Preexistence

[NickHassan]

Hi Mandy,
John 1.1 teaches that the Word was with God
not that they were one.

[Lightenup]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 15 2008,02:08)

Hi LU, Has God ever left heaven?

Hi Nick,

Please note that the LORD descended upon Mount Sinai, to the top of the mountain.  So I would say that the scriptures tell us that He came down to the top of Mount Sinai where He wrote the ten commandments.

Ex 19:18-22
Now Mount Sinai was all in smoke because the LORD descended upon it in fire; and its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked violently. 19 When the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and God answered him with thunder. 20 The LORD came down on Mount Sinai, to the top of the mountain; and the LORD called Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up. 21 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, “Go down, warn the people, so that they do not break through to the LORD to gaze, and many of them perish.
NASU

LU

[Proclaimer]

The LORD was also in Christ redeeming the world to himself.

The LORD inhabits his people too.

The LORD lives in perfect or redeemed vessels.

One day he will dwell in all, when all enemies are conquered.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 16 2008,05:48)

Hi Mandy, John 1.1 teaches that the Word was with God not that they were one.

Unless there is more than one God, I believe it teaches that the Word AND God are one.

….and the Word was God.

Am I missing something here?

[NickHassan]

Hi Mandy,
Yes.
The Word was WITH GOD
He was not also the God he was with.

[Not3in1]

Hi Kathi,

It's been a long, long day for me.  I will try to make this short.

Quote

My sons were not concevied by the Holy Spirit as was Jesus.

True.  But my point is that The Father chose to use the concept and reality of conception for a reason.  If all Jesus needed was skin and bones (because he already had his own nature) God could have just popped a shell of a man into being and plopped Jesus inside of it.

Quote

When a woman conceives without the help of a human man it is a unique situation and we need not insist they bring about the same result to those who conceive with a human man.

But she still CONCEIVED.  That word has to mean something.  The Father wanted Jesus' conception to mean something.  It wasn't simply a formality.  

Quote

If God wanted the same result, He could have had Joseph conceive with Mary.

Exactly!  God wanted HIS OWN SON.  God fathered his own son.  It offends so many….

Quote

He was different than John the Baptist.  John was conceived by an earthly father and an earthly mother and NO, John didn't pre-exist his conception.  I'm not sure at all why you would ask that.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear.  The reason I asked if John preexisted his conception was because the angel of the LORD compared Mary's pregnancy to that of Elizabeth's (in so many words).  He sort of said, “Hey Mary, your pregnant now and guess who else is pregnant at the same time – your cousin, Elizabeth!”  We were not privy to one preexisting and the other being a status quo baby – both the pregnacies sounded comparable (and we know John didn't preexist).

Quote

You asked if I can seperate my son's nature from his body.  Well I surely can't, once I couldn't even seperate the bubble gum from his hair.:;):   God can do anything necessary though.

Sure, God can do anything.  But what would be the logic in it?  No logic needed – some may say.  But pray tell, how are we to make sense of anything then?  If we understand conception and birth (a very basic humanistic process) then why would God mess with that and say instead, “If it walks like a duck – and talks like a duck – it's really a dove in a duck's body.”

Quote

Quite possibly there are two natures within man.  The nature of the flesh and the nature of the spirit (or innerman). Mark 14:38-39 38 ” Keep watching and praying that you may not come into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” NASU I read that God can seperate the flesh from the spirit.  When we die, the flesh returns to the dust and the spirit returns to the One who gave it. So, I think that the innerman of Jesus was of a divine nature and pre-existed His conception within Mary.  The outerman of Jesus was of an earthly nature and did not pre-exist His conception within Mary, IMO.

With all due respect here, Kathi, I think this is a huge leap within this simple thought process.

Because you think the spirit and flesh can and are divided, you have concluded that one can preexist the other.  Where is your evidence for this?

Quote

For one reason that the Son of God had to be there in existence before creation was to witness the power of the Father and to witness that the Father is indeed the source of all things good.

God ALMIGHTY needs a witness?
Is it written anywhere?

Quote

One of the purposes of Jesus as a man was to explain the Father.  If He existed since before creation then He was more than qualified for that task.

Jesus told the disciples that he had bread to eat of that they knew nothing about.  I'm certain he wasn't just referring to the kind of bread you can eat.  I'm sure the Father filled Jesus in adequately.  Jesus didn't need to be there from the beginning for the Father to reveal himself to his Son and get him up-to-speed, so to speak.  

Quote

Otherwise, if Jesus didn't exist as a living being until conception in Mary, He really couldn't explain Him any better than John the Baptist.

Kathi, do you seriously believe this or are you pondering this still?  Jesus needed to preexist to have had on-the-job training?  You don't think that God ALMIGHTY could have closed the gap in the training process for his boy?  Don't you believe that sometimes God brings you along in your understanding sometimes faster than other's?  Couldn't he surely have done this for the Messiah – his own Son?

Quote

Being the pre-existent Son within the baby of which the Holy Spirit conceived with Mary truly gave us the Son of God within a man.

Boy, say this five times fast!  😉  It won't make any more sense if you do, trust me.

I don't mean to disprespect you, because I certainly DO respect you.  But a son (if language means anything) is the offspring of two parents.  TOGETHER they create a new, unique life.  One does not *just* contribute the nature, and the other *just* the skin and bones.  It doesn't work that way for us, and I'm convinced that it didn't work that way for Jesus either.  God would have told us if he was pulling a fast one on us and changing the rules.  

Kathi, I sure hope you take this all with the spirit it was given (which is a tired spirit and one that doesn't mean to offend).  I'm glad to have this dialog with you.

Love,
Mandy

[Not3in1]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 16 2008,17:28)

Hi Mandy, Yes. The Word was WITH GOD He was not also the God he was with.

….and the Word WAS GOD.

[Tiffany]

John 1:1 In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was God. And the Word was with God. Since the Word was with God that males it two not one. And the Word became flesh.
Irene

[Not3in1]

Quote (Tiffany @ Oct. 16 2008,18:18)

John 1:1 In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was God. And the Word was with God. Since the Word was with God that males it two not one. And the Word became flesh. Irene

….and the Word was God.

[NickHassan]

Hi Mandy,
Yes it says that once.
Proof requires two witnesses.
There are two to the Word being WITH GOD.[1jn1, Jn1-2]

[david]

Quote

….and the Word was God.

Quote

….and the Word WAS GOD.

Or, “….and the Word was a god.”–Coptic, and a much earlier translation than the ones quoted above.

[david]

Quote

Sure, God can do anything. But what would be the logic in it? No logic needed – some may say. But pray tell, how are we to make sense of anything then? If we understand conception and birth (a very basic humanistic process) then why would God mess with that and say instead, “If it walks like a duck – and talks like a duck – it's really a dove in a duck's body.”

Speaking of “walking” and ducks, when Jesus walked on the water, was he actually “walking” as we understand that word? The same logic applies as to your arguement above.
“Walk” means to “use one's feet to advance.” That's the definition. Was he using his feet to advance? Was his feet pushing against the water. Had the water became a solid gell that he could use his feet to push against so he could advance?
When it comes to miracles, how else should they be described, but in normal human terms?

“conception” is also a word we understand. But hey, a miracle was obviously involved.

[Not3in1]

Quote (david @ Oct. 16 2008,20:16)

Quote Sure, God can do anything.  But what would be the logic in it?  No logic needed – some may say.  But pray tell, how are we to make sense of anything then?  If we understand conception and birth (a very basic humanistic process) then why would God mess with that and say instead, “If it walks like a duck – and talks like a duck – it's really a dove in a duck's body.” Speaking of “walking” and ducks, when Jesus walked on the water, was he actually “walking” as we understand that word?  The same logic applies as to your arguement above.   “Walk” means to “use one's feet to advance.”  That's the definition.  Was he using his feet to advance?  Was his feet pushing against the water.  Had the water became a solid gell that he could use his feet to push against so he could advance? When it comes to miracles, how else should they be described, but in normal human terms? “conception” is also a word we understand.  But hey, a miracle was obviously involved.

Not so fast.

Jesus walked on the water, whether or not his feet were actually touching (whether or not God had sex with Mary), THE OUTCOMES WERE THE SAME.

Jesus got from point A to point B by mode of “walking”.
Jesus was born by mode of “conception”.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 16 2008,19:24)

Hi Mandy, Yes it says that once. Proof requires two witnesses. There are two to the Word being WITH GOD.[1jn1, Jn1-2]

I see.

Question:  does the dogma of the second coming have two witnesses? How about other dogma's?

Using this rule of thumb would disqualify quite a few teachings, would it not?

Thanks,
Mandy

[theodorej]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 17 2008,04:16)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 16 2008,19:24) Hi Mandy, Yes it says that once. Proof requires two witnesses. There are two to the Word being WITH GOD.[1jn1, Jn1-2] I see. Question:  does the dogma of the second coming have two witnesses?  How about other dogma's?   Using this rule of thumb would disqualify quite a few teachings, would it not? Thanks, Mandy

Greetings Mandy…..Dogma is a man made….” In the beginnin was the Word' and the “Word was with God” and “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” and The Word became flesh” every one of these passages is consistant with God and the God head….I would think that the time in which Gods plan for mankind required a fleshly carnal human being so as to be a living sacrafice for mankind and the remmission of our sins….Jesus being the word became flesh and dwelt among us…Gods plan for all of us is awesome and Jesus is the example set forth for us to emulate…

[NickHassan]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 17 2008,04:16)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 16 2008,19:24) Hi Mandy, Yes it says that once. Proof requires two witnesses. There are two to the Word being WITH GOD.[1jn1, Jn1-2] I see. Question:  does the dogma of the second coming have two witnesses?  How about other dogma's?   Using this rule of thumb would disqualify quite a few teachings, would it not? Thanks, Mandy

Hi Mandy,
We are not speaking of truth
but proof.

2Cor13.1

[Not3in1]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 17 2008,05:47)

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 17 2008,04:16) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 16 2008,19:24) Hi Mandy, Yes it says that once. Proof requires two witnesses. There are two to the Word being WITH GOD.[1jn1, Jn1-2] I see. Question:  does the dogma of the second coming have two witnesses?  How about other dogma's?   Using this rule of thumb would disqualify quite a few teachings, would it not? Thanks, Mandy Hi Mandy, We are not speaking of truth but proof. 2Cor13.1

So the “truth” then is that the Word was God.

Alas, we have come full circle.

[Not3in1]

Hi Theo,

Quote

Gods plan for all of us is awesome and Jesus is the example set forth for us to emulate…

Well, he certainly is the bridge whereby we will cross over and someday be called sons and daughter's.  We hope for what we do not have yet…..  This is why we press on towards the goal……  The salvation of our souls.

Love,
Mandy

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 16 2008,18:03)

Quote (david @ Oct. 16 2008,12:04) “Let US make man in our image.” David, This passage has many explainations (one such explaination is given in the NIV Study Bible).  This is not solid proof of Jesus' preexistence; not at all.  If this one verse convinces you, I would encourage you to rethink your theology. Love, Mandy

That is right, on its own it certainly doesn't prove that. But coupled with the idea that God made all things through him and for him, then it starts to become more compelling.

Add in Jesus own claim, “before Abraham, I am” and the case becomes very strong.

Then add in the fact that his origins are from ancient times, and the case in now stronger again.

Then consider that he is the Word of God that was with God in the beginning, that he is called the wisdom of God and the fact that wisdom was the first work of the Father and it all seems a bit of a no brainer, unless of course God intended to give us the wrong impression or there is a conspiracy to give this impression from the translators.

[NickHassan]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 17 2008,07:34)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 17 2008,05:47) Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 17 2008,04:16) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 16 2008,19:24) Hi Mandy, Yes it says that once. Proof requires two witnesses. There are two to the Word being WITH GOD.[1jn1, Jn1-2] I see. Question:  does the dogma of the second coming have two witnesses?  How about other dogma's?   Using this rule of thumb would disqualify quite a few teachings, would it not? Thanks, Mandy Hi Mandy, We are not speaking of truth but proof. 2Cor13.1 So the “truth” then is that the Word was God. Alas, we have come full circle.

Hi mandy,
This is truth but because it is not witnessed by other verses it's full understanding is unproveable.

[Author]

Posts