Preexistence

[mikeboll64]

WJ,

You said:

Quote

The bigger question is why John used the word “theos” in the same breath when referring to the Father and Jesus.

I wonder if “god” has ever been used in the scriptures to refer to a mighty one who was NOT God?  Oh yeah, dozens of times.  

You said:

Quote

But you say Jesus is of the same kind as Satan. Anathema!

More tricks you learned from Jack!         What I said was that Jesus is a god in the same sense that Satan is a god.  They are both mighty ones who are NOT the Father God Almighty.  Prove me scripturally wrong in this statement or pipe down about it.  (Disclaimer so Jack doesn't start crying again:  I am in no way comparing the person of Jesus and the wonderful things he has done with the Devil who has been a manslayer and liar from the beginning.  I am only saying the title “god” was applied to many persons who were not “God” – Jesus and Satan are just two of them.)

You said:

Quote

So again, put up Mike or hush up about the word “Theos” having an indefinite article anywhere in the NT except the corrupted version of the Polytheistic JW’s NWT.

More of Jack's crap being spewed by you?     Do you really think the group of people who named themselves after the only true God and view Jesus as God's Son, not God Himself are polytheistic?  Why would an educated person like yourself even make such a claim?  

You said:

Quote

You cannot produce a single NT scripture that is translated with the indefinite article next to “Theos” can you?

I haven't actually looked for one yet.  But will you answer to why the “a” was added twice in John 8:44?  Why does the word have to be the word “theos” to show how the Greeks wrote it compared to how the English translated it?  Wouldn't any adjective work just the same?  Is “god” a different kind of adjective than “manslayer” and “liar”?

You said:

Quote

There are plenty of scriptures with the word “Theos” that doesn't have the definite article and is referring to the “True God”. That is fact.

And that makes John 1:1 even more clear to anyone who seeks truth.  In most cases in the Bible, Jehovah is just called “God” with no definite article.  But when trying to distiguish Him from others, it makes sense to add the definite article.  For example, Paul says Satan is “a god”, but that doesn't mean he's calling him “THE God”.  You see how I used the definite article to distinguish THE God from just “a god”?  Do you think maybe John had the same thing in mind?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,17:34)

Post them, and I will show you they do not believe what you believe Mike unless you want to say they contradict themselves.

Really WJ?  Do you promise you'll actually answer the question this time?  I asked it of you, like, 50 times and you ran each time.  But now you want to look “tough” and “unafraid” on this thread.  Remember the last time you and KJ and Is 1:18 did that on the CF Debate thread?  You three were talking all tough, so to shut you up, I posted the simple question you all had been avoiding.  What happened?  Oh, that's right……you all suddenly remembered you had other threads to post in and disappeared.  

If you want to answer the question, feel free to answer it on Jack and my original debate thread.  It's the last question posted.  It's been waiting for an answer from Jack for a couple of months now.

Put up or shut up.

mike

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 29 2010,04:53)

You still have not answered the question… “How is Theos in John 1:1c qualitatively different than Theos in John 1:1b? Does “Son of Man” mean because one is the Son of man that he is qualitatively less man?

Thanks for bolding the text, it brought it to my attention.

I don't think there is any difference qualitatively speaking in all of John 1:1a-c.

That is because God himself, is also qualitatively speaking divine or possessing divine nature, spirit, or essence.

The important thing is that all of John 1:1 identifies God with the exception of John 1:1c.

Let's look at this in another way to gain understanding of the structure.

Adam is qualitatively adam and Eve is qualitatively adam. Only Adam is actually Adam and Eve is most certainly not.

Another example. The Devil is qualitatively devil, and Judas was qualitatively devil, but only the Devil is actually the Devil himself.

The difference between qualitative and identifying clears up any difficulties with the word 'theos'. Ignoring that, you will then enter much confusion and will need the support of external doctrines.

Regarding your second question it is sort of answered above, but I will give it it's own explanation in case you think I am trying to ignore it.

The son of man is qualitatively man meaning that he is fully man. I myself am also fully man. Yet when we identify the son of man, I am not sure that includes me, but certainly both Jesus and myself are/were men. I say were because Jesus did initially exist with the nature of God and then emptied himself and took on the nature of man. However, he is now back with God in the glory that he had with him before the world began. So he is now at the right hand of God.

WJ, I wonder if it is possible for you to acknowledge what I am saying or disprove it. Please attempt one of them and I will look forward to the reply in the meantime.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,17:38)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,22:29) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,12:38) The word begottten is “Monogenes” which means “only of its kind”. Oh brother!  ANOTHER definition? They started off saying “only one AFTER it's own kind”, but I nailed Jack on that by saying that means Jesus is still AFTER God.  So here's the new fangled definition that resulted, I guess.   mike Monogenes Strongs G3439 1) single of its kind, only Thats the first meaning Mike, I know this must be a thorn in your crawl!   WJ

Well, Strong is half right.  He gives the definition of the “mono” part.  

Let's see what he says on this site:

http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin….nogenes

Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results

Result of search for “monogenes”:
3439. monogenes mon-og-en-ace' from 3441 and 1096; only-born, i.e. sole:–only (begotten, child).

Hmmmm…….what gives here?  Who's crawl is the thorn in now, Keith? Have you purposely been neglecting to post all of the words in the definition? Or, is it like I told Jack…..Strong's various concordances and lexicons seem to vary by some definitions.

mike

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2010,11:19)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,17:34) Post them, and I will show you they do not believe what you believe Mike unless you want to say they contradict themselves. Really WJ?  Do you promise you'll actually answer the question this time?  I asked it of you, like, 50 times and you ran each time.  But now you want to look “tough” and “unafraid” on this thread.  Remember the last time you and KJ and Is 1:18 did that on the CF Debate thread?  You three were talking all tough, so to shut you up, I posted the simple question you all had been avoiding.  What happened?  Oh, that's right……you all suddenly remembered you had other threads to post in and disappeared.   If you want to answer the question, feel free to answer it on Jack and my original debate thread.  It's the last question posted.  It's been waiting for an answer from Jack for a couple of months now. Put up or shut up. mike

WJ, it looks like you also have to reply to mikeb too.

I guess we both look forward to your acknowledgement to what we are saying, or to refute what we are saying coupled with why you refute it.

BTW, you are actually allowed to say that you do not know. Many of us respect honesty. It is okay to say that you do not have an answer and still have respect.

So feel free to say that you do not know, or put up the evidence.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,17:46)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,22:25) Hi JA, WJ tried to explain his conjecture that the first “god” was the Father, so therefore the Son could easily be “with” Him.  But I haven't ever heard the “was” part brought up that I remember. Wow, how far do you have to spin? John is talking about the Word being there with the Father way back there in the beginning, and before all things Jesus “was the Word that “was with God and “was” God” Simple grammer. WJ

And how do you know that “THE God” was the Father? Couldn't it have been the Holy Spirit God you also worship?

It doesn't say “Father”, so how do you know, Keith?

mike

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 29 2010,04:53)

Then why do you assume that the term “Son of God” is antithetical to the title God?

WJ. We are the sons of God. What do you think about that?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2010,11:31)

And how do you know that “THE God” was the Father?  Couldn't it have been the Holy Spirit God you also worship? It doesn't say “Father”, so how do you know, Keith? mike

How dare you question his right to pick and choose what ever is most convenient and supportive of his view.  

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 29 2010,06:29)

Gene, Jesus was still a servant when He called His Father the “only true God.” He is exalted and now John calls Jesus the “only true God” (1 John 5:20). servant   exalted servant   exalted servant   exalted the Roo

You are so lame Jack.

First, Jesus STILL calls the Father “my God”.  Second, 1 John doesn't say anything of the sort.

Does anyone else here see what's going on?  Once again, while being thoroughly tromped on about John 1:1, the trinitarians have to resort to the “everything at the speed of light” defense.  We must now deal with every proof text they offer at once.  They do it that way, because one at a time, they know they have nothing, so they try to pile so much on that their failure to answer the points we make are lost in a muddled up mess.

mike

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 29 2010,04:53)

The Greek in John 1:1c is the same word in John 1:1b which is “theos”, not  a Greek word for “divine” or “Son” or any other Greek word. So the Trinitarians are true to the text while you “Insert” your own ideas into the text.

Here are quotes from Trinitarians that acknowledge the truth about the qualitative rendering of John 1:1c.
NOTE: I do not necessarily support their conclusions on this.

And,  I would appreciate a statement from you to say that they are wrong or an acknowledgement that I am right or even possibly right on this one. Please do not ignore this request and then regurgitate the same argument later on. We are trying to stop this sort of thing.

C. K. Barrett: “The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity.”
The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76.

C. H. Dodd: “On this analogy, the meaning of theos en ho logos will be that the ousia [substance (“what”)] of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos…That this is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase.”
New Testament Translation Problems II,” The Bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), p. 104.

James Moffatt: “'The Word was God…And the Word became flesh,' simply means “.the word was divine…And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man…”
Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p.61.

Philip B. Harner: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.” This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.”
“Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87.

Henry Alford: “Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,–not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It does not = theios, nor is it to be rendered a God–but, as in sarx egeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:–that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,–was with God (the Father),–and was Himself God.
” Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II (Guardian Press, 1975; originally published 1871), p. 681

B. F. Westcott: “The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person… No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word.”
The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans, 1958 reprint), p. 3.

The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, emporion d' en to korion, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. .Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with theos. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theos.
(H. E. Dana, Julius Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1950) pp. 148-149).

“The Word was God. Here the word “God” is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality or character. Thus, John teaches us here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes.”
(Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, vol. 3, “Golden Nuggets,” p. 52).

“In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity”
(Wuest, Word Studies, vol. 4, p. 209).

“The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation “The Word was God.” Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also “with God”. What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase “what God was, the Word was”, brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can…So, when heaven and earth were created, there was the Word of God, already existing in the closest association with God and partaking of the essence of God. No matter how far back we may try to push our imagination, we can never reach a point at which we could say of the Divine Word, as Arius did, “There was once when he was not”
(F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983), p. 31).

[mikeboll64]

Quote (t8 @ July 29 2010,11:41)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2010,11:31) And how do you know that “THE God” was the Father?  Couldn't it have been the Holy Spirit God you also worship? It doesn't say “Father”, so how do you know, Keith? mike How dare you question his right to pick and choose what ever is most convenient and supportive of his view.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (t8 @ July 29 2010,11:30)

WJ, it looks like you also have to reply to mikeb too. I guess we both look forward to your acknowledgement to what we are saying, or to refute what we are saying coupled with why you refute it.

Hi t8,

He won't answer.  It's been months already for my question.  

John 1:1 is pretty easy to understand.  And if the English never started using capital letters, it wouldn't even be a “proof text” at all, IMO.

Do you know how many people believe in the trinity based solely on the two capital G translation of John 1:1?  Almost every one I've ever discussed it with.  They will eagerly admit that they don't actually understand the trinity concept, but “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” says it all for them.

And that's a shame, because it is so clear that John calls one “THE god” and the other “god”.

I have one bone to pick with you though, t8.  You seemed to slam the JW's translation because they add the “a”.  In your examples about “Adam” and “Devil”, the “a” just adds clarity.  Just like every translation feels free to add it twice in John 8:44 for clarity…..Satan was “a” manslayer and “a” liar.

You can say Eve was adam, but not THE Adam.  But you can just as easily say Eve was “an” adam, but not THE Adam.

My friend is Navajo.  My friend is “a” Navajo.

Just my two cents on the NWT translation.  I think it makes it more clear what is really being said than just capping one G and leaving the other lower case.  And I think most people would understand that better than differentiating between “qualifying” and “identifying”.  The only problem with it is you immediately have to start explaining the many other uses of the word “god” in the scriptures and how you're not a polytheist.

mike

[terraricca]

Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,06:51)

Quote (kerwin @ July 29 2010,02:48) Pierre, You seem to speculate that Jesus is or was at one time was an immaterial being and not a human being.  Do you have any scriptures that state that?   I know of scripture that calls Jesus a human being even after his ascension but none that call him any other type of being. If you have no evidence that states Jesus is or was an immaterial being then what are you basing that speculation on. Your fellow student, Kerwin hi KW why you try to, to say other wise and be true,according to the scriptures and see?? Pierre

hi KW

God did in a similar way ,what he did with Adam wen he create EVE,

in the same way he took from himself to create Jesus ,Christ, the WORD, the SON of GOD,ect.

Pierre

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2010,12:24)

Hi t8, He won't answer.  It's been months already for my question.   John 1:1 is pretty easy to understand.  And if the English never started using capital letters, it wouldn't even be a “proof text” at all, IMO. Do you know how many people believe in the trinity based solely on the two capital G translation of John 1:1?  Almost every one I've ever discussed it with.  They will eagerly admit that they don't actually understand the trinity concept, but “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” says it all for them. And that's a shame, because it is so clear that John calls one “THE god” and the other “god”. I have one bone to pick with you though, t8.  You seemed to slam the JW's translation because they add the “a”.  In your examples about “Adam” and “Devil”, the “a” just adds clarity.  Just like every translation feels free to add it twice in John 8:44 for clarity…..Satan was “a” manslayer and “a” liar. You can say Eve was adam, but not THE Adam.  But you can just as easily say Eve was “an” adam, but not THE Adam. My friend is Navajo.  My friend is “a” Navajo. Just my two cents on the NWT translation.  I think it makes it more clear what is really being said than just capping one G and leaving the other lower case.  And I think most people would understand that better than differentiating between “qualifying” and “identifying”.  The only problem with it is you immediately have to start explaining the many other uses of the word “god” in the scriptures and how you're not a polytheist. mike

Yes translators do on many occasions add in the indefinite article to complete the sentence in English even though there is not such thing as an indefinite article in Greek.

However, in this case, adding an indefinite article then translates as “the Word was another god” which I don't think is the intention of the text, and it also raises the issue of there being one True God the Father, making the other god a false god.

Yes it is true that when Jesus said, “one of you is devil”, that it is translated as “one of you is a devil”, but the problem is also prevalent here because Jesus wasn't actually saying that Judas was an actual devil being or demon, but that his nature or character was like that of the Devil.

So adding the indefinite article can in itself be wrong too, even though English demands it grammatically. This is one of the problems with translating from Greek to English.

This is why we see “the Word was divine” and “what God was the Word was” in some translations. It is only the NWT (as far as I know) that says, “the Word was a god”.

I also should say that if the Word was God or the Word was a god, both of these translations are identifying the Word. But I think neither is correct because qualifying is not the same as identifying and John 1:1c is qualifying not identifying the Word.

However if you say that he was a god and you mean that he is god in nature, then that might be okay, but most won't understand it that way, rather they will read it as him being another god, who is not the one true God of the bible and I believe that this notion is not John's intention.

[kerwin]

Pierre,

As for scripture that states Jesus is a human being, look at 1st Timothy 2:5 which clearly calls him a human being who after his ascension to heaven mediates between humankind and God.  I do not believe he transformed into a human being after his ascension and I know he was called The Son of Man while he walked this earth before his ascension and that title refers to those descended from human beings, i.e. human beings.  In Luke he is not spoken of before his conception except to when an angel calls him son and holy thing(one) which tells he is one set aside by God and the male offspring of Mary who herself is a human being, Luke 1:31,35 .  He is also spoken of in prophecy as the coming Anointed One though not by name.  None of these is evidence that he was an immaterial being before his conception in Mary’s womb.

We are also told that Jesus was tempted by evil just as we are in Hebrews 4:15 and that is a point of faith as among other things Jesus stands as our example that a human being can resist all the temptations that the evil one throws at them if they live by the spirit of righteousness.

To create Jesus God took from Mary thus making Jesus the offspring of Mary and the descendant of David who like Jesus were human beings.   In a similar way Eve could be said to be the offspring of Adam as such is the miracle of creation.

God did give Jesus his spirit of righteousness to live by and Jesus does and thus the character of Jesus is the image of God.   This is why Jesus is called the Son of God as he was born of God’s spirit and not of a man’s desire or of natural decent, John 1:13.

Your fellow student,

Kerwin

[Ed J]

Quote (JustAskin @ July 29 2010,08:18)

Jesus was 'Spirit' and was then 'Man' and was then 'Spirit' again…so he changed…therefore cannot be 'God' because 'God' does not change, hence His glorious name 'I AM'. Think about it, 'I AM'! What a succint name that perfectly describes the ONE and ONLY, God Amighty, who Is and Was and Always Will Be…the same, never 'changing', complete perfection, there can be nothing better so there is nothing to change to that could be the same or 'better'. Perfection doesn't, WJ, inhabit imperfection.

Hi JustAskin,

God's Name is יהוה and translates directly into English as YHVH!
There is no such construct in Hebrew as 'i am'? (Mark 13:6)

Are you here at h-net to deceive JustAskin? (Click Here)
Mark 13:6 For many shall come in my(Christian) name,
saying, 'i am'; and shall deceive many. (Col.2:22-23)

The systems of religion and traditions of men communicate…
distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit.

Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā  hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)

[kerwin]

Mike,

You are correct that the Greek word is “seautou” but that is translated to own self

The “para” is the one you believe is correctly translated to “presence” and the King James Version translates to “with”.  The New International Version splits the baby by translating the first occurrence as “presence” and the second as “with”. Both seem to be legitimate synonyms for the word “para” though I am of the opinion “with” fits the context better.  

Never the less let’s go with the New Revised Standard Version clause “the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.”  . The subject is of the clause is clearly “glory” and not Jesus.   The description of that glory is that it is the glory that was credited to Jesus in the past, i.e. before the world existed.   The location of that glory was that it was with, or in the presence, of God.

You may believe that is an absurd way of wording the idea but that is never the less how it is worded.   That may be due to your viewpoint, the Greek language sentence structure, the translator’s actions, or to a combination thereof but the bottom line is it is what is written.

Are you having difficulty with the idea that Jesus was predestined by God to be the Messiah?   This is what I am stating Jesus is speaking of in part of this verse as well as that destiny being fulfilled in the other part.

Your fellow student,

Kerwin

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi All

Just concentrate on the scripture and the way it was translated and reads…

What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up **WHERE HE WAS BEFORE**”? John 6:62

John 6:38-40
For “I have come down (katabainō) 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.

Notice nowhere does our Lord in John 6 indicate he is just the plan of the Father that came down from heaven. If it is possible for that to be conveyed in the Text the Translators could have made it so, but there is not a Bible in the world that says such.

So if you cannot agree to its reading without inference then you look into the Greek to see why it is translated that way and in this case the tenses show that Jesus is the one doing the “descending” (katabainō) just as the Holy Spirit and the Angel did. Matt 3:16 and Matt 28:2

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.

“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.

SO WHEN JESUS SAID “I HAVE COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN” THE GREEK TENSE SAYS HE IS DOING THE ACTION, THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE INTERPRETED “A THOUGHT OR A PLAN CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN” BECAUSE THOUGHTS AND PLANS DO NOT PERFORN AN ACTION ON THEIR OWN!

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched–this we proclaim concerning “the Word of life“. *THE LIFE APPEARED*; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you “the eternal life, WHICH WAS WITH THE FATHER” and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And “our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 1 John 1:1-3

WHO IS THE **WORD OF LIFE** THAT WAS WITH THE FATHER

In the beginning was the Word, and “the Word was with God”, and the Word was God. “THE SAME WAS IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD“. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. “IN HIM WAS LIFE AND THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN. John 1:1

The Word became flesh and “made his dwelling (Greek – tabernacled) among us“. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

The scriptures say that Jesus came down from heaven and he was not of this world!

And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; **I AM FROM ABOVE** (NOT I AM GODS PLAN FROM ABOVE): ye are of this world; **I AM NOT OF THIS WORLD**. John 8:23

AT Robertson states…

I am from above (egw ek twn anw eimi).
The contrast is COMPLET IN ORIGIN AND CHARACTER, already stated in (John) 3:31, and calculated to intensify their anger.

“HE THAT COMETH FROM ABOVE” is above all: “he that is of the earth is earthly“, and speaketh of the earth: “HE THAT COMETH FROM ABOVE” is above all. John 3:31

Blessings WJ

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
You mean Jesus or the Christ?
Jesus became the anointed one at the Jordan.
He was conceived and born of a woman, Mary before that.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 29 2010,14:38)

Hi WJ, You mean Jesus or the Christ? Jesus became the anointed one at the Jordan. He was conceived and born of a woman, Mary before that.

NH

What are you talking about? Is this some new doctrine that you have developed.

And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, “he demanded of them where Christ should be born. Matt 2:4

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, “which is Christ the Lord“. Luke 2:11

When he was anointed at the Jordan did the Father say you are now the Christ?

He is the Christ that followed the Children of Israel in the wilderness.

One and the same person Nick!

WJ

[Author]

Posts