explains that Yeshua is the God of the OT.

Click here!

Yeshua scripturally cant be “a god”!

He either is God in the flesh or he is not a god at all.

Men have tried to destroy the view that Yeshua is God for centuries and the beat goes on.

Blessings!  

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2008,03:31)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,11:13) Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2008,02:53) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,10:35) Quote (942767 @ June 04 2008,19:44) Hi: I would like to ask the following question and that is can the word “monogenes” as used in John 1:18 be translated “unique” rather than “only begotten”?  If so, then that scripture would read the unique God who is in the “bosom of the Father” he hath declared Him. Hi 94 In a response I made earlier to LU, I think was a reply to you from her, I explain this Here. NH is right, keeping in mind he was called “Unique” after he came in the flesh. Blessings! Hi WJ, Where was the term unique used?  I looked at several different Bibles and didn't see that word anywhere in the New Testament. LU LU “unique” 1: being the only one : sole 2 a: being without a like or equal : unequaled b: distinctively characteristic : peculiar 1 Source There are many words not found in the Bible which we use to describe a Biblical truth. For instance “Bible”, “Rapture” “Omniscient” Etc. The dictionary seems to agree with these… NLT John 1:18 No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart; he has told us about him. Footnote: Some manuscripts read his one and only Son. New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust NIV No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,,who is at the Father's side, has made him known. Footnote: a Or the Only Begotten b Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son ESV No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. Footnote: a Greek in the bosom of the Father b Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles NET No one has ever seen God. The only one,45 himself God, who is in closest fellowship with46 the Father, has made God47 known.48 Footnote 45tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ �1,13 � lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. �75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in �66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 1 1:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text. tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenh”) see the note on “one and only” in 1:14. Blessings! WJ, So that would be no verses that actually use the word “unique”.   You seem to like this translation so I will ask you a question using it also. ESV No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. Footnote: a Greek in the bosom of the Father b Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles If Jesus is “the only God, who is at the Father's side,” then the Holy Spirit is not also God at the Father's side. This post and my last post to you are pointing out problems with your understanding if there truly is a triune God.  You are contradicting your own doctrine. LU

LU

I see no contradiction.

There is no disparity in the Godhead. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God.

With your logic you are simply confused.

Is Yeshua in the Father? Is the Father in Yeshua? Then how can they be in each other at the same time.

How can they be in each other and be beside each other?

Tell me LU, how many spirits did you drink or was baptised into?

Does the Father live in you, or the Son or the Holy Spirit?

If you answer these questions then you will know the nature of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for they are ONE, not the same in person, but One God.

The Henotheistic view has many flaws, for they claim Yeshua preexisted as “a god” much like the Jws. But scriptures are clear only YHWH created all thinngs “By himself”, with none other.

[GeneBalthrop]

to all………God is NOT A (MAN) that He should LIE nor a (SON OF MAN) that He should repent.So i guess Jesus was lying when He said he was a (SON OF MAN), some one please tell me who was lying here, was it Jesus or God or both. And when Jesus said (THOU) art the ONLY TRUE GOD, He was lying right< Because he is the only true God right.

And indeed the beat goes on.

IMO……………….gene

[Lightenup]

WJ,
So you say there is no eternal “Son”, then it stands to reason that there is also no eternal “Father”. You then have your own idea of a trinity. I may be wrong but I was taught that the first person of the trinity was the Father, the second person of the trinity was the Son, and the third person of the trinity was the Holy Spirit and they are co-eternal.

[Author]

Posts