- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Kathi,
I just posted a reply to you and lost the entire thing. So I will attempt again to reply to this post. I confess that it will be a bit more pithy and with less enthusiasm simply because now I'm frustrated from having lost 10 minutes worth of thoughtful posting!
Quote 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,
In what way is Jesus “Mary's son”? Was Jesus born to Mary the same way your children were born to you? If not why? And if not, then can you honestly say you believe Mary is his biological mother? If not biological, what other type of mother conceives children? You see where I'm going with this.Quote He was born of a woman, Mary, and born To God but not OF God (at that time), His father.
If Jesus was conceived through the holy Spirit of God, in what way was he NOT “of” his Father at the time of conception?Quote I would say that the Son of God had a different body, a heavenly body, before He had an earthly body.
Adam was the man from earth. Jesus was the MAN from heaven.1 Corinthians 15:47
The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.Was Jesus a MAN in heaven? Did he have a “heavenly body” as a MAN?
Quote While in His heavenly body, he had no mother, He was born OF God alone.
In my opinion we have yet to establish Jesus' “heavenly body” let alone that fact that *Jesus* was born of God alone.Quote After He came in His earthly body, He did have a mother.
We have also yet to establish whether Jesus had a true “mother” or just a factory that produced skin and “body prepared for him”.Sorry Kathi, I'm not having much luck with my posting today. I wasn't done before it published. I'll continue here….
OK, let me try one last time….
Quote After He came in His earthly body, He did have a mother. So, in that way He was definitely different.
Again, trying to establish what you mean by having a mother and having an earthly body. In what way was he different? If as you say, his spirit remained the same, what was different about him?Did the “MAN from heaven” have a spiritual body? Are heavenly beings referred to as men (mankind)?
If Mary didn't contribute her DNA what did she contribute to her son that made him different than he was before? Skin only? Would that really make Jesus “different” or just look different?
Have a great day, Kathi. We are enjoying what is called, Seafair Sunday. It's a longtime WA tradition to have hydro-plane races in our Lake Washington. It's a huge boating opportunity and tons of fun. We had better head out and get going.
Thanks for your thoughts/beliefs/challenges/comments on this very important subject. We may not agree, but it's certainly nice to keep this topic at the forefront of our thinking…….
Mandy
Oh my,
So many posts to respond to and so many parties this weekend. Holy cow! I have no time right now, maybe tomorrow. Thanks all for your inquiries.
LUQuote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 04 2008,06:29) Did the “MAN from heaven” have a spiritual body? Are heavenly beings referred to as men (mankind)?
Example:The accountant from New York was not necessarily an accountant when he was in New York, but that the accountant was originally from New York.
The man from Heaven could be read the same way. He could have been a man in Heaven and came to earth, the man could have previously been in Heaven (with no reference to being a man there), or could be a man who belongs in Heaven.
“The man from Heaven” on it's own probably doesn't prove much regarding this topic, but needs to be looked at in context. Context seems to side with Jesus being the Word that was with God in the beginning and who became flesh.
It is actually written that we should believe that he came in the flesh, not a plan coming in the flesh. Denying that HE came in the flesh is of the antichrist spirit.
2 John 1:7
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.Is saying that a plan came in the flesh a subtle way of denying that Jesus Christ came in the flesh? What do others think?
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 04 2008,13:41) Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 04 2008,06:29) Did the “MAN from heaven” have a spiritual body? Are heavenly beings referred to as men (mankind)?
Example:The accountant from New York was not necessarily an accountant when he was in New York, but that the accountant was originally from New York.
The man from Heaven could be read the same way. He could have been a man in Heaven and came to earth, the man could have previously been in Heaven (with no reference to being a man there), or could be a man who belongs in Heaven.
“The man from Heaven” on it's own probably doesn't prove much regarding this topic, but needs to be looked at in context. Context seems to side with Jesus being the Word that was with God in the beginning and who became flesh.
It is actually written that we should believe that he came in the flesh, not a plan coming in the flesh. Denying that HE came in the flesh is of the antichrist spirit.
2 John 1:7
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.Is saying that a plan came in the flesh a subtle way of denying that Jesus Christ came in the flesh? What do others think?
Absolutely true!!!!
God send His Son not into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him we might be saved.
So were did God send His Son from???
Where is God our Father?
That is were Jesus as the Word was.
When we put all together, we do come up with the truth.
He was the firstborn of all creation. First to be born and first to be resurrected from the dead. That in all He will have preeminence.
Rev. 22:12
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,
the First and the Last.
John 17:5 ” And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”
Peace and Love IreneHi t8,
Quote The accountant from New York was not necessarily an accountant when he was in New York, but that the accountant was originally from New York.
Say what? This reminds me of the Abbott and Castello act of, “Who's on First?”.Quote The man from Heaven could be read the same way. He could have been a man in Heaven and came to earth, the man could have previously been in Heaven (with no reference to being a man there), or could be a man who belongs in Heaven.
All of these examples “could be” true, but are they written?Quote Context seems to side with Jesus being the Word that was with God in the beginning and who became flesh.
With all due respect, “seems to” goes a long way to “proving” anything regarding J e s u s preexisting his birth.Quote It is actually written that we should believe that he came in the flesh, not a plan coming in the flesh. Denying that HE came in the flesh is of the antichrist spirit.
Wow, this was a stretch t8. Going from not being able to prove preexistence to saying that if you don't believe it, the disbelief may be the work of the antichrist. Good grief.Question: did your children come in the flesh? Were they by chance “planned”? I know that for the majority of parents nowadays, their families are planned. They plan to have two or three. We planned to adopt two children. They were planned, yet the actually “came in the flesh”. A plan did not come in the flesh, our children came in the flesh. I think that sometimes those that believe preexistence are so quick to shoot down the “plan” theory that they don't think it all the way through.
Quote Is saying that a plan came in the flesh a subtle way of denying that Jesus Christ came in the flesh? What do others think?
See above.Thanks,
MandyQuote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2008,10:21) Oh my,
So many posts to respond to and so many parties this weekend. Holy cow! I have no time right now, maybe tomorrow. Thanks all for your inquiries.
LU
Hey Kathi,
Don't feel rushed in getting back to me, okay? We are actually going to be out of town for a few days and I won't be able to respond anyway.Take care (isn't this summer moving too quickly?),
Mandy
Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 03 2008,03:05) 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.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.
Hi Mandy,
Yes, I believe it is quite possible that Abraham saw His day and it was in a looking forward to His day kinda way. It was not that part of the passage that was my main argument for pre-existense however that is what you focused your response on.However, I do believe that He really saw the Son of God when He appeared as a man with two others that were angels that appeared as men right before the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. There He passed on God's words to Him about the promise of a son for Abraham and Sarah. The three of them were referred as three “men” but we know that two of them were angels.
Read about this in Gen 18:2
When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth…You will see that the two men are angels if you keep reading and the other man is called Yahweh. I believe that is the Son of God who came in His Father's name.
Now read John 8
38 “I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father.” 39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus *said to them, “If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham. 40 “But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.Did you notice that last line “this Abraham did not do”. What didn't he do? He didn't seek to kill Him when He appeared as a man in the name of Yahweh and told Abraham the truth which He heard from God. IMO
And now regarding John 8:57-59 the pre-existence part:
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.Just before this passage Jesus makes it quite clear that He doesn't glorify Himself yet He makes very BIG statements like before Abraham was born, I existed or “I am”. He did that as a follow-up of their comment “you are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Now wouldn't that be a perfect time to explain if He was speaking of a vision or such of Himself? But no, He didn't did He, in fact He one upped them with a loftier statement.
I find it impossible to believe that Jesus would lead them to that lofty opinion of Himself if it weren't so. He knew that they were thinking of His age and not a plan of Himself. His response was that He was there (in an active way, doing the action himself) before Abraham was born.
What I find humorous is that Adam thinks you are proving non-pre-existense with your post. (It's obvious he is easily convinced when he wants to be). No use of the word “plan” or “foreknowledge” clearly listed here at all. You mention that nothing is clearly speaking pre-existence here without really addressing verse 58. That was my main point that showed pre-existense. Did you mean to miss that main point? By the way, that verse is to use your own words, “is normally considered by theologians” to show Christ's deity. So you pick and choose when you throw that “is normally considered by theologians” stuff when it is convenient to your beliefs and not when it disagrees with you. IMO
And please explain “unconditional precedence.”
Sorry if I ruffled any feathers I'm just a little frustrated. I can imagine how Christ must have felt.
KathiHi LU,
Does scripture identify Jesus with Abraham or is this a guess?Genesis 18:2
And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,Hi LU,
If it was Jesus was he a man before becoming a man?
Was Jesus the Lord of Abraham before he had been appointed Lord?Quote (gollamudi @ Aug. 03 2008,10:11) 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
Hi Adam,Quote Do you think we who born are of our parents are not created beings? Mankind was created, yes. Adam and Eve were formed from dirt and a rib. The rest of humanity is a reproduction of that creation and born of women. Definitly the part of us that lies in a coffin after our death was created initially on the sixth day of creation, the other part, our inner man goes on to live in a heavenly body and is not part of our DNA from what I can tell. No chromosones linked to the “inner” man from my limited understanding.
Quote Do think Jesus birth different from ours in what way? The actual birth from Mary, not different. Out popped the weasel as WJ might put it.
Quote Do think Jesus who was born to a human mother, a begotten God? Yes, even from before the world was, He was the only begotten God. Mary didn't give birth to God, she gave birth to a man that the already existing begotten God came to dwell within.
Quote How can a God be born to his creation? He was not born “to” his creation, He was the firstborn “of” creation.
I think that I have that book “Misquoting Jesus”, I will have to dig it up from a pile of resources.
Do you think it to be impossible for God to reproduce one of His own kind? That is what begotten implies “of its own kind”. I believe that result is the begotten God, a Son for God Himself. The Son was the first to receive life of all the living. That is what I believe “firstborn of all creation” means.
Hope that answers all your questions.
KathiHi Kathi,
I should wait and let you catch-up here before I post again, but I have limited time tonight before I will be gone for a few days.Quote Yes, I believe it is quite possible that Abraham saw His day and it was in a looking forward to His day kinda way. It was not that part of the passage that was my main argument for pre-existense however that is what you focused your response on.
Jesus' age coupled with the fact that Abe saw “his day” are related subjects. In my opinion, one goes with the other instead of one standing on it's own.Quote However, I do believe that He really saw the Son of God when He appeared as a man with two others that were angels that appeared as men right before the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. There He passed on God's words to Him about the promise of a son for Abraham and Sarah. The three of them were referred as three “men” but we know that two of them were angels.
You may see Jesus in this passage but it certainly is not written here. When it is not written what do you have? We are left with popular opinions, speculations, assumptions and so on. This is not enough to prove anything.Quote Just before this passage Jesus makes it quite clear that He doesn't glorify Himself yet He makes very BIG statements like before Abraham was born, I existed or “I am”.
I don't believe Jesus was seeking glory by making the “I am” statement. In this context, “I am” certainly isn't translated, “I was born,” or “I existed.”. That would really be a dream come true for those who believe in Jesus' preexistence. It cannot be proven because it is not written.As for the stoning, what can I say? It seems to be a popular belief that they only stoned or threatened to stone Jesus because he *made himself equal to God* but in reality, they stoned people for all sorts of reasons. They had it out for Jesus and probably tried to stone him every chance they got! But certainly a good reason to stone him might have been that he believed he was predestined to be their messiah (the coming Son of God and Man). He didn't exactly match what they were looking for, and who did he think he was anyway!!
Quote What I find humorous is that Adam thinks you are proving non-pre-existense with your post. (It's obvious he is easily convinced when he wants to be).
I don't find it humorous when a brother or sister is confused. This is not a popularity contest, Kathi. We are batting around ideas and belief's. We won't always agree or sometimes not even come close. But the love of God should be in all his children. I am not a child of God because you or anyone else says I have THE correct truth. I am a child of God because God says so.Quote You mention that nothing is clearly speaking pre-existence here without really addressing verse 58. That was my main point that showed pre-existense. Did you mean to miss that main point?
I didn't mean to miss that point, I answered it the way I thought best. I'm sorry it wasn't what you were looking for.Quote By the way, that verse is to use your own words, “is normally considered by theologians” to show Christ's deity. So you pick and choose when you throw that “is normally considered by theologians” stuff when it is convenient to your beliefs and not when it disagrees with you. IMO
Forgive me for chuckling a little bit here, but of course I am going to point out things that skew to my viewpoint. This is how I represent my viewpoint for you, and for other's reading. You in turn, may also give information that points towards your understanding (i.e., the GSR copy and paste). 😉Quote And please explain “unconditional precedence.”
What would you like to know specifically? Jesus was always meant to be over all beings (even before he was born).Quote Sorry if I ruffled any feathers I'm just a little frustrated. I can imagine how Christ must have felt.
What has got you so frustrated? As I said, we may not agree but the topic we are debating is a great one (an ancient one). We cannot expect to have all the answers. We know only in part…… What we share here are ideas and what we are convicted of. That doesn't necessarily make us 100% right.Mandy
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 03 2008,23:38) Hi LU,
If it was Jesus was he a man before becoming a man?
Was Jesus the Lord of Abraham before he had been appointed Lord?
Hi Nick,
I think that the Son of God could “appear” as a man without actually being a man before Mary' conception. I think that angels could also appear as men without being a men in actuality.Ge 18:2
When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth…Read on to find out that these that appeared as men were two angels and one that represented Yahweh.
I believe that Jesus was the Lord of Abraham. I do not think that He was “appointed” as Lord. That is not scriptural as far as I can see. Why would someone that was God from the beginning need to be appointed lord anyway? John 1:1
LU
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 03 2008,23:33) Hi LU,
Does scripture identify Jesus with Abraham or is this a guess?Genesis 18:2
And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
Hi Nick,
Many others believe that it is Christ, not just me. We have clues that can lead to this conclusion.
LUKathi,
God MADE Jesus both “Lord” and “Christ”. If Jesus were already these things from eternity, what point would there be in God making Jesus anything? Scripture would have clearly taught us that Jesus was already these things.Also, Abraham never speaks of Jesus being his Lord. Was he aware of this?
Romans 14:9
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.Romans makes it sound like Jesus *became* Lord after his death (because he is the Lord of BOTH the living and the dead). If he were the Lord of Abraham, he would only be the Lord of the living then?
Not sure on this….
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2008,16:33) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 03 2008,23:33) Hi LU,
Does scripture identify Jesus with Abraham or is this a guess?Genesis 18:2
And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
Hi Nick,
Many others believe that it is Christ, not just me. We have clues that can lead to this conclusion.
LU
Hi LU,
It opens a can of worms.
Reliance on inference is unwise IMO.Was Jesus a man who was sent to do the judgement and punishment of men for God? If so why should we trust him?Did he have a preview of life that gave him a headstart over those meant to be following him?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2008,16:26) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 03 2008,23:38) Hi LU,
If it was Jesus was he a man before becoming a man?
Was Jesus the Lord of Abraham before he had been appointed Lord?
Hi Nick,
I think that the Son of God could “appear” as a man without actually being a man before Mary' conception. I think that angels could also appear as men without being a men in actuality.Ge 18:2
When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth…Read on to find out that these that appeared as men were two angels and one that represented Yahweh.
I believe that Jesus was the Lord of Abraham. I do not think that He was “appointed” as Lord. That is not scriptural as far as I can see. Why would someone that was God from the beginning need to be appointed lord anyway? John 1:1
LU
Hi LU,
Was Jesus a spokeman for God before he walked the earth?Certainly many times angels spoke for God and appeared as men but why take this by inference to include Jesus? What COULD happen needs a lot more support before we say it DID.
The baby in the manger was not any form of god in disguise. He emptied himslef to be just like us. It was only by his anointing that he became Lord and mouthpiece for God by God's Spirit. Acts 10.38
Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 03 2008,14:29) OK, let me try one last time…. Quote After He came in His earthly body, He did have a mother. So, in that way He was definitely different.
Again, trying to establish what you mean by having a mother and having an earthly body. In what way was he different? If as you say, his spirit remained the same, what was different about him?Did the “MAN from heaven” have a spiritual body? Are heavenly beings referred to as men (mankind)?
If Mary didn't contribute her DNA what did she contribute to her son that made him different than he was before? Skin only? Would that really make Jesus “different” or just look different?
Have a great day, Kathi. We are enjoying what is called, Seafair Sunday. It's a longtime WA tradition to have hydro-plane races in our Lake Washington. It's a huge boating opportunity and tons of fun. We had better head out and get going.
Thanks for your thoughts/beliefs/challenges/comments on this very important subject. We may not agree, but it's certainly nice to keep this topic at the forefront of our thinking…….
Mandy
Mandy,Quote After He came in His earthly body, He did have a mother. So, in that way He was definitely different. Quote Again, trying to establish what you mean by having a mother and having an earthly body. In what way was he different? If as you say, his spirit remained the same, what was different about him? What was different was that He no longer had a heavenly body but had the limits of an earthly, flesh and blood body, an infant earthly body at that. Also, He became a son to a mother and not just His Father.
Quote
Did the “MAN from heaven” have a spiritual body? Are heavenly beings referred to as men (mankind)?Apparently heavenly beings can be referred to as men according to the story of Abraham.
Ge 18:2
When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth…Like I just posted to you minutes ago, two of these so-called men were definitely angels yet they appeared as men. So I believe that angels have an ability to take on different appearances as the need arises. Then humans call them as they see them. They looked like men to Abraham but weren't.
Quote Did the “MAN from heaven” have a spiritual body? Are heavenly beings referred to as men (mankind)? Where does it say the “Man from heaven?”
The Son had a heavenly body which He gave up to take on an earthly body which later died and He then received the glory of the heavenly body again.
Quote If Mary didn't contribute her DNA what did she contribute to her son that made him different than he was before? Skin only? Would that really make Jesus “different” or just look different? I believe that Mary did contribute her DNA. That is one reason He had skin. Also, He had the limits of a flesh and blood body. He was born without memory as a baby would be and, without special privileges that He had before.
I hope you had a fun day at the lake. I was at the lake yesterday for a pig roast. Summer is indeed going too fast:)
Take care,
Kathi
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
