Preexistence

Blocked

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 18 2011,09:45)

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.

Frank was unable to address my point about Ps 90:2. So on to the rest of his copied post:

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 18 2011,07:57)

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”

Wrong. Micah 5:2 refers to a RULER whose origins were from ancient times – not a dynasty. But this is how the non-preexisters work. They try to twist the scriptures into complete nonsense and hope no one will notice. Frank is one of those who didn't notice.

There is no way from the words of Micah 5:2 that you could construe “the dynasty from which Jesus would eventually come had origins in the distant past”.

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 18 2011,07:57)

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.

This statement flies in the face of the next statement:

Quote

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. .”.

So if Matthew 1:18 truly details the ORIGIN of Jesus, and “one cannot have 2 points of origin”, then Micah 5:2 couldn't possibly refer to the ORIGINS of Jesus as “his descent from the ancient Davidic family”, right?

Frank, don't you see how one point in your copied post works against the point you listed directly above it?

Fortunately for us we have the scriptures, which teach of being “born AGAIN“. So we know that we can have more than one point of origin. We have John speaking about our begetting as sons of God. I wonder if any of the Apostles, upon being begotten by God as part of the firstfruits said, “Sorry God, you cannot beget me as your son, because I have already had a point of origin before”.

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 18 2011,07:57)

Yet logically Jesus only comes into actual existence at the end of that line –his conception.

So then Jesus' existence before this was what? An “inactual existence”?

The rest of the post is just more of the same. It displays a person who doesn't WANT Jesus to have pre-existed his flesh twisting various scriptures in nonsensical ways.

I wonder if Micah 5:2 actually means exactly what it says? Do you think that could be, Frank? Could the God inspired words of Micah mean exactly what they say? Could it mean that the coming ruler of God's people actually originated a long time ago? Could that be why Jesus is both the Root AND the Branch of David? Could that be why Jesus explained to the Pharisees that the Messiah couldn't LITERALLY be the son of David in Matthew 22:41-46?

Something to think about Frank. Of course I know you will just bury your head in the sand, hide behind these copied words of people who obviously haven't thought this thing all the way through, and sling more insults at us.

November 19, 2011 at 3:50 pm#262690

Participant

Mike………Frank answered all your questions by what he presented, It not his fault if you and Your Co-hart cant understand what is presented and follow the logic there. So you after starting you usual games of “HE DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION AGAIN. And this is the way you and Pierre sling your insults at people , by trying to desperately belittle them but never answering what they post as fact or not , nor able to dispute what they are saying is true or not , just us ignorant insults to desperately try to justify your own ignorance. Produce your fact with scripture and Scholarship not stupid insults. Frank has produce his with Scholarship , just like Paladin has but you two tare down all understand of truth here to meet you dogmas . What Frank has said i also have told you way back about the different translations of the word For or By, If you can remember i told you they are translated over 70 different way and even Posted ALL OF THEM for you to SEE, But again you just ignored them Just as you have Franks Posting showing the same thing. Truth is you and Pierre have absolutely No desire for the truth of God at all, your pride is blocking both of you from seen the truth. But worse you are hindering others from growing into the truth and God will hold you both accountable IMO.

peace and love…………………………………………………………..gene

November 19, 2011 at 3:50 pm#262691

Blocked

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 18 2011,15:37)

I believe that Father Yahweh's word was manifest (MADE KNOWN or REVEALED) in the flesh THROUGH (BY WAY OF) His son Yahshua. I believe that Father Yahweh's son Yahshua is the spokesman of his and our Father Yahweh word in his last time period as Hebrews 1:1-2 makes perfectly clear. As this passage also makes clear, the prophets of old were the spokesmen of Father Yahweh's word before Yahshua came into existence (or was born) in this last time period. Yahshua later died and was raised from the dead by his and our Father Yahweh and became “the firstborn of all creation”.

Okay Frank,

If Jesus was the spokesman of God in these last days, and that means the Word of God was manifest through Jesus, then it also means that same Word of God was manifest through those who were God's spokesman in the former days, right?

So then Isaiah, David, Moses, and all the others were also “the Word of God” in their respective time periods on earth, right?

And all of these men also died, right? So what made the death of Jesus so special? Did God decide that out of all of these “Words of God”, that He would zero in on Jesus and only his death would heal us?

You need to read the parable of the tenants, Frank. Only after the owner sent many other representatives did He send His very own Son, thinking, “Surely they will listen to him“.

So what made Jesus “the one God set apart as His very own and sent into the world”? What made Jesus the SON that God sent into the world as atonement? Couldn't the same have been said of ALL the former prophets as well if your theory is correct?

You list Hebrews 1:1-2, but that passage clearly distinguishes Jesus from the prophets of old by calling him God's Son, and saying that the ages were created through him. How can the ages be created through someone who didn't exist until many ages had already been created? (Actually, “ages” refers to the universe, as is made clear by many other scriptures. So how could the universe be created through someone who didn't even exist?)

And finally, “firstborn of EVERY CREATURE” sensibly refers to the first creature ever brought forth into existence. And you apparently forget the part where Jesus is the firstborn of all creation BECAUSE all other things in heaven and on earth were subsequently created THROUGH him.

Frank, you are a victim of the great deceiver. The words of the scriptures are right there in front of you – and still you can't see. “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.” (Matthew 13:13)

November 19, 2011 at 3:58 pm#262692

Participant

Frank………..Good Job Brother , don't let the ignorance of these two discourage you brother, there both as blind as bats and have no true desire to learn the truth of God at all. Your work you are doing for the truth of God, is good and remember none of these brain washed TRINITARIANS WHO ARE ALSO PREEXISTENCES HAVE THE spirit OF truth in them or they could easily understand what you have posted IMO.

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

November 19, 2011 at 4:09 pm#262693

Blocked

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 19 2011,08:50)

Mike………Frank answered all your questions by what he presented……….

Frank is a coward, Gene. Just like you. Here, I'll PROVE it to you:

Frank quoted some dude named Fairchild, right? And YOU jumped on the bandwagon agreeing with everthing Fairchild wrote, because his writing told your itching ears what they wanted to hear, right?

Okay, Fairchild implied that “from ancient times” couldn't be referring to “before the world was” because other scriptures use similar wording to describe ancient things in the history of the world.

But I pointed out that the same wording that is used in Micah 5:2 to describe the origins of Jesus is used in Psalm 90:2 to describe the duration of Jehovah's existence.

So Fairchild's implication that it coudn't refer to “before the world was” has been solidly refuted by one simple scripture.

Gene, will YOU acknowledge what Frank was too cowardly to acknowledge? Will YOU acknowledge that Fairchild's implication was flawed? Or will you also show yourself to be a coward like Frank – spouting nonsensical fluff about how you're right, despite what the scriptures actually say about it?

You see Gene, that is why I rarely even address your posts anymore. You have proved yourself to be a parrot who only repeats things he's heard from others – never being able to defend or even fully explain those things. Frank is also like you in that manner. And I will eventually get to the point that I don't respond to him too. But right now, I'm having too much fun driving his lame claims into the dirt.

Gene, what about Psalm 90:2? Either comment about that point I made, or direct your comments to someone else. Because we've all grown very weary of your parrot comments around here.

Will you actually respond to my point about 90:2? I highly doubt it.

November 19, 2011 at 6:02 pm#262710

Participant

Mike……… Mike, there is hardly nothing Frank has said or posted I haven't said here time and time again for over 6 yrs here little man. And about itching ears your have then more then anyone here as has been proven many times here if Pierre or Irene or T8 say any thing that itches your ears you ju mp right in and agree with then also, so don't give us this itching ears stuff when you are the biggest person here who look to have his ears itched. Your biggest problem Mike is you slanderous MOUTH, i knew it was a mistake letting a NOVICE like YOU be a Monitor here in the first place .

My Question to T8 is why cant he see what your are doing Here, your simple cause offense and drive people off the site with you stupid and ignorant insults. time and time again.

You called me a Coward, O really I have PERSONALLY BEAT IN A REAL FIST FIGHT THE PERSON WHO STILL HOLDS THE WORLDS CONSECUTIVE HEAVY WAIT KNOCK OUT RECORD, 28 STRAIGHT KO'S, I'll bet you can't even name Him, here is a Hint he fought Mohammad Allie in Japan and Allie won on a split decision. Trust me little man I nor Frank is afraid of a little imp like you, not now or ever will be. IMO

GENE

November 20, 2011 at 1:25 am#262733

Blocked

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 19 2011,11:02)

My Question to T8 is why cant he see what your are doing Here, your simple cause offense and drive people off the site with you stupid and ignorant insults. time and time again.

GENE

Quote

Mike, there is hardly nothing Frank has said or posted I haven't said here time and time again for over 6 yrs here………..

That's what I said, Gene. You just keep saying the same thing time and time again for over 6 years. But you REFUSE to address our points that REFUTE the same things you've been saying for 6 years. Get it? That's why I called you a PARROT and a COWARD.

What about Ps 90:2 Gene? That was the ONLY point you needed to address here. But instead you chose to tell me how you can beat people up!

One of the few things my drug-addled brain remembers from my youth is my Dad telling me at a very young age, “Any idiot can fight. It takes a wise man to settle disputes non-violently.” So I guess that once again, my Dad knew what he was talking about, because your post proves that any idiot can fight.

Hey Gene, why not address the Ps 90:2 point that this NOVICE brought up to you? Or would you feel justified by beating me up physically because you CAN'T address my point? Maybe that would make you be “right” if you could kick my butt?

(Btw, my PROOF about you being a coward was that I KNEW you wouldn't address the 90:2 point. You have once again proved ME right.)

November 20, 2011 at 7:16 am#262745

Participant

Mike………… When you call a person a coward you don't even know that only show how Ignorant your are and if anyone is an Idiot here i is you and i well know it is better to settle a matter without violence but some times you do have to stand up for what you believe in even if it brings violence upon you, Your dad was indeed talking to a “drug-Addled brain “and a coward IMO, perhaps he was one too and never stood up for anything just run off at the mouth much like your do, not even knowing what he was inserting as truth. I suppose you think Jesus and the Apostles were cowards also when they stood up to ignorant people also. You called me a coward but you have not proven that at all by my word or deeds , Just a bunch of trash talk coming out of your fowl mouth. IMO

November 20, 2011 at 7:41 am#262748

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 20 2011,04:02)

Gene.

Would you be interested in a knockout title fight for the World Heaven Net Championship of the Word in Las Vegas? First KO wins. Could call it Rumble in the Desert or something similar.

November 20, 2011 at 8:30 am#262750

terraricca

Participant

Frank

Quote

Pierre,

I see that you can not communicate in the English language very well anyway, so you would be hard-pressed in understanding anyway.

I understand you are not Christ ,he came down from heaven to save us ,but you could not bend down to my level of English ,it must be because you are sitting on the high chair ??

Pierre

November 20, 2011 at 3:52 pm#262782

Blocked

Gene,

I see you have STILL not addressed Ps 90:2. It is for THAT reason I call you a coward. So why not prove me wrong by addressing my point?

Or, you could prove me right by refusing to address it like you have been.

The choice is yours, of course. But until you make the first choice, you'll continue to be a coward in my eyes – no matter how many people you can physically beat up.

November 20, 2011 at 4:33 pm#262786

Blocked

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 18 2011,16:55)

Following is an excerpt from Voy Wilks' study entitled: “YAHSHUA: DID HE PRE-EXIST? that I have on my web page at: http://frank4yahweh.tripod.com/ByAndThrough.html . If you are truly interested in what it is that we believe on this matter of Yahshua pre-existing his birth, I would suggest that you please go there and read the entire study article for a better understanding:

The Word “By”

Yahweh created the world “by” (through) the Son (Heb. 1:2 KJV). The Diaglott says Yahweh created the world “on account of” the Son. Any one of the three (“by,” “through,” or “on account of”) is, technically, a correct translation of the Greek word Di' or Dia. Dia is in the KJV translated several ways, but usually is translated as follows:

By – 243 times; through – 100 times; for – 106 times; because – 24 times; because of – 29 times; for the sake of – 32 times; etc.

The King's Men did not translate the WORD di' incorrectly in Heb. 1:2. By or through is a correct translation of the WORD, but ONLY IF THE MESSAGE in the sentence agrees, or allows it. But alas, in this case the message of the sentence will not allow this translation.

Reason #1. Heb 1:2a reveals Yahshua to be the heir of what was created.

Reason #2. More than 100 Scriptures show it was Yahweh (not Yahshua) who created the heavens and the earth. Heb. 1:2 must agree with the 100 other Scriptures. For a list of these see our paper, “Who Is the Creator?”

For these reasons, the sentence in Heb. 1:2b must have
originally read like the Diaglott reads today, Yahweh “… in the last of these days spoke to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, ON ACCOUNT OF whom also he constituted the ages; …”

Another acceptable translation would be, “… a Son, FOR whom he created the world.”

Many times the King James Version as well as more modern versions translate dia as “for,” “because of,” “therefore” (meaning “for this reason”). For a more detailed layout of the word di' (dia), ask for our paper, “Hebrews 1:2 – Berry.”

This is not to say the the King's Men purposely mistranslated, nor is this to say they were dishonest. Not at all. On the contrary, they no doubt delivered what they believed to be the correct translation of Heb. 1:2. We must realize, however, that all of the King's Men believed the doctrine of the Trinity (one is three, and three are one). Believing this, they saw no contradiction between this Scripture (as they translated it) and the 100 Scriptures which show that Yahweh the Father is truly and personally the Creator of the heaven and earth.

There are at least two other Scriptures in which di' should have been translated for, or on account of. These are Col. 1:16-17 and John 1:10. Let us review these Scriptures, then return to our study in the book of Hebrews.

Colossians 1:16,17

“For by him [Yahshua] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, … all things were created by him and for him” (Col. 1:16,17 KJV).

Just as in Heb. 1:2, di' can be translated for, and on account of, as well as by or through. As indicated above, either way is technically correct for this WORD. However, the MESSAGE in this text must decide which is the proper translation. The same is true of the Greek word en (= the English in).

Since Yahweh is the Creator (Heb. 3:4; Ex. 20:11; Mt. 21:33; Mk. 12:7; Lk. 20:14), and Yahshua is the heir, then Col. 1:16,17 SHOULD TELL THE SAME STORY. Dozens of Scriptures in both Testaments tell us plainly that Yahweh is the Creator, and there is no other El but but him. He alone is the only true El, Eloah, Elohim, and Creator.

Yahshua and the New Testament writers proved everything by Old Testament Scriptures, therefore New Testament Scriptures should (and originally did) agree with Old Testament Scriptures. The New Testament Scriptures are based on the older ones. This being true, it seems that a more exact reading of Col. 1:16,17, and one which is agreeable to the Greek text, is as follows:

“For in [en = in, to, unto, as well as by] him were all things created, that are in [en] heaven, and that are on earth, … all things were created on account of [di'] him and for him.”

“Jesus IS God!”?

I acknowledge the many meanings of “dia”. But your source leaves a couple unanswered points:

1. How was the original Garden of Eden created FOR Jesus, if he wasn't even around to enjoy it? How were dinosaurs created FOR Jesus if he didn't exist until they were extinct?

2. How does the word “FOR” work in 1 Cor 8:6, where Jesus is distinguished from the God “FOR whom we live”?

3. Your version of Col 1:16, “……all things were created on account of [di'] him and for him”, is redundant, seeing how “on account of” and “for” mean the same basic thing. Your source wisely points out that the message in the sentence must agree with the translation of the word “dia”. And saying that all things were created FOR Jesus and FOR Jesus doesn't seem like agreement with the spirit of the message to me.

If the word in the last part of 1:16 (eis) means “FOR Jesus”, then the word “dia” must have one of the other definitions, such as “by” or “through”. And since your source is correct that over 100 scriptures tell us that all things were created “by” Jehovah, we know that “by” is not the correct choice. Therefore, it must be “through”.

It cannot be “FOR”, because the sentence would be redundant and make no sense. It cannot be “BY”, because that would contradict many other scriptures. Therefore, it must be “THROUGH” in 1:16.

4. All of this can be solved with John 1:3. The words “without him nothing was made that has been made” solve the whole dilemma. But unfortunately, you non-preexisters have been blinded by the god of this world, and are unable to see that the ONLY choice for someone called “the Word” (Rev 19:13) who was with God in the beginning before emptying himself and becoming flesh, and dwelling amoung us with the glory of God's only begotten Son, is Jesus Christ.

Frank, what do these sources you copy have to say about John 1? How do they get around the fact that only one being in existence could fit the bill of “the Word” in 1:1?

November 20, 2011 at 8:56 pm#262810

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 20 2011,17:41)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 20 2011,04:02)

Gene.

Would you be interested in a knockout title fight for the World Heaven Net Championship of the Word in Las Vegas? First KO wins. Could call it Rumble in the Desert or something similar.

T8……….Now that is funny, i am old but i still think i could hold my own brother, specially with these light weights here.

peace and love to you and yours T8………………………………..gene

November 20, 2011 at 9:09 pm#262812

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 21 2011,01:52)

Gene,

I see you have STILL not addressed Ps 90:2. It is for THAT reason I call you a coward. So why not prove me wrong by addressing my point?

Or, you could prove me right by refusing to address it like you have been.

The choice is yours, of course. But until you make the first choice, you'll continue to be a coward in my eyes – no matter how many people you can physically beat up.

Mike………..So who care what fits your eyes, what make you trash talk anything.

Psa 90:2…..> Before the mountains were brought forth, or even you have formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting you are GOD

Whats to address that is a simple straight forward scripture Moses was speak to GOD , what is your prob;em with it. How does that make anyone a “COWARD”.?.

peace and love…………………………………………..gene

November 20, 2011 at 9:09 pm#262813

Participant

Ding ding. Bring it on.

:laugh:

November 21, 2011 at 12:47 am#262823

Blocked

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 20 2011,14:09)

Psa 90:2…..> Before the mountains were brought forth, or even you have formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting you are GOD

Whats to address that is a simple straight forward scripture Moses was speak to GOD , what is your prob;em with it. How does that make anyone a “COWARD”.?.

I'll tell you what, Mister Mouth:

Why don't you go back to the post by Frank where he quoted some dude named Fairchild. Look at what Fairchild says about the phrase “from ancient times” in Micah 5:2.

Then look at my responding post to Frank.

If that doesn't work, try looking at my first post to you where I called you a coward.

If you do any of those things Gene, then you'll actually know what it is your mouthing off about for once.

Do those things and get back to me when you know what point I'm even making about Ps 90:2, okay? THEN you'll be able to answer YOUR OWN questions.

November 21, 2011 at 10:00 am#262838

Participant

Let me speak clearly.

Jesus came from the Father and entered the world and then left the world to go back to the Father.

Who disagrees with this?

November 21, 2011 at 3:43 pm#262861

Ed J

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 20 2011,01:50)

Okay Frank,

So then Isaiah, David, Moses, and all the others were also “the Word of God” in their respective time periods on earth, right?

Hi Mike,

Once you've realized that “The Word” of God is the “HolySpirit',
then this problem disappears; right? (Note: I'm asking questions the way you do)

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

November 21, 2011 at 4:00 pm#262864

Participant

T8………..No one disputes that, Jesus had his “Origins” from the Father so do we, It was God's Plan to For Jesus from the beginning of creation, remember, from the seed of the woman would come one the would bruise the serpents head Notice he said FROM THE (SEED) OF THE WOMEN HE WOULD COME question T8 did he say from the seed of a preexistent state could come someone who would bruise the serpents head as you and the rest of the preexistences assume?

Also let consider this what Moses said ,

Deu 18:15….> The Lord thy God will raise up unto you a Prophet from the midst of you, OF or FROM thy brethren, like unto me; unto him shall you hearken;

Do you see the word a “preexisting being” of any kind there T8, i think not. But there is more T8 let see what God himself said.

Dut 18:17……> And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. verse18, I (God) will raise them up a PROPHET FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN, like unto (YOU) and He shall speak unto them all that I Shall command him. verse 19….> And it shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto (now notice T8) (MY WORDS) which he shall speak in (MY) name I shall require it of him.

T8 did you notice (MY WORDS) in (MY NAME). Also did you notice where he would come from “from among their brethren” , but you say from some where else He came, but God said he would raise him up from among his brethren and God said he would be the seed of a women , but you say no, from a preexisting (SEED) why does not scripture agree with you on that T8, where o where is there (ANY) scripture the says Jesus was a “preexisting” being of any kind Just one scripture will suffice,

What is interesting to me is how you people blow these scriptures away like the simply do not exist in our bibles. None of these scripturs show a tie in to any preexisting being. So you people move to the New testament and find scriptures that can be taken all kinds of way and try to make a your case from them While all the time ignoring the old testaments words. But yet Paul said we need to look at the OLD TESTAMENT to see if what was being said was true or not, but you people ignore it altogether in favor of translations produced by Trinitarians who are preexistences just like yourselves. IMO

peace and love to you and yours T8……………………………………………gene

November 21, 2011 at 8:36 pm#262902