Preexistence

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 02 2010,19:50)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 02 2010,15:39) Mike………..The seven /spirits of GOD are seven aspects with power or intellects with power of ONE GOD. And with the same mouth you say, “you force the text to say what you want it to say”.

T8………..perhaps you failed to see the IN MY OPINION at the end of my post, the example i gave is the way i now see it. so me where i forced any text to say that. No is you and preexistences and your brothers the trinitarians that are the text forcer's her.

But here is my reason for saying that anyway.

Rev 4:5 And out of the throne proceeded lightings and thunderings and voices: and seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which (ARE) the seven Spirits of GOD.

Rev 5:6…> And I beheld and , lo in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, (HAVING) SEVEN HORNS (symbolic for power) And Seven EYES, which (ARE) the (SEVEN SPIRITS OF GOD) sent forth into (ALL) the earth.

Now do you still believe there are not SEVEN SPIRITS OF GOD if so your argument is with scripture not me right?

T8, problem is you do not know what Spirit actually is brother. Spirit is (NOT) Beings SPIRIT is What is (IN) Beings.

T8……….Do you still think i am forcing the text or does the text say that here, notice and i did not have to change ONE Word.

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

[Baker]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 02 2010,18:19)

Ed J, I suspicion that translation bias exists in every modern translation.  The question is whether or not the bias is godly.  Even with worldly bias God repeats himself and the fact scripture cannot be broken will reveal the truth as well as any important mistranslated scriptures.

kerwin, I asked you once before, do you then do away with all Scriptures, and say they are misinterpret?  Look at all of them. I just made a post to Adam….That is a lot of Scriptures for someone to just ignore or to say the are bias to our understanding,…… to me they are plainly written and easy for me to understand……
Peace and Love Irene

[shimmer]

Quote (gollamudi @ Nov. 03 2010,00:37)

Quote (shimmer @ Nov. 01 2010,12:35) Mike, I HAD always believed Jesus pre-existed, but could never understand HOW Jesus came to be born as Jesus, so now i see it wasnt the flesh side of Jesus which pre-existed, it was a normal body, born as we are, but it was the spirit which was in him, the pre-existant word, I call the word the son of God, so Im not thinking like Gene either. What I believe is scriptual, from what I can see. Do I believe the word is the son of God ? Yes. Do I believe the word pre-existed ? Yes, Do I believe all was created through the son (the word)? Yes. Do i believe the word was made flesh ? Yes. Do I believe the word manifested to others throughout the old testement writings ? Yes, The word was in the flesh, in the man Jesus. Hi Sis, I am sorry to ask you, is there any scriptural support for your beliefs quoted above? Your logics are reasonal and seem to be fitting in the Christian doctrines that are prevalent today. So far I could not find any reasonable answers for my queries on pre-existence of Jesus prior to his human birth including those of Unitarianism. Thanks and love to you Adam

Hi Adam, I spent years trying to understand..who Jesus was, etc, trying to find out led me to read every book you could imagine, most of them, all of them were no good for me, but it was everything from the free 'United church of God' magazines and booklets, to SDAdventist books, to books on revelations, early church fathers, one thing led to another, then it was Islam, then Juduism, not to mention all of the internet opinions which was crazy, suddenly one day I realised, I had lost everything I had gained, meaning the year or so before all of the reading, I had unbelievable experiences with God, prayer where I felt God was there in front of me spiritually, I felt Gods love, I had unbelievable answers to praying, God was listening and God was teaching me, and I went after Man I gave up on God as my teacher. So I learnt the hard way. About that time I had problems with my daughter, so that took my mind definatly away from anything, but eventually I came right, after i trusted in God alone again. After I stopped reading, all the books I got rid of, internet opinion became limited to just this site…..As i said in another thread to you, excuse me i'm quitting smoking, so I hope what I just wrote was ok, I try to be carefull with what I write, but am withdrawing at the moment (second hour)..as to your question, I only started again thinking of Jesus pre-existance (again) lately on this forum, and I must say i'm feeling confused (again)..I have read the 'Sheppard of Hermas' which helped me once, and the idea of Jesus pre-existance etc is alot different than most in Hermas. Hermas was popular in the earliest church and was considered for bible cannon, parts of it do go on a bit long. But in it there are two sons of God, the first is the spiritual son of God who I think is refered to as the Holy Spirit. Then is Jesus, a man who achieved sonship due to his obediance, and because of his obediance the (spiritual son) worked in Jesus… different than anything else I have read ? So it just has me curious thats all, curious but confused..

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd.html

Hope you are doing ok Adam,

[Baker]

Quote (shimmer @ Nov. 03 2010,07:25)

Quote (gollamudi @ Nov. 03 2010,00:37) Quote (shimmer @ Nov. 01 2010,12:35) Mike, I HAD always believed Jesus pre-existed, but could never understand HOW Jesus came to be born as Jesus, so now i see it wasnt the flesh side of Jesus which pre-existed, it was a normal body, born as we are, but it was the spirit which was in him, the pre-existant word, I call the word the son of God, so Im not thinking like Gene either. What I believe is scriptual, from what I can see. Do I believe the word is the son of God ? Yes. Do I believe the word pre-existed ? Yes, Do I believe all was created through the son (the word)? Yes. Do i believe the word was made flesh ? Yes. Do I believe the word manifested to others throughout the old testement writings ? Yes, The word was in the flesh, in the man Jesus. Hi Sis, I am sorry to ask you, is there any scriptural support for your beliefs quoted above? Your logics are reasonal and seem to be fitting in the Christian doctrines that are prevalent today. So far I could not find any reasonable answers for my queries on pre-existence of Jesus prior to his human birth including those of Unitarianism. Thanks and love to you Adam Hi Adam, I spent years trying to understand..who Jesus was, etc, trying to find out led me to read every book you could imagine, most of them, all of them were no good for me, but it was everything from the free 'United church of God' magazines and booklets, to SDAdventist books, to books on revelations, early church fathers, one thing led to another, then it was Islam, then Juduism, not to mention all of the internet opinions which was crazy, suddenly one day I realised, I had lost everything I had gained, meaning the year or so before all of the reading, I had unbelievable experiences with God, prayer where I felt God was there in front of me spiritually, I felt Gods love, I had unbelievable answers to praying, God was listening and God was teaching me, and I went after Man I gave up on God as my teacher. So I learnt the hard way. About that time I had problems with my daughter, so that took my mind definatly away from anything, but eventually I came right, after i trusted in God alone again. After I stopped reading, all the books I got rid of, internet opinion became limited to just this site…..As i said in another thread to you, excuse me i'm quitting smoking, so I hope what I just wrote was ok, I try to be carefull with what I write, but am withdrawing at the moment (second hour)..as to your question, I only started again thinking of Jesus pre-existance (again) lately on this forum, and I must say i'm feeling confused (again)..I have read the 'Sheppard of Hermas' which helped me once, and the idea of Jesus pre-existance etc is alot different than most in Hermas. Hermas was popular in the earliest church and was considered for bible cannon, parts of it do go on a bit long. But in it there are two sons of God, the first is the spiritual son of God who I think is refered to as the Holy Spirit. Then is Jesus, a man who achieved sonship due to his obediance, and because of his obediance the (spiritual son) worked in Jesus… different than anything else I have read ? So it just has me curious thats all, curious but confused.. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd.html Hope you are doing ok Adam,

shimmer, I am going to say something to you/ I read the article that you wrote to Adam. I am sorry that you are confused. I just can't grasp why you are reading all that stuff of men. i believe that it is much better to read Scriptures that plainly tell me that Jesus was in Heaven with Almighty God before the world was….etc.
I find it wise to just take those Scriptures and study them and ask
God for wisdom, I know that He will show you……good luck and Peace and Love Irene

[shimmer]

Thankyou Irene, yeah I plan to read scripture all over again, I hope that then I will learn alot more, again, unbrainwash myself in a way. Thankyou Irene.

[kerwin]

Quote (Baker @ Nov. 02 2010,22:13)

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 02 2010,18:19) Ed J, I suspicion that translation bias exists in every modern translation.  The question is whether or not the bias is godly.  Even with worldly bias God repeats himself and the fact scripture cannot be broken will reveal the truth as well as any important mistranslated scriptures. kerwin, I asked you once before, do you then do away with all Scriptures, and say they are misinterpret?  Look at all of them. I just made a post to Adam….That is a lot of Scriptures for someone to just ignore or to say the are bias to our understanding,…… to me they are plainly written and easy for me to understand…… Peace and Love Irene

Irene,

I realize you might have missed my response this question which is on page 963 posted November 2, 2010 at 4:31.

[Baker]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 03 2010,11:05)

Quote (Baker @ Nov. 02 2010,22:13) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 02 2010,18:19) Ed J, I suspicion that translation bias exists in every modern translation.  The question is whether or not the bias is godly.  Even with worldly bias God repeats himself and the fact scripture cannot be broken will reveal the truth as well as any important mistranslated scriptures. kerwin, I asked you once before, do you then do away with all Scriptures, and say they are misinterpret?  Look at all of them. I just made a post to Adam….That is a lot of Scriptures for someone to just ignore or to say the are bias to our understanding,…… to me they are plainly written and easy for me to understand…… Peace and Love Irene Irene, I realize you might have missed my response this question which is on page 963 posted November 2, 2010 at 4:31.

kerwin, so what you are saying then, that all Scriptures that I quoted were mistranslated?? Is that what you are saying??
That would be taken it to far. if there would only be one o even two, I could see it, but not with all of those I quoted. You are simple not dealing with them. I don't know why!!!!!!!

Even by Jesus own words in John 17:5 which I did not give in my previous post.

Also John 6:38 were Jesus is saying that He came down from heaven to do not His will, but the will of Him who send Him…..

Peace and Love Irene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 02 2010,14:22)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 02 2010,11:03) Ed, All this info does is tell you that someone's spokesman can be referred to as their “word”. mike Hi Mike, No; that's what you info tells you! I consider it ‘squag’. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Why Ed?

It is the report of a man who studied different cultures. He wasn't writing this for a theological issue. He was just reporting the things he witnessed.

Do you consider the secular history of the church to also be “squag”…………whatever that is?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 02 2010,14:26)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 02 2010,11:06) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 01 2010,16:33) God has a thought process, but God is NOT a thought process. God is a Spirit rather than just having one as you suggest! So in Rev, when it mentions the seven spirits of God, it really means that we have seven Gods?   Or does it mean that the ONE spirit being known as Jehovah also has spirits at His command? mike Hi Mike, Neither; Seven manifestations of One “God Spirit”. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

So if God sends out all seven spirits at once, and according to you each spirit actually IS God the Father, then we have seven “God the Fathers” at once, right?  

The way I see it, God is the “central being”, and that One Being is able to send each of His seven spirits in different directions at one time.  But each of those spirits cannot possibly be the being of God, or we would have seven Gods.

The keyword is “OF”.  It most usually denotes possession.  If the seven spirits are said to be “OF” God, then He “owns” them.  They are possessions of God, not God Himself.  This is the same wording used in association with the Holy Spirit.  It is most generally referred to as “the Spirit OF God”.

That's how I understand it Ed.

peace and love,
mike

[kerwin]

Irene,

From what I see you are merely misunderstanding scripture as you do not properly understand the gospel.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 02 2010,14:37)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 02 2010,11:18) Hi Ed, 1) John 1:1 NWT In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2) Acts 12:22 NIV They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.” 3) Acts 28:6 NIV The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god. They are listed above in blue print.  Discuss away. mike Hi Mike, 1) The indefinite article is added here, corrupting the text. 2) The indefinite article added here is necessary in English; but NOT in John 1:1! 3) We can not suppose which god these people would refer to; can you? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Ed:  

Quote

1) The indefinite article is added here, corrupting the text.

How do you know ADDING it for our English understanding is what is “corrupting the text”?  How do you know LEAVING IT OUT isn't what “corrupts the text” in the English language?

Ed:

Quote

2) The indefinite article added here is necessary in English; but NOT in John 1:1!

And herein lies our problem Ed.  You are smart enough to recongnize the “a” should be added in this scripture.  Yet you INSIST it shouldn't be added in John 1:1……..why?  Why shouldn't it?  Give me a solid reason.

Do you think the two examples I gave are the only places in scripture where English translators add the “a”?  The scriptures are loaded with added “a's”.  In fact, John 1:1 is the ONLY scripture where most English translators DON'T add the “a”.  And they don't add it there because they want people to think it says Jesus is God Almighty Himself.  And like you, they just ignore the fact that it makes the scripture say, “God Almighty was WITH God Almighty”.  Does that make sense to you Ed?  Can the being of God be WITH the being of God?

Ed:

Quote

3) We can not suppose which god these people would refer to; can you?

“These people” didn't write the Book of Acts……….Luke did.  So do you think LUKE was saying that “these people” thought the human being Paul was Jehovah Almighty?  I don't.  And apparently neither do the scholars who translated the major Bibles…..because they all add the “a”.

The following sentences are fact Ed.  You can either believe them or pretend they don't exist:

Most English translators add the indefinite article in every scripture that it is necessary for a better English understanding………EXCEPT ONE.  And by not adding it in John 1:1, they make the scripture tell us that God Almighty was WITH God Almighty.  But common sense tells us that cannot happen unless there are two separate God Almightys.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 02 2010,14:48)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 02 2010,11:23) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 01 2010,17:20) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 01 2010,05:49) Ed: Quote 2) John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his(God's) glory, the glory(of God) as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Ed, you are not thinking this through completely.  How does God have the glory of an only begotten FROM God? mike Hi Mike, Where does Jesus “Glory” come from? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org No, no, no, no, no………… Answer MY question. mike Hi Mike, Your question cannot be answered, because it doesn't make any sense. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Ed,

The Word had the glory of one who was the only begotten from the Father. You say the Word actually WAS the Father. The question itself makes perfect sense, it is only that any answer you give will not make sense.

How can God the Father have the glory of someone who was the only begotten of God the Father?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 02 2010,14:52)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 02 2010,11:26) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 01 2010,17:21) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 01 2010,05:49) Ed: Quote 3) It is not my Job to convince you, only to present “Bible Truth”! If what you speak really is “Bible Truth”, then you would EASILY convince me Ed.  But that is a lame “fallback” sentence to say after I've showed you the scriptural and logical flaws in your theory……don't you think? Hi Mike, So you agree “The Word” becoming flesh [[[ in ]]] Jesus is what produces God's Glory; right? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Not only is it ridiculous to come to that conclusion about what I think based on the prior discussion, but it is equally ridiculous to think Jesus had “God's glory”.  God shares His glory with no one……..not even His Son.  The Son has glory all his own. mike Hi Mike, Why Not? He can have God's Spirit, but not the Glory of God's Spirit? Tell us: where does Jesus glory come from? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Why not? Because God tells us CLEARLY that He will share His glory with no other.

If Jesus isn't God Almighty, then he is an “other”.

That's “why not”. Because scripture says so.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 02 2010,14:55)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 02 2010,11:30) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 01 2010,17:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 01 2010,05:49) Ed: Quote 5) Became means: came to be; see earlier Post of mine. And see my answer to your earlier post.  No matter how you define “became”, it still adds up to “God BECAME flesh” in your theory. mike Hi Mike,         “God BECAME flesh in”   …theory. Now that you understand; great! God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Ed, You don't have to quote every word I say, but don't take out the one word that makes my quote sound like I'm saying the opposite of what I'm saying, okay? Now, please answer my point in the above post.  Is that what you really think?  That God became flesh? mike Hi Mike, How have I not answered your question? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Here is the question again Ed.

Does John 1:14 say:

A.  The Word BECAME flesh?

B.  The Word CAME TO BE IN SOMEONE WHO WAS FLESH?

You see Ed, if God BECAME flesh, then He WAS the flesh person of Jesus Christ.  And that means God many times pointed out the fact that He was greater than Himself.  That also means that God prayed to Himself.

What you are trying to do is take the word “BECAME” and make it mean “was in”.  But the scripture doesn't say the Word “was in” the flesh person of Jesus.  The scripture says the Word BECAME the flesh person Jesus.

Do you understand?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 02 2010,15:07)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 02 2010,11:52) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 02 2010,10:10) Let keep the questions short and not have so many in on post i will try not to also. Gene, Fair enough.  This is how I understand it so far: Who is the Word in John 1? Shimmer, Mike, Irene and Pierre:  The pre-existent Son of God. Gene, Kerwin:  The actual words that God spoke. Ed:  God's Holy Spirit. Do I have this correct so far? I would like to take these “choices” right down the line of scripture, starting with the Gospel of John. The first hurdle for Gene, Kerwin, Shimmer and Ed is John 1:14a.  It says “the word became flesh”. Note that it does NOT say “the Word came to be IN someone who was flesh”. Now without a big speech, can you all just let me know if your “choice” can reasonably BECOME flesh? Then we'll move on down the scriptural line. peace and love, mike Hi Mike, I love you brother, and I'm so glad you're here! My answer is: Before Jesus' baptism, “The Word” could ‘only’ become BOOK! Small speech: Now “The Word” can become, tape, record, microfiche, movie, telephone transmission and more flesh; ect. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

That wasn't the question Ed.

Can your “choice” – the Holy Spirit – BECOME FLESH?  I know your answer is “Yes”, so let's move on down the scripture.

John 1:14b NIV
We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Can the above be said about your “choice” – the Holy Spirit?   Can God the Father be His own “only begotten Son”?  Can God the Father be said to have “come FROM the Father”?

If so, please explain.

And since none of the others have answered, I will move on with their “choices” also.

Mike, Irene and Pierre:  Yes, Jesus can most definitely have this said about him.

Shimmer:  I'm not sure where her view differs from mine.  She thinks the Word is God's Son.  She thinks the Word “became” the flesh person of Jesus Christ.  So far, she's in line with scripture……..as far as I can tell.

Gene and Kerwin:  Can the “words of God”…….or “scripture”, be an “only begotten Son”?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 02 2010,18:13)

Mike Boll, I ask because I suspicion you acknowledge translation bias when the translation disagrees with your interpretation but not when it agrees. I then planned to demonstrate you were using two different measuring sticks hoping you would see your error or alleviate my suspicions by explain the apparent bias.

I see your point, and agree to the “test” Kerwin.

Yes, I look at what the Greek and Hebrew words actually say, and then agree with the translation that best words it.

I quote from many different translations, but I like the NIV version far better that any of the others for “ease of understanding” so far.

Would you like to start with a particular verse and compare our favorite translations of it……..or what?

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 03 2010,02:22)

which (ARE) the (SEVEN SPIRITS OF GOD) sent forth into (ALL) the earth.

Hi Gene,

So then you DON'T agree with Ed that the Spirits OF God are actually the being of God Himself?

Good.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Baker @ Nov. 03 2010,03:13)

kerwin, I asked you once before, do you then do away with all Scriptures, and say they are misinterpret?

Hi Irene,

It seems that Kerwin, when faced with a scripture that violates his belief, has started opting to claim “mistranslation” or “the scribe might have copied it down wrong”.

While I'm sure there are instances of this in scripture, I don't think it should be used as a “failsafe” measure for any scripture that doesn't say what you want it to. At least without any scholarly evidence or thought to support your assertion.

Just my two cents, nothing personal Kerwin
mike

[mikeboll64]

Hey Ed,

I was just led to this scripture by a post from Pierre:

Luke 11:13 NIV
13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

How does this scripture fit into your “The Holy Spirit IS God the Father” theory?

mike

[kerwin]

To all,

When teaching about resurrection after being tested by those of the Sadducee tradition Jesus quoted scripture that clearly demonstrated that those who had died the death of the corrupted flesh were yet living. He then stated the tenet of no resurrection that existed among the Sadducees at that time was false because scripture cannot be broken. Those of the Sadducee sects could answer, as certain individuals now do to support various tenets that contradict scripture, that Jesus was using human reasoning. What argument can Jesus use to counter their accusation and reveal its falseness to his students?

I have more to say that is related but I believe this is enough to start.

[Author]

Posts