- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 13 2011,02:05)
Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Okay then. I agree that John the Baptiser did NOT come from above. John was directed by the WORD OF GOD to go into the wilderness baptizing. (Luke 3:2) The word that came to him, and the baptism he gave, came from God. But while he was sent by God, he HIMSELF did not personally come “DOWN FROM HEAVEN”. Are we agreed so far? John the Baptist was not conceived in heaven but he was conceived on earth and in his own mother’s womb. John the Baptist fell short of the glory of God and only good and perfect gifts come from above. He was and is a fulfillment of the prophecy of God and all such prophecy comes from above.
I'll take that as, “YES, we are agreed so far”.
Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 13 2011,02:05)
Quote (mikeboll @ 64) If so, then surely you can see the difference between a man who was sent from God to baptize in the wilderness, and a man who claimed that HE HIMSELF came DOWN FROM HEAVEN, right? Jesus was also conceived in his mother’s womb and is a fulfillment of prophecy. He, unlike John the Baptist, did not fall short of the glory of God.
Please DIRECTLY answer my question, Kerwin. CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE OR NOT? Did John ever claim to have “come down from heaven”? Did Jesus?Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 13 2011,02:05)
Even though the same is true of both Jesus’ words and baptism I was speaking of Jesus himself; though not in the physical sense as you choose to speak of him.
Okay. In “what sense” were you speaking of “Jesus himself”?Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 13 2011,02:05)
Quote (mikeboll @ 64) He wasn't claiming that the spirit inside him came down from heaven. Instead, he claimed that HE HIMSELF came down from heaven. Can you SCRIPTURALLY show me how Jesus did NOT claim what I've just stated? I can also point to scripture that speaks of the spirit in claiming those who come from above speak of heavenly things while those that come from below speak of the things of the world.
Quote John 3:31 King James Version (KJV)
31He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
I'll take that as “NO, I CAN'T show your claim to be scripturally wrong.” Also, where are you getting this “spirit” stuff from the scripture you posted? John the Baptiser is speaking ONLY of Jesus in John 3:31.Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 13 2011,02:05)
I can demonstrate that he addresses his spirit as himself in scripture that speaks of it coming from above.Quote John 8:23
King James Version (KJV)23And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
Again, where are you getting the “spirit” stuff from this scripture? When Jesus says “I am from above”, you just naturally want to PRETEND he is speaking of “his spirit” being from above. But where is your PROOF of this? A normal person (one who doesn't have an unscriptural doctrine to maintain), would read the words “I am from above” and assume the “I” means the PERSON of Jesus, not “his spirit that he is referring to as himself”.Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 13 2011,02:05)
According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary the belief in more than one God is polytheism
Well then, it is settled. Because I don't believe in more then one God. I believe in God Almighty and the gods He is the God OF. But then again, I believe what the scriptures teach. You, on the other hand, believe what is politically correct to believe in 21st century America.Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 13 2011,02:05)
It is not the religion of Israel unless you like some scholars believe that the religion of Israel evolved from henotheism to monotheism during the period of their Babylonian captivity.
The nation of Israel ALWAYS acknowledged the existence of OTHER gods, and were told by their God not to worship any of these OTHER gods.Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 13 2011,02:05)
Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Paul was surely not a polytheist when he said there are many gods in heaven and on earth, right? But Paul knew that for us, there is but one God worthy of our worship. There are many of the mighty in both heaven and on earth but the mighty are of different species but only Jehovah is of the species Almighty.
See? There's that 21st century political correctness showing through again. The word is “theos”, and every single English translation there is renders it as “god
s”, but Kerwin will take it upon himself to say they are NOT “gods”, but “the mighty”.Kerwin, Jehovah is the ONLY Almighty God. He alone created all other things, including the other gods. But just because you are scared to believe what the scriptures say, don't tell me I'M a polytheist. Paul is the one who used the word “gods”, Kerwin. I asked you if he was a polytheist. Well……………WAS HE?
Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 13 2011,02:05)
Quote (mikeboll @ 64) And if Paul and Jehovah Himself both call Satan a god, then there is more than one god. If scripture calls Jesus a god, then there is more than one god. I worship only one God, Kerwin. If scripture calls a human being god then does that mean he is also a god or is he instead one of the mighty among the human species?
Is Satan a human being, Kerwin? Stop sidetracking and address my points DIRECTLY!Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 13 2011,02:05)
Quote (mikeboll @ 64) If that Spirit Being begot a son, that son would not BE that same Spirit Being that begot him, but a DIFFERENT spirit being. That sounds like the theory of Evolution as you seem to state one species of angel will sire another species of angel.
I'm getting very tired of this, Kerwin. And I'm about to fix it. Meet me in our new debate thread.Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 13 2011,02:05)
Quote (mikeboll @ 64) And there are also scriptures elsewhere were God says He is creating all things new. Do those scriptures take away from the fact that God still created ALL THINGS, period? No. I agree with you on that point and I also agree that Colossians 1 is not a proof scripture that only all new things were created in, by, and for Jesus.
Good. Then this will be one of the first questions I ask you in the debate thread.Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 13 2011,02:05)
Quote (mikeboll @ 64) So, in 1 Cor 8:6, what exact things do you think came FROM GOD? I am unable to look at 1 Corinthians 8:6 at this time. Perhaps I will later with God’s guidance and permission.
And this one will be soon to follow.Buck up on your scriptures, buddy, because I won't let these points get lost in your shenanigans on the debate thread. You will have to stand and DIRECTLY address them – one at a time.
Mike,
Quote Please DIRECTLY answer my question, Kerwin. CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE OR NOT? Did John ever claim to have “come down from heaven”? Did Jesus? I did answer your question by comparing John the Baptist and Jesus and illustrating where they differed on the three points I used to compare them. I did not mention another difference and that is God appointed them to serve different roles in his righteous plans. So If you worked through what I wrote then you would know that Jesus, unlike John the Baptist, did not fall short of the glory of God and so in that way he did come down from heaven.
Quote I'll take that as “NO, I CAN'T show your claim to be scripturally wrong.” I have already demonstrated that Jesus was conceived in his mother’s inner parts and she was not residing in the heavens at the time of his conception.
Quote Also, where are you getting this “spirit” stuff from the scripture you posted? John the Baptiser is speaking ONLY of Jesus in John 3:31. You may want to rethink your way of understanding that scripture if you stop to consider that John the Baptizer stated “he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth”. Do the prophets of God speak of the things of the earth or of heaven? I am convinced that they speak of the things of heaven and therefore cannot be the ones that come from below in what they speak. Jesus ;unlike those prophets of God, who fell short of God’s glory, comes from above in both his words and his actions as he continuously acts and speaks as he is carried along by the Spirit of God.
So John 3:31 is comparing the children of Satan’ spirit to Jesus the Son of God’s spirit; while it is not mentioning Satan’s unwilling servants who seek the freedom that comes in The Anointed.
Quote Again, where are you getting the “spirit” stuff from this scripture? When Jesus says “I am from above”, you just naturally want to PRETEND he is speaking of “his spirit” being from above. But where is your PROOF of this? A normal person (one who doesn't have an unscriptural doctrine to maintain), would read the words “I am from above” and assume the “I” means the PERSON of Jesus, not “his spirit that he is referring to as himself”. The proof is the command to be righteous as God is righteous. Those who chose not to seek to obey that command are from this dark world while those who seek to obey it by faith are from above.
Quote Well then, it is settled. Because I don't believe in more then one God. I believe in God Almighty and the gods He is the God OF. But then again, I believe what the scriptures teach. You, on the other hand, believe what is politically correct to believe in 21st century America. It would be settled if you would agree that God is of a species all of his own and that those other called gods are not of the same species. If you do that then you are faced with the dilemma that the child of the body of a member of a species is the same species as his sire.
Quote The nation of Israel ALWAYS acknowledged the existence of OTHER gods, and were told by their God not to worship any of these OTHER gods. That is not what is written though have trouble understanding that the children of Israel use the word gods to refer to angels just as they use the word messenger and opposers to also refer to such beings. Since you understand that human being can also bear all three of those names and yet you know that they are not the same as angels then why do you have trouble understanding that angels can bear those names and still not be the same species as the one true God.
Take for example the command not to worship any other Gods. Do you think that it is alright to worship a dog as long as you do not call it a god? I doubt that you think such a thing. I also doubt that you believe that a dog is a god even if some choose to call it such. So it should be clear to you that God is instructing his people not to worship anything; whether it is in heaven or on earth, which they choose to call God but him.
Quote See? There's that 21st century political correctness showing through again. The word is “theos”, and every single English translation there is renders it as “gods”, but Kerwin will take it upon himself to say they are NOT “gods”, but “the mighty”. You are the one that has defined “elohim“, which is also translated “theos”, as the mighty in the past. I was just following your understanding. Have you changed it?
Quote Kerwin, Jehovah is the ONLY Almighty God. He alone created all other things, including the other gods. But just because you are scared to believe what the scriptures say, don't tell me I'M a polytheist. Paul is the one who used the word “gods”, Kerwin. I asked you if he was a polytheist. Well……………WAS HE? Paul knew of what he spoke while you do not or you would realize that there is only one true God and others are merely called god.
Is Satan a human being, Kerwin? Stop sidetracking and address my points DIRECTLY!
I am not sidetracking. I was just illustrating that in at least some cases god is a title. Like the human being in the example I mention God is also a title for Satan and not stating he is a member of the God species.
Quote Buck up on your scriptures, buddy, because I won't let these points get lost in your shenanigans on the debate thread. You will have to stand and DIRECTLY address them – one at a time. Your so called direct questions are too much like the questions the Pharisees and others posed to Jesus in which there is no true answer. He chose not to answer them directly either. I see no reason to enter into such an agreement as I would rather answer a question truthfully than directly.
Kerwin,
Your “honest” answers are so peppered with your own additions to the scriptures that they no longer represent “SCRIPTURAL honesty”, but only “Kerwin's honesty”.
Most of your answers say something about how I'm not spiritual enough to understand. Or how Paul knew what he was talking about and I don't. As if these kinds of statements somehow dismantle the scriptural point I was asking you to address.
Your answers flit from here to there without any semblance of organization.
The debate thread I started is designed to nip this kind of behavior in the bud right from the start. There is a question waiting there for you right now. I do hope that you'll “man up” and take a swing at answering it.
Remember, each post also gives YOU the opportunity to ask me a direct question that I must answer directly. If you are trying to get me to see that Jesus didn't pre-exist, and you think you have scriptures to PROVE this, then here is your chance to “save my soul”.
For the time being, I will start weeding our discussions in the open threads until they come to a place where a point actually gets SOLIDLY addressed occasionally.
peace,
mikeQuote (kerwin @ Sep. 13 2011,02:05)
I agree with you on that point and I also agree that Colossians 1 is not a proof scripture that only all new things were created in, by, and for Jesus.
Then here's the assignment for you:1. Show a scripture that says any new thing was ever “CREATED” by or through Jesus.
2. Scripturally show how, just because certain “new things” were created through Jesus, it would totally change the meaning of the words “ALL things” in Col 1:16.
For instance, God is said to be making all things new. But that doesn't mean that when we read “All things came from God”, the “ALL things” all of a sudden only means “NEW things”. If the word “ALL” taking on the meaning of “NEW” is not the case in reference to God, why do you claim it would be the case in reference to Jesus?
Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 13 2011,02:05) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) So, in 1 Cor 8:6, what exact things do you think came FROM GOD? I am unable to look at 1 Corinthians 8:6 at this time. Perhaps I will later with God’s guidance and permission.
I am anxiously awaiting your answer to this question. Take your time, but don't think I will forget about it.peace,
mikekerwin
Quote I am unable to look at 1 Corinthians 8:6 at this time. Perhaps I will later with God’s guidance and permission. this is the strange answer I ever seen , sins when do we need permission from God to read the scriptures
is this a new way to run away excuse
Quote Our Preexistence Yes, we all preexisted our physical flesh!
Thanks very much for your concern in this matter!
2Tm.1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling,
not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace,
which was given [[[us]]] in Christ Jesus before the world began, (John 15:27)“The Word” in us!
John 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness (by the HolySpirit),
because [[[ye]]] have been with me from the beginning.
Acts 12:24 But “The word” of God grew and multiplied.More evidence:
Jer.1:5 Before I(YHVH) formed thee in the belly I knew thee;
and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee,
and I(YHVH) ordained thee(Jeremiah) a prophet unto the nations.Jude:1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you,
feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of
winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;God bless
Ed JWell, I had a whole thing here and when I posted it appears to have fallen into a black hole and disappeared, so once again into the breach.
This is from way back on page one of this thread, but I felt that this should be addressed before going on to other pages, even though it seems that most everyone is way off topic as usual.
Ed J
In the above quote:
“Our Preexistence
Yes, we all preexisted our physical flesh!
Thanks very much for your concern in this matter!
2Tm.1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling,
not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace,
which was given [[[us]]] in Christ Jesus before the world began”The phrase “but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given [[[us]]] in Christ Jesus before the world began” does not refer to anything that was specifically given to me or you or anyone else (except “Jesus”) and does not have anything to do with our preexisting. The phrase says that God determined, before the world began that [his] own purpose and grace would be in Christ Jesus for our benefit once we came along.
In the second quote:“The Word” in us!
John 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness (by the HolySpirit),
because [[[ye]]] have been with me from the beginning.
Acts 12:24 But “The word” of God grew and multiplied.“Jesus” is merely saying that they were with him from the beginning of his ministry, not the beginning of eternity.
The other two passages from Jerimiah and Jude speak of God's foreknowledge, not anyone's preexistence.
Before one begins teaching on any subject they need to have a much better understanding of the form and structure of the English language (and that of the ancient Greek would be very helpful as well) than do you. A good friend of mine once told me that some of us are angels and don't realize it. For proof of this he quoted Judges 13:21 (KJV), “But the angel of the Lord did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the Lord.” He was very excited about this until I pointed out that the [he] in “Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the Lord” referred to the angel in the previous sentence and not to Manoah himself. This kind of erroneous interpretation is what leads to wierd off-shoot denominations like Jehovah's Witnesses. One must be extremely careful how he reads a passage so that he does not impose upon it what he would like it to say. Another example is the story of an English professor (the language, not the nationality) who wrote upon the blackboard the phrase “Woman without her man is a beast.” He then called upon a student and invited the student to add the proper punctuation to the phrase. The student, a male, punctuated the phrase thusly, “Woman without her man, is a beast.” The professor congradulated the student for adding the proper punctuation. However, another student, a female, took objection to the way the phrase was punctuated. The professor smuggly invited her to correct him. She punctuated the phrase thusly, “Woman, without her, man is a beast.” So, with the placement of a comma or two, the meaning is totally reversed.
I searched all my life for people who understood that “Trinity” was unscriptural and actually anti-Christ, then about a year ago I stumbled onto this site and was gladdened. But after reading many of the posts here, I now believe that it is more a fluke that you believe what you do than that you understand anything. Maybe it is as the sage said, better to be lucky than good, but I have my reservations about that. Jesus said in Mt 7:21-23 (KJV) “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Obviously, these people believed that they were disciples and must have had some part in Christ, yet they fell short of entering into the Kingdom of God. “Jesus” also said that the Pharisees not only did not entered into the Kingdom of God, but that they prevented those who would and that their (the Pharisees) punishment would be the worse for it. I infer from your many, many posts (Ed J) that you consider yourself quite the teacher, but be careful that your belief in your own infallibility does not derail you from reaching the goal you ultimately seek, entry into the Kingdom of god.
We did not preexist our physical manifestation any more than did “Jesus.” Prior to the “Word” (Logos) being separated from God and caused to become flesh, “Jesus” did not preexist, as John tells us, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Apparently, the “Word” was an attribute of God with which he (God) created, not a secondary personality of God's. Prior to the creation of “Jesus” in the womb of Mary, he did not exist in the physical sense of the word, but only as an idea in the mind of God.
One more time, “Christ” means simply, “the anointed one” therefore until “Jesus” physically came into existence, “Christ” was only a concept in the mind of God. In Prov. 8:22-31 the writer is speaking metaphorically concerning the joyousness of the coming Messiah, it is not meant to be taken literally. Remember that the OT is the “shadow” of things to come. The entire story of Moses and the subsequent wanderings of the Jews culminating in them being ushered into the “promised land” by Joshua (Jesus) is a metaphor or foreshadow of the coming of Christ and his leading his people into the Kingdom of God (the promised land). No one preexisted their physical manifestation, except as a concept in the mind of God. This notion of preexistence is the fallacy upon which “Trinity” is based, if Christ preexisted the Word's incarnation, then one can realistically theorize that there are multiple personalities in the Godhead.
rebellman
Quote One more time, “Christ” means simply, “the anointed one” therefore until “Jesus” physically came into existence, “Christ” was only a concept in the mind of God. you remind me of my study's with the JW,how convenient it was to them to go from reality of today,to pre Christ times and then back to Christ and the apostles time,and explain what was in the mind of God as well as the mind of Christ and his disciples.
in this way they have made sure they control all of the outcomes, no lose ends ,
this is not how God deals with us ,you need to go to the preexistence of Christ 1 and 2 including the data section read and then come back and give us you light in the scriptures ,in this way we could all gain of your enlightenment.
(I know what Christ means ,all names means some thing and many have been anointed from God )Pierre
T8
Yes this is so, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Jn. 1:1 But I fail to see your point, unless this is a backhanded way of showing that “Jesus” is God, which not only is not the discussion, but wrong.
Pierre,
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you, because like the JW's you already have your mind made up as to what you believe and nothing anyone says, or what passages they present or what logic is applied, it will not sway your stubborn insistence that you're infallible, and so your only concern is to show me the error of my ways. It never even occurs to you that you may be incorrect.
However, I am willing to go the extra mile and see if I can approach this from another direction. I did read some of the posts in Preexistence (part 1), however, I found nothing that proved your point, so rather than recover old ground, lets look at this from another angle.
Let's assume for a moment that “Jesus”' preexistence is correct. In his preexistant state, was he conscious, did he have his own will (whether deferring to the Father's will or not), did he act by his own volition, or was he more like a painting on the wall? The passages I've seen so far that have been presented to prove “Jesus”' preexistence all speak of “Jesus” creating and holding things together by his own power. Therefore, he must have been conscious with his own personality in order to do these things of his own volition, correct? Or was he simply the unconscious paintbrush God used to create all things? If the latter (the paintbrush), his existence was only in the mind of God for a future event, but if the former (having personality and self volition) then we have a binary Godhead; God the Father and God the Word coexisting in one as one, but still two. Okay, this isn't “Trinity” but it is the same idea, just 2 instead of 3 in one. And if one can make the argument that the Holy Spirit has personality so that it can be addressed as he, then we're back to “Trinity.” Either “Jesus” was a whole being in his preexistent state, or he was (as the apostle states) the Word and a part of the totality that is God. You cannot have it both ways, as to do so sets up a paradox and while you may be willing to accept a paradox, I am not because it flies in the face of God's orderly nature. If God can be both sides of the coin in this matter, then he can be so in any situation and so could be lieing to us at the same time he tells us the truth, so we can never be sure what the truth is.
As patient as I am, this type of communication takes far too long and whether you realize it or not, I do have a life apart from these forums, so this will be my last input on the subject. Believe it or not, whether you know the truth or are in error, makes no diference to me and does not affect my standing before God and his Christ in the least. And if you refuse to even entertain the idea that I might be correct, there is absolutely nothing I can do to dissuade you and therefore am wasting both my time and yours.
rebellman
Quote Pierre, Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you, because like the JW's you already have your mind made up as to what you believe and nothing anyone says, or what passages they present or what logic is applied, it will not sway your stubborn insistence that you're infallible, and so your only concern is to show me the error of my ways. It never even occurs to you that you may be incorrect.
you do exactly what the JW does I knew this was next to come
rebellman
Quote The passages I've seen so far that have been presented to prove “Jesus”' preexistence all speak of “Jesus” creating and holding things together by his own power show me in scriptures that Christ did anything from his own power
Since you already know it all, why do you ask questions that you already know the answers to?!?
Good shot, I lost my entire family to the J-dubs, so you did guess the most offensive thing you could call me.
Derision and name calling are the last resort of the ignorant!!!
Quote (rebellman @ Oct. 23 2011,07:18) T8 Yes this is so, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Jn. 1:1 But I fail to see your point, unless this is a backhanded way of showing that “Jesus” is God,
Not that Jesus is God, but is the Word that was with God in the beginning. It is written that he EXISTED in the form of God, emptied himself and came in the flesh. John 1:1 is saying that the Word that was with God was divine. It is not identifying the Word as God himself, rather it is talking about nature.Pierre
If, as you assert, Jesus preexisted then Col. 1:16 is just such proof that he did something by his own power: “For by him were all things created… all things were created by him, and for him… by him all things consist.” These passages explicitly (explicit being defined as: stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.) say that these things were done by him, which means by his own volition (power). There is absolutely nothing in the entire chapter that qualifies this to mean “by him, but with the power of God.” Now, I'm finished with you, because you have no desire of being taught anything as you obviously know everything already.
t8
Jn 1:1 is a very simple sentence, so I don't get why so many people can't understand it. Most trinitarians use it to attempt to show that “Jesus” is at this time God and the JW's use it to attempt to show that he is a lessor god. However, this can be done only if one completely ignores the rules of grammar. I have studied both Greek grammar and English grammar and while the syntax of Greek is more like the Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian) this sentence is so simple anyone with even a rudimentory understanding of English should be able to understand it. Unfortunately, most people have some agenda that is more important to them than the rules of grammar or even the basic meaning of the words. But look at the sentence: In the beginning was the Word… this clearly and unequivocally shows that the Word was there at the beginning of eternity; lets not get hung up about eternity having no beginning or end, the point is that as long as there was anything, the Word was there. …and the Word was with God… so now we see that the Word was at least holy or it couldn't have been with the holy God. …and the Word was God, this does show that the Word was the same thing as God. Now, the reason I italicised the Word is because it is critical to understand that this is an attribute of God, nowhere is there any indication that the Word has conciousness, personality, or volition. It is not a person of a Godhead, it is simply an attribute, period. There are plenty of OT passages that talk about God's creating through and/or by his Word and if we think of God speaking things into existence, then the Word is like his voice and like our voice, it has no special properties or power in itself, it's a means, like a tool. Therefore, it is a long stretch to say that “Jesus” or Christ preexisted, simply because Jesus was formed from the Word. A vase is made from a lump of clay, but until it was a vase, it was a lump of clay, nothing more, and after it is the vase, it is no longer the lump of clay, so does the vase preexist simply by virtue of once being a lump of clay? We have a similar situation with the Word and Jesus. Prior to God forming Jesus from the Word (as in Jn 1:14) the Word was in a sense like the lump of clay, it was an intrigal part of God (like your foot, hand or voice). But, God took this Word of his, physically separated it from himself and used it to create a living soul, exactly in the way God took a lump of clay and used it to create a living soul; Adam. Paul make reference to the first Adam was made a living soul and the last Adam a quickening spirit. (If any one wants the chapter & verse for these references, get out your concordance and look them up.)As to your reference to Php 2:6,7 (KJV) Php 2:6-7 Php 2:6-7 “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men…” I think we should also look at the NIV version: “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” I believe that the KJV “Who, being in the form of God…” is misleading as it sounds like it is talking about the time when the Word was God and so if he “made himself” something, then it would mean that the Word did have consciousness, personality and volition. But if we consider the NIV version (which whether you want to accept it of not, is almost always a more acurate translation), “Who, being in very nature God…” this is very different. Jesus was “in nature, God.” There is a vast difference between “form” and “nature.” After the incarnation of the Word, Jesus still retained the “nature” of God and so divesting himself of the nature was post incarnation and therefore is no evidence of preexistence.
Now, let us consider Col 1:15-17 (in both the KJV and NIV): “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 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: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” (KJV)
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (NIV)
This becomes a more difficult to reckon. “He is the image of the invisible God,” this is oft used to support “Trinity,” but just as Adam being made in the image of God, didn't make Adam God, neither does Jesus being the image of God, make him God. “For by him all things were created… all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” If this does prove preexistence, then as I stated before we have clear evidence that Jesus is God and trinitarians are correct, but if we consider that this passage does apply the the Word – preincarnation – then again this is no evidence of preexistence, because as the Word in effect Jesus did do these things since nothing that was done by or through the Word are negated simply because the Word was transformed into the fleshly person of Jesus, so by extrapolation, even though the Word no longer exists as such and Jesus wasn't in existence at the time, these things were done by Jesus. Now, I realize that this is somewhat convoluted, by without such an explanation we are left with the imposible situation that Jesus is at this time God.
There are two other things that should be considered here: 1) Paul's purpose in writing this passage was not to prove the preexistence of Jesus, but rather his fitness to be Christ; and 2) That Jesus preexisted or might in some manner be God would have never even flashed through his mind and we can know this because there are exactly zero passages that specifically address the preexistence of Jesus or that argue that he was in any way God. Both “Trinity” and the preexistence theory are being inferred based on someone's preconceived notion and then passages that have nothing to do with either are being taken out of context to prove something they were never intended to prove. It may be only my opinion, but I believe that had Paul had any idea that his words would be taken out of context to support unscriptural doctrines, he would have said these same things, but in a way that would not have lent themselves to abuse. Paul was aware that such people existed as he says in 2 Co 11:12-15: “But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose
end shall be according to their works.” He also warns Timothy, 2 Ti 2:23-26 (KJV): But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.” and again that there would be those “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Tim 3:5-7 (KJV) As Peter warns as well: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” 2 Pe 1:20-2:2 (KJV)In any case, you are free to believe anything you choose, I care not whether you believe me or don't, I believe the things that I do because of 40+ years of diligent searching of the scriptures, with prayer and fasting so that I could be convinced in my own mind, not so that I could lead anyone anywhere. But, I didn't bring with me preconceived notions taught to me by corrupt men, because I left these behind and sought the Holy Spirit to teach me as ought to be done.
Peace – out.
Richard,
I like your technique for finding truth. It is difficult to discern truth from writings written in a different language, at a different time, to a different culture and it is only by the Holy Spirit that one can hope to scratch the surface of all the attributes of God's Son. (John 21:25).I've employed the same technique as you, but have came to a slightly different position on the make up of God's Son. Below is my opinion from my journal, I have posted it here before but so we may understand each others position I post it again:
Quote God is a title to an “office”, not a name. There is only one true “God”; the Father is the source of/for everything. There is only one true “Lord”; Yeshua was placed in authority of everything by the Father. Any other gods or lords are positions and powers within creation not necessarily under subjection to the Father or His Son at this time. I believe the Father exists outside/above all of His creation(s) yet His awareness of all living things somehow permeates both heaven and earth. He is so far beyond His creation(s), that He interacts vicariously through His “agents” (His Son and the Holy Spirit), that is why Jesus came explaining the Father.
The Father is the personage of “God” while the Son as His “agent” (Lord of Heaven and Earth) is within the office of God. The Father is far greater then all including the Son. The Son is the image of the Father and contains the nature of the Father (all that can be perceived of the Father by those of us in this reality) and is God’s representative and is in all ways God to us while acknowledging the Father as His God. The Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit but somehow the nature of the spiritual reality has “it” existing separately, possibly similar to Jesus being an image of the Father in this reality so the Holy Spirit is a manifestation of the Father in the spirit realm. Prior to His “incarnation” I believe that Jesus simply acted as the Father's agent in all matters related to His corporeal creation.
I believe Jesus and the Holy Spirit are different manifestations of the Father. The best I can do is draw a vague comparison to water. If an endless supply of water was to represent the Father and He removed all heat from a pocket of the water, then a solid chunk of ice will manifest everywhere the cold intersects with the water. If He further creates another pocket of several hundred degrees then everywhere the water is heated will turn to steam. The water will not have been diminished, or changed into something besides water, there would only be different manifestations, of the same water. Now the water existed before the cold, but did not manifest as ice because the “new environment” wasn’t there to support it.
With the foundation of our reality laid, God was manifested in this new reality as everything our reality could possibly support of the Father (but was far short of the whole). Now this manifestation was the pre-incarnate Jesus (“God manifest in the flesh”) having a separate identity but “the exact representation of his being”, manifested at the birth of our reality, He was 'supreme over all creation' and “existed in the form of God”, and it was by this manifestation that 'the world was made through him'.
This manifestation having the makings of this reality, but with the essence of God, was at the opportune time sent to pay the ransom for all men and fulfill the secret of God, to make possible the age of grace.
This essence of the Father’s corporeal manifestation was emptied of all but the nature of God and impregnated into Mary in a manner that she remained a virgin. This image of the Father was born into a child, not having a sin nature, but fully human.
As with you I have reached the point where I'm “convinced in my own mind” but I remain open to correction, not from another's opinion, but from the whole of scripture, so feel free to show me the errors of my way.
Thank you
WmQuote (rebellman @ Oct. 22 2011,14:18) Let's assume for a moment that “Jesus”' preexistence is correct. In his preexistant state, was he conscious, did he have his own will (whether deferring to the Father's will or not), did he act by his own volition, or was he more like a painting on the wall? …………..if the former (having personality and self volition) then we have a binary Godhead; God the Father and God the Word coexisting in one as one, but still two.
What? Why? Surely the OTHER angels of God existed long before the earth and mankind did – does that mean THEY are part of the “Godhead”? Does the fact that they were conscious beings having personalities and self volition mean they HAD TO BE God Himself? If not, then why would you assume Jesus either had to BE God Himself, or not exist at all?Maybe I'm missing something here.
mike
Quote (rebellman @ Oct. 23 2011,00:31) But look at the sentence: In the beginning was the Word… this clearly and unequivocally shows that the Word was there at the beginning of eternity; lets not get hung up about eternity having no beginning or end, the point is that as long as there was anything, the Word was there.
Again, I must ask WHY? Gen 1:1 says that the earth was created “in the beginning”. Surely that doesn't mean “as long as there was anything, the earth was there”, right?So why would the phrase “in the beginning” in John 1:1 automatically have to refer to “from eternity”? Could it not refer to a beginning that was AFTER God had already existed alone, but BEFORE the “in the beginning” of Gen 1:1?
To me it says, “At the beginning of creation itself, there was ONLY the Word and the God who had just created him”. AFTER that “beginning”, there were to be many other “beginnings” and creations to follow.
Rebel, how can you be sure that the phrase “in the beginning” in John 1:1 referred to “the beginning of eternity”, when that phrase itself is a paradox?
mike
Wm
WOW! I'd be willing to bet that wherever and whenever you posted that, you got slammed from a dozen directions, not because it's incorrect, but because nobody understood it! Don't get me wrong, as I do understand what you are saying, though I do disagree on a couple of points. However, this is the attitude that I spoke of elsewhere, that if two disagree, they should work together from an attitude that it is more likely that both are incorrect than that either has perfect understanding.
Have you ever heard of The Urantia Book? I ask because your explanation sounds a bit like some of the things I've read there. If you haven't, I'm not going to go into any explanation of that.
You definitely grasp what I have been saying about the inadequacy of human understanding and the limitations of language to express spiritual concepts. But, I personally try not to get too technical about things I can't possibly comprehend. But, most people, if they're interested in understanding the deeper things of God at all, tend to not be able to see the forest for the trees. As with this present discussion, it does not matter one whit whether Jesus preexisted or not (other than the questions that it raises regarding “Trinity”), because this is not what the Bible was created to teach. The Bible was never meant to be a comprehensive guide to how and why everything that is, is. It isn't a comprehensive history of our universe (that's why the dinosaurs aren't mentioned – they're irrelavant). The Bible has one purpose and one purpose only and that is to inform mankind that there has been a separation between God and man, but that we shouldn't lose hope because God has a plan for bringing us back to him. And the less we get involved with the intricacies of how God works, the better. This is why Paul declares, “I am determined to know nothing, save Christ and him crucified.” But, I tend to be one of those people like Daniel, don't open a door just a crack and then tell me, “Go thy way, Richard: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” When I die and find myself before the judgement seat of Christ, it's going to be a good thing that we will have eternity, because I have about a billion questions I'm going to ask.
Anyway, because I don't (and can't) understand all the nuances of reality, I have pieced together some theories based on what I have read in the Bible. The Bible is in a way like a tapestry or better, a mosaic, if one stands too close all he sees are the threads, or tiles and while these are very interesting in themselves, that's not really their purpose, the purpose is to reveal a picture. However, if one takes a step back and looks at the picture as a whole, the purpose becomes clear. The OT is that mosaic, its purpose was to graphically show us what God is doing, that's why it is the shadow of things to come. Take the story of Moses. Moses represents mankind and God' dealling with us, through us. But this goes only so far, as is seen with Moses, even though he was given great authority, understanding and power, yet he was unable to simply obey (smiting the rock, rather than speaking to it) and so was unworthy to bring the Children of Israel into the promised land. So, this task fell to Joshua (the archetype of his namesake “Jesus” [this is why I don't like using the name Jesus, as it clouds who he really is – as has been pointed out by Pierre, names in the Bible mean something]).
However, no matter what the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, God does, as you suggest, use agents when dealling with us inside our universe. I suspect this is because God is perfect and our universe is not, therefore the two cannot be in the same place at the same time, or else the imperfect would be destroyed. These agents we call angels and God uses them exclusively within our universe. It was not God, but his angel in the burning bush. It was not God, but his angel upon the mountain that Moses spoke with in the passage about covering Moses' eyes and showing him God's hinder parts. (Now some will take exception to this because it says that God was speaking to Moses, but Jesus declares, “God is a spirit and no man has seen God at any time, save the son of man” and we open a whole new can of worms if we say that Jesus was being less than truthful here), it was not God, but his angel who spoke with Abraham upon the Plain of Mamre. So, no matter what the reason, God does not physically enter this universe.
Back to the picture, the whole thing with the garden of Eden was a setup from the beginning, designed to illustrate a point, that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. I don't know the reality of what is going on in God's universe, or how it's even possible for an angel to defy God, but this Lucifer certainly did (I have a theory about that too, but that's for another time). However, Lucifer tried to turn this disobedience around and pin it on God (this story can be gleened from Isa 14:12-15 and Eze 28:12-17), saying in effect, it's your fault God, because you made me this way. Being the just God that he is, God created this universe and put imperfect man here to show that if the transgression was his fault, he would make a way to rectify it. Now many are going to say, “Come on Richard, aren't you reading a lot more into this than is written?” But just look at the scenario, here is imperfect Adam, made of a lump of clay. He looks around and sees that every other animal in the world has a mate of its own kind and he realizes that he does not and so asks God to give him one. This God does, but not like with the other animals, God takes a rib from Adam and makes Eve, virtually a clone of Adam, except female. Now on some level Adam understands this as he declares, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Ge 2:23-24 (KJV) And Adam loved Eve with all his heart. So, now enter the garden, God has placed in the garden every kind of good tree and in the middle of the garden the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and has forbidden them to eat of this fruit. But, enter Lucifer (Satan) and he convinces Eve that God is just being selfish by withholding this fruit, because God doesn't want them to be truely like him, knowing both good and evil, so she falls for it and eats. Now she knows what she has done and that it was wrong, prior to this that realizaton was imposible because she didn't have the knowledge, it being contained in the fruit, to base her decision on. So, she was fooled into committing this sin, therefore it was not entirely her fault, but God also was responsible by virtue of withholding the one thing she needed in order to make an informed decision. (It might be interesting to note that while Cain's killing of Able is considered to be the first murder, it wasn't, because after eating the fruit, Eve knew good and evil and knew of a certainty that the penalty for eating was death, yet she still not only offered the fruit to Adam, but attempted to convince him that it was okay). But this isn't the transgression that God holds man accountable for. Enter Adam, he sees that Eve has eaten the fruit and knows only that she is going to die and be taken away from him. His great love for Eve (but really for himself, as she is him; a clone) drives him to eat the fruit as well, because he feels it is better to be with her in death, than to be without her in life. Now, I can hear them saying, “how can you pos
sibly infer this from the story in Genesis?” How? Because I have been in love with my Eve and lost her to death and it came very close to my doing exactly as Adam did. But the point here is that the transgression being disobedience, goes beyond that, because Adam turned from his love of God to his love of self (remember, Eve's a clone – “bone of my bones”) and this transgresses the greatest commandment; when asked what is the greatest commandment, Jesus replied, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one and ye shall love him with all your heart, mind, body, soul and strength!” Regardless of the fact that God opened the way for this to happen, Adam is still accountable for his decisions and the penalty for eating is death (cessation of being). But, because this was also God's fault, even if only slightly, God, being just, has made a way for redemption that isn't contingent upon man doing anything!So, how is God going to do this. Since the penalty was death, a death is required to satisfy justice. But, God can't die! (God's omnipotence notwithstanding, as by his own rules, God cannot do anything that is contrary to his nature – he can't lie, he can't change what he is and he can't die.) So, what is he to do? See the story of Abraham and Isacc. God will personally make the sacrifice to atone for Adam's transgression (that's how much he loves us), but he cannot do this personally, because even if it were possible for God to die, if he did die, at that precise instant everything would cease to exist. So, enter the Son. God chose to sacrafice a like thing to Adam; Adam is a created son, Jesus issues from God's being (the only begotten of the Father). It is necessary for Jesus to issue from God's being for two principle reasons: 1) the sacrifice must be both perfect and holy; and 2) it must be a thing that God personally gives up (sacrifices). So, God takes the thing most dear to him, his Word, physically separates it from himself and causes it to become a human being. Now enter Mary, Jesus' mother. Because Jesus must be human, one man standing in the place of another man, he can't just wander in out of the desert, he has to be connected directly so that mankind will know that this is that sacrifice that God has made. The virgin birth is essentially a by product of this, because Jesus is a new creation and cannot, by definition, actually partake of his mother's flesh, lest it impart man's fallen nature.
Now, regardless of where the man Jesus came from or what stuff he was made of, he absolutely must be a separate entity from his Father for a large number of reasons, but primarily so that he can be something that God actually gives up; if he is in any way still God and God can't die, then the death of Jesus is a sham and Jesus must die in order to satisfy the penalty (It may or may not be worthy of note that in any religion where God is said to have incarnated, when he leaves he just goes away, he does not die). Now, in order for it to be proven that Jesus is his Father's son, he must be enabled to do those things that the Father can do, so Jesus is anonted (made Christ) by receiving God's Spirit which empowers him.
There are many, many, many passages that back all of this up, but to even list the chapter and verses would take pages, so you'll just have to read the book for yourself if you want those references.
Now, I said all of that to show what I believe and why I disagree with some of what you stated above. Jesus is not a manifestation of God, he is his own person, God's only begotten Son. If he has in himself any divinity it is only by virtue of being created from something divine, the Word. Absolutely all of Jesus' power prior to the ressurection is derived solely from the indwelling Spirit of God.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
