Preexistence

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 10 2010,17:17)

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom [1Cor15]

Yes Nick,

Now add that thought to 1 Cor 15 and you will begin to understand that Jesus is still the man who is mediator between us and God, but he is now clothed with a spiritual body.

mike

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
I agree Jesus is not in a torn flesh and bones body as seen in lk24.
Surely like us the perishable has inherited the imperishable.

Now we have an ADVOCATE.[1Jn1]
He has mediated for his brothers.

[Arnold]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 10 2010,16:38)

Hi Irene, It was the Spirit of Christ. Jesus was not alive till conceived of Mary. But the Spirit of Christ enlightened the prophets and was the rock that was with the Israelites.[1Cor10, 1 peter1]

Nick!  So you disagree with what t8 has written?  That rather surprises me… Yes, He was a Spirit and that Spirit was and is like Jesus now. He was very much aware what was going on. He is the Son of God and God is Spirit. So why is there a difference in Spirits. There is not. He emptied Himself it says in Phil. 2:5…..Then how do you explain the Scriptures in John 17:5 Where Jesus said that He wants the glory back which He had with the Father before the world was? Is He then now what He was before according to you simple a Spirit or a Spirit Being the firstborn of all creation….. That is what Scriptures say….. Or when John said in John 6:38 that He has come down from Heaven not to do His will but the will of Him who send Him.  First of all how did He know what His Father wanted. Since no man ever seen Jehovah God or heard His voice, only the one who came from Heaven, has seen Him…. That is Jesus……And is He not the firstborn of all creation?  And in John 1:1 it was the Word and that Word was made flesh in verse 14?  Not to speak of Rev. 19:13and verse 16.  He will come agai as that Word of God. KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS……There are several Scriptures that you and others will have to ignore or interpret the way you see fit, and not the way it is written……..Irene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 10 2010,17:42)

Hi MB, I agree Jesus is not in a torn flesh and bones body as seen in lk24. Surely like us the perishable has inherited the imperishable.

Hi Nick,

We haven't inherited it the imperishable yet. It is our hope.

mike

[KangarooJack]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2010,17:27)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 10 2010,17:17) Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom [1Cor15] Yes Nick, Now add that thought to 1 Cor 15 and you will begin to understand that Jesus is still the man who is mediator between us and God, but he is now clothed with a spiritual body. mike

Mike,

Very good! You once denied that Jesus is still a man. You said:

Quote

If Jesus didn't receive the “position of firstborn” until he was raised, (when he was no longer a man), then your whole theory falls apart.  How could he be the firstborn in relationship to man if he wasn't a man when he recieved the “title”?  Wouldn't he be the firstborn in relationship to his own kind of spirit creatures?

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=80

Now you correctly say that He is a man but with a spiritual body.  

the Roo

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 11 2010,04:06)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2010,17:27) Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 10 2010,17:17) Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom [1Cor15] Yes Nick, Now add that thought to 1 Cor 15 and you will begin to understand that Jesus is still the man who is mediator between us and God, but he is now clothed with a spiritual body. mike Mike, Very good! You once denied that Jesus is still a man. You said: Quote If Jesus didn't receive the “position of firstborn” until he was raised, (when he was no longer a man), then your whole theory falls apart.  How could he be the firstborn in relationship to man if he wasn't a man when he recieved the “title”?  Wouldn't he be the firstborn in relationship to his own kind of spirit creatures? https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=80 Now you correctly say that He is a man but with a spiritual body.   the Roo

Yes Roo,

I should have said (when he was no longer a FLESH AND BLOOD man).

Sorry for your confusion.

mike

[KangarooJack]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 11 2010,04:42)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 11 2010,04:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2010,17:27) Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 10 2010,17:17) Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom [1Cor15] Yes Nick, Now add that thought to 1 Cor 15 and you will begin to understand that Jesus is still the man who is mediator between us and God, but he is now clothed with a spiritual body. mike Mike, Very good! You once denied that Jesus is still a man. You said: Quote If Jesus didn't receive the “position of firstborn” until he was raised, (when he was no longer a man), then your whole theory falls apart.  How could he be the firstborn in relationship to man if he wasn't a man when he recieved the “title”?  Wouldn't he be the firstborn in relationship to his own kind of spirit creatures? https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=80 Now you correctly say that He is a man but with a spiritual body.   the Roo Yes Roo, I should have said (when he was no longer a FLESH AND BLOOD man). Sorry for your confusion. mike

Don't tell me it was my confusion. I know very well that the JW's deny that Jesus is still a man and that it was in that context you made your statement because ot your JW background. You needed only to accept my compliment in the grace that I gave it.

the Roo

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 11 2010,04:56)

Don't tell me it was my confusion. I know very well that the JW's deny that Jesus is still a man and that it was in that context you made your statement because ot your JW background.

I'm sorry that I confused you by not spelling it out clearly enough for you.

mike

[martian]

From another forum, but very good.

There is precedent in the Old Testament that kings were worshiped and there was no contradiction because he was God's appointed representative. A good example of this is 1 Chr. 29:20,
“And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.”
So it's also interesting that in the same chapter verse 23 it says this,
“Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.” (cp. 1 Chr. 28:5)
Solomon didn't sit on his own throne. He sat on 'the throne of the LORD' being God's annointed. He was given that right or authority. The principle is stated by king Jehoshaphat in 2 Chr. 19:6,
“And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment.”
So do these same principles apply to Jesus? Is he worshiped as a King appointed by God or is he worshiped because he is just God? I think Phil. 2:9-11 is pretty clear,
“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: {10} That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; {11} And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
So does this indicate that Jesus is worshiped because he is God? No. It shows that God has “exalted him” and “given him a name”. These are not things that were inherit with Jesus. The lesser is given authority by the greater. Time and time again we see that Jesus' authority was given to him by God (Matt. 28:18; Acts 2:36; Eph 1:20-22, to name a few).

Another key key verse in this regards is 1 Cor. 15:28,
“And when all things shall be subdued unto him [Jesus], then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him [God] that put all things under him [Jesus], that God may be all in all.”
Jesus must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet (v.25). There is an end to Jesus' authority but it isn't until the very end. It's at that time that Jesus will give that authority back to God and subject himself to God. How on earth does this square with the Trinitarian concept of co-equality? But it aligns perfectly if Jesus is not God but the Son of God, a King, given authority for the glory of God.

This also dovetails nicely into the passage in Hebrews 1:8 also used by Trinitarians. First of all verse 6 once again shows that God directs the worship of the Son.
“And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” (cp. 1 Peter 3:22)
This follows the same pattern established in Phil. 2:9-11. To prove that the Son is to be worshipped the author to the Hebrews quotes Psalm 45:6-7,
(Heb 1:8-9 KJV) “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. {9} Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”
It is argued by Trinitarians that the Son is called God here in Hebrews 1:8 therefore he must be God. This is curious because verse 9 states that “God, even thy God hath anointed thee”. Does God have a God? Again the lesser is blessed (Psa. 45:5) and anointed (Psa. 45:7) by the greater.

So why is Jesus called God in verse 8? There again is an Old Testament precedent that the leaders of the people where sometimes called God (Heb. Elohim) because they were God's representatives on earth. . The principles all apply here that God has anointed Jesus to sit in the 'throne of the Lord'… 'thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever'. Jesus now sits in that throne just like Solomon did. Jesus has been given a name above every other name therefore he is called God even though he not the 'only true God' (John 17:3). God has given him all power and authority until all enemies are put under his feet. Truly this can be said of no other man then Jesus Christ who was sinless and a perfect representation of God manifest in flesh. He is therefore uniquely qualified to be worshipped to the glory of God the Father.

[JustAskin]

To all,

AGAIN AND AGAIN… Why do you all never learn.

Worship is ONLY to God.

All else is “OBEISANCE”.

“Worship the Father (God) – Honor the King (Jesus)”

What do you read:” When he again bring his firstborn into the world he says “All the Angel to do obesiance to him” – Where does it include MANKIND…?

Martian, Your post is good but doesn't RAM home the points but leave room for others to pry your argument apart. You need to be tighter…

Try to focus and be in the Spirit. have a complete vision of what you are posting – like writing a picture… check your perspectives, your gradient lines, your horizons and balance, top left, bottom right.  What is the main focus and does it draw the mind's eye. Are you over colouring – to many themes – too few? is the main point being overshadowed by a distraction element in the foreground or background.
And lastly, Frame it.

Intro, mid point and end footer (Conclusion).

[martian]

Quote (JustAskin @ July 11 2010,09:48)

To all, AGAIN AND AGAIN… Why do you all never learn. Worship is ONLY to God. All else is “OBEISANCE”. “Worship the Father (God) – Honor the King (Jesus)” What do you read:” When he again bring his firstborn into the world he says “All the Angel to do obesiance to him” – Where does it include MANKIND…? Martian, Your post is good but doesn't RAM home the points but leave room for others to pry your argument apart. You need to be tighter… Try to focus and be in the Spirit. have a complete vision of what you are posting – like writing a picture… check your perspectives, your gradient lines, your horizons and balance, top left, bottom right.  What is the main focus and does it draw the mind's eye. Are you over colouring – to many themes – too few? is the main point being overshadowed by a distraction element in the foreground or background. And lastly, Frame it. Intro, mid point and end footer (Conclusion).

This is a computer game, I am not writing a thesis. It is not worth all the trouble you are indicating. Come on get a life!!!

[Arnold]

Quote (JustAskin @ July 11 2010,09:48)

To all, AGAIN AND AGAIN… Why do you all never learn. Worship is ONLY to God. All else is “OBEISANCE”. “Worship the Father (God) – Honor the King (Jesus)” What do you read:” When he again bring his firstborn into the world he says “All the Angel to do obesiance to him” – Where does it include MANKIND…? Martian, Your post is good but doesn't RAM home the points but leave room for others to pry your argument apart. You need to be tighter… Try to focus and be in the Spirit. have a complete vision of what you are posting – like writing a picture… check your perspectives, your gradient lines, your horizons and balance, top left, bottom right.  What is the main focus and does it draw the mind's eye. Are you over colouring – to many themes – too few? is the main point being overshadowed by a distraction element in the foreground or background. And lastly, Frame it. Intro, mid point and end footer (Conclusion).

You know my Husband has asked that Question a long time ago!!!!!! He does not post any longer because of just that point.  No one is here to learn.  They all just want to do their own thing….But for you…. You have no right to tell anybody how to make a post?  We are not written a book here!!!! We are discussing the precious Word of God and more!!!! You tend to be always criticizing others.  In my book that is not what we or I want.  I want what is written in Scriptures.  No matter how it comes out….. It is the interpretation of that Scripture is what bothers me the most.  When it says He come from Heaven for instance so many make something else out of it.  Or the firstborn of creation, is not firstborn of creation, but firstborn to be resurrected, which is not so.  That is firstborn of the death.  So on and on we go and never come to any understanding.  I asked Marty to go face to face with this subject and take one Scripture at the time, He just does not want to debate…..  What is this we are doing then???   Today I learned something that surprised me very much and I have got no answer jet….. but that is not unusual for Nick to do.  Lets all be  little bit polite with each other.  I don't think that any of us know it all…As far as worship is concerned those who do not believe in a trinity, do not worship our Savior .   He does deserve to be honored and praised though.. Peace and Love to you Irene

[Arnold]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2010,17:12)

Quote (Arnold @ July 10 2010,07:49) If you are game let' us debate this head on  with just you.  I think Mike would also like that….One Point at the time. One Scripture at the time.  Are you for it? Irene Hi Irene and Marty, Yes, I would love to watch you debate this point one scripture or point at a time.  I think HN is full of people just posting their thoughts and interpretations over and over, but it seems no one wants to break it down to the “brass tacks” when someone else challenges those thoughts. For example, someone may state, “Jesus only pre-existed as a foreordained thought in God's mind.”  But does that mean that Jesus returned to his former glory as a “thought in God's mind”? John 17:5 says, So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed. Can a thought of God be “in His presence”?  NetNotes says, 1 tn Or “in your presence”; Grk “with yourself.” The use of παρά (para) twice in this verse looks back to the assertion in John 1:1 that the Word (the Λόγος [Logos], who became Jesus of Nazareth in 1:14) was with God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν, pro” ton qeon). Whatever else may be said, the statement in 17:5 strongly asserts the preexistence of Jesus Christ. Anyway yeah, I would like to see this broken down by both of you – for what that's worth.   peace and love, mike

Mike! I have no idea why it is so hard for some to come to terms with certain Scriptures. I do appreciate all the inderstanding that you show…… Irene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Arnold @ July 11 2010,11:27)

Mike! I have no idea why it is so hard for some to come to terms with certain Scriptures. I do appreciate all the inderstanding that you show…… Irene

[karmarie]

To all,

“did Jesus pre-exist”

Obviously yes, the scriptures seem to suggest it. But, isnt it time to move on into the future to build on the foundations than dwell in a mysterious unknown past?

Jesus spoke the WORDS his father gave him,

Words…..If I spoke or wrote to someone id never met in person, all I have is their words.

The question is, “what WAS IT with his words”

They had 'divine eminence',

a foundation for others to build on, I think I get it now. Are they being built on?

They either flourish and grow – or wither and fade.

Like a true friend you love they're 'part of your life'

“The word was made flesh”

(carry on).

[JustAskin]

Arnold,

The reason you are upset is so that you can continue with your false doctrine.

When the truth hits a man (“Well, I am no man” -hero daughter of a King to the chief Ringwraith – Lord of the Rings) it is often hard to stomach that all that time he has been wrong. natural kneejerk reaction is to bite back.

It's ok, I understand. I do not write for those who do not need wisdom, but to those who seek it.
For even wisdom, wisdom without authority, is foolishness from that one whom speaks it!
Just as wisdom, wisdom even with authority, is foolishness to some of them who hears it!

[martian]

Quote (Arnold @ July 11 2010,11:21)

Quote (JustAskin @ July 11 2010,09:48) To all, AGAIN AND AGAIN… Why do you all never learn. Worship is ONLY to God. All else is “OBEISANCE”. “Worship the Father (God) – Honor the King (Jesus)” What do you read:” When he again bring his firstborn into the world he says “All the Angel to do obesiance to him” – Where does it include MANKIND…? Martian, Your post is good but doesn't RAM home the points but leave room for others to pry your argument apart. You need to be tighter… Try to focus and be in the Spirit. have a complete vision of what you are posting – like writing a picture… check your perspectives, your gradient lines, your horizons and balance, top left, bottom right.  What is the main focus and does it draw the mind's eye. Are you over colouring – to many themes – too few? is the main point being overshadowed by a distraction element in the foreground or background. And lastly, Frame it. Intro, mid point and end footer (Conclusion). You know my Husband has asked that Question a long time ago!!!!!! He does not post any longer because of just that point.  No one is here to learn.  They all just want to do their own thing….But for you…. You have no right to tell anybody how to make a post?  We are not written a book here!!!! We are discussing the precious Word of God and more!!!! You tend to be always criticizing others.  In my book that is not what we or I want.  I want what is written in Scriptures.  No matter how it comes out….. It is the interpretation of that Scripture is what bothers me the most.  When it says He come from Heaven for instance so many make something else out of it.  Or the firstborn of creation, is not firstborn of creation, but firstborn to be resurrected, which is not so.  That is firstborn of the death.  So on and on we go and never come to any understanding.  I asked Marty to go face to face with this subject and take one Scripture at the time, He just does not want to debate…..  What is this we are doing then???   Today I learned something that surprised me very much and I have got no answer jet….. but that is not unusual for Nick to do.  Lets all be  little bit polite with each other.  I don't think that any of us know it all…As far as worship is concerned those who do not believe in a trinity, do not worship our Savior .   He does deserve to be honored and praised though.. Peace and Love to you Irene

I know Irene is not engaging with me right now so I post this for those that actually want to know the truth.

Irene says –
I want what is written in Scriptures. No matter how it comes out….. It is the interpretation of that Scripture is what bothers me the most.
Reply-
I really wish you really wanted what scripture says. The problem is that you have no interpretation of scripture. You read what an English interpreter has written or go by what some one else has said and roll it around in your Greek thinking mind and think you know something.
You have never considered the culture or history of the Bible. You act as if it was written ten years ago in America instead of 1000 years ago in a complete different culture. You do not follow any rules of interpretation except what you think is correct. You do no study and except no correction from those that do.
As far as those unwilling to learn you are chief among them. What you accuse others of doing is your normal method of operation.
You have no clue what firstborn of creation means outside of your English culture and translation. You go no farther because you do not care to change your opinion no matter what proof is stacked up against it. You ignore scriptures that speak of the same subject as “sent from heaven” because they put your theory to the test and you are unwilling to have your theory tested. You have ignored answering all the questions that your theory produces because you do not know the answers. Like what happened to the memories and experiences of Christ from his prior life or how much did his prior experience effect his walk on Earth. You ignore the most basic of Christ ministries to be our example by making him something other then normal humanity.

Worst of all if you truly do not believe that Christ physically rose from the dead, in his mortal body, then you risk not being saved at all.

To tell you the truth debating with you has been very much like the experiences I have had when Moonies or Mormons have come to my door. They have their plastic smile and just repeat the same rhetoric over and over again. Brainwashed and lost.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (martian @ July 12 2010,02:37)

You have no clue what firstborn of creation means outside of your English culture and translation. You go no farther because you do not care to change your opinion no matter what proof is stacked up against it.

Hi Martian,

Wow, that's a lot of accusation for one post!  I detect that you are among those who have to come up with alternate meanings for “only begotten Son of God” and “firstborn of all creation” and “the beginning of the creation of God” to make your understanding fit in with scripture.  You do make a good point that we should try to understand what “firstborn of every creature” and “begotten of God” meant 2000 years ago when it was written.  

Ignatius was thought to have been taught by the Apostle John himself and he said:
Glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by Him has given you such wisdom, that He was the Son of God, “the first-born of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, by the Virgin Mary;

He thought Jesus was the firstborn of all creation AND also was born of Mary in the flesh.  He further emphasizes this belief in a letter to the Ephesians,
Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.

It is clear that Ignatius thought Jesus pre-existed his flesh.  Eusebius was an early church father who was thought to be “the greatest Greek teacher and most learned theologian of his day” wrote this around 325 A.D.,
We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father,

This is a man who grew up less than 300 years after Jesus speaking the same language that the NT was written in and was a learned Bible student and teacher – and he took “firstborn of every creature” to literally mean Jesus was “the firstborn of every creature BEFORE ALL THE AGES”.

Neither of these early church fathers seemed to think that “firstborn of every creature” meant “preeminent over mankind” or “begotten of God” meant Jesus was “placed in an esteemed postition by God” like the newer trinitarian scholars like to claim.

There's the support for my and Irene's understanding of what “firstborn of all creation” REALLY meant in the scriptures.  Where's your proof that the Greek words mean something different than their literal translation?

peace and love,
mike

[Is 1:18]

LOL…it amuses me how you keep citing quotes that refute what you're trying to prove. You do understand, Mike, that if a personage exists before time He is, by definition, timeless in His origin, don't you?

[martian]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 12 2010,04:00)

Quote (martian @ July 12 2010,02:37) You have no clue what firstborn of creation means outside of your English culture and translation. You go no farther because you do not care to change your opinion no matter what proof is stacked up against it. Hi Martian, Wow, that's a lot of accusation for one post!  I detect that you are among those who have to come up with alternate meanings for “only begotten Son of God” and “firstborn of all creation” and “the beginning of the creation of God” to make your understanding fit in with scripture.  You do make a good point that we should try to understand what “firstborn of every creature” and “begotten of God” meant 2000 years ago when it was written.   Ignatius was thought to have been taught by the Apostle John himself and he said: Glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by Him has given you such wisdom, that He was the Son of God, “the first-born of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, by the Virgin Mary; He thought Jesus was the firstborn of all creation AND also was born of Mary in the flesh.  He further emphasizes this belief in a letter to the Ephesians, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. It is clear that Ignatius thought Jesus pre-existed his flesh.  Eusebius was an early church father who was thought to be “the greatest Greek teacher and most learned theologian of his day” wrote this around 325 A.D., We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, This is a man who grew up less than 300 years after Jesus speaking the same language that the NT was written in and was a learned Bible student and teacher – and he took “firstborn of every creature” to literally mean Jesus was “the firstborn of every creature BEFORE ALL THE AGES”. Neither of these early church fathers seemed to think that “firstborn of every creature” meant “preeminent over mankind” or “begotten of God” meant Jesus was “placed in an esteemed postition by God” like the newer trinitarian scholars like to claim. There's the support for my and Irene's understanding of what “firstborn of all creation” REALLY meant in the scriptures.  Where's your proof that the Greek words mean something different than their literal translation? peace and love, mike

I am not interested in trying to fit my doctrine into scripture. I leave that to the Trinitarians and the preexisiters. What I am interested in is what scripture says within it's original languages, culture and history. Explanations of the firstborn have been made several times that include these things. They were ignored.

Here it is —
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….st=7930

[Author]

Posts