- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 17 2011,11:57) Hi Frank, Thank you for your answer.
Proverbs 30:4 NIV
4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Whose hands have gathered up the wind?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is the name of his son?
Surely you know!Frank, who do you suppose the son is in this proverb?
His Name is Yahweh and Ysryl is the name of His son.… 'This is what Yahweh says: Ysryl is my firstborn son, and I told you, “Let My son go, so he may worship Me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.'” (Exodus 4:22-23)
Frank…………You have posted it right brother, God was addressing Israel as a firstborn Son. This is also how they corrupt scriptures and force text to try desperately to prove Jesus' preexistence, it doesn even matter if it has nothing to do with Jesus' or not. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………………………………gene
Frank4YAHWEH
Quote wisdom personified this honestly I do not understand at all ? what is that this means ??
what is wisdom that it may be personified ??
help
Pierre
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 17 2011,13:06) Frank…………You have posted it right brother, God was addressing Israel as a firstborn Son. This is also how they corrupt scriptures and force text to try desperately to prove Jesus' preexistence, it doesn even matter if it has nothing to do with Jesus' or not. IMO peace and love to you and yours…………………………………………………gene
Gene,All praise be to Yahweh and His inspired prophetic word that we have been thoroughly furnished with!
All scripture is given by inspiration of Yahweh, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of Yahweh may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all righteous works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Note that this passage is in reference to the so-called “Old Testament”, since to so-called “New Testament” had not yet been compiled at the time this was said.
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 17 2011,13:06) Frank4YAHWEH Quote wisdom personified this honestly I do not understand at all ? what is that this means ??
what is wisdom that it may be personified ??
help
Pierre
Who Is Wisdom in Proverbs 8?
DI504
Leland RykenThis article first appeared in the Practical Hermeneutics column of the Christian Research Journal, volume 27, number 2 (2004). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
I’m an enthusiast for “the Bible as literature.” There are, of course, liabilities to this popularized label since in some circles it runs the risk of implying that the Bible is only literature and therefore devoid of the special authority that Christians ascribe to it as a religious book.
No less a literary giant than C. S. Lewis expressed that same reservation when he accused those who read the Bible “as literature” of reading the Bible “without attending to the main thing it is about.”1 Two sentences later, however, Lewis asserted unequivocally, “There is a saner sense in which the Bible, since it is after all literature, cannot properly be read except as literature; and the different parts of it as the different sorts of literature they are.”
What Lewis meant is that the Bible is composed of different kinds (genres) of literature — narrative, poetry, prophecy, epistle (authoritative teaching in the form of a letter), and so on — and each part of the Bible must be read according to the kind of literature it is. It is this principle I propose to explain: literary genre should influence our interpretations, and an awareness of literary genre can spare us from misreadings of the Bible (though that is not its only usefulness).
How to Misread Proverbs 8. One biblical text that illustrates this principle is a famous poem that praises wisdom (Prov. 8:22–31). Here are the first five verses of the poem:
The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.
Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
when there were no springs abounding with water.
Before the mountains had been shaped,
before the hills, I was brought forth,
before he had made the earth with its fields,
or the first of the dust of the world. (esv)
Who is speaking here? The lead-in to the speech answers the question: “Does not wisdom call?” (v. 1); and in verse 12, we read, “I, wisdom, dwell with prudence.” The repeated first-person references (my lips, my mouth, etc.), therefore, are to wisdom.
With this context as your guide, you would probably not find the passage difficult, but what would you say if someone rattled off proof texts to support the belief that the speaker of the poem is really Christ and that the passage, moreover, shows that Jesus is a created being? This is exactly what Jehovah’s Witnesses claim regarding the passage.
In a Watch Tower tract entitled Should You Believe in the Trinity?2 the following verses from the Bible are strung together:
• Colossians 1:15, which calls Christ “the first-born of all creation.”
• Revelation 3:14, which speaks of Christ as “the beginning of God’s creation.”
• Several verses from Proverbs 8, one of which speaks of how “Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works” (njb).
• 1 Corinthians 8:6, where the italicizing in the tract shows the Jehovah’s Witnesses interpreta-tion that God the Father created Christ, who then created the world: “There is one God, the Father, from whom are all things,…and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.”
They argue that because the speaker in Proverbs 8 is described in the same terms as are used for Christ elsewhere, that speaker, therefore, must be Christ. Since the speaker in the Proverbs 8 passage speaks of being “brought forth” (vv. 24–25 esv), moreover, this same Christ must be a created being and not an eternal member of the Trinity. Lest we think that the Jehovah’s Witnesses thought this up on their own, they correctly adduce “Christian writers of the early centuries of the Common Era” as having also believed that the speaker in Proverbs 8 is really Christ.3 Indeed, the view that the speaker of Proverbs 8 is Christ continues to make the rounds in some evangelical circles.
How to Recognize Personification. As I said earlier, I will make the case for literary genre as an effective way to spare us from misreading the Bible. We noted that wisdom is the speaker in Proverbs 8. Wisdom, someone might protest, cannot speak. Well, yes she can if she is a personification of an abstract concept.
Poets have always used personification, and biblical writers did as well. Just recall some famous examples: “Sin is crouching at the door” (Gen. 4:7 esv). “Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other” (Ps. 85:10 kjv). “Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death” (James 1:15 esv). My personal favorite is Zechariah’s vision of a woman named Wickedness sitting inside a cereal container (Zech. 5:6–8).
How can you know when a poet has used personification? It is not complicated: whenever a poet attributes human qualities to some- thing inanimate, often an abstraction, he or she has used personification.
This takes us back to Proverbs 8. The main subject of Proverbs chapters 1–9 is wisdom, which is an abstract quality or character trait rather than a person, but wisdom is treated as a woman from the first chapter right through chapter 9. Wisdom is portrayed as a woman of dazzling attractiveness and virtue, who teaches in the marketplace of the town (1:20), who is romantically embraced (4:8–9), who can be addressed as “my sister” (7:4), who utters a long speech commending herself to the public (chap. 8), and who builds a house and invites people to an alluring banquet (9:1–6).
Is Proverbs 8 Literal Fact or Literary Fiction? We would make so much more sense of biblical poetry if we would simply acknowledge that poetry is a form of fiction and quite often of fantasy. In its usual pose, it asserts something that we know to be literally untrue and often openly fantastic. Surely personification illustrates this in its pure form. We all know that blood does not literally cry from the ground (Gen. 4:10) and that light and truth are not literally travel guides to Jerusalem (Ps. 43:3).
Similarly, in Proverbs 1–9, wisdom is not literally a woman who speaks eloquently about herself and prepares a banquet. Wisdom is a quality of the soul. The purpose of the entire eighth chapter is to praise and exalt wisdom. In conducting this praise, the writer invents a fictional creation story in which wisdom, as an attribute of God, was actually present at creation. Proverbs 3:19 tells us propositionally that “the Lord by wisdom founded the earth.” Proverbs 8 turns that statement into a fictional narrative in which a personified wisdom was present at the creation of the world. It is as simple as that.
Proverbs 8 as an Encomium. A proper understanding of Proverbs 8 does not absolutely depend on viewing the poem as an encomium, but the dynamics of the passage will fall even more into place
if we do so. The encomium, one of the most beautiful and exalted types of literature used in the Bible, is a composition in praise of either an abstract quality or a general character type. First Corinthians 13 is an encomium in praise of love, Hebrews 11 in praise of faith, and Proverbs 31:10–31 in praise of the virtuous wife.The writer of an encomium conducts the praise by using a standard set of literary motifs (elements): (1) introduction to the subject, (2) the distinguished and ancient ancestry of the subject, (3) a list of the praiseworthy acts and qualities of the subject, (4) the indispensable and/or superior nature of the subject, and (5) a conclusion urging the reader to emulate the subject.
Proverbs 8 has all of these familiar motifs. In verses 22–31, we find the motif of the ancient and distinguished ancestry of wisdom, which was present from the beginning and even participated in the creation of the world.
Is Christ the First Created Being? The specific hermeneutical principle that I have applied in this article is the need to read figurative speech in a nonliteral sense. This is part of a broader principle of interpreting a text in keeping with what we know about its genre (what type of literature it is). Interpreters have done a lot of mischief by taking figurative language literally. If an interpreter begins with the premise that Proverbs 8 is talking about Christ, then certain references can be (incorrectly) interpreted as implying that Christ is a created being. The fallacy is in thinking that the speaker in Proverbs 8 is Christ in the first place. The speaker is wisdom personified. Those who press for a literal interpretation of Proverbs 8 face the daunting task of explaining why the pronoun and language used for wisdom are feminine — is Christ feminine in His true essence or does He have a female counterpart in heaven to whom this passage refers?
We also need to apply this principle when we come to passages that speak of Christ as the “firstborn” or “beginning” of God’s creation. These titles do not refer literally to generation but figuratively to exaltation — not to a literal origin but to an exalted position.
All Literature Requires Interpretation. I can imagine some readers questioning whether what I have said in this article introduces an element of subjectivity into the interpretation of the Bible. After all, whether the speaker in Proverbs 8 is a personified wisdom and whether the passage is an encomium are decisions that the interpreter makes. Yes, they are, but two things need to be asserted in regard to this. First, all texts require interpretive decisions, and the more literary and more ancient the text, the more interpretive decisions are potentially required. Second, all interpretive decisions involve an element of subjectivity. To decide that a statement in the Bible is figurative is no more subjective than to decide that it is literal. This element of subjectivity, moreover, does not mean that all interpretive decisions are entirely subjective. With practice we can learn to recognize what kind of literature we are reading and let that influence our interpretation.
— Leland Ryken
NOTES
1. C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1958), 3.
2. Should You Believe in the Trinity? (Brooklyn: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1989), 14.
3. Aid to Bible Understanding (Brooklyn: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1989), 918.
Frank4YAHWEH
so you do not know ?
Quote How to Recognize Personification. As I said earlier, I will make the case for literary genre as an effective way to spare us from misreading the Bible. We noted that wisdom is the speaker in Proverbs 8. Wisdom, someone might protest, cannot speak. Well, yes she can if she is a personification of an abstract concept. Quote Is Christ the First Created Being? The specific hermeneutical principle that I have applied in this article is the need to read figurative speech in a nonliteral sense I have read your documentation and i can see that the man is self center to make others believe what he as establish as being the truth and the way to godly understanding,I SAY THIS BECAUSE HE USES `PRINCIPAL THAT I HAVE …..OR ,i SAID EARLIER…,OR I WILL MAKE……
IT SOUNDS LIKE A MAN THAT WANTS TO BE FOLLOWED ,
Frank ,i do not follow mere men who have not proven that they are godly in spirit and heart ,
and he did not answer my question either,HE ONLY QUALIFY HIS ANSWER AROUND WHAT IS OPINION IS OF IT ,LIKE SO MANY OTHERS FALS PREACHERS.
Pierre
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 17 2011,06:44) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 16 2011,16:24) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 16 2011,10:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 16 2011,09:20) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 15 2011,16:09) Mike, “You are the weakest LINK! – Goodbye!”
Hmmmmmmm…………………So I'M the fool and the weakest link when YOU'RE the one who is unable to answer questions or defend his doctrine? Interesting, Frank.
Mike,No, I am not unable to answer questions, and defend HIS doctrine. It is quite clear that I have done this very thing right here on this forum. I'm just not foolish enough throw pearls before swine and dogs to be trampled underfoot!
Hi Frank,What if there are others interested in what you have to say?
Would it not be prudent to post it(your so-called pearls) for them?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J,The pearls are Father Yahweh's inspired word, not what I have to say. I really don't care in others hearing what I have to say. What a care most about is that others truly HEAR and SEE (not in the literal sense, but in perception and understanding) what Father Yahweh has to say and to study His word to be approved by Him. Father Yahweh gives mankind a choice to believe whatever it is that they want to believe and so do I.
What it is that I do not like is getting into a long drawn out debate about what it is that I believe and I had make it known to Mike that I did not want to discuss anything with him several times and he persisted in harassing me, so I harassed him in return. Now, are you going to harass me like these other two fools? Hopefully you are not as foolish as they!
If you are interested in what it is that we believe, I would only suggest that you please see my web page links that I have left here. If not, simply don't go there!
The fact is, I believe that Mike already knows full well what it is that we believe and he just wants to argue for the sake of arguing. One can easily do research on what it is that we believe by simply going to any major search engine and entering into the query a few choice words and I am sure that Mike is fully aware of this. But no, he would rather harass someone for what it is that they believe. I did not come here to argue as I had let Mike know earlier on. Please review our initial posts for confirmation of what I am saying.
I am quite aware that there are a number of people here who believe as I do and I believe that Mike has discussed with them in depth what it is that we believe. There is no sense in repeating ourselves over and over again to him and entering into what seems to be an endless discussion with him. This is why I choose to instead leave links to my web pages.
The main reason that I came here is to look for those of like precious belief, since I was aware that someone had visited ONE OF MY WEB PAGES from this forum. I have an app on my web page that lets me know their location and from what web site someone visits my page.
Hi Frank,I'm interested in your opinions as they relate to our views of the Sacred texts.
Here we have a two way conversation, your web-site does not answer questions.
You won't mind if I ask you questions as long as I don't harass you afterwords; right?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgedj
Quote You won't mind if I ask you questions as long as I don't harass you afterwords; right? this is funny
PIERRE,
It may sound funny to you but,
after reading more of Frank's posts,
this seems to be what Frank is saying.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgFrank………Leland Ryken did and excellent Job in his description of what personification means. The bible is full of them as well as Symbolic and metaphors, parables (parallel stories) and all kind of Proverbs (fictitious illustrations) is what the word Proverbs means. Jesus even told his disciples He spoke to them about the Father in a Proverbial language, and a time would come when he would show them the Father clearly.
A person cant even understand Genesis without understand these , for instance the word tree (that which produces from self) You shall not eat (take to your self) God was simply telling Adam and EVE they were not to Take to themselves (EAT) to produce from themselves (TREE) the Knowledge of Good and Evil. But man chose to produce from Himself (or be a tree himself) when he did not have to becasue it was already there and He could have learned good and Evil without getting imminent with good and evil by experiencing it. In fact Jesus used this same thing when he said except you (EAT) the flesh of the son of Man and (DRINK) his Blood , He was simply saying we must (eat and drink) or take to ourselves his sacrifice to our lives.
In Fact the whole Book of Revelations was “SIGNIFIED” meaning (symbolized).The lack of understand these thing is the source of much confusion and false teachings in “Christendom” today in fact most of it is the result of not understanding this. Good Job Brother maybe some here can come to understand this. It could save a lot of confusion here. IMO
peace and love to you and yours……………………………………………………….gene
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 16 2011,19:09) Quote Don't tell the good people here that you've answered questions when you really haven't, okay? Mike,
Just because you do not agree with how I have answered a particular question that you have asked does not mean that I have not answered your question. If you asked me if I wore pink panties and I ANSWERED you in saying “That was a foolish question!” I have still ANSWERED your question, right?
No Frank. Making a judgment ABOUT my question is NOT an answer TO the question.Unless you actually DO wear pink panties, an ANSWER to your sample question would be “No Mike, I don't”.
Do you see the difference, Frank?
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 16 2011,19:57) His Name is Yahweh and Ysryl is the name of His son.
Thank you for your answer, Frank.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.”Frank, what does it mean that Jesus' origins are “from of old, from ancient times”? Remember that this statement was made during the lifetime of Micah.
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 16 2011,16:36) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 17 2011,07:24) Also Frank,
Can you show me any NT verses that tell us that the Father is the bridegroom or the husband of the redeemed?Thanks,
Kathi
Kathi, is that scripture talking about Israel or the Church?I know that Jesus didn't die for Israel but for all and God dealt with Israel by sending prophets then finally his son who died for all.
t8,
It is talking about the spiritual Jerusalem.Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.
27 For it is written,
“REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR;
BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR;
FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE
THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND.”Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 16 2011,17:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 17 2011,08:20) Frank, you say you've answered my questions. Perhaps I missed your answers to these last two I asked: Frank, at what point in Jesus' life was he so swelled up with pride that he had to empty himself of it?
At what point in your life were you in a different form prior to being made into the likeness of a human being?
These questions were asked based on answers you gave to my initial questions; and I have yet to see an answer to them. Could you link me to the page on this thread where you answered them like you keep claiming you did?
And Kathi, this thread is for discussing whether or not Jesus pre-existed. Please keep your comments focused on that issue, and not the “Jesus is God Almighty” issue.
Thanks,
mike
Mike,Just to make it clear, I do not believe that Kathi believes that “Jesus is God Almighty”, but I could be wrong, since I was under the impression that she believes as you do. Yes, this thread is for discussing whether or not Yahshua pre-existed, but what if one believes that he pre-existed as Yahweh Almighty as you know many do? Certainly that would fit into the topic of this thread, would it not? It seems to me that Kathi erroneously believes that Yahshua pre-existed as a “god” or an “angel” with Father Yahweh in the beginning. Just to make it clear, I do not believe that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being in any form.
Frank,Quote Yes, this thread is for discussing whether or not Yahshua pre-existed, but what if one believes that he pre-existed as Yahweh Almighty as you know many do? Certainly that would fit into the topic of this thread, would it not? Well said, Frank (that excerpt of your quote anyway).
You are right, many believe that Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh Almighty with the Father.
In fact that verse about Yahweh being our maker and husband…well, those words are plural in the Hebrew… 'Makers' and 'husbands' and both are Yahweh and Redeemer. Sounds like a unity named Yahweh with more than one member…just like many believe.
Btw, don't listen to Mike about me changing my mind often. He has been smokin' some bad stuff if that is what he thinks. You were probably aware that he stretches the truth though.
Anyway, thanks for setting him straight in the fact of what I believe definitely fits this thread.
Kathi
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 18 2011,09:45) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 16 2011,19:57) His Name is Yahweh and Ysryl is the name of His son.
Thank you for your answer, Frank.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.”Frank, what does it mean that Jesus' origins are “from of old, from ancient times”? Remember that this statement was made during the lifetime of Micah.
MICAH 5:2“And you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin (goings forth) is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.” Or 'ancient days' Hebrew interlinear, NAB, ESV, NRSV, ROTH, REB, and NIV. Firstly it must be noted that we see that a similar phrase is used to point back, not beyond the world's creation, but only as far as the Hebrew forefathers in:
Micah 7:20
“the loving-kindness given to Abraham, which you swore to our forefathers from days of long ago”
Also, Amos 9:11
“In that day I shall raise up the booth of David that is fallen…I shall build it up as in the days of long ago.”
The New American Bible study notes explain Micah 5:2 as a reference to the Messiah's descent from the ancient Davidic dynasty : “The tiny city and clan of Bethlehem-Ephrathah, from which comes the ancient Davidic dynasty (whose origin is from old, from ancient times) with its messianic king, one who is to be ruler in Israel”
Additionally, the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges says: “origins” in Micah 5:2 refers to his (the Messiah's) descent from the ancient Davidic family.
If 'origin' in Micah 5:2 referred to that of Jesus' coming into existence it would be in contradiction of Matthew 1:18 which details the 'origin' of Jesus as his ‘begetting by holy spirit’.
ONE CANNOT HAVE 2 POINTS OF ORIGIN. .”. The word for ‘origin’ is also used in Matthew 1:1. There, too, it refers to Jesus’ ancestry as being human – his origin because of his line of descent through David to Abraham. Yet logically Jesus only comes into actual existence at the end of that line –his conception.
Referring to Micah 5:2, James Dunn. Professor of Divinity Durham University comments that:
“The Hebrew does not suggest pre-existence”
Cross-referencing shows that It likely was Micah 5:2 that the1st century Jews had in mind, when they said:
John 7: 42
“Has not scripture said that the Christ is coming from the offspring of David, and from Bethlehem the village where David used to be? Therefore, the Messiah being the final one of the Davidic dynasty is part of and from within a dynasty that is ancient, which thereby makes the Messiah's origin ancient. In context it would be incorrect to assume that this meant that the Messiah existed before the world's creation.
Similarly, in trying to assess who Jesus is :
John 7:40.41
“Some of the crowd …began saying: 'This is for certainty the prophet'. Others were saying: 'This is the Christ.” And when asked by Jesus in:
Matthew 16:13, 14
“Who are men saying the Son of Man is?' They [the disciples] said: 'Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
John 1:49 gives:
Nathaniel's recognition of Jesus as: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are king of Israel“
In no case does anyone suggest that Jesus may have been an archangel.
Excerpt From:
When Did God’s Son come into Existence?[/B]
THE BACKGROUND TO THE IDEA OF PRE-EXISTENCE
Ray FairclothFrank4YAHWEH
Micah,5;2 And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity. LXX version
sins you know this ,can you answer this ;art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; why only a few in number ?
Pierre
Frank4 Yahweh……………………..Excellent read brother, i Hope all who believe in a Preexistence Jesus read this writing by Ray Faircloth, He see it the same way i , you and others here have also, Kerwin, Marty, Paladin, Martian, Chosenone, Not3in1, I love it when the truth is expounded so clearly Brother. If only some others here could come to see this also brother.
peace and love to you and yours Frank………………………………………………………gene
Hey Gene,
How does one edit their post here when they make an error in their post. I see no option on my end for editing my posts?
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 19 2011,11:04) Hey Gene, How does one edit their post here when they make an error in their post. I see no option on my end for editing my posts?
make a request for edit rights- to T8 in a PM messageQuote (Lightenup @ Nov. 18 2011,13:31) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 16 2011,17:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 17 2011,08:20) Frank, you say you've answered my questions. Perhaps I missed your answers to these last two I asked: Frank, at what point in Jesus' life was he so swelled up with pride that he had to empty himself of it?
At what point in your life were you in a different form prior to being made into the likeness of a human being?
These questions were asked based on answers you gave to my initial questions; and I have yet to see an answer to them. Could you link me to the page on this thread where you answered them like you keep claiming you did?
And Kathi, this thread is for discussing whether or not Jesus pre-existed. Please keep your comments focused on that issue, and not the “Jesus is God Almighty” issue.
Thanks,
mike
Mike,Just to make it clear, I do not believe that Kathi believes that “Jesus is God Almighty”, but I could be wrong, since I was under the impression that she believes as you do. Yes, this thread is for discussing whether or not Yahshua pre-existed, but what if one believes that he pre-existed as Yahweh Almighty as you know many do? Certainly that would fit into the topic of this thread, would it not? It seems to me that Kathi erroneously believes that Yahshua pre-existed as a “god” or an “angel” with Father Yahweh in the beginning. Just to make it clear, I do not believe that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being in any form.
Frank,Quote Yes, this thread is for discussing whether or not Yahshua pre-existed, but what if one believes that he pre-existed as Yahweh Almighty as you know many do? Certainly that would fit into the topic of this thread, would it not? Well said, Frank (that excerpt of your quote anyway).
You are right, many believe that Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh Almighty with the Father.
In fact that verse about Yahweh being our maker and husband…well, those words are plural in the Hebrew… 'Makers' and 'husbands' and both are Yahweh and Redeemer. Sounds like a unity named Yahweh with more than one member…just like many believe.
Btw, don't listen to Mike about me changing my mind often. He has been smokin' some bad stuff if that is what he thinks. You were probably aware that he stretches the truth though.
Anyway, thanks for setting him straight in the fact of what I believe definitely fits this thread.
Kathi
Kathi,So, you believe that Isaiah 54:5 should be properly translated as follows then, right?:
For your Makers are your husbands—the LORDS Almighty are their name—the Holy Ones of Israel are your Redeemers; they are called the Gods of all the earth.
Hmmm! I wonder why there are no translations that translate this verse in this manner then? Such a reasoning in translation would call into question MANY more verses and passages of Scripture. Following your reasoning, it would seem that there needs to be a total revamping of translation! I wonder why no one has taken on such a project as this?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
