Preexistence

[martian]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2010,11:45)

Quote (martian @ July 18 2010,04:47) What I am trying to say is that I am not going to dig onto a debate with those that have no standards of interpretation but their own opinions and feelings, nor will I waste my time with those that use dishonest principles to debate. I have seen far to much wasted time watching someone post the same scriptures over and over again with no explanation as to how they came to the conclusion that the verse means what they claim. I honestly do not remember the what the parable of the talents was in reference to. I agree that the parable is about God sending servants and then his son, but I do not know if I agree with what you make of that parable. What do you make of it? I debate using the scriptures and as support, the closest thing I can come up with as “proof” of what the exact words meant in the times they were written.  Hence, my Eusebius quote, for he was closer to the time of Jesus than we are and naturally spoke the language the NT was written in.  Not to mention he was considered the “most learned theologian” of his day.  All very good reasons to at least peek at what he had to say.   Strong's and NETNotes and Online Bible Study Tools, etc are also examples of what I might “consider”, although it is mere men who wrote the info contained in these places. Matthew 21:33 [ The Parable of the Tenants ] “Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. Mark 12:1 [ The Parable of the Tenants ] He then began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. Luke 20:9 [ The Parable of the Tenants ] He went on to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. Check it out so you answer my question please.  I'm not going to tell you how I understand it just so you can say “WRONG!” like you did when I answered your 4 questions, even though they were asking for opinions.     You tell me if you think it is about the Father, His servants and His Son first. peace and love, mike

I already answered that question.

[martian]

Mike,
the point of the four questions was to advance that your doctrine has huge holes in it that cannot be explained from a scriptural basis. It raises doubt on christ as our example through the questions it makes arise.
It does not produce fruit other then intellectual head data. There is no hope produced which is paramount in christ's purpose. No one can take hope in a creature different then us doing anything. An example form of teaching requires a comparison between to subjects being put in the same circumstances and seeing the difference in their reactions. Make Jesus deity or give him memories or experences from a prior existence and the two subjects are not the same and no comparison can be made.

The circumstance is a normal human attempting to walk with God as a son on this Earth.
Give Christ anything not available to me and the circumstances are not the same.

Perhaps laying deep under the surface you do not believe we can really overcome as Christ did or that we can never really be like him. Boy I am sure old Satan would love those concepts.

I do not need opinions to explain my stand.
Christ is to be our example. His walk was the example of how we are to walk. This is scriptural and the scriptures have been posted hundreds of times. This is an absolute truth of scripture.
I do not need to argue jot and tittle of scripture with you. All I need do is point out that your conclusions from all of your posts serve only to negate Christ as our example. Your conclusions run contrary to a fundamental and absolute truth of scripture.
No amount of supposed scriptural proofs , on your part, can change that.
Until you come to grips with the truth about the harm your doctrine causes I really do not care what you think the parable of the vineyard or anything else means.

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike…………Why cant you simply answer the simple Question me and martian have put forth to you. Start off with Why would God even consider Morphing a person in the First Place and passing him off as a human Kind, and what example would that be for us anyway. Could we really say Jesus is our true example when in fact he really was not one of Us in (every) sense of the Word. martin put these forward but you and others fail to answer them, why is that Mike?

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

[martian]

Mike,
I find this portion of your post interesting —

I debate using the scriptures and as support, the closest thing I can come up with as “proof” of what the exact words meant in the times they were written. Hence, my Eusebius quote, for he was closer to the time of Jesus than we are and naturally spoke the language the NT was written in. Not to mention he was considered the “most learned theologian” of his day. All very good reasons to at least peek at what he had to say.

Strong's and NETNotes and Online Bible Study Tools, etc are also examples of what I might “consider”, although it is mere men who wrote the info contained in these places.

——— You quote Eusebius because he supports your doctrine. And then in the next paragraph you (in so many words) show disdain for mere men’s writings. Just what do you think Eusebius was. Is he NOT a mere man because he supports your theory? You are just full of contradiction and dishonesty in your interpretations.——–

[Arnold]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 18 2010,06:11)

Hi Irene, How many verses support your interpretation? If you cannot find any is it not your own interpretation you are reliant on?

To Nick and Martian!  When are you going to understand what I said.  I read a Scripture and go by that Scripture.  How many times can you interpret firstborn?  Firstborn is simple firstborn, nothing else…..I do not interpet I tell the truth of the word in the Bible, and do not give my own interpetation of that verse…. there lies the difference.    But some will make something else out of it.  And that is what I object to and will never have a one to one face debate.  To answer your Question Nick, there are two verses that I see that say the firstborn of all creation.  They are Rev. 3:14 and Col 1:15,  Again what I find so interesting that all will go along with firstborn of the death, which is verse 18, but not with verse 15.  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.  You Martian thinks that He has to be like us, yet He was not like us, He was the firstborn created in the image of God.  We are created from the dust of the earth.  There is a difference….He was not like us, only in the flesh…..Irene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (martian @ July 18 2010,14:15)

The circumstance is a normal human attempting to walk with God as a son on this Earth. Give Christ anything not available to me and the circumstances are not the same.

Hi Martian,

I have already stated that you shouldn't ignore scripture to make Jesus into whatever YOU want him to be.  You said:

Quote

The circumstance is a normal human attempting to walk with God as a son on this Earth. Give Christ anything not available to me and the circumstances are not the same.

Can you make the blind see?  Or the lame walk?  Can you walk on water?  Jesus said with faith the size of a mustard seed, we could do these things and “ever greater things than these”.  So far, so good for YOUR doctrine, right?

But…….

Are YOU “the Lord of the Sabbath”?  Can YOU say you existed before Abraham?  Can YOU ever be God's ONLY begotten son?  Is there a chance for YOU to be King of kings and Lord of lords?  Have YOU been given the authority by God to forgive other peoples sins on earth?  Can YOU pray that God return you to the glory you had IN HIS PRESENCE BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD?  Are YOU sinless?  Was your coming prophecied about for thousands of years before you walked the earth?

Are you getting the point?  You are NOT the same as Jesus and never will be.  So for you to ignore all these things I just mentioned in a effort to make the things Jesus did more “attainable” to you is just wrong, IMO.

It's like someone saying, “I'm going to ignore all the scriptures that say Jesus could walk because I was born without that ability, and I want Jesus to be the same as me so I know I can acheive what he did.”  That is in effect what you are doing.

peace and love,
mike

[GeneBalthrop]

Irene………..That is not true we (ALL) interpret Scriptures to the way we see them, To one person it can mean one thing to another it can mean something completed different. It all depends on our preconceived Ideologies. Your say first born means first born means the first one ever created, but the word Born shows berth and not necessarily created. And also the word of (means from) Jesus was indeed the (First) Born from the creation of Man into the Kingdom of GOD is the way i and others see it. So you see you interpret it one way and we another, so it really is a matter of interpretations right. IMO

peace and lvoe to you and Georg……………………………gene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 18 2010,15:19)

Mike…………Why cant you simply answer the simple Question me and martian have put forth to you. Start off with Why would God even consider Morphing a person in the First Place and passing him off as a human Kind, and what example would that be for us anyway. Could we really say Jesus is our true example when in fact he really was not one of Us in (every) sense of the Word.  martin put these forward but you and others fail to answer them, why is that Mike? peace and love to you and yours…………………..gene

Hi Gene,

I can't rightly answer those kinds of questions because they call for nothing but opinion and speculation. It's like asking why God didn't make man with wings so we could fly instead of walking. Who knows why God did and does things the way He does?

As far as Jesus being “our true example”, read my previous post to Martian.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (martian @ July 19 2010,01:45)

You quote Eusebius because he supports your doctrine. And then in the next paragraph you (in so many words) show disdain for mere men’s writings. Just what do you think Eusebius was. Is he NOT a mere man because he supports your theory? You are just full of contradiction and dishonesty in your interpretations

I can't believe you called me dishonest.  When did I ever lie to you?

I quote Eusebius because he shows that the meaning of the Greek words “prototokos pasa ktisis” really is “firstborn of every creature”, not “preeminent over mankind” like some people claim.

I never asked anyone to use that quote to form their belief system, only as a referrence of how the Greek words were intended to be understood.

If you find me a quote from ANYONE who lived close to the time of Jesus and spoke the Koine Greek that says, “We know Jesus is preeminent over mankind because the scriptures say he is the firstborn of every creature”, it would behoove us all to take a close look at that quote.  Not because we necessarily agree with his doctrine, but because it sheds light on the actual usage of the Greek words in scripture and how they were understood by someone who lived closer to Jesus' time.

mike

[martian]

Quote (Arnold @ July 19 2010,02:09)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 18 2010,06:11) Hi Irene, How many verses support your interpretation? If you cannot find any is it not your own interpretation you are reliant on? To Nick and Martian!  When are you going to understand what I said.  I read a Scripture and go by that Scripture.  How many times can you interpret firstborn?  Firstborn is simple firstborn, nothing else…..I do not interpet I tell the truth of the word in the Bible, and do not give my own interpetation of that verse…. there lies the difference.    But some will make something else out of it.  And that is what I object to and will never have a one to one face debate.  To answer your Question Nick, there are two verses that I see that say the firstborn of all creation.  They are Rev. 3:14 and Col 1:15,  Again what I find so interesting that all will go along with firstborn of the death, which is verse 18, but not with verse 15.  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.  You Martian thinks that He has to be like us, yet He was not like us, He was the firstborn created in the image of God.  We are created from the dust of the earth.  There is a difference….He was not like us, only in the flesh…..Irene

No you do not. You read the translation of some man and assume that he is right. You do not know what firstborn means in scripture. Your post are completely irrational.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Arnold @ July 19 2010,02:09)

Again what I find so interesting that all will go along with firstborn of the death, which is verse 18, but not with verse 15.

Hi Irene,

You hit the nail right on the head with that one!

Why do they accept “firstborn from the dead” literally mean he was the first one who was raised from the dead to everlasting life instead of “preeminent over the dead”?

But in 1:15, they can't take firstborn at face value as they do 1:18.

Great point!

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (martian @ July 19 2010,02:44)

No you do not. You read the translation of some man and assume that he is right. You do not know what firstborn means in scripture. Your post are completely irrational.

So what do YOU think “firstborn” means in scripture?
1. Do you have proof of your understanding of what the word means?
2. Can you apply that meaning to every instance of “firstborn” in the Bible?

mike

[martian]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 19 2010,02:28)

Quote (martian @ July 18 2010,14:15) The circumstance is a normal human attempting to walk with God as a son on this Earth. Give Christ anything not available to me and the circumstances are not the same. Hi Martian, I have already stated that you shouldn't ignore scripture to make Jesus into whatever YOU want him to be.  You said: Quote The circumstance is a normal human attempting to walk with God as a son on this Earth. Give Christ anything not available to me and the circumstances are not the same. Can you make the blind see?  Or the lame walk?  Can you walk on water?  Jesus said with faith the size of a mustard seed, we could do these things and “ever greater things than these”.  So far, so good for YOUR doctrine, right? But……. Are YOU “the Lord of the Sabbath”?  Can YOU say you existed before Abraham?  Can YOU ever be God's ONLY begotten son?  Is there a chance for YOU to be King of kings and Lord of lords?  Have YOU been given the authority by God to forgive other peoples sins on earth?  Can YOU pray that God return you to the glory you had IN HIS PRESENCE BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD?  Are YOU sinless?  Was your coming prophecied about for thousands of years before you walked the earth? Are you getting the point?  You are NOT the same as Jesus and never will be.  So for you to ignore all these things I just mentioned in a effort to make the things Jesus did more “attainable” to you is just wrong, IMO. It's like someone saying, “I'm going to ignore all the scriptures that say Jesus could walk because I was born without that ability, and I want Jesus to be the same as me so I know I can acheive what he did.”  That is in effect what you are doing. peace and love, mike

You are comparing apples and oranges. You mix the two aspects of Christ life to hide behind them.
All the things you mentioned are aspects of Christ mantle as the Messiah. I have never said that we use the mantle of Messiah as our example. I have claimed that we use the perfected human son as our example. Without the mantle of the Messiah Christ was a perfected human son. This is our example.
Jesus had to be a perfected son to be the messiah, but no one needs to be the messiah to be a perfected son.
I have ignored no scriptures. All of those attributes of Christ as the Messiah do not apply to us as an example. We are not called to be a Messiah. We are called to be perfected sons like Christ. The powers given him to complete his job as messiah do not negate his example to us of a perfected son. The ministries in scripture are really just jobs. They are what we do for God and not who we are in God. A man may be a pastor or teacher or prophet. Those are simply callings and jobs. They first have a responsibility to be perfected sons of God. The more they are perfected the better they will do their job or calling.
Christ had a calling. The hardest and the one of a kind calling to be the Jewish Messiah. He also had a responsibility to be a perfect son of God. Because he was perfect he could have the mantle of messiah and be given the powers needed to accomplish that job or calling. Had Jesus sinned he could never have been the Messiah for he would not be the spotless lamb. Christ needed to be perfect to be the Messiah, but he did not need to be the messiah to be perfected humanity.

You say in ignorance –
It's like someone saying, “I'm going to ignore all the scriptures that say Jesus could walk because I was born without that ability, and I want Jesus to be the same as me so I know I can acheive what he did.” That is in effect what you are doing.

Wrong and wrong again —
I do have all the abilities I need to be a perfect son. I am not called to the position that Christ had as messiah. I do not need that power to be like Christ. Being like Christ does not include doing Christ’s job. Using Christ as our example does not include using his job as the job we are to have. Christ was not resurrected from the dead because he was the Messiah. He was resurrected because he was sinless and a perfected son. He did not deserve to die because he was perfect not because he was the Messiah.

Christ did not overcome because he was the messiah. He was appointed and given the job of messiah because he overcame. Christ was not sinless because he was firstborn. He was appointed firstborn because he was sinless.
I can be reckoned sinless because of the blood sacrifice and I can overcome as Christ did. I do not and cannot do this because of a calling I have on my life, but because I have the example of Christ to follow. Then God can give me whatever ministry/job he wants.

Are you getting the point? I am the same as Jesus, I just do not have the same Job as Jesus.I do not need the same gifts to accomplish that Job because I do not have it. The job of messiah did not make christ perfect. Christ being perfected by what he suffered FIRST made him eligible for the job of messiah. If he had not been perfected he would have not been given that job. Different jobs require different things. Messiah required a perfect sinless man. Perhaps you are called to be a music leader. You do not have to be perfect to do that Job BUT the more perfect you are the better you will do that job.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (martian @ July 19 2010,03:29)

Are you getting the point? I am the same as Jesus, I just do not have the same Job as Jesus.

Ahhh…..I see. So then you DID exist before Abraham also?

mike

[martian]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 19 2010,02:54)

Quote (martian @ July 19 2010,02:44) No you do not. You read the translation of some man and assume that he is right. You do not know what firstborn means in scripture. Your post are completely irrational. So what do YOU think “firstborn” means in scripture?   1.  Do you have proof of your understanding of what the word means? 2.  Can you apply that meaning to every instance of “firstborn” in the Bible? mike

In Psalm 89 God refers to “David my servant” and reviews the covenant for the kingdom that was made with him. In the midst of this is the statement: “I myself shall place him as firstborn, the most high of the kings of the earth.” (Ps 89:20, 27) The KJV reads: “Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.” If you notice, God did not say David was firstborn but said he would 'place' or 'make' “David my servant” such. David was not a firstborn son. (1Ch 2:13-15) So it seems that God was referring prophetically to the one foreshadowed by David, Christ.
Jesus Christ is shown to be “the firstborn of all creation” as well as “the firstborn from the dead”– the first raised from the dead to endless life. (Col 1:15, 18; Re 1:5; 3:14) Jesus was not the first to be raised from the dead. He was the first to be raised with no need to die again. This in no way requires a preexistence. The apostle Paul speaks of the followers of Jesus Christ who have been enrolled in the heavens as “the congregation of the firstborn,” the first ones accepted by God as sons on the basis of their faith in Jesus' sacrifice and the first of Christ's followers to be resurrected with no need to die again.–Heb 12:23.
In every home with children, there is a firstborn. The firstborn grows up with a special destiny. Firstborns are thrust into the role of trailblazers and natural leaders. They represent the future hope of the family and its name. They are also regarded as the first heirs of the family. According to ancient tradition found in Scripture, all of the children of a family should receive an equal share of the inheritance, but the firstborn receives a double portion. The Scripture speaks of this blessing of the firstborn as the birthright blessing.
But he shall acknowledge the firstborn,… … by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.
Deuteronomy 21:17
Abraham received a covenant from God to become the father of many, to establish a special heritage and blessing for the people of God. However, Abraham’s firstborn, Ishmael, did not receive the blessing. Instead, Isaac, the son born through Sarah received the blessing. Isaac’s firstborn son, Esau, did not receive the blessing. Instead, Jacob received the blessing. Jacob’s firstborn son, Reuben, did not receive the blessing. Instead, Joseph received the blessing. Joseph’s firstborn son, Manasses, did not receive the blessing. Instead, Ephraim received the blessing from the hand of Jacob. And still further, when the tribes were numbered, the Levites were declared to be the firstborn of Israel.
These people were not firstborn because of chronological birth. They were appointed to receive firstborn rights and priveledges by their father.
Prototokos is a legal term not a biological one, meaning, “first in rank, status, pre-eminent, supreme, superior, and unique.” A person can be ‘first-born’ but not born first. Biblical examples of this fact are:

Isaac & Jacob (Genesis 25:23)

Israel (Exodus 4:22) which didn’t even exist as a nation until Abraham was called in Genesis 12. Other nations had existed prior to Israel 

David (Psalm 89:27)who was the youngest in the family

Here we see the difference between someone who was the first to be born (‘birthed’) and somoeone who was firstborn (in rank). When Jesus is described as firstborn He is not actually 'born' first, any more than He is a literal Lamb, Shepherd or Door; but He has the attributes of those titles and in the same way He has the legal standing of the firstborn.

We must also consider that, if prototokos means “biological first-born”, how do we explain Job 18:13 (first-born of death) and Isaiah 14:30 (first-born of the poor)? 

Other evidence to consider is that if Paul had really intended the reader to think of Jesus as some sort of biological creation, he would have used either; protoktisis first-created or protoplastos first-formed. Both refer to a biological/creative process and not a ‘God-begotten’ act.

This meaning of pre-eminence is also shown in Colossians 1:18 which, talks of Jesus being the firstborn from the dead. Was He the first one to rise from the dead? No. The rest of the verse shows what it means though – He would be pre-eminent over death because He would never die again.
The meaning of firstborn in Scripture is pre-eminence over. Thus, Colossian 1:15 does not mean that Jesus was first to be created but that He is pre-eminent over creation.
There is your proof and now to question two
Can you apply that meaning to every instance of “firstborn” in the Bible?

Answer? Absolutely because firstborn is not about chronological birth but is a position of pre-eminence, whether first birthed or not.

All power in heaven and Earth are given to Christ by God. He is appointed pre-eminant over all of God's creation. Christ was a perfected son that never gave up his right to eternal life. therefore God could not let him remain dead, so he gave Christ power over death by resurrecting him. He was pre-emanant over death.

[martian]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 19 2010,03:55)

Quote (martian @ July 19 2010,03:29) Are you getting the point? I am the same as Jesus, I just do not have the same Job as Jesus. Ahhh…..I see.  So then you DID exist before Abraham also? mike

This is assuming that you are understanding that verse correctly.
1. Jesus is called a prophet in many places. Being a prophet means that you speak first person from god.
2. The Jews with whom Christ was speaking were justifying themselves by their heritage in Abraham.
3. God speaks through Jesus to say that before Abraham “I Am”.

In other words God is saying that the Jews should be justifying themselves by God and not their lenage.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (martian @ July 19 2010,04:04)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 19 2010,03:55) Quote (martian @ July 19 2010,03:29) Are you getting the point? I am the same as Jesus, I just do not have the same Job as Jesus. Ahhh…..I see.  So then you DID exist before Abraham also? mike This is assuming that you are understanding that verse correctly. 1. Jesus is called a prophet in many places. Being a prophet means that you speak first person from god. 2. The Jews with whom Christ was speaking were justifying themselves by their heritage in Abraham. 3. God speaks through Jesus to say that before Abraham “I Am”. In other words God is saying that the Jews should be justifying themselves by God and not their lenage.

But the Pharisees in that situation didn't recognize it was “God speaking through Jesus”, right? They brought attention to Jesus' physical age, for they knew he was speaking for himself at the time, although they didn't understand fully who Jesus was.

Do you have proof that it wasn't simply Jesus referring to his pre-existence? Do you have other examples where a prophet of God spoke in such a manner without it being clear that the words were God's?

mike

[martian]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 19 2010,04:13)

Quote (martian @ July 19 2010,04:04) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 19 2010,03:55) Quote (martian @ July 19 2010,03:29) Are you getting the point? I am the same as Jesus, I just do not have the same Job as Jesus. Ahhh…..I see.  So then you DID exist before Abraham also? mike This is assuming that you are understanding that verse correctly. 1. Jesus is called a prophet in many places. Being a prophet means that you speak first person from god. 2. The Jews with whom Christ was speaking were justifying themselves by their heritage in Abraham. 3. God speaks through Jesus to say that before Abraham “I Am”. In other words God is saying that the Jews should be justifying themselves by God and not their lenage. But the Pharisees in that situation didn't recognize it was “God speaking through Jesus”, right?  They brought attention to Jesus' physical age, for they knew he was speaking for himself at the time, although they didn't understand fully who Jesus was.   Do you have proof that it wasn't simply Jesus referring to his pre-existence?  Do you have other examples where a prophet of God spoke in such a manner without it being clear that the words were God's? mike

Sorry Mike Big typo from my files
I made a mistake. I have so much of this stuff saved in my files that often times I just post something I have saved because I end up answering the same old questions over and over again. I posted this from my files without checking it too closely. I do not believe it is accurate. My apologies.
I should have posted this —
I am pasting from a web site that expresses my thoughts on the I AM issue And I quote —
Now here’s an offer I can’t refuse! I assume by this that you are taking the standard line on John 8:58, that Jesus was claiming to be the God of Exodus 3:14. This assertion is based on a kind of ‘translation theology’, which isn’t borne out in the original language.
In the LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible), at Exodus 3.14, Yahweh declares “ego eimi o ohn”. “I am he that exists”. The addition of ‘o ohn’ is needed to reflect the fact that it is the word ‘ehyeh’ here in the original Hebrew as opposed to ‘ani hu’. In John 8:58 Jesus only says “ego eimi” (I am he). On this basis it isn’t really fair to the text to force an unambiguous reference to Exodus 3:14.
Instead anyone could say ‘I am’ or ‘I am he’ without any allusion to a claim of divinity. Current Reebok adverts quote stars saying “I am what I am”. Another more Biblical example of this is found in John 9:9 where the man born blind says ‘ego eimi’. I am he. None of these individuals are claiming to be the Exodus God.
So ‘ego eimi’ is neither God’s name nor an exclusively divine title.
But all this begs the question you originally raised: ‘If Jesus isn’t claiming to be God, what was he understood to have said that caused such offence?’ The answer lies in the dialogue leading up to his statement. In the verses immediately preceding John 8:45 we see is that this isn’t the first time Jesus has said ‘ego eimi’ in this exchange. He has already said it in v.24.
(This calls into further question the widely asserted notion that the words ‘ego eimi’ were understood by Jesus’ hearers to be a claim of ‘divinity’. Instead of seizing upon this as the long awaited and much sought after grounds to accuse him, they respond by asking ‘who are you?’ (v.25). Obviously Jesus has not identified himself sufficiently by this statement for them to know what the ‘he’ referred to is.)
Reading on from v.25, the discourse moves to Abraham. “How can you claim to offer the life of the age to come?” they ask Jesus, “even Abraham himself is dead, surely you’re not claiming to be greater than him!” (v.51-53)
Next, they misunderstand Jesus’ statement in v.56 (Abraham rejoiced to see my day) by reading too much into it, because in v.57 they accuse Jesus of claiming to have seen Abraham! He never said that. Neither did he say that Abraham had seen him. Only that Abraham had rejoiced to see his day.
Abraham, having believed the gospel preached to him by God (Gal 3.8) rejoiced in hope, looking forward to the ‘day of Christ’ in the same way we do.
It is in response to this misunderstanding that Jesus makes his statement “Before Abraham was, I am he”. Notice however that he did not say “I was before Abraham” or “before Abraham was, I was”.
The present tense ‘I am’ in reference to the past (before Abraham was) simply does not work as a stand-alone sentence.
It only makes sense if Jesus is referring back to some statement he has made previously about his present status with respect to the patriarch. I would suggest that Jesus is expanding on his statement in verse 56 by explaining how, in spite of his not being 50 years old, Abraham could still have rejoiced to see his day.
Bringing the two together what we get is: “Before Abraham was, I am he… whose day Abraham rejoiced to see”.
This is a clear identification by Jesus of himself as the seed promised to Abraham by Yahweh and through whom all the families of the earth would be blessed.
Abraham’s greatness was based on his belief in the promise God made to him about his seed and the fact that, in so doing, he became the means through which God would bring his word to pass.
Jesus is greater than Abraham because he is the embodiment of God’s end purpose and the subject of the promise which Abraham rejoiced in. This is the staggering claim which so offended the Jews that they attempted to stone him.

http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/722

[martian]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 19 2010,02:46)

Quote (Arnold @ July 19 2010,02:09) Again what I find so interesting that all will go along with firstborn of the death, which is verse 18, but not with verse 15. Hi Irene, You hit the nail right on the head with that one!   Why do they accept “firstborn from the dead” literally mean he was the first one who was raised from the dead to everlasting life instead of “preeminent over the dead”? But in 1:15, they can't take firstborn at face value as they do 1:18.   Great point! mike

Not preeminant over the dead but preeminant over death itself.

[martian]

Quote (Arnold @ July 19 2010,02:09)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 18 2010,06:11) Hi Irene, How many verses support your interpretation? If you cannot find any is it not your own interpretation you are reliant on? To Nick and Martian!  When are you going to understand what I said.  I read a Scripture and go by that Scripture.  How many times can you interpret firstborn?  Firstborn is simple firstborn, nothing else…..I do not interpet I tell the truth of the word in the Bible, and do not give my own interpetation of that verse…. there lies the difference.    But some will make something else out of it.  And that is what I object to and will never have a one to one face debate.  To answer your Question Nick, there are two verses that I see that say the firstborn of all creation.  They are Rev. 3:14 and Col 1:15,  Again what I find so interesting that all will go along with firstborn of the death, which is verse 18, but not with verse 15.  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.  You Martian thinks that He has to be like us, yet He was not like us, He was the firstborn created in the image of God.  We are created from the dust of the earth.  There is a difference….He was not like us, only in the flesh…..Irene

So what yuo are saying is that you have no proof of your conclusions. All you have is the opinion of an English translator and your own opinion.
That's it?
I am supposed to change what I believe on the basis of your opinion.
Sorry Charlie – Ain't gonna happin

[Author]

Posts