Preexistence

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2008,02:39)

I believe He was actually born of God Himself!

Ah……I believe this too!!

August 2, 2008 at 6:41 pm#99933

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2008,00:05)

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 02 2008,03:03)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2008,01:44)

Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled.

This is certainly one opinion, and one opinion that happens to enforce your belief system. However there are other's out there that would claim the opposite and I have read many of them. One such argument against the GSR is presented by the CES folks and if you'd like I could copy their findings here. But something tells me that your mind is made up and that is OK, too.

Mandy,
Sure, go ahead. It is good to look at all angles.
Kathi

Hi Kathi,
I couldn't find the link so I have to type this by hand. I'll invest the time so that other's may see the flip side. This is merely one view out of many though, that discount the GSR. Other's should also be compared.

From the book, One God & One Lord, by http://www.truthortradition.com

There are problems the the Granville Sharp “Rule”. First, it is impossible to prove that it was a rule of grammar at the time of the apostle Paul. Nigel Turner, a Trinitarian, writes:

Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive. Sometimes the definite article is not repeated even when there is a clear separation in idea.

Buzzard writes about Titus 2:13, also supposedly an example of the Granville Sharp rule:

a wide range of grammarians and Biblical scholars have recognized that the absence of the definite article before “our Savior Jesus Christ” is auite inadequate to establish the Trinitarian cliam that Jesus is here called “the great God”.

The point is, that when scripture refers to “our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” it can refer to two separate beings – 1) the Great God and 2) the Savior, Jesus Christ. Andrews Norton wrote a clear evaluation of the Granville Sharp Rule as it applies to the Trinity in Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians. Norton writes:

The argument for the deity of Christ founded upon the omission of the Greek article was recxeived and brought into notice inthe last century by Granville Sharp, Esq. He applied it to eight texts, which will be hereafter mentioned. The last words of Ephesians 5:5 may afford an example of the construction on which th argument is founded: “in the Kingdom of Christ and God.” From the article being inserted before “Christ” and omitted before “God,” Mr. Sharp infers that both names relate to the same person, and renders “in the kingdom of Christ our God.” the proper translation I suppose to be of the common Version (the KJV), “in the kingdom of Christ and of God,” or, “in the kingdom of the Messiah and of God.”

The argument of Sharp is defended by Bishop Middleton in his Doctrine of the Greek article. by attending to the rule laid down by him, with it's limitations and exceptions, we shall be able to judge of it's applicability to the passage in question. His rule is this:

When two or more attributives, joined by a copulative or copulatives, are assumed of (related to) the same person or thing, before the first attributive the article is inserted, before the remaining ones it is omitted.”

by attributives, he understands adjectives, participles and nouns, which are significant of character, relation, and dignity.

The limitations and exceptions to the rule stated by him are as follows:

1. There is no similar rule respecting “names of substances considered as substances.” Thus, we may say “the stone and gold,” without repeating the article before “gold,” though we speak of two different substances. The reason of this limitation of the rule is stated to be that “distinct real essences cannot be conceived to belong to the same thing;” or, in other words, that the same thing cannot be supposed to be two different substances.

In this case, then, it appears that the article is not repeated, because its repetition is not necessary to prevent ambiguity. This is the true principle with accounts for all the limitations and exceptions to the rule that are stated by Bishop Middleton and others. It is mentioned thus early, that the principle may be kept in mind; and it's truth may be remarked in other cases of limitation or of exception to be quoted.

KATHI, AT THIS POINT I REALIZE THERE ARE PAGES LEFT TO QUOTE AND I NEED TO GET ON WITH MY MORNING. Please refer to said book for more very important information on this GSR!

I did not proof this so sorry for mistakes and typos.

Have a great weekend,
Mandy

August 2, 2008 at 7:24 pm#99936

Participant

Hello again,

Quote

Mandy,
Your answer:

His Father. His Father made Him a Son and the Father reveals to those whom He chooses, that He is His Son.

This is the answer to the question, “Who determines who the real Son is?”.
I agree with your answer.

Quote

Matthew 16
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Notice that when Peter announces who Jesus is he attaches his identity (the Christ) with who his father is (the living God). Likewise, when Jesus answers Peter he also calls his name and recognizes who his father is (Jona). Just as Peter is the son of his Father, Peter is confirming that Jesus is the son of his Father, God. There is no discussion of preexisting forms and lives on either side. God did not reveal this part of the story to Peter. Should he have? That is, if indeed he was revealing who Jesus really was?

It is assumption to say that “Jesus” was the son living with God prior to his “reveal” as the earthly, flesh-born Son of God. If there were clear scriptures regarding that truth this thread would not exist!

But having recognized that, I also recognize that you have quilted some scriptures together that seem to tell a nice story (though it could easily be told a different way). This fact tells me that it is not necessarily THE truth, but one way it could pan out. I'm not being negative, just objective.

Quote

Jesus as Mary's first child had a beginning of days and end of life on the cross and He had a written geneology.

Are you willing to admit that “Jesus” and the preexistent Son are two different Sons? One is begotten of God alone, while the other was born of God AND a women? Or are you of the camp that Mary was just a flesh-doning factory, contributing nothing to Jesus but the “body prepared for him”?

Thanks for the chat,
Mandy

August 2, 2008 at 7:28 pm#99937

Participant

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 02 2008,14:06)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2008,02:39)

I believe He was actually born of God Himself!

Ah……I believe this too!!

Hi Mandy,
Thanks for taking all that time copying from that book. I will have to look at that more closely.

You say that you believe that the Son of God was born of God Himself. Was He born of God many hundreds of years before He was born of Mary? That is what I believe. Forgive me if I am wrong here but I'm quite sure that you don't believe that He was born of God many hundreds of years before He was born of Mary.

I hope you are doing well,
Kathi

August 2, 2008 at 7:34 pm#99939

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2008,07:28)

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 02 2008,14:06)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2008,02:39)

I believe He was actually born of God Himself!

Ah……I believe this too!!

Hi Mandy,
Thanks for taking all that time copying from that book. I will have to look at that more closely.

I hope you are doing well,
Kathi

Oh, hi Kathi, I was just signing off when I saw your reply.

You would be correct, I do not believe that J e s u s was born of God hundreds of years ago. The reason I do not believe this is because it is not written in the scriptures. Nor is it written that the “word” (as Jesus) or the “logos” (as Jesus) was born of God hundreds of years ago.

If I am mistaken, please show me where. I will gladly take a look at a few scriptures (not pages, please). With a truth like this, only a few clear scriptures are needed.

I look forward to your response.
Love,
Mandy

August 2, 2008 at 9:20 pm#99945

Participant

Mandy! I have read all of the posts that you have made. I thank your for them. However. I must say that Humans want to be always right. So, what do we have to do in order to get to the truth.
First of all I am going to take my Husbands advice and ask God for His wisdom to show me the truth. Believe me when a J.W. first come and told me about the preexisting of Jesus, I said to Georg that Guy is nuts.
God did not leave me in that believe, however.
When we can take several Scriptures and see that they agree with each other, then I believe we have the truth. Could it be wrong, of course.
But we only have this Bible. Can we see if that this Bible is the true word of God. Yes. By cross references Georg has taking this Bible and has come up with Historical events that have come true.
I am going to stop this post and ask Georg to come and help. So I need to put this up. More will come later. Irene
Irene

August 2, 2008 at 10:13 pm#99949

Participant

Read 2 Corinth. 4:3-4
verse 3 But if our gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost.
verse 4 In whom the God of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not…
This shows that if you don't believe the word of God, God can not teach you, because you reject His Holy Spirit. If you think that Scholars, from any age, have the understanding, of the Bible, then why can't they agree on the same doctrine. Theologians that teach about God, teach the doctrine of men.
That is why Georg does not waste his time reading their writings. They are like the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus time.
If you are wondering when Jesus was born, then look at this verse
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Before the world was it says, or the entire universe for that matter. The question is how long before Jesus created all things, Col. 1:16, was He created by God Col 1:15.
Jesus said that He is the first and the last, God Himself created. Rev. 22:13.
Everything else was created by Jesus.
Mandy I hope that this helps. I do truly believe this.
Peace and Love Irene

August 3, 2008 at 1:00 am#99953

Participant

Thanks so much Irene and Georg. I appreciate your posts and your prayer.

Question: does Jesus explain John 17:5? Are we given any lessons on his previous so-called glory?

Thanks,
Mandy

August 3, 2008 at 2:04 am#99957

Participant

Quote (Irene @ Aug. 02 2008,18:13)

Hi Irene and Georg,
I hope you are doing ok.

I was wondering why you insist that the Son of God was created and not born. I think that there is a big difference. The scriptures do not say “first created” but they do say “firstborn”.

It speaks of Him being the beginning of all creation but as the firstborn of all creation, not as the first created of all creation. When it says that He is the first and the last it doesn't say He is the first created and the last created it simply says He is the first and the last. It could mean that He is the firstborn son and the last son since He is the only begotten. I do not think that a begotten son is the same as a created son.

I believe that the only begotten Son was born, then there are the created sons that are angels and man. To create is not the same as to begat.

God created the fish and birds, He didn't begat the fish or birds. He begat one of His own kind, a Son, an exact representation of His very nature. We beget one of our own kind (or even 4 or 5 as in our case). We didn't create our children.

Just wondering,
Love,
Kathi

August 3, 2008 at 2:38 am#99962

Participant

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 02 2008,15:24)

Hello again,

Quote

Mandy,
Your answer:

His Father. His Father made Him a Son and the Father reveals to those whom He chooses, that He is His Son.

This is the answer to the question, “Who determines who the real Son is?”.
I agree with your answer.

Quote

Jesus as Mary's first child had a beginning of days and end of life on the cross and He had a written geneology.

Thanks for the chat,
Mandy

Hi Mandy,

Quote

Jesus as Mary's first child had a beginning of days and end of life on the cross and He had a written geneology.

Well, I am willing to admit that the Son of God in His role as “Jesus” was Mary's son, He was born of a woman, Mary, and born To God but not OF God (at that time), His father. I would say that the Son of God had a different body, a heavenly body, before He had an earthly body. While in His heavenly body, he had no mother, He was born OF God alone. After He came in His earthly body, He did have a mother. So, in that way He was definitely different. I believe that His spirit was the same though.

Just as our spirit when we die is going to be the same spirit to exist in our heavenly bodies, His was the same spirit in His heavenly body as it was in His earthly body. I believe that we are identified by our spirit more so than our body.

Love
Kathi

August 3, 2008 at 2:46 am#99963

Participant

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 03 2008,13:00)

Thanks so much Irene and Georg. I appreciate your posts and your prayer.

Question: does Jesus explain John 17:5? Are we given any lessons on his previous so-called glory?

Thanks,
Mandy

Mandy! Thank you for replying.
His glory that He gave up to become one of us, was His Spirit Nature.
Peace and Love Irene

August 3, 2008 at 3:01 am#99965

Participant

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 02 2008,15:34)

If I am mistaken, please show me where. I will gladly take a look at a few scriptures (not pages, please). With a truth like this, only a few clear scriptures are needed.

I look forward to your response.
Love,
Mandy

Hi Mandy,
If He said that before Abraham was born, He existed in a living and active way would you believe that He was alive before Abraham was born? “I am” is in the active voice showing pre-existense.

56 “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

There is one passage for you to at least show pre-existense. If you can't believe that, then anymore verses are useless.

God bless,
Kathi

August 3, 2008 at 3:19 am#99967

Participant

Kathi!
Col. 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.
verse 16 For by Him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in earth,….

In other words all the angels were created, the same way Jesus was created, except He was
created by the Father.
Born simple means brought into existence, spirit beings or angels don't have to wait 9 months for
that to happen. Adam and Eve were not born either, Adam was created out of clay, and Eve was
formed out of one of Adams rib. Every other human being would have to be developed in the
Mothers womb for 9 months, before he or she is born.
Peace and Love Irene

August 3, 2008 at 3:49 am#99968

Participant

Quote (Irene @ Aug. 02 2008,23:19)

Kathi!
Col. 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.
verse 16 For by Him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in earth,….

In other words all the angels were created, the same way Jesus was created, except He was
created by the Father.
Born simple means brought into existence, spirit beings or angels don't have to wait 9 months for
that to happen. Adam and Eve were not born either, Adam was created out of clay, and Eve was
formed out of one of Adams rib. Every other human being would have to be developed in the
Mothers womb for 9 months, before he or she is born.
Peace and Love Irene

Hi Irene,
I'm sorry but I do not agree that the Son of God was created by the Father. He was the firstBORN of the Father, the only “begotten” not the only “created”. I would agree that how this happened was very different than the firstborn of man, Cain.

Don't you see that begotten and created are two different words with two different meanings?

John 3:16 says:
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son.

It does not say that He gave His only created son.

Take care,
Kathi

August 3, 2008 at 7:05 am#99975

Participant

Hi Kathi,

Quote

“I am” is in the active voice showing pre-existense.

“I am” may be considered “active” but that certainly does not show or prove preexistence in the way that you seem to imagine.

The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abe, Jesus must have preexisted in some form physically/spiritually. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abe's time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man.

A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God's foreknowledge. Verse 56 is translated in the KJV, which says, “Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” This verse says that Abe “saw” the Day of Christ, which is normally considered by theologians to be the day when Christ conquerors the earth and sets up his kingdom. That would fit with what Hebrews says about Abe: “For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (11:20). Abe looked for a city that is still future, yet the bible says Abe “saw” it.

In what sense could Abe have seen something that was future? Although Abe saw the Day of Christ by faith, that day existed in the mind of God long before Abe. The context of God's plan existing from the beginning, Christ certainly was “before” Abraham.

Final thought on this passage is that to say Jesus is “before” him is not to lift him out of the ranks of humanity but to assert his unconditional precedence.

August 3, 2008 at 7:23 am#99976

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2008,15:01)

There is one passage for you to at least show pre-existense. If you can't believe that, then anymore verses are useless.

Kathi,

Indeed it is useless because there are no clear passages of scripture that prove Jesus' preexistence. The “I am” passage also falls short of “proving” any preexistence at all. However if you want to see it there – you may indeed see it – but it is not clear.

Off to bed,
Mandy

August 3, 2008 at 2:11 pm#99979

gollamudi

Participant

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 03 2008,19:05)

Hi Kathi,

Quote

“I am” is in the active voice showing pre-existense.

“I am” may be considered “active” but that certainly does not show or prove preexistence in the way that you seem to imagine.

Final thought on this passage is that to say Jesus is “before” him is not to lift him out of the ranks of humanity but to assert his unconditional precedence.

Hi Mandy,
That's wonderful post on disproving Jesus's literal preexistence. I am happy you are with me in this battle of unending debate on preexistence. Hope our Sis Kathi appreciate this debate which I kindled by my posts here.

Hi Sis Kathi,
Do you think we who born are of our parents are not created beings?

Do think Jesus birth different from ours in what way?

Do think Jesus who was born to a human mother, a begotten God?

How can a God be born to his creation?

You question to me regarding manipulation of scriptures 'yes' I say three times that scribes and translators changed the texts as per their wish and will not according to God's will. If you want you can read the book “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman. It gives full picture on “Who changed the bible?”

Please answer the queries of Irene/Georg on Col 1:12-17 what is meant by “Jesus was the first born all created things of this universe”?

Your belief of Jesus being born and not created first before the foundations of the world from God is baseless on scriptures. Either you have to agree with the trinitarians by saying that the Son coexisting with Father from eternity uncreated or you have to believe Arianism/JW which says that son had beginning by first created before all thing by the Father God. Your way of telling begotten not created is like the slogan of the Trinitarians but the origins like the Arians by saying that the son is having a begining. I can clearly get what you believe which is not so difficult to grasp my sis.
Please understand God from the view point of a Jewish origin not from our pagan origin.
Thanks and blessings
Adam

August 3, 2008 at 2:17 pm#99980

gollamudi

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 03 2008,04:57)

Adam……I think it was Athanius who taught the trinity not Airus who taught it, Ithink Arius believed Jesus did not exist as a God before his birth. Check it out in the book when Jesus became God i am pretty sure it there. But what you are saying is right in my opinion Jesus was not a preexisting God or being either, he did not come into existence until his berth through Mary, as Many and others believe.

Peace to you and your brother……….gene

Hi brother Gene,
Thanks for your post addressed to me. In fact I have read the book “When Jesus became God” fully. I agree that Athenasius is the one who fought for trinity but we should not forget that the Arians began this controversial belief of Jesus' preexistence by saying God created son before the foundations of the world from nothing and they also believed in son's divinity.

Sorry to bother you.
Peace and love to you
Adam

August 3, 2008 at 3:11 pm#99987

Participant

Hi All

Why is it that we stumble over words like, son, begotten, firstborn, only begotten, born, created.
Here are the definition for these words.

Son – he who receives life from the father.
Begotten – to acquire; to become the father of; sire; to cause; produce.
Firstborn – born first in a family; oldest; the first-borne child.
Only begotten – only child of.
Born – to give birth; brought into life or existence.
Create (-ated) – to cause to come into existence; make; produce; bring about.

By tradition only, are we taught to ignore these true meaning of these words, if they don't apply, why are they in the bible?
It should be very simple to understand, if we only allow ourselves to think logically and sensibly, unhindered by tradition.
Jehovah God, whom we address as Father, is the only one that has always existed. Everything else, and every ONE else, has a beginning; including his Son Jesus.

Georg

August 3, 2008 at 3:26 pm#99990