Preexistence

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 17 2008,23:26)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 14 2008,23:47) Hi Roy In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:28 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. Heb 1:8 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13 God being with God kind of makes Henotheism, and Arianism and Unitarainism fall apart doesn't it, unless you are a Polytheist? WJ Sorry WJ, I think your words are arrogant. You are the one who has more than one person as God, whereas many here acknowledge the Father as the only true God an Jesus Christ as the one he sent.

Hi t8

Which satememt is arrogant?

This one….?

Quote (RoyT01 @ Aug. 14 2008,15:40)

Notice that one third of the supposed trinity is telling us that His Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD. Which makes the trinity kind of fall apart doesn’t it.

Or this One…?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 14 2008,23:47)

God being with God kind of makes Henotheism, and Arianism and Unitarainism fall apart doesn't it, unless you are a Polytheist?

Or maybe it was this part of my post?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:28

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. Heb 1:8

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13

WJ  

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (before Time @ Aug. 16 2008,13:50)

Hi WJ Not so fast WJ you don’t get the prize until we iron this out. The challenge was to find one scripture where anyone except the Father is called the only true God. You said you found one. But let’s take a further look if you did. 1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know58 him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. “This one”59 is the true God and eternal life As you can see the predictor added the words “this one” which changes the scripture to suggest it referred to Christ. And yet the interpreters are “far” from sure if it refers to the Father or the Son. I got this from the source you presented in your last post. No need to post the rest because the words “it appears” and words of the equivalent nature run rampant to complete it. sn 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 We don’t find this problematic in John 17:3 with the Net Bible and other translations, where it is quite obvious it means the Father only. John 17:3 Now this7 is eternal life8 – that they know “you, the only true God”, and Jesus Christ,9 whom you sent “Net Bible” John 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know “You, the only true God”, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. “NASU Bible” So the challenge remains and I get the prize if I can only find it. You can have the next one. We don't find this problematic in John 17:3 with the Net Bible and other translations, where it is quite obvious it means the Father only. Yet you do get the prize for finding a bible with the expression. Good Job. God Bless

Hi BT

OK. Lets take the “this one” out. So it reads…

1 John 5:20 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 the true God and eternal life

An honest look at other translations reveal the same…

NLT
And we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us understanding so that we can know the true God. And now we are in God because we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the only true God, and he is eternal life.

NIV – 1Jo 5:20 – We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true–even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

ESV – 1Jo 5:20 – And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

NASB – 1Jo 5:20 – And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

RSV – 1Jo 5:20 – And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

ASV – 1Jo 5:20 – And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Young – 1Jo 5:20 – and we have known that the Son of God is come, and hath given us a mind, that we may 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 the life age-during!

Darby – 1Jo 5:20 – And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us an understanding that we should know him that [is] true; and we are in him that [is] true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

Webster – 1Jo 5:20 – And we know that the Son of God hath come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

HNV – 1Jo 5:20 – We know that the Son of God has come, and has given us an understanding, that we know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Yeshua the Messiah. This is the true God, and eternal life.

In this same letter, in the first chapter verses 1 and 2 John clarifies who the “Eternal life” is…

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 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😉

And as the 25 scholars who had access to over 60,000 translators notes emphasis mine states…

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.

Do you always take introductory statements as being the final conclusion in a topic?

John 17:3 is ambiguous because John also calls Yeshua God in John 1:1, and records Thomas confession without any rebuke or correction by Yeshua or John in John 20:28.

BTW, are you trying to say that the scritpures do not call Jesus God?

If so is he True or false?  

I get the feeling you just don't want to give a prize, but thats ok, you can just keep it.

Blessings WJ

[before Time]

WJ

If you compare John 17:3 where Jesus is speaking to his His Father in prayer and not to himself, it’s clear who the “Only” True God is. And in 1 John 5:20 where it refers in you mind to Father or Son not so clear. Other wise they conflict! Always take what is clear and address it to what is not so clear in interpreting scripture. Look at them again!

As for what Thomas said, look at the last verse in that chapter in response to Thomas by Christ.

You said take the prize! ok

God Bless and keep up the good work

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi LU

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2008,01:57)

WJ, You claim to be a trinitarian yet you do not believe in even the basics of the doctrine.

I really do not care about labels. Trinitarian is just a title that is closest to describing my basic beliefs, just as Henotheism or Polytheism is to yours.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2008,01:57)

You do not believe in an eternal “son” and in the trinity doctrine it states that the Father and Son are co-eternal.  It doesn't say the Father and the “word” are co-eternal.

I think you are misrepresenting Trinitarians, maybe because you don't understand the view.

The term “son of God” in itself implies a beginning, so to say the son is “co-eternal” or always existed as a son would be a paradox.

The son only co-existed with the Father in the sense that the person Yeshua always existed eternally with the Father.

Just as he was the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world, before he became the Lamb of God on Calvary.

To say Yeshua was born as a son way back in time somewhere and then say he was born from Mary’s womb is to say Yeshua was born twice or born again.

Scriptures clearly state that Yeshua became a son when he came in the flesh.

He was not a son who was born a son.

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. Luke 1:35

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2008,01:57)

You claim a triune God but the one you claim is not the one of the trinity doctrine.

OK, that should be a good thing right?

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2008,01:57)

BTW, if your God is triune and is revealed in nature, well let’s just say that there are people that think they have multiple personalities also.  We refer to them as having a DISORDER.

I am not sure if you are trying to insult me or not, but anyway yes there are many who would consider God as having a disorder or multiple personalities, especially when they read OT scriptures where God wipes out entire cities including innocent children. Yet this same God is claimed to be “Good”. Of course I do not agree with them and I do not think you do either.

LU is it entirely possible that you and I may not understand everything about the nature of an infinitely complex God?  

Apparently you and many others have limited him to just your understanding of him and his nature. If it doesn’t make sense to your human logic it must be wrong, Right?  

All of creation reveals the Glory of God. The molecular structure of the Universe is the “atom”. The atom is protons, neutrons and electrons. Plurality of unity.

Scientist still cannot explain what holds the atom together; scientifically they should just explode outward.

LU, can you name one thing in all of creation that is singular and not plural?

This is what I mean when I say all of creation reveals the Glory or nature of God.

Blessings. WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi BT

Quote (before Time @ Aug. 19 2008,00:28)

WJ If you compare John 17:3 where Jesus is speaking to his His Father in prayer and not to himself, it’s clear who the “Only” True God is. And in 1 John 5:20 where it refers in you mind to Father or Son not so clear.  Other wise they conflict! Always take what is clear and address it to what is not so clear in interpreting scripture. Look at them again!

Isn’t that amazing how to me it is clear and to you my view is not.

In your mind John 17:3 would conflict with scripture that calls Yeshua “true God” if scriptures says so elsewhere.

If you take John 1:1 and John 20:28 and 1 John 1:1, 2 and 1 John 5:20 which is clear and compare to John 17:3, then it is clear that Yeshua was not excluding himself as being God since he also says that knowing him and the Father is a prerequisite to having “Eternal Life”. Why would he do this?

So let me see you want me too take four scriptures and interpret them by the One. How about taking the one scripture and interpreting it by the four, and others like Isa 9:6 or John 1:18 in the NIV and NET, or Hebrews 1:8 or 2 Peter 1:1 or Titus 2:13?

Quote (before Time @ Aug. 19 2008,00:28)

As for what Thomas said, look at the last verse in that chapter in response to Thomas by Christ.

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. John 20:31

Isn't that amazing how John says that Thomas calling Yeshua his “Lord and God” is a sign that was written that we might believe? So just what is John implying when he says “The Son of God”?

John commentates on another incident that happened earlier in the ministry of Yeshua…

But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. John 5:17, 18

Notice John never states the Jews were lieing!

The highlighted words are John's words simply repeating the Jews who believed that for a man to claim to be “The Son of God” was making himself equal to God, for it would mean he came directly from God, which of course was Jesus claim, and which of course John claims in the very first chapter and verse of this book.

Yeshua's claim is you cannot come to God or know God unless you come to him, and he that has seen him (Yeshua) and knows him has also seen and known the Father also.

Many distort this truth saying Yeshua wasn’t crucified for claiming to be “The Son of God”, but that the Jews were lying and accusing Yeshua for claiming to be equal to God.

By claiming to be “The Son of God” Yeshua was claiming to be equal to God and agreeing with Paul in Phil 2. This is why they crucified him.

The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. John 19:7

Wow! It must have been a serious thing to claim to be “The Son of God”.

Quote (before Time @ Aug. 19 2008,00:28)

You said take the prize!  ok God Bless and keep up the good work

If the prize is to give less honor to Yeshua than to the Father, or to view Yeshua the visible image of God as less than God, you can have it!

Blessings

WJ

[Not3in1]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 19 2008,00:52)

The term “son of God” in itself implies a beginning, so to say the son is “co-eternal” or always existed as a son would be a paradox. The son only co-existed with the Father in the sense that the person Yeshua always existed eternally with the Father. Just as he was the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world, before he became the Lamb of God on Calvary. To say Yeshua was born as a son way back in time somewhere and then say he was born from Mary’s womb is to say Yeshua was born twice or born again. Scriptures clearly state that Yeshua became a son when he came in the flesh. He was not a son who was born a son. 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. Luke 1:35

I find myself saying, “Yes!” to all your statements above. Isn't it curious that we can be so united and yet have a bit of variance in our belief systems? I think it's neat. It means that we are not far from the goal. I think when we can see similarities instead of differences we are closer to God than we know.

Love,
Mandy

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 19 2008,03:41)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 19 2008,00:52) The term “son of God” in itself implies a beginning, so to say the son is “co-eternal” or always existed as a son would be a paradox. The son only co-existed with the Father in the sense that the person Yeshua always existed eternally with the Father. Just as he was the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world, before he became the Lamb of God on Calvary. To say Yeshua was born as a son way back in time somewhere and then say he was born from Mary’s womb is to say Yeshua was born twice or born again. Scriptures clearly state that Yeshua became a son when he came in the flesh. He was not a son who was born a son. 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. Luke 1:35 I find myself saying, “Yes!” to all your statements above.  Isn't it curious that we can be so united and yet have a bit of variance in our belief systems?  I think it's neat.  It means that we are not far from the goal.  I think when we can see similarities instead of differences we are closer to God than we know. Love, Mandy

Hi Mandy

I suppose this is why I feel that “Unitarians” may be closer to the truth IMO, because they believe that Christ beginning as a Son was his natural birth as a man.

Unitarians have the 100% man down.

However, to be honest Mandy one of my statements you do not agree with and in fact put us worlds apart.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 19 2008,00:52)

The son only co-existed with the Father in the sense that the person Yeshua always existed eternally with the Father.

I believe he “literally” existed as a person before he came in the flesh. He is the Word that was with God and the Word that was/is God.

Blessings WJ

[Not3in1]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 19 2008,04:01)

I believe he “literally” existed as a person before he came in the flesh. He is the Word that was with God and the Word that was/is God.

Nah…not worlds apart. Maybe just accross the street!

I believe that Jesus literally existed with the Father, too. I could even stretch to say that I believe he existed as the potential person – his future Son.

I know what you believe – because I believed it too.

To be honest, I truly think there are only about a half a dozen scriptural interpretations that separate us! And even those lend themselves, imo, to both our views. So, the gap gets even shorter for me.
Love,
Mandy

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 19 2008,04:14)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 19 2008,04:01) I believe he “literally” existed as a person before he came in the flesh. He is the Word that was with God and the Word that was/is God. Nah…not worlds apart.  Maybe just accross the street!   I believe that Jesus literally existed with the Father, too.  I could even stretch to say that I believe he existed as the potential person – his future Son.   I know what you believe – because I believed it too. To be honest, I truly think there are only about a half a dozen scriptural interpretations that separate us!  And even those lend themselves, imo, to both our views.  So, the gap gets even shorter for me.   Love, Mandy

Mandy

Thanks. But I think that seeing Yeshua as God does put us quite aways apart in our foundational beliefs.

I am not sure what scriptures yoiu are refering to which can be seen both ways unless you are talking about John 1:1 and even then Greek grammer IMO reveals Yeshua as God.

We can agree to disagree.

Blessings WJ

[Not3in1]

Sure, we can agree to disagree but why so fast?

I think that Jesus is God in that he is God's only begotten son.  Let me clarify by saying I don't think Jesus is “a” god separate from the Father.  I think Jesus is God of very God.

The verses that I am ref'ing are those where, for instance, grammar is in question. Rather, where the grammar makes Jesus God instead of the context.

Love,
Mandy

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 19 2008,06:27)

Sure, we can agree to disagree but why so fast? I think that Jesus is God in that he is God's only begotten son.  Let me clarify by saying I don't think Jesus is “a” god separate from the Father.  I think Jesus is God of very God. The verses that I am ref'ing are those where, for instance, grammar is in question. Love, Mandy

[Not3in1]

Can you elaborate?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 19 2008,06:30)

Can you elaborate?

Hi Mandy

I was hoping that you would!

[Not3in1]

Now you have me laughing.

Well, what is it that has you puzzled? Let's start from there….

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 19 2008,06:36)

Now you have me laughing. Well, what is it that has you puzzled?  Let's start from there….

Hi Mandy

[Not3in1]

1. God begets God.

2. See #1

3. Verses where grammar dictates Jesus is God instead of the context dictating that Jesus is God (Almighty). For instance:

Romans 9:5
Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen

[Not3in1]

Hi Keith,
I kinda waited around to see if you might repsond but now I see your light is off. So I'll check back later.

It's really not about disecting Romans 9:5 at all (that's been done about a zillion times), my point was just that verses like this one can lend themselves to different views based on grammar and context.

OK, chat later.
Mandy

[Adam Pastor]

Well, Personally, I am totally puzzled.  
Mandy what are talking about? What do you mean?

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug 2008)

I think Jesus is God of very God.

What do you mean by that statement?

The Nicene Creed of AD325 speaks of “God of God, … very God of very God”.
Is this what you now believe?
Please explain what you mean by the above statement.

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug 2008)

1. God begets God.

What do you mean by that statement?

Please explain what you mean by the above statement.

Like I said, you have now confused me.  
Please elaborate.

Thanks

[Not3in1]

Hi brother Adam,

Wow, considering you asked me “what do I mean” 5 times in a single post, I guess I certainly have confused you – sorry!

I'm trying to find places where we can be unified instead of running in opposite directions (I think we might actually get somewhere quicker in understand who Jesus is if we are more united). Keith believes that Jesus is God, I am trying to narrow the gap between us by conceeding that I also believe Jesus is God by confirming that he is indeed the Son of God.

Jesus is God's son therefore he is God of very God. Nathan is Dan's son therefore he is human of very human.

God begets God (it's not just for trinitarians anymore)
Just as humans beget humans and animals beget animals….

Love,
Mandy

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 19 2008,08:19)

Hi brother Adam, Wow, considering you asked me “what do I mean” 5 times in a single post, I guess I certainly have confused you – sorry!   I'm trying to find places where we can be unified instead of running in opposite directions (I think we might actually get somewhere quicker in understand who Jesus is if we are more united).  Keith believes that Jesus is God, I am trying to narrow the gap between us by conceeding that I also believe Jesus is God by confirming that he is indeed the Son of God. Jesus is God's son therefore he is God of very God.  Nathan is Dan's son therefore he is human of very human. God begets God (it's not just for trinitarians anymore)   Just as humans beget humans and animals beget animals…. Love, Mandy

Hi Mandy

Personally I do not see where your theology is any different than LUs then?

Is there a scripture that says “God begat God”?

If Yeshua is God of gods, then how is he not “a” god?

[Author]

Posts