- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Hi CON,
We know there are times when God's Spirit spoke in the first person through Jesus -as in Jn2.19.
Do you think there were other occasions when God did this?LITERAL OR FIGURATIVE?
There is no doubt that many of the Messiah's sayings recorded by John were not intended to be taken literally, although sometimes his hearers did just that.
When Yeshua told Nicodemus that he needed to be “born anew”, he first took a literal interpretation” How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” (John 3:3-4)and had to be led gently by Yeshua to see rebirth as a spiritual process.
When Yeshua described himself as the “bread from heaven” that a believer had to “eat” (6:50,51), so that “out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” (7:38) no one would ever think of taking the words at their face value.
Yeshua himself acknowledged this on one occasion when he said to his disciples “I have said this to you in figures” (John 16:25).
We use figurative speech today almost without thinking about it.
We know that a 'heaven sent gift' has not literally come down from heaven, but expresses the belief that it has been supplied by divine providence.
We suggest that many of the references to the Messiah's descent from heaven were intended to be understood in the same way.
For example, the conversation with the Jews about the bread of life is a reference to the 'Elohim provided manna that fed the Israelites in the wilderness (John 6:31-33).
Everybody understood the sense in which manna came down from heaven not literally dropping from the throne of 'Elohim, but being 'Elohim provided.
Why should not the parallel allusion to Jesus descending from heaven be taken in a similar way?
Yeshua came down from heaven in the sense that he was provided by 'Elohim to be the source of life for the world.
The actual body of Yeshua was conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb, and thus was 'from 'Elohim'.
Other references make it clear that the body of Yeshua came from 'Elohim in this sense:
“Consequently, when the Messiah came into the world, he said Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me…. Then I said, Lo, I have come to do thy will, O 'Elohim … And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Yeshua the Messiah once for all” (Hebrews 10:5,7,10).
In addition it should be noted that it was the Son of Man that came down an unexpected expression if a pre-existent deity was intended; for none suggest that Yeshua pre-existed as a man.
Yeshua couples his coming from 'Elohim with his ascent to heaven after the resurrection.
The way in which he came down has already been established: not a mature figure descending, but a body gradually developed by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb.
But the way in which he ascended is clearly described in the Gospels and Acts.
It was with a body and by a bodily ascent that he 'left the world and went to the Father' (Mark 16.19, Luke 24:51, Acts 1:9-11).
Does not this mixture of meaning suggest that we should not press the words too literally?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 15 2009,17:39) Hi CON,
We know there are times when God's Spirit spoke in the first person through Jesus -as in Jn2.19.
Do you think there were other occasions when God did this?
Absolutly“BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS I AM”
The reference to Abrahamis another key passage for Trinitarians, although, as with the majority of such passages, the doctrine has to be read into it rather than deduced from it.
It is claimed that when Yeshua said to the Jews “Before Abraham was (Gk. came into being), I am” he was stating that he existed in Abraham's day, and he could apply to himself the personal name of 'Elohim revealed in Exodus.
It is not disputed that Yeshua had some kind of existence before Abraham was born, but was it a personal existence, or one in the mind and purpose of 'Elohim?
The early Christian view was stated by Peter in the passage already considered in detail above (p. 229):
“He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake” (1 Peter 1:20).
The word translated 'destined' means known beforehand, and from what has already been considered about the promises relating to the coming Messiah it is quite clear that 'Elohim had marked out beforehand with absolute precision the mission he would accomplish.
Thus it is true that before Abraham was born the Messiah 'was' in the sense that he was envisaged as the one through whom 'Elohim and estranged man would become reconciled.
A glance at the context of the words shows that this was in the Messiah's mind.
The Jews were claiming the privileges of descent from Abraham, whilst Yeshua replied that if they were his children they would do what Abraham did (John 8:39).
And one of the things Abraham did, in contrast to his unbelieving descendants, was that he 'rejoiced to see my day; he saw it and was glad' (v.56), whereas the Jews who actually were living in the 'day' of the Messiah did not recognise it.
We are specifically told in what sense Abraham saw the Messiah's day.
It was in prospect, as an expression of his faith in the coming of Abraham's seed:
“And the scripture, foreseeing that 'Elohim would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed”
“Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring.
It does not say, And to offsprings, referring to many; but, referring to one, And to your offspring, which is the Messiah” (Galatians 3:8,16).
We are told that Abraham, on receipt of this promise that he would be the father of the Messiah “believed the Lord; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). Through this belief Abraham foresaw the coming day of the Messiah.
He foresaw his death and resurrection after the pattern of his own offering of Isaac, and he foresaw the world wide blessings that would come from that act.
But it was all in prospect: Abraham did not believe that his future son was already in existence in heaven.
And this too is what Yeshua was saying in his reply to the Jews.
He re-affirms the fact that he was 'present' in the plan of 'Elohim even before the time of Abraham.
He could say this without any suggestion of his personal pre-existence.
The second claim, that the Messiah apparently applied to himself the divine name I AM, is not as straightforward as appears at first sight.
Despite the bias of many translations, there is no textual justification at all for the capital letters.
The words I am are simply the usual translation of the present tense of the verb 'to be' (Gk. ego eimi).
In similar grammatical constructions to the phrase under consideration the translators have added 'he' after the 'I am' to give the sense.
For example, the identical phrase was used by the healed blind man to identify himself (John 9.9), translated “I am the man”.
If this translation is consistently applied to the Messiah's use of the phrase any trinitarian inference disappears.
Thus on a rare occasion when Yeshua volunteered that he was the Messiah he used an identical construction (ego eimi, translated 'I am he') without any hint of pre-existence:
“The woman said to him, I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called the Messiah); when he comes, he will show us all things. Yeshua said to her, I who speak to you am he” (literally “I am he speaking to you”. John 4:25-26).
Similarly in two other passages in John 8, just prior to where Yeshua made the alleged I AM statement, the translators have rendered ego eimi as 'I am he”, with no suggestion that it represents a personal name:
“You will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he” (v24).
“When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he” (v28. Other similar examples in John 18:5,8; Luke 22:70).
By stating “I am he” in these three passages Yeshua is obviously identifying himself as the Messiah and saying that belief of this fact is essential.
If the translators had been consistent they would also have translated John 8:58 as “Before Abraham was, I am he”, and no one would have thought it a reference to the divine name.
Yeshua was not suggesting that he was 'Elohim, but claiming that he was the Messiah to whose day Abraham looked forward in faith and hope.
But even if this is not admitted, there is no proof that by the use of 'I am' Yeshua is claiming to be 'very 'Elohim'.
In fact 'I am' is almost certainly a defective translation of the name of 'Elohim announced in Exodus:
“Moses said to 'Elohim … If … they ask me, What is his name? what shall I say to them? 'Elohim said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM. And he said, Say this to the people of Israel, I AM has sent me to you” Exodus 3:13-14).
It has already been shown that this name is really in the future tense 'I WILL BE', and that it can be seen as a statement of 'Elohim's intention to become manifested in 'mighty ones' of whom Yeshua is the first.
But if the divine name is 'I WILL BE' it will readily be seen that the whole point of the supposed connection with the 'I AM' of John is lost.
Hi CON,
Of course Abraham is yet alive with Moses and Isaac and Jacob and the men of old and the brothers.
Some are awoken unto specific tasks as with Moses and Elijah on the mountain.Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 16 2009,11:51) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 15 2009,16:47) Hi CON,
You this scientific idea be applied over what scripture says?
It doesn't take science to understand the egg must be fertilized to grow, whether by mans doing or Yahwehs.If you think Yeshua existed before Mary's conception what was he?
You might as well call yourself a trinitarian.
CT……..They remind me of Catholics and Protestants, the say their different but in actual fact believe all but a few things differently. Same thing with TRINITY AND PREEXISTENCES Some deny the trinity and believe in preexistence, The doctrine of preexistence supports the doctrine of the Trinity. And you are right they might as well call themselves trinitarians and Protestants might as well call themselves Catholics, because there is little if any difference. IMOpeace and love to you and yours……………gene
“THE GLORY WHICH I HAD WITH THEE BEFORE THE WORLD WAS MADE”
Here is yet another passage that at first sight appears to suggest that Yeshua had a personal existence with 'Elohim from the beginning.
But as with so many sayings of Yeshua recorded by John, we need to establish if that is what he really meant.
Every time we read 'glory' should we refer it exclusively to literal glory and radiance?
This prayer of the Messiah to his Father as recorded in John 17 contains several references to 'glory', and it is important to have a consistent view of them:
“Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee” (v1)
“And now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made” (v5).
“All mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them” (V10).
“The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one” (v22).
“Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world” (v24).
The first thing to notice from these words of the Messiah is that the glory was something received by Yeshua and later by the disciples.
It was not an inherent possession.
'Elohim glorifies the Son (v1), and 'gives' glory to him' (vv22,24).
Only if Yeshua was subordinate to 'Elohim could he have received glory from Him (using 'glory' in the usual sense of the word).
“It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior” (Hebrews 7:7).
But does the 'glory' refer only to the physical glory of 'Elohim who “dwells in unapproachable light” (1 Timothy 6:16), and is it this glory only which is shared from eternity by a second person of the trinity?
Clearly not, is the answer to both these questions.
For that glory had already been manifested to the Jews (John 1:14) and by the time of Yeshua' prayer had already been given to the disciples (v.22).
And no one would suggest that they displayed the Father's physical glory.
In what sense then was Yeshua the glory of 'Elohim even before the creation?
We need to understand the way in which John uses the word glory.
In many New Testament passages the 'glory of 'Elohim' refers not primarily to physical glory but describes the whole of 'Elohim's redemptive purpose manifested in Yeshua.
Although Yeshua outwardly was an ordinary man, by his character and mission people saw him as different; they “beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (1:14).
What glory did they behold?
When he did the miracle at Cana it “manifested his glory” (2:11) and when Lazarus died and so gave Yeshua the opportunity to raise him from the dead, it was “for the glory of 'Elohim, so that the Son of 'Elohim may be glorified by means of it” (11.4).
When he was about to perform that miracle Yeshua said to the sorrowing sisters “Did I not tell you that if you believe you would see the glory of 'Elohim?” (11.40).
In a similar sense the death of the Messiah himself was an expression of 'Elohim's glory, for in anticipation of it Yeshua said “Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee” (John 17:1).
His resurrection was a further exhibition of the glory of 'Elohim, for as Paul says, he was raised from the dead “by the glory of the Father” (Romans 6:4).
So the same writer could describe his message as “the gospel of the glory of the Messiah” (2 Corinthians 4:4) and say that the process of believing the gospel is 'Elohim shining “in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of 'Elohim in the face of Yeshua HaMoshiach” (v6).
Thus the glory of 'Elohim is the gospel the power and character of 'Elohim revealed in all that Yeshua does for man's salvation.
It describes the process by which Yeshua will bring “many sons to glory” (Hebrews 2:10), even those whom he has “prepared beforehand for glory” (Romans 9:23).
Now this purpose of 'Elohim, as has been so frequently remarked in this section, has been devised and known by 'Elohim since the beginning.
Yeshua was to be the pivot of this gospel plan, and therefore he had glory in the beginning in a prospective sense rather than literally.
When his disciples believed on Yeshua they too partook of this 'glory of 'Elohim' “The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them” (John 17:22).
So when 'Elohim prayed that he might now experience the glory which he had with 'Elohim from the beginning, he was not asserting his pre-existence but asking that 'Elohim's original purpose with him might now be completed.
But possession of this spiritual and as yet intangible glory leads on to sharing the physical glory of 'Elohim.
Yeshua appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus as a “light from heaven brighter than the sun” (Acts 26:13), and to John on Patmos as “the sun shining in full strength” (Revelation 1:16).
Likewise the Messiah's promise to the righteous is that they too will “shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Matthew 13:43).
Quote (Gene @ Nov. 15 2009,18:15) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 16 2009,11:51) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 15 2009,16:47) Hi CON,
You this scientific idea be applied over what scripture says?
It doesn't take science to understand the egg must be fertilized to grow, whether by mans doing or Yahwehs.If you think Yeshua existed before Mary's conception what was he?
You might as well call yourself a trinitarian.
CT……..They remind me of Catholics and Protestants, the say their different but in actual fact believe all but a few things differently. Same thing with TRINITY AND PREEXISTENCES Some deny the trinity and believe in preexistence, The doctrine of preexistence supports the doctrine of the Trinity. And you are right they might as well call themselves trinitarians and Protestants might as well call themselves Catholics, because there is little if any difference. IMOpeace and love to you and yours……………gene
Agreed!Quote (Gene @ Nov. 15 2009,18:15) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 16 2009,11:51) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 15 2009,16:47) Hi CON,
You this scientific idea be applied over what scripture says?
It doesn't take science to understand the egg must be fertilized to grow, whether by mans doing or Yahwehs.If you think Yeshua existed before Mary's conception what was he?
You might as well call yourself a trinitarian.
CT……..They remind me of Catholics and Protestants, the say their different but in actual fact believe all but a few things differently. Same thing with TRINITY AND PREEXISTENCES Some deny the trinity and believe in preexistence, The doctrine of preexistence supports the doctrine of the Trinity. And you are right they might as well call themselves trinitarians and Protestants might as well call themselves Catholics, because there is little if any difference. IMOpeace and love to you and yours……………gene
They don't see it.Hi CON,
Would you threaten your plantings with such cynicism?
Planting in judgement is unlikely to bear fruit.Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 15 2009,18:28) Quote (Gene @ Nov. 15 2009,18:15) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 16 2009,11:51) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 15 2009,16:47) Hi CON,
You this scientific idea be applied over what scripture says?
It doesn't take science to understand the egg must be fertilized to grow, whether by mans doing or Yahwehs.If you think Yeshua existed before Mary's conception what was he?
You might as well call yourself a trinitarian.
CT……..They remind me of Catholics and Protestants, the say their different but in actual fact believe all but a few things differently. Same thing with TRINITY AND PREEXISTENCES Some deny the trinity and believe in preexistence, The doctrine of preexistence supports the doctrine of the Trinity. And you are right they might as well call themselves trinitarians and Protestants might as well call themselves Catholics, because there is little if any difference. IMOpeace and love to you and yours……………gene
They don't see it.
Pre-existers claim he was in some sort of a divine form, but they cannot tack down what form.They say he was not G-d, but yet he was divine.
Angels are divine, but they say he was not an angel.
Yahweh is divine, but they say he was not Yahweh.
If he was a spirit, then what kind of spirit is he? Are their other spirits like him, Bible seems to be silent on such a notion.
I wonder which is more corrupt? A trinitarian or half a trinitarian?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 15 2009,18:10) Hi CON,
Of course Abraham is yet alive with Moses and Isaac and Jacob and the men of old and the brothers.
Some are awoken unto specific tasks as with Moses and Elijah on the mountain.
They are all dead and buried.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 15 2009,18:10) Hi CON,
Of course Abraham is yet alive with Moses and Isaac and Jacob and the men of old and the brothers.
Some are awoken unto specific tasks as with Moses and Elijah on the mountain.
The spirit [intellect] of there teachings still live, but they are dead.Hi CON,
Take care you do not put coals on your head.
If you have been given knowledge does it glorify you?Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 15 2009,18:36) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 15 2009,18:10) Hi CON,
Of course Abraham is yet alive with Moses and Isaac and Jacob and the men of old and the brothers.
Some are awoken unto specific tasks as with Moses and Elijah on the mountain.
The spirit [intellect] of there teachings still live, but they are dead.
No different than John the Baptist having the spirit [intellect] of Elijah.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
