Preexistence

[KangarooJack]

Constitutionalist said:

Quote

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root [rhiza] and the offspring [genos] of David, [and] the bright and morning star. Revelation 22:16 He is simply saying he was born from the lineage of David. He is speaking metaphorically of that which springs from a “root,” a shoot, said of offspring, see Rom 15:12; Rev 5:5, for examples. Romans 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust. Revelation 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. Rhiza: A root, that which like a root springs from a root, a sprout, shoot, metaph: offspring, progeny. Genos: Kindred, offspring, family, born, stock, tribe, nation. You provided no proof of pre-existance. And yes I bought my degrees, you know any who receive theirs for free?

Unintelligible redundance don't you think? “I am the offspring and offspring of David.”

According to Vine's Expository Dictionary “rhiza” means, “cause, origin, source, used of ancestors”, p. 304. Your treatment of “rhiza” amounts to redundance as I have already shown. And I have shown His preexistence. David said of Him “my Lord.” Hmmm, I wonder why you did not comment on that? How could David say of Him “my Lord” without knowing Him?

Christ Himself used David's “my Lord” statement to contradict the unbelieving Jew's notion that Christ was the mere son of David. It should make you a little skiddish that you are in agreement with those who crucified Him.

Where did you sttudy Greek? You treat the Greek like a novice so I would like to know the name of the Mickey Mouse school you studied.

thinker

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 08 2009,06:51)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 08 2009,11:43) Hi All John 6:38-40 For “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will“, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is obvious what Jesus meant, but men who know nothing of the construction of the Greek have set out to make themselves greater than the truth by misinterpreting the clear meaning of the text in which the authors intended and which the translators translated. The Greek construction of the text concerning the preexistence of Jesus does not allow for a  “Unitarian” interpretation. The Greek for “I have come” is Strong's G2597 – katabainō which is defined… 1) to go down, come down, descend a) the place from which one has come down from b) to come down “In every place the word is used it is referring to a literal action by a person and not an abstract “thought or plan”“. katabainō  is in the “perfect” tense, and the “active voice” and the “indicative” mood! “The perfect tense” in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes “an action” which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated. Jesus' last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI (“It is finished!”) is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense, namely “It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely, once and for all time.” Certain antiquated verb forms in Greek, such as those related to seeing (eidw) or knowing (oida) will use the perfect tense in a manner equivalent to the normal past tense. These few cases are exception to the normal rule and do not alter the normal connotation of the perfect tense stated above. “The active voice” represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, “The boy hit the ball,” the boy performs the action. “The indicative mood” is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood. ”For I came down (katabainō) from heaven”, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. John 6:38 The same word is used here… And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God “descending (katabainō,)” like a dove, and lighting upon him: Matt 3:16 And here… And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord “(descended (katabainō )” from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Matt 28:2 Was the Holy Spirit and the Angel a “thought or plan” come down from heaven? Or did they really descend from  heaven? Jesus said plainly that he came “From God” and “went to God”. Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that “he was come from God, and went to God“; John 13:3 Again the Greek word come is in the “active voice” meaning Jesus did the action, and it is the indicative mood which means “the action really occurred”. When Jesus ascended to heaven., it was Jesus that did the ascending! The scriptures do not tell us the Father took him to heaven! Jesus words were clear, for he never said or even in the slightest way implied that he was or came from a plan or thought of the Father! Jesus puts the nail in the coffin for those who questioned what he was saying by the following words… What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up where he was before”? John 6:62 Again the word “Ascend” is in the present tense and active voice which means that Jesus is doing the action. Jesus is going to “WHERE HE WAS BEFORE”! Was he returning to a “plan or thought” or was he returning to the Father in heaven from where he came from and to the Glory that he had with the Father before the foundation of the world. 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“. The Greek word for “I had” is Strong's G2192 – echō which is defined as… 1) to have, i.e. to hold a) to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.), to hold fast keep, to have or comprise or involve, to regard or consider or hold as 2) to have i.e. own, possess Again “I had” is in the “imperfect tense”, the “active voice”, and the “indicative mood”, so there is no way Jesus was saying “I shared his glory because I was in his thought and plan”! To deny the preexistence of Jesus is to deny the simple truths of the scriptures that tell us that Jesus was with the Father in the beginning of all of creation! The Jews murmured among themselves because Jesus said he was the Bread of Life that came down from heaven and many turned back because it was a hard pill they could not swallow! John 6:61, 62 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up where he was before“? WJ Where did Adam come from when he was created?

Hi KW

From the dust of the earth, Jesus came from heaven?

The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 1 Cor 15:47, 48

The clear Biblical teaching of the scriptures concerning his preexistence with the Father is indisputable because the Greek does not allow for a “Unitarian” interpretation.

No one has addressed the scriptures where Jesus claims he came from heaven and that he would return back to where he came from!

To deny his preexistence and that he came in the flesh is the Spirit of antichrist.

“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. 2 John 1:7

Notice John who also wrote John 1:1, 14 uses the term “coming in the flesh” a term that is never used in describing the nature of any other man and it agrees with the Apostle Paul’s writing in Phil 2:6-8 where he says…

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, “being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man“, he humbled himself and became obedient to death- even death on a cross!

The term “”being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man
“, is a death blow to the “Unitarian” for these terms are never found anywhere in describing the origin or nature of any other man!

Jesus was born without sin and had the Spirit without measure because he came from heaven by taking on the likeness of sinful flesh.

To deny this is antichrist! John confirms his writings in 2 John and their intended meaning by the Gospel of John which came later!

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

Vrs 10 “He was in the world“, and though “the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him“.

Vrs 14 “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us“. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Vrs 15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, '”He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' “

WJ

[Constitutionalist]

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 08 2009,19:50)

Constitutionalist said: Quote I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root [rhiza] and the offspring [genos] of David, [and] the bright and morning star. Revelation 22:16 He is simply saying he was born from the lineage of David. He is speaking metaphorically of that which springs from a “root,” a shoot, said of offspring, see Rom 15:12; Rev 5:5, for examples. Romans 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust. Revelation 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. Rhiza: A root, that which like a root springs from a root, a sprout, shoot, metaph: offspring, progeny. Genos: Kindred, offspring, family, born, stock, tribe, nation. You provided no proof of pre-existance. And yes I bought my degrees, you know any who receive theirs for free? Unintelligible redundance don't you think? “I am the offspring and offspring of David.” According to Vine's Expository Dictionary “rhiza” means, “cause, origin, source, used of ancestors”, p. 304. Your treatment of “rhiza” amounts to redundance as I have already shown. And I have shown His preexistence. David said of Him “my Lord.” Hmmm, I wonder why you did not comment on that? How could David say of Him “my Lord” without knowing Him? Christ Himself used David's “my Lord” statement to contradict the unbelieving Jew's notion that Christ was the mere son of David. It should make you a little skiddish that you are in agreement with those who crucified Him. Where did you sttudy Greek? You treat the Greek like a novice so I would like to know the name of the Mickey Mouse school you studied. thinker

Your weak attempt at Poisoning the Well with your Ad hominem's will not work nor does it help support your claims.

Also the Messiah and or the Bible utilizes redundancy numerous times in his teachings.

Examples:

And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them; and the woman was left of her two sons and her husband. Ruth 1:5

Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah. Ruth 1:7

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17

[Constitutionalist]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 08 2009,20:26)

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 08 2009,06:51) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 08 2009,11:43) Hi All John 6:38-40 For “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will“, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is obvious what Jesus meant, but men who know nothing of the construction of the Greek have set out to make themselves greater than the truth by misinterpreting the clear meaning of the text in which the authors intended and which the translators translated. The Greek construction of the text concerning the preexistence of Jesus does not allow for a  “Unitarian” interpretation. The Greek for “I have come” is Strong's G2597 – katabainō which is defined… 1) to go down, come down, descend a) the place from which one has come down from b) to come down “In every place the word is used it is referring to a literal action by a person and not an abstract “thought or plan”“. katabainō  is in the “perfect” tense, and the “active voice” and the “indicative” mood! “The perfect tense” in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes “an action” which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated. Jesus' last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI (“It is finished!”) is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense, namely “It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely, once and for all time.” Certain antiquated verb forms in Greek, such as those related to seeing (eidw) or knowing (oida) will use the perfect tense in a manner equivalent to the normal past tense. These few cases are exception to the normal rule and do not alter the normal connotation of the perfect tense stated above. “The active voice” represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, “The boy hit the ball,” the boy performs the action. “The indicative mood” is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood. ”For I came down (katabainō) from heaven”, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. John 6:38 The same word is used here… And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God “descending (katabainō,)” like a dove, and lighting upon him: Matt 3:16 And here… And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord “(descended (katabainō )” from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Matt 28:2 Was the Holy Spirit and the Angel a “thought or plan” come down from heaven? Or did they really descend from  heaven? Jesus said plainly that he came “From God” and “went to God”. Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that “he was come from God, and went to God“; John 13:3 Again the Greek word come is in the “active voice” meaning Jesus did the action, and it is the indicative mood which means “the action really occurred”. When Jesus ascended to heaven., it was Jesus that did the ascending! The scriptures do not tell us the Father took him to heaven! Jesus words were clear, for he never said or even in the slightest way implied that he was or came from a plan or thought of the Father! Jesus puts the nail in the coffin for those who questioned what he was saying by the following words… What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up where he was before”? John 6:62 Again the word “Ascend” is in the present tense and active voice which means that Jesus is doing the action. Jesus is going to “WHERE HE WAS BEFORE”! Was he returning to a “plan or thought” or was he returning to the Father in heaven from where he came from and to the Glory that he had with the Father before the foundation of the world. 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“. The Greek word for “I had” is Strong's G2192 – echō which is defined as… 1) to have, i.e. to hold a) to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.), to hold fast keep, to have or comprise or involve, to regard or consider or hold as 2) to have i.e. own, possess Again “I had” is in the “imperfect tense”, the “active voice”, and the “indicative mood”, so there is no way Jesus was saying “I shared his glory because I was in his thought and plan”! To deny the preexistence of Jesus is to deny the simple truths of the scriptures that tell us that Jesus was with the Father in the beginning of all of creation! The Jews murmured among themselves because Jesus said he was the Bread of Life that came down from heaven and many turned back because it was a hard pill they could not swallow! John 6:61, 62 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up where he was before“? WJ Where did Adam come from when he was created? Hi KW From the dust of the earth, Jesus came from heaven? The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 1 Cor 15:47, 48 The clear Biblical teaching of the scriptures concerning his preexistence with the Father is indisputable because the Greek does not allow for a “Unitarian” interpretation. No one has addressed the scriptures where Jesus claims he came from heaven and that he would return back to where he came from! To deny his preexistence and that he came in the flesh is the Spirit of antichrist. “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. 2 John 1:7 Notice John who also wrote John 1:1, 14 uses the term “coming in the flesh” a term that is never used in describing the nature of any other man and it agrees with the Apostle Paul’s writing in Phil 2:6-8 where he says… Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, “being mad e in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man“, he humbled himself and became obedient to death- even death on a cross! The term “”being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man“, is a death blow to the “Unitarian” for these terms are never found anywhere in describing the origin or nature of any other man! Jesus was born without sin and had the Spirit without measure because he came from heaven by taking on the likeness of sinful flesh. To deny this is antichrist! John confirms his writings in 2 John and their intended meaning by the Gospel of John which came later! John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and “the Word was with God, and the Word was God“…. Vrs 10 “He was in the world“, and though “the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him“. Vrs 14 “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us“. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. Vrs 15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, '”He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' “ WJ

Isaiah 42:1-9 Clear tells us who the Messiah is.

v.1 Yahweh clearly speaks saying,

“Here is my servant, the one I support. He is the one I chose, and I am pleased with him. I have put my Spirit upon him, and he will bring justice to all nations.”

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 for this tells of Messiah’ place.

“20But the Messiah has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in the Messiah all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: the Messiah, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to Yahweh the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include Yahweh himself, who put everything under the Messiah. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that Yahweh may be all in all.”

You will clearly note a hierarchy. All things are put under the Messiah, excluding Yahweh himself and then the Messiah puts himself under Yahweh. This is clearly two different person with different levels of Authority.

The Messiah referred to himself as possessing ‘divinity’ it was invariably in terms of the indwelling Father, not the incarnate ‘Yahweh the Son’. He never speaks of ‘the Son that dwells in me’. Instead, the Messiah was indwelt by his Yahweh in the same way the ark of the covenant was.

In John 17:3, the Messiah clearly sets himself in contrast to ‘the only one who is truly Yahweh’, the Father (see also John 5:44).

Where the title ‘god’ is applied to the Messiah by others, it harmonises far better with the Hebrew Bible to read it in terms of a functional equality, as opposed to an identity of substance.

Moses was made a god to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1) because he acted as Yahweh’s stand-in for his dealings with Egypt.

In the same way, Paul describer the Satan as ‘the god of this age’ in that he occupies the dominion, usurped from Adam, that the Son will enjoy in the age to come.

The distinction between ‘small-g’ and ‘big-G’ in our English translations is artificial, since there was none in the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts.

The concept of the Messiah as being ‘god’ in a ‘homoussian’ sense, a being of the same substance as God the Father, a Greek term not found anywhere in the Bible.

It divides the godhead, violating what according to the Messiah was the first and greatest commandment. Mark 12:29-30

[Constitutionalist]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 08 2009,22:19)

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 09 2009,01:12) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 08 2009,20:26) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 08 2009,06:51) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 08 2009,11:43) Hi All John 6:38-40 For “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will“, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is obvious what Jesus meant, but men who know nothing of the construction of the Greek have set out to make themselves greater than the truth by misinterpreting the clear meaning of the text in which the authors intended and which the translators translated. The Greek construction of the text concerning the preexistence of Jesus does not allow for a  “Unitarian” interpretation. The Greek for “I have come” is Strong's G2597 – katabainō which is defined… 1) to go down, come down, descend a) the place from which one has come down from b) to come down “In every place the word is used it is referring to a literal action by a person and not an abstract “thought or plan”“. katabainō  is in the “perfect” tense, and the “active voice” and the “indicative” mood! “The perfect tense” in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes “an action” which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated. Jesus' last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI (“It is finished!”) is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense, namely “It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely, once and for all time.” Certain antiquated verb forms in Greek, such as those related to seeing (eidw) or knowing (oida) will use the perfect tense in a manner equivalent to the normal past tense. These few cases are exception to the normal rule and do not alter the normal connotation of the perfect tense stated above. “The active voice” represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, “The boy hit the ball,” the boy performs the action. “The indicative mood” is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood. ”For I came down (katabainō) from heaven”, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. John 6:38 The same word is used here… And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God “descending (katabainō,)” like a dove, and lighting upon him: Matt 3:16 And here… And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord “(descended (katabainō )” from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Matt 28:2 Was the Holy Spirit and the Angel a “thought or plan” come down from heaven? Or did they really descend from  heaven? Jesus said plainly that he came “From God” and “went to God”. Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that “he was come from God, and went to God“; John 13:3 Again the Greek word come is in the “active voice” meaning Jesus did the action, and it is the indicative mood which means “the action really occurred”. When Jesus ascended to heaven., it was Jesus that did the ascending! The scriptures do not tell us the Father took him to heaven! Jesus words were clear, for he never said or even in the slightest way implied that he was or came from a plan or thought of the Father! Jesus puts the nail in the coffin for those who questioned what he was saying by the following words… What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up where he was before”? John 6:62 Again the word “Ascend” is in the present tense and active voice which means that Jesus is doing the action. Jesus is going to “WHERE HE WAS BEFORE”! Was he returning to a “plan or thought” or was he returning to the Father in heaven from where he came from and to the Glory that he had with the Father before the foundation of the world. 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“. The Greek word for “I had” is Strong's G2192 – echō which is defined as… 1) to have, i.e. to hold a) to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.), to hold fast keep, to have or comprise or involve, to regard or consider or hold as 2) to have i.e. own, possess Again “I had” is in the “imperfect tense”, the “active voice”, and the “indicative mood”, so there is no way Jesus was saying “I shared his glory because I was in his thought and plan”! To deny the preexistence of Jesus is to deny the simple truths of the scriptures that tell us that Jesus was with the Father in the beginning of all of creation! The Jews murmured among themselves because Jesus said he was the Bread of Life that came down from heaven and many turned back because it was a hard pill they could not swallow! John 6:61, 62 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up where he was before“? WJ Where did Adam come from when he was created? Hi KW From the dust of the earth, Jesus came from heaven? The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 1 Cor 15:47, 48 The clear Biblical teaching of the scriptures concerning his preexistence with the Father is indisputable because the Greek does not allow for a “Unitarian” interpretation. No one has addressed the scriptures where Jesus claims he came from heaven and that he would return back to where he came from! To deny his preexistence and that he came in the flesh is the Spirit of antichrist. “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is t he deceiver and the antichrist. 2 John 1:7 Notice John who also wrote John 1:1, 14 uses the term “coming in the flesh” a term that is never used in describing the nature of any other man and it agrees with the Apostle Paul’s writing in Phil 2:6-8 where he says… Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, “being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man“, he humbled himself and became obedient to death- even death on a cross! The term “”being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man“, is a death blow to the “Unitarian” for these terms are never found anywhere in describing the origin or nature of any other man! Jesus was born without sin and had the Spirit without measure because he came from heaven by taking on the likeness of sinful flesh. To deny this is antichrist! John confirms his writings in 2 John and their intended meaning by the Gospel of John which came later! John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and “the Word was with God, and the Word was God“…. Vrs 10 “He was in the world“, and though “the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him“. Vrs 14 “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us“. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. Vrs 15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, '”He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' “ WJ Isaiah 42:1-9 Clear tells us who the Messiah is. v.1 Yahweh clearly speaks saying, “Here is my servant, the one I support. He is the one I chose, and I am pleased with him. I have put my Spirit upon him, and he will bring justice to all nations.” 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 for this tells of Messiah’ place. “20But the Messiah has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in the Messiah all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: the Messiah, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to Yahweh the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include Yahweh himself, who put everything under the Messiah. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that Yahweh may be all in all.” You will clearly note a hierarchy. All things are put under the Messiah, excluding Yahweh himself and then the Messiah puts himself under Yahweh. This is clearly two different person with different levels of Authority. The Messiah referred to himself as possessing ‘divinity’ it was invariably in terms of the indwelling Father, not the incarnate ‘Yahweh the Son’. He never speaks of ‘the Son that dwells in me’. Instead, the Messiah was indwelt by his Yahweh in the same way the ark of the covenant was. In John 17:3, the Messiah clearly sets himself in contrast to ‘the only one who is truly Yahweh’, the Father (see also John 5:44). Where the title ‘god’ is applied to the Messiah by others, it harmonises far better with the Hebrew Bible to read it in terms of a functional equality, as opposed to an identity of substance. Moses was made a god to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1) because he acted as Yahweh’s stand-in for his dealings with Egypt. In the same way, Paul describer the Satan as ‘the god of this age’ in that he occupies the dominion, usurped from Adam, that the Son will enjoy in the age to come. The distinction between ‘small-g’ and ‘big-G’ in our English translations is artificial, since there was none in the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts. The concept of the Messiah as being ‘god’ in a ‘homoussian’ sense, a being of the same substance as God the Father, a Greek term not found anywhere in the Bible. It divides the godhead, violating what according to the Messiah was the first and greatest commandment. Mark 12:29-30 Con And what does your post have to do with the points I made in my post? We are discussing the preexistence of Jesus not his divinity. Of couse the nature of an oppologist is to create a smoke screen in hopes of hiding the truth with a multitude of words that doesn't even address the facts! WJ

If divinity has or has not any bearing on the pre-existance of the Messiah then what was the Messiah if he pre-existed?

A Spirit? A Cherubim? Flesh and Blood?

99% of Christianity equates Divinity to explain the Messiah and his pre-existance, destroy the Divine Nature and you destroy pre-existance.

If he pre-existed as a Spirit, then why was the Holy Spirit involved in the virgin birth, the Spirit Messiah could have done it himself.

If he was a Cherubim, then maybe the Holy Spirit would possibly be needed, but then the Jehovas Witness's would be correct that he was a created being and therfore not God, and that all along he was an Angel.

If he was pre-existant as flesh and blood then he would not have been in heaven to begin with.

Now if you pre-exist him with Divinity, then he could have been in Heaven, and the Trinitarians would be correct. But the problem with the Holy Spirit comes into question again.

[Constitutionalist]

Oh and you are incorrect on your statement of definition of an Apologists. They seek truth regardless of your Ad Homein verbage.

[Constitutionalist]

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 08 2009,23:36)

Oh and you are incorrect on your statement of definition of an Apologists. They seek truth regardless of your Ad Homein verbage.

Also in these forums you yourself would be considered an Apologists (one in tennis shoes), but an Apoligists nevertheless.

In modern times, apologists refers to anyone known for defending the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that receive great popular scrutinies and/or are minority views.

Saul (Paul of Tarsus) was an Apologists.

[KangarooJack]

Constitutionalist said:

Quote

Your weak attempt at Poisoning the Well with your Ad hominem's will not work nor does it help support your claims. Also the Messiah and or the Bible utilizes redundancy numerous times in his teachings. Examples: And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them; and the woman was left of her two sons and her husband. Ruth 1:5 Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah. Ruth 1:7 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17

The statements from scripture you give are not examples of redundancy as you think for the repetition is synthetic parallelism. This means that the thought is stated again in a way as to build upon what was previously said. This is not the case in your rendering of Christ's statement, “I am the offspring and offspring of David.” There is no progression of thought of any kind. Therefore, your rendering, “I am the offspring and offspring of David” becomes an unintelligible statement. Any interpretation that renders a statement unintelligible cannot be correct. You also dismissed Vine's definition of the word “root” which doesn't help you prove that you have abilities.

This is the second time now you have failed to answer my point about King David's reference to Christ as “my Lord.” This necessarily infers that David KNEW his Lord which in turn infers that Christ preexisted His human origin. Jesus made a point of it and you just ignore it. How can you prove your case when you ignore such pertinent evidence?

About “ad hominen” I don't care what you think. When a person mishandles the Greek language as you have then his credibility is to be questioned. You will find that I am the Greek “watch dog” on this board.

Let your next reply deal with David's statement when he said “my Lord” in reference to Christ.” You hurt your credibility when you repeatedly fail to answer pertinent points given you.

thinker

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 09 2009,14:07)

HI CON, Conception is mentioned in relationship to Jesus but only in Mary's womb and not the mind of God. Such biblical unitarianism ideas are popular at times here. But the Word was WITH God.[3 verses]

Nick…………Your word are with you to are they not? Are you separate from you words. They are who and what you are. Same with GOD.

gene

[Constitutionalist]

You are the offspring of your parents, where do your roots come from? They are both the same but yet differant are they not?

He is not saying “I am the offspring and offspring of David.”

As you say I implied.

Quote

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root [rhiza] and the offspring [genos] of David, [and] the bright and morning star. Revelation 22:16 He is simply saying he was born from the lineage of David. He is speaking metaphorically of that which springs from a “root,” a shoot, said of offspring, see Rom 15:12; Rev 5:5, for examples. Romans 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust. Revelation 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. Rhiza: A root, that which like a root springs from a root, a sprout, shoot, metaph: offspring, progeny. Genos: Kindred, offspring, family, born, stock, tribe, nation. You provided no proof of pre-existance. And yes I bought my degrees, you know any who receive theirs for free?

A root that springs from a root delineates a lineage, the offspring delineates from whom.

He is saying he is from the lineage of David. Regardless of what you think is redundancy.

[GeneBalthrop]

thinker……..Still waiting for (ONE) scripture that says Jesus Preexisted His berth on earth, as some kind of (Being) some where. Using Davids prophetic statement to try to work a preexistence view doesn't work. We need proof not some speculations of your and WJ's., Ct is right in what he is saying.
IMO

gene

[Constitutionalist]

Quote (Gene @ Nov. 09 2009,08:39)

thinker……..Still waiting for (ONE) scripture that says Jesus Preexisted His berth on earth, as some kind of (Being) some where. Using Davids prophetic statement to try to work a preexistence view doesn't work. We need proof not some speculations of your and WJ's.,  Ct is right in what he is saying. IMO gene

Gene, he will not agree, thus the ad hominen attacks and his self proclaimed “Greek “watch dog” on this board” ruse (double standard), as if it gives him authority to denounce anything else that may be implied or added.

It seems he utilizes the ad hominen style with all who disagree with him, just review his posts with those in opposition to him. It also sets a standard that he qualifies himself as a master of the Greek so that no one else on this board can possibly be counted worthy of dialogue because of a lack of understanding or education.

It is a shame.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Gene @ Nov. 10 2009,03:39)

thinker……..Still waiting for (ONE) scripture that says Jesus Preexisted His berth on earth, as some kind of (Being) some where. Using Davids prophetic statement to try to work a preexistence view doesn't work. We need proof not some speculations of your and WJ's.,  Ct is right in what he is saying. IMO gene

Gene,
The scriptures have been offered you and you have disobeyed them. Jesus said, “Before Abraham was I am.” You say this is only in the “mind of God.”

Rubbish!

thinker

[Constitutionalist]

Also one could use the style “offspring of the offspring.”

David Solomon Joseph Yeshua (offspring of the offspring.

Or we can say he is just the offspring of David.

Begat could imply the same idea, could it not?

Begat: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham BEGAT Isaac; and Isaac BEGAT Jacob; and Jacob BEGAT Judas and his brethren; (Matthew 1:1-2)

Redundancy?

[GeneBalthrop]

CT………..I agree with that observation, Thinker has told himself he knows exactly what he is saying even through he has to add his thoughts to what scripture really says. But then so do all Trinitarians and Preexistences. They change the context to force the text to fit their pagan Theologies. Never producing (ANY) Specific Text to support there conclusions, and want us to buy into their suppositions. But those who have the SPIRIT of TRUTH in them can easily see through folly because they can not be decieved, it just not possible to deceive them. As scripture says. They would even fool the very elect (IF) it were (POSSIBLE). Thank GOD they can't fool GOD'S Elect. IMO

Peace and love to you and yours………………………..gene

[Constitutionalist]

“If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.” T. Jefferson

[Constitutionalist]

“Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it” S. Kierkegaard

[NickHassan]

Hi CON,
Can you not discern the body of Christ from the false church?
We do not slander the church of God by improper association.

[kerwin]

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 09 2009,23:17)

Quote (Gene @ Nov. 10 2009,03:39) thinker……..Still waiting for (ONE) scripture that says Jesus Preexisted His berth on earth, as some kind of (Being) some where. Using Davids prophetic statement to try to work a preexistence view doesn't work. We need proof not some speculations of your and WJ's.,  Ct is right in what he is saying. IMO gene Gene, The scriptures have been offered you and you have disobeyed them. Jesus said, “Before Abraham was I am.” You say this is only in the “mind of God.” Rubbish! thinker

Jesus is the Anointed One who certainly has more status than Abraham though Abraham is important for his own right.  I assure you that Abraham calls Jesus King and Lord.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 09 2009,02:43)

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 08 2009,23:36) Oh and you are incorrect on your statement of definition of an Apologists. They seek truth regardless of your Ad Homein verbage. Also in these forums you yourself would be considered an Apologists (one in tennis shoes), but an Apoligists nevertheless. In modern times, apologists refers to anyone known for defending the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that receive great popular scrutinies and/or are minority views. Saul (Paul of Tarsus) was an Apologists.

Con

You are right. I should have been more clear.

I didn't clarify that I was speaking of “Unitarian” oppologist!

But your patronizing remarks are noted!

WJ

[Author]

Posts