Preexistence

[kerwin]

Irene,

You state some of the 45 scripture you believe support the theory of Jesus’ preexistence are plainly written.  Your examples are Revelations 19:13-16 and John 1:1-11.  

Revelations 19:13-16 does not even name the individual in chapter 19:13-16 so the best we can do is infer the name.  You like me appear to infer the individual is Jesus.  We then can say that “Jesus” is called the Word of God as the person is explicitly called that.

John 1:1-11 explicitly states that the Word was with God in the beginning.  It does not tell what beginning it speaks of though I conjecture it is before the beginning of creation.  I cannot say I have any evidence to support that conjecture.  We know Jesus is called the Word so we could use that to infer that Jesus is the Word mentioned in these verses thee problem with that logic is that Jesus is not the only Word of God.

So neither verse is clear though you seem to believe they are.  To get the true understanding of them you must be led by God.

[Baker]

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 01 2010,20:21)

Irene, You state some of the 45 scripture you believe support the theory of Jesus’ preexistence are plainly written.  Your examples are Revelations 19:13-16 and John 1:1-11.   Revelations 19:13-16 does not even name the individual in chapter 19:13-16 so the best we can do is infer the name.  You like me appear to infer the individual is Jesus.  We then can say that “Jesus” is called the Word of God as the person is explicitly called that. John 1:1-11 explicitly states that the Word was with God in the beginning.  It does not tell what beginning it speaks of though I conjecture it is before the beginning of creation.  I cannot say I have any evidence to support that conjecture.  We know Jesus is called the Word so we could use that to infer that Jesus is the Word mentioned in these verses thee problem with that logic is that Jesus is not the only Word of God. So neither verse is clear though you seem to believe they are.  To get the true understanding of them you must be led by God.

Kerwin, then you are for certain blind.  There is no other being that descripes Rev. 19:13-16 but Jesus.  Tell me who else is there who is called KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS????No other then Jesus…..and who else has a robe on dipped in blood?  But Jesus….You have to do away with a loot of Scriptures, and interpret them your way….Jesus said that He came down from Heaven….And how do you see that????He didn't???

Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.  ………….

Since Jesus existed before He became a man, we have to look at some other Scripture to see when Hiis beginning was.

Col 1:15   Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:  

Col 1:16   For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:  

along with

Rev 3:14 ¶ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;  

shows us that Jesus was created before all creation. Through Jesus God created the world.  Also

Jhn 17:5   And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.  

Of course you can deny theses Scriptures and say that they mean something else, but truth is truth, and truth will prevail…..

Irene

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 01 2010,14:04)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 28 2010,04:23) T8……..Yes Jesus existed (past tense) in the Nature of GOD because he had the fullness of the Spirit (IN) Him WHILE HE WAS (ON) EARTH. Paul was drawing their attention to when Jesus was walking on the earth, not before that time. He did not say Jesus existed before he came to earth with that nature as you suppose he did, You are reading that into the text by taking it out of context. T8 come on surely you can see that right? You see that because you want it to be that way. But it says he existed in the form of God, then emptied himself and existed in human flesh. Now if it is true what you say, then explain the bit about existing in flesh after the emptying of himself which was after him existing in the form of God/divine nature?

T8…….> Jesus existed in the (FORM) of GOD, Just what is that FORM of GOD T8, Does GOD have a Form? or is he Spirit like Jesus said He was. That should be with the (NATURE) of GOD , Meaning He had GOD'S NATURE (because he recieved it at the Jordan River GOD was (TRULY) IN HIM T8 By the Spirit he recieved, and he never emptied himslef of that nature either, while on earth, but he did not think (IT) something to grasp for and rob GOD by trying to make himself (EQUAL) with GOD, NO he took on the nature of a Servant and humbled himself while he was on earth , that is when he did that < Paul was not talking about a pre-earth existence at all. You derived that from you trinitarian past .

T8……………Jesus plainly said he was the Root (AND) Offspring of King David. Many scripture show Jesus had his origins on earth not in heaven. Mike separates the Root as one thing as you do and the offspring as another , so he builds doctrine on that as the trinitarians do with the Thomas thing ” My Lord (and) my GOD” saying it means Jesus is both Lord and GOD.

But what doe scripture say?…..Isa 11:10…….> And in that day there shall be a ROOT OF JESSE, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and His rest shall be Glorious verse 12…> And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcast of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, THE ROOT OF DAVID, hath prevailed to pen the book ….,

Rev 22:16…> I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches, I AM THE ROOT AND OFFSPRING OF DAVID , and the bright and morning star.

Now T8 , who is that ROOT of JESSE?, Answer DAVID (AND) Jesus both have their roots from Jesse then to David then to Jesus.

But Mike and you both twist that up to mean something completely different, making Jesus the Root of DAVID by forcing the texts to fit his preexistence dogmas. Not real sure you do T8, but Mike and others sure do.

T8………Just think about it, why would GOD even begin to deal with man kind by Morphing or incarnating some preexisting being of some kind . Tt simply doe not make sense for him to even think to do that,When dealing with mankind, what would it prove (NOTHING) GOD is concerned with Mankind not angles or other creatures So he took a MAN brought forth from a Women the exact same as all men are brought into existence so was Jesus and He grow up with GOD with him and GOD perfected Him by his Holy Spirit and gave him his words to tell us and instruct us . Sin can into the world by man and it was by a Man it is overcame. You must see Jesus as one of US Human Being not some Morphed being of any Kind, This separation of our Identities is the Spirit (intellect) of Antichrist having it origin with the Gnostic's, it is Wrong T8!. IMO

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

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 01 2010,12:45)

Kerwin: Quote Could you also point out a scripture that implicitly states Jesus is or was an immaterial being as I have yet to read one of those either. 1 Cor 10 NIV 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 1 Cor 15 NIV 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. So Christ was a SPIRITUAL rock.  And Christ BECAME a life-giving SPIRIT.  Are those things “immaterial” enough for ya? Kerwin: Quote Now my challenge to you is for you to reasonably explain why you believe those scriptures imply or infer that Jesus preexisted his conception as I have not yet heard one scripture that implicitly states Jesus did. Oh, you've heard them alright Kerwin.  You just won't accept them.  But okay, if you don't want to go through the 45 scriptures, I'll do it with you…..one at a time.   Notice as we do this how far you have to bend over backwards to TRY and make it seem like it DOESN'T speak about the pre-existence of Jesus.  I will be the one taking the words as they are written.  You will be the one trying to make up a different meaning to those words.  Ready? Micah 5:2 NIV 2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,      though you are small among the clans of Judah,      out of you will come for me      one who will be ruler over Israel,      whose origins are from of old,      from ancient times.” Kerwin, I take this to mean that the origin of Jesus was from ancient times from the viewpoint of Micah, who lived hundreds of years before Jesus came in the flesh. What do YOU take it to mean? mike

Mike….> do you see word Jesus there, NO, truth is it say CHRIST That means the CHRISTOS or ANOINTING was the ROCK that followed them on the Wilderness , the Anointing of GOD was on all the Leader He chose , Moses , Joshuah , the seventy elders, the angel of the Lord and many. Your again confusing up the Word CHRISTOS with the MAN Jesus. The ONLY TRUE ROCK IS GOD, Do i need to dig out all the scriptures that say that ? Jesus is not the ROCK , nor PETER, in fact the is NO ROCK Besides GOD HIMSELF.

Deu 32:1….> Give ear, O ye heavens, and i will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. 2…..> My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distill as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as te showers upon the grass: 3…> Because I will Publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness (UNTO OUR GOD) 4….> He is (THE ROCK), his worked is perfect: for all His way are Judgment: a GOD of truth and without iniquity, just and right is HE>

Mike you continue to twist scriptures to meet you false teachings and dogmas, forcing the text as usual to say what it in fact does not say. IMO

peace and love………………………………….gene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 02 2010,01:20)

Your again confusing up the Word CHRISTOS with the MAN Jesus.

Hi Gene,

You may be on to something here……….let's do some research into it.  The following is from NETNotes:

Christos Christ = “anointed” 1) Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God 2) anointed

Translated in NETBible as (569) : Christ 471, of Christ 35, Christ's 7, Messiah 3, with Christ 3, of Christ's 2, to Christ 2, belongs to Christ 1, you Christ 1

Now the NETBible doesn't ever translate “christ” as “anointed one” or “anointing”, but that's just one Bible.  The KJV likewise only translates it as a capital Christ.  Can you find the Greek word “christ” in any other Bible that clearly does NOT refer to Jesus Christ?  I've never looked into it myself.

Oh, and you bypassed my second point to Kerwin.  The scripture that says “the last Adam [became] a life-giving SPIRIT”.   No comment on that one Gene?

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Kerwin:

Quote

As regards 1 Corinthians 10:3, Scripture declares the Prophets such as Mosses were carried along by the Spirit of Christ, 1 Peter 1:11.

That would indicate to me that Jesus was a spiritual being way before he became flesh, died, and became a spiritual being AGAIN.  He was “existing in the form of God, then emptied himself………..and was made in the likeness of a human being” Kerwin.  Now, the “last Adam” has become a life-giving spirit………….AGAIN.

Kerwin:

Quote

“Origins” is a tricky word as it can mean source, parentage, or existence.

The Hebrew actually has “goings forth”.  Their term for being begotten is “brought forth”.  I understand it to mean, “his being brought forth happened a long time ago”.  But the early church fathers always used the LXX as the final word in any dispute about the Hebrew texts Kerwin.  And the LXX says, “and his goings forth were from the beginning”.

Most translations now use “origins” because, like me, that's what they understand “goings forth” to refer to.  But while it does mean “origins”, the “goings forth” language precludes it from meaning “source” or “parentage”, don't you think?

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 02 2010,00:57)

That should be with the (NATURE) of GOD , Meaning He had GOD'S NATURE (because he recieved it at the Jordan River GOD was (TRULY) IN HIM T8 By the Spirit he recieved, and he never emptied himslef of that nature either,

Then why did Paul say he did Gene?

mike

[mikeboll64]

  Isaiah 11:10 – Root OF Jesse
Rev 5:5 – Root OF David
Rev 22:16 – Root and Offspring OF David

Then Gene correctly asks – Now T8 , who is that ROOT of JESSE?

But in his answer, somehow the “OF” disappears and the word “FROM” takes it's place.  And the singular word “root” becomes the plural word “roots”.

Gene – Answer  DAVID (AND) Jesus both have their roots from Jesse then to David then to Jesus.

Gene, you can't just change the words of scripture as you see fit to make the scriptures say what you want them to.  You know that, right?  

mike

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike………..From and Of are synonymous in Greek. They come from the same root wording as i recall. Like the king James say (FOR) he went which means (Because) He went. You should have been able to put to all together by the scriptures i posted easily and Jesus in Rev was Saying he was the root and offprint (of) or (FROM) David is clear and simple to anyone with out predisposed ideologies. The context should have told you that. You should notice there is not trick wording there Jesus simply meant His origins were through King David He was the root and offspring (both) of David who was the Root and offspring of Jesse, Not trick contextual meanings need there. No twisting or changing the overall meanings need. IMO

peace and love………………………………………….gene

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike…………So who is this ROOT of Jesse spoke of by Isiah then? You failed to answere that Surely Jesus according to you must have been before Jesse also right?

peace and love………………………………….gene

[kerwin]

Mike Boll,

I hope to look into what you state about “going forth” as it is the first I remember hearing about it.

Do you believe the Spirit of Christ is the hypothetic Spiritual being Christ?

[GeneBalthrop]

Kerwin…………The GNB Adam quoted has it right, brother, Jesus was foretold to come into existence from the Garden of Eden (from the seed of the women) that was Jesus. IMO

peace and love…………………………gene

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike…………Ther is a lot of places where CHRIST Should be translated as The Anointing SPIRIT of GOD , that what it means by if Christ be in you, that is not talking about Jesus the man, That is the Spirit Jesus had also in him. The CHRISTOS is the common denominator (IN) all true Christians or Anointed ones. These are those born of GOD and His (GODS) Seed abides (IN) them the same SEED of GOD that is (IN) Jesus or Lord and Brother the KING> IMO

peace and love……………………………………….gene

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike………Another thing i looked at NETBible and they are slanted to trinitarian thinking and also force text to meet their preconceived ideologies of preexistence and divinity of Jesus. They are biased in their opinions. eSword may be a better source but some of their commentaries can lean toward trinitarians concepts also A good Greek linear can help but even they can be misleading depends on who wrote it. A good unbiased book is (Miss Quoting of Jesus) which can be purchased at any book store. I believe critical reading is always the best its more judgmental, but it can cause one to check out in more detail what has been written or said, its a spirit(intellect) of the Bereans i believe. That is what i like about Kerwin Adam and Shimmer, they are critical readers and tend to not buy everything they hear or read. IMO

peace and love…………………………………..gene

peace and love……………………………..gene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 02 2010,15:27)

Mike………..From and Of are synonymous in Greek.

OH……….sorry Gene.  Let's try out your theory:

1.  Jehovah is the God OF Jesus.

2.  Jehovah is the God FROM Jesus.

Hmmmm…………something seems a little off here.

I hear what you're saying, and it can sometimes be as you say……but the example above is not one of those times.  Nor is the “Root of David” thing.  Besides, you're even rearranging the words and making “root” plural in order for this scripture to fit around your doctrine.  

You're not claiming “Root FROM David”, you're claiming “FROM David's Roots”.  

Gene:

Quote

You should notice there is not trick wording there Jesus simply meant His origins were through King David He was the root and offspring  (both) of David who was the Root and offspring of Jesse, Not trick contextual meanings need there.

No Gene.  David is ONLY the offspring of Jesse.  He is NOT the Root of Jesse.  Jesus, on the other hand, is both the ROOT and the BRANCH/OFFSPRING of Jesse and David.

Like I said Gene, you can't just change whatever scriptures you want to make them come out your way.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 02 2010,15:31)

Mike…………So who is this ROOT of Jesse spoke of by Isiah then?  You failed to answere that Surely Jesus according to you must have been before Jesse also right? peace and love………………………………….gene

I guess I didn't think it was an actual question Gene. Of course Jesus is the Root and Branch of Jesse and the Root, Branch and Offspring of David.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2010,18:29)

Mike Boll, I hope to look into what you state about “going forth” as it is the first I remember hearing about it. Do you believe the Spirit of Christ is the hypothetic Spiritual being Christ?

Hi Kerwin,

No.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 03 2010,01:10)

Mike…………Ther is a lot of places where CHRIST Should be translated as The Anointing SPIRIT of GOD

Hi Gene,

I'm not doubting you, but I asked for scriptures. Can you give any that are CLEARLY not about Jesus Christ?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 03 2010,01:27)

Mike………Another thing i looked at NETBible and they are slanted to trinitarian thinking and also force text to meet their preconceived ideologies of preexistence and divinity of Jesus.

Yes, NETNotes IS a trinitarian site.  You just have to read between the lines Gene.  The Greek, Hebrew and the LXX are right there for you to see.  If you think they are “forcing the text” like you so often do, then check out the actual Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew words that are printed right there in plain sight.  That's what I do.  Then I make my decision based on them, not based on how NETBible translates them.  It's just that more times than not, I agree with how the NETBible translates the words.  I don't necessarily always agree with their “explanations” of what those words mean, but I usually do agree with their words over the other Bibles.

And I have a Greek to English Interlinear sitting right here on my desk.

mike

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike…………There still even exists a problem with hose Greek translations because they nearly all have been Produced by biased translators and they tend to support the Trinity conclusions also. It is better to go with a critical text translator who has no religious ties and conviction to any religion but just just translates the pure original text and its words. Here is an example , Jesus said “it is harder for a “Camel” to go through the eye of a needle that for a rich man to enter the kingdom of GOD” , Nearly all Greek texts translates it that way, but if you go to an Aramaic text (which was the language spoken in that day) it cone out this way , ” it is easer for a “ROPE” to go through the eye of a needle than fro a rich man to go into the kingdom of GOD”. Now which makes the most common sense (the rope) does. Get my point. The text must be associated in a Logical manor of some kind, God is not illogical and does not want us to be either His words should make sense to us all, so we can properly understand them. IMO

When you reading a text like Jesus saying he is the root and offspring of David we should not have to try to separate that statement into two different meanings , the word And there means both thing are related to each other . Root is where some comes from and Offspring s also where something came from , they both are relating the exact same thing , not some secret MYSTERY combination we have to try to get our minds around to properly understand it as You do when you force the text to be understood from your perspective of Preexistence. IMO

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

[Author]

Posts