Preexistence

[Proclaimer]

Quote (rebellman @ Oct. 23 2011,17:31)

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.

If I am reading your understanding correctly, you indicate that the Word was divested of divine nature and partook of flesh nature.

This is the Word that was WITH God.

So if Jesus is the Word of God and came in the flesh, then it is not contradictory to say that he was the Word of God before coming in the flesh. And we know that the Word of God was WITH God in the beginning.

We also know that Jesus has first place and pre-eminence besides God himself of course.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (rebellman @ Oct. 23 2011,17:31)

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.

Hi Rebel.

Just a couple of things.

1) Your posts are quite long. I personally do not tend to read long posts and I think many others do the same. Forums are great for breaking points down, and challenging them. But long posts are too hard to reply to as a reply to even one point can in itself be a long post, and replying to everything in a long post could take all week. That said, it is up to you of course. I started out here posting long posts myself. But found that most do not read them judging by the amount of times people repeated the same errors toward me even after I addressed them. Whereas you definately get a better response when you post lots of smaller posts instead. Easier to keep track of and easier on the eye for readers.

2) Your quote above regarding John 1:1 IMO contains more than one error of judgement.

The first error is assuming that John 1:1 is simple and can be read at face value and I actually doubt that you have studied Greek grammar because of that made point.

A student of Greek understands the importance of the definite article (the) and the lack of one. A definite article can profoundly change the meaning of a sentence, just as it can in English.

e.g., 'The Angel' and 'angel' are different. 'The Angel of God' is not the same as saying “you are an angel”.
You see, the definite article in the first is talking about a specific angel and the lack of one in the latter is used as a descriptive to describe the nature or character of someone.

Let me explain further. When Jesus said to his disciples, “one of you is a devil”, was he saying that Judas was Satan or was he saying that Judas had the nature or characteristics of the Devil? Of course he was saying the latter. Now if Jesus actually said, “One of you is 'THE' Devil”, then he would have been saying that one of the disciples was Satan himself.

Here is another example. The word for 'man' is 'adam' and 'Adam' was the first man. So Adam was the first adam, and Eve was the second adam when we understand that God made adam/man male and female, (as it is written). So with this understanding, we can see that the definite article is used to identify Adam (THE adam) and not having one, qualifies and is talking about nature and thus we read in Genesis 1:27:
So God created mankind/adam in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

With this understanding, John 1:1 is now very different. Why? There are 2 reasons:

1) The last word for god/theos has no definite article and thus can be read as divine or the nature of God.
2) The 'Word'/'Logos' has a definite article in all instances, and thus is not being used in a qualitative sense as you indicated in your post.

[rebellman]

Screw you! Is that concise enough?!?

[Ed J]

Quote (rebellman @ Oct. 22 2011,10:55)

(1)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. (2)We did not preexist our physical manifestation any more than did “Jesus.” (3)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.

Hi Richard,

1) What would cause you to believe I have not (according to you) reached this goal?

2) What proof do you have of this assertion?

3) “The Word” is the HolySpirit. (Link)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (rebellman @ Oct. 23 2011,17:31)

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;

Hi Richard,

Why do you assert the beginning in John 1:1 is from eternity but not the beginning in John 15:27?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (rebellman @ Oct. 24 2011,06:09)

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.

Hi Richard,

Wow, that sounds a lot like this (Link)…

Most people understand The Bible with the understanding of a man. (Isaiah 55:7-11)
“The Bible” is best understood in much the same way “Optics” are understood.
What I mean is: “The Bible” must be understood as “a whole”, Gen. to Rev.

But how is this done? Let us use “Optics” as a comparative example; OK?
The closer you look at something, the less that can be seen in the field of view.
And likewise, the focus of detail is lost with the greater field of view. I hope you are
getting all this? This is quite a conundrum, as you can only read one Bible verse at a time.

Consider what it would take to make a map without the advent of aerial photography?
First you must understand each and every section of terrain. And then fit all sections
of terrain by scale into their respective positions. Scale is imperative to the whole.
But in order to fit all the sections by scale into the whole, “The Big Picture” has
to be clearly understood in the mapmakers mind; then all the pieces will fit!

When beginners start to read The Scriptures they don’t understand what
“God” wants them to, because of what the ‘systems of religion’ taught them.
If they have been baptized with The “HolySpirit” and are open to His teachings,
then they will be like a skilled mapmaker understanding the terrain of God’s Word!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (rebellman @ Oct. 24 2011,06:09)

Wm 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]).

Hi Richard,

Most people miss these connections, glad to see that you haven't!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Proclaimer]

Quote (rebellman @ Oct. 25 2011,09:16)

Screw you! Is that concise enough?!?

Screw who?

Would like a comment on my last 2 posts on previous page.

Cheers.

[Proclaimer]

Oh, you were talking to me.
I gave you a fair response, but I think your reply is perhaps one of convenience.

Let me explain.
As soon as a challenge is posed, instead of accepting it and giving an answer in season in a joyful way, you say 'screw you'.
Is it not better to have an honest conversation and be open to change?
In my experience, saying 'screw you' is a disguised post for saying 'I can't answer you'.

I also said that I use to make long posts, so it wasn't a finger pointing exercise or an insult in any way.
Just advice that you didn't even have to take.
I was helping, so more people could read your posts.

Be careful that you do not rebuke wisdom for that is the realm of fools.

[rebellman]

Quote

Is it not better to have an honest conversation and be open to change?

I have seen no evidence that anyone here is in the slightest way open to change. It's more like, “I know what I know, so don't confuse me with the facts or logic.”

Actually, I was speaking to everyone.

I may be incorrect about everything I believe, but for your all's sake, I hope I'm not wrong about there being no place of eternal torment.

This site should renamed, “Teachers by the dozen”

[Proclaimer]

Is it possible that you may be one of the dozen?

Yes I agree that there are some here who are hard of hearing. That is inevitable though.
What is the chance that everyone who joined this forum would be honest, open to learning, and have integrity.

But to include all and not yourself in that group is a bit rich.
Why not give me a reply to my last post on the previous page.
That would be a start in my eyes.

[Ed J]

Quote (rebellman @ Oct. 24 2011,06:09)

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).

Hi Robert,

I would be interested in your theory.
Perhaps you can start a thread here
or PM me about your theory on this?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (rebellman @ Oct 13)

…………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.

Quote (rebellman @ Oct. 24 2011,16:16)

Screw you! Is that concise enough?!?

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but to me that doesn't seem like “working together”.  

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Peace greetings ALL,

I was lead to this discussion and back to this forum because someone visited my web page at: http://frank4yahweh.tripod.com/ByAndThrough.html from this forum. It has been a long time since I have been here. It is getting late and I plan to come back later, since I noted that there were a few here that believe as I do, that the Messiah did not pre-exist his birth as an actual being, but only in the sense that he pre-existed in his and our Father's future plan.

An Aaronic priestly blessing to you and yours! (Numbers 6:24-27)

[Lightenup]

Hi Frank,
Welcome back! Do you believe that the Messiah was a mere man only?

Kathi

[Pastry]

Quote (rebellman @ Oct. 25 2011,09:16)

Screw you! Is that concise enough?!?

I can't believe that a new member uses such language? Why? Does the truth make you say such things… Because you don't have anything else to say you cues? It doesn't belong on this site…. May Gods light shine upon you and make you see,peace Irene

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 27 2011,09:32)

Quote (rebellman @ Oct 13) …………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. Quote (rebellman @ Oct. 24 2011,16:16) Screw you! Is that concise enough?!? Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but to me that doesn't seem like “working together”.

Comes in all guns blazing. Offers teaching which is fine.
Complains that no one is paying attention.

I pay attention and pose a serious response to something he posted to me and in the same post give him some wise advice about breaking his posts up so each point can be addressed easily. And I get a 'stuff you' and 'everyone is a teacher' in response.

OK, that might be true, (not the get stuffed comment), but is he not the very thing he is complaining about? If he teaches and appears to not listen to any other view then surely he fits the bill.

Hopefully that is not a correct diagnosis and he returns and gives me an honest response to my post.

[mikeboll64]

He kind of makes me miss Istari!  

My guess is that he got locked out during the server switch like a lot of us.  I figure he'll be back to teach the “dozen teachers”.  

I do hope that in between posting manifestos of his own beliefs, he will also address those of us who have responded to his points.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Oct. 26 2011,20:23)

I noted that there were a few here that believe as I do, that the Messiah did not pre-exist his birth as an actual being, but only in the sense that he pre-existed in his and our Father's future plan.

Hi Frank,

When Jesus said “I came down from heaven” in John 6, remember that he didn't say, “THE PLAN OF ME came down from heaven”.

And in John 17, when he referred to the glory HE had alongside his God before the founding of the world, he didn't refer to the glory THE PLAN OF HIM had.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

peace and love,
mike

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 27 2011,13:32)

Hi Frank, Welcome back!  Do you believe that the Messiah was a mere man only? Kathi

Peace greetings Kathi,

Well, that all depends on what you mean by “mere”. Yahshua said that he was “a man” or “son of man” and “son of Yahweh”. Note that we also can become sons (daughters, children) of Yahweh. Yahshua is also commonly referred to as the “second Adam” by many. In translation “Adam” is what Yahweh called or named the first two beings that He created in His image, MALE and feMALE or MAN and woMAN.

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the time that Yahweh created mankind, in the image of Yahweh made He them; Male and female created He THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, in the time when THEY were created.

Scripture also teaches that Yahshua is the image of Yahweh. The difference between “Adam (male and female)” and Yahshua is that Yahshua was without sin or unblemished. In this aspect Yahshua was unique. Yahshua was also unique in a number of other ways. Note that he is the first fruit of the “first fruits” of those who are raised from the dead (resurrected) and without sin or blemish. In this aspect he was also unique. Yahshua has already been raised from the dead and at this time and sits at the right hand of his and our Father Yahweh in Heaven. In this aspect Yahshua is also unique, since we are looking toward the hope of a future resurrection.

I have noted that many here believe that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being and refer to him and our Father Yahweh by the word 'god'. I myself do not follow in this line of thinking.

I will let you think on this and you can get back to me if you like. You might want to fill me in and be more specific and detailed on why you asked me if I believed if Yahshua “was a mere man ONLY” in your next response to me.

[Author]

Posts