Preexistence

[kejonn]

Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 11 2007,17:52)

Kejonn; Grace to you and peace be multiplied from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. You shouldn't let the word incarnation annoy you. You might like the word dwell or live in, that's fine, it's the same concept, Christ in us as God is in Christ. This has been promised in the scriptures for thousands of years. There is actually a very well known passage of scripture in Ezekiel about God promising to take out their hearts of stone and to put in a heart of flesh. According to Paul in Hebrews this was the New Covenant in Christ Jesus. He also said I will put me spirit in them and I will be their God and they shall be my people. The new covenant with the house of Israel is to those who believe in Jesus Christ. There's also a hint in Exodus 22:8 where God said Let them make a tabernacle that I may dwell among them. Its all about God incarnating himself in those who believe. Paul's writing are filled with God inhabiting the believer. Jesus himself said that as the Father is in him and he in the Father, that he and the Father would be in us. There's no Greek or Plato reasoning here. Steven

So how does this have anything to do with pre-existence?

[david]

Quote

I have studied this idea that Jesus was the preexistent Michael; then was transported into Mary to grow in her womb un-naturally (in othe words, what was in Mary did not fuse with her DNA as in a “normal” conception); then lived a human life under the name Jesus; then was transformed again into Micheal. David, there is little scriptural evidence that this is true. You really have to cut-and-paste to make this doctrine come to life. Trust me, I have tried. I wanted to believe it! I wanted to become a JW. I think their body of believer's are wonderful people. But I couldnt' get past the fact that when this topic came up — there was little scripture to support it.

Meet me in that thread if you wish. A few have been started on that exact subject. But please stick to this subject.

You next say:

Quote

So, no, I don't believe that God would give his Son to have a divine human life, and then when he is resurrected change him into something *other* than what he was before. . . .He wasn't Michael the Angel.

Apparently, you disbelieve me because I believe Michael is Jesus. Your reasoning isn't sound here. You cannot base your disbelief on pre-existence on the fact that I believe it and I also believe something else you don't believe. You are confusing the two. I would love to actually discuss this other topic with you.

““But the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way. During the time his mother Mary was promised in marriage to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant by holy spirit before they were united.” (Mt 1:18)

Again, not a normal birth. So why do you demand that it had to happen in the “normal order” and that God would be leaving his own order to make this happen?

[kejonn]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 11 2007,17:32)

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 11 2007,23:15) See above. (1) Yeshua was born of the Holy Spirit and woman, making him “monogenes”. (2) He completely and utterly overcame sin and then died while still perfect for those who were not perfect. Can you name another who these things can be said of? Hi kejonn. I agree with this. But the way you are applying it to your doctrine, leads me to think that Yeshua wouldn't have been necessary had Adam been faithful. And again the verses that talk of God creating the universe through him and for him, were obviously referring to Yeshua or the plan as you believe, but before Adam was created. That doesn't make sense. So let's recap what you are saying: God has a plan. The plan revolves around a future being called Yeshua who would be born through a woman, as a man. God creates all the angels and universe with this plan in mind. God then creates Adam for some reason. Adam fails. He then produces the second Adam to replace the first. The being that he created all for in the first place, rendering Adams creation as some what of a mystery. Yeshua dies for humanity, and then is taken up to heaven for the first time ever. He is now seated at God's right hand side and interceeding for us. So why oh why does God create Adam? What is the point? If Adam hadn't sinned, then Yeshua would be necessary if he is only really the replacement for the first Adam. Now let's look at the other view being held here in this discussion, which I think has a lot of scriptural support. In the beginning is the Logos, who is Yeshua (pre-existent). God creates everything, through him and for him, so he is in effect the first over all creation and all creation comes from him. So all created things are those things that are made by God, but through Yeshua and for Yeshua. Adam, the first man is then created in the image of God. i.e., God created Adam for Yeshua and through him. The intention for Adam was to be fruitful and multiply, but God tested him because Adam was a being with free will and love exists only where free will is. Instead, Adam fails and brings sin into the world. God sends a redeemer, (the Logos that was with God in the beginning, becomes flesh) and destroys the works of the Devil in humanity including death as the last enemy. He becomes the second Adam, and his works cover the sins of all humanity past, present, and future. He reverses the effect of Adam's failings. Yeshua then returns to the glory that he had before with the Father. In other words he came from on high, humbled himself to take on flesh to be lower than the angels, and emptied himself of any advantage from his previous nature, to partake in flesh nature. In other words God creates all things for Yeshua, and then God redeems his creation through Yeshua, the supreme sacrifice, but a necessary one because only he can do it. So Yeshua is in heaven now. But if Adam had been fruitful and multiplied, then would Adam be in heaven now? Or was it that the son of God (Adam) failed, so God created a superior son of God, who is worthy to be seated in heavenly places, whereas Adam was from the earth. The point of all this kejonn, is that we know that Yeshua is greater than Adam. No one argues that as far as I know. Yet you seem to imply that both beings were sons of God which is true, but that Yeshua was greater because of his faithfulness, and this preeminence has nothing to do with Yeshua being the first or being with God in the beginning before creation. But Yeshua is not greater because of his faithfulness alone, he is also greater because of his inheritence and his name and I would say from his previous state from which he humbled himself from. Can it be said of Adam that he humbled himself to become a man? Did Adam empty himself and not consider equality with God as something to be grasped? Did Adam exist with divine nature or in the form of God before partaking of flesh?

All of this is based on the presumption that (a) Logos is Yeshua as some sentient, pre-existent being and (b) you throw the Old Testament away where no such being was ever mentioned.

In the OT, YHWH said He created all things by Himself – alone. He did not say He created all things with a lesser being as His helper. That is what you are implying. You do this based on NT scripture, but you don't realize that taking one voids the other and introduces a conflict. That is why I must agree with WJ — if you believe in pre-existence, then the trinity is the only viable way to resolve the dilemma. The trinity says the Son is YHWH as is the Father. Therefore, when they see YHWH saying created all things by Himself and alone, there is no conflict because the trinity is the unity of 3 persons in YHWH.

However, if you realize that Yeshua was the firstborn from the dead, AND the firstborn of creation, and couple this with Yeshua saying he was going to prepare a place for us (John 14:2-3), then you realize that the NT speaks of a new creation. Thus when you see the various verses where Yeshua is involved with creation, you understand it is the new creation, not the original one spoken of in Genesis.

The context of the new creation is found in Colossians 1 and finds a focal point in 1:18

Col 1:18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

Break this verse down. Head of the Church — new. Firstborn from the dead — new. Then notice how “firstborn from the dead” is coupled with “He is the beginning”. Thus the beginning of the new creation is Christ's resurrection! Are we also not part of the new creation?

2Co 5:17 (ESV) Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

“The old has passed away, the new has come”. Where else do we find that?

Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.

Put it together t8. We are a new creation, the old has passed away. The new heaven and new earth will come because the first earth will pass away. And are we not also the bride of Christ? The look further

Rev 21:2 (ESV) And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

And here's more!

Rev 21:5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

LG&LP,
Kevin

[Proclaimer]

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 12 2007,15:43)

All of this is based on the presumption that (a) Logos is Yeshua as some sentient, pre-existent being and (b) you throw the Old Testament away where no such being was ever mentioned.

No it actually isn't.

If that were the only scripture or reference then that would be way to terse for me.

No there are quite a number of scriptures that talk about Yeshua's past. I noted some of them in posts in the last few pages and I noticed that you didn't talk about them.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 12 2007,15:43)

In the OT, YHWH said He created all things by Himself – alone. He did not say He created all things with a lesser being as His helper. That is what you are implying. You do this based on NT scripture, but you don't realize that taking one voids the other and introduces a conflict. That is why I must agree with WJ — if you believe in pre-existence, then the trinity is the only viable way to resolve the dilemma. The trinity says the Son is YHWH as is the Father. Therefore, when they see YHWH saying created all things by Himself and alone, there is no conflict because the trinity is the unity of 3 persons in YHWH.

Hi kejonn.

God created all things for Yeshua and through him.

Yeshua said that he never did anything that he didn't see his Father doing and only spoke what his Father spoke.

I think the conflict is in your own head kejonn.

Yeshua even said that no one is good except God.

He was saying that even his goodness comes from God.

He is the image of God after all.

Certainly with this understanding it is easy to see that God created all things and he did it for Yeshua. That is the love that God has for him.

Who would say that Yeshua wasn't good? Yet, Yeshua says that his goodness is from his Father and not of himself. So taking this into consideration, how can Yeshua create anything that wasn't really from his Father?

The Father is the one true God. He is the one true creator. He is the one true source all all good. He is the Father of spirits and lights. Yeshua is his image and is the source of nothing that comes from God.

And your talk of the Trinity being the only argument that works for Yeshua being before Abraham. This only strengthens their false argument and you are creating the opposite of what you are trying to achieve.

Your mind is confined to Yeshua being God if he preexisted. And that is why you sell yourself short. You have set the rules and not even scripture so it seems will talk you out of your rules.

If this is indeed your attitude, then you are the same as the Trinitarians. You have a predefined template for scripture to fit into. Until you destroy the template, scripture will only say what you want it to say.

Now if you were open minded as I thought you were and concluded from scripture something, then I would think that there was merit to that. But believing something to deny the opposition any victory is like killing all the suspects in a murder trial in order to get the right one.

You seem more interested in putting the Trinity away than what scripture is actually saying. If this is indeed your attitude, then you will also be led to believe something other than the truth.

The truth is for those who love it that much that they would die for it and would suffer for it and even be misunderstood for it.

But people use scripture for all kinds of political means. Even the KKK use scripture for their agenda. Why sell yourself short? Would it not be better to just let scripture say what it is saying and then put the pieces together to form the picture. Even if it takes your life time to comprehend, is that not better than using scripture for your own desires and ends?

If a man has a predefined belief, then if he is noble, he would let scripture show him otherwise if indeed scripture did say otherwise. But all too often I meet people who come here and they just cannot throw away their agendas. Their pride is too strong and they will hold onto their belief till the bitter end.

I am careful to not fall for this trap and everything I believe is challengeable. But I have told you clearly why I and others believe the way we do and to date, no one has given a good explanation as to why we should walk away from what these scriptures are saying. I could easily be convinced if the verses were fraudulent or mistranslated, but there has to be convincing evidence.

No one who loves the truth will depart from what scripture is saying unless it can be proven that it isn't scripture or the translation is misleading.

I am sure you can understand these reasons.

[Proclaimer]

kejonn.

Now about your firstborn argument.

Can I ask you, who is the first born of God's creation?
I am talking about the first person to be beside God.

Who was the first that came into existence excluding God?

[kejonn]

t8,

You have yet to address this verse:

Isa 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone,

Now compare that with the NT

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him.

Let me know how these two verse do not conflict each other if your belief is that Yeshua is a pre-existent sentient being.

[kejonn]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 12 2007,03:46)

kejonn. Now about your firstborn argument. Can I ask you, who is the first born of God's creation? I am talking about the first person to be beside God. Who was the first that came into existence excluding God?

2 things: firstborn can denote preeminence. God called Israel His firstborn. But if you are speaking of what being was created next, it was likely the angels. Man was the last to be created. All created though, and not born. Created born.

According to Genesis 1, animals were made before Adam…

[kejonn]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 12 2007,03:24)

Hi kejonn. God created all things for Yeshua and through him. Yeshua said that he never did anything that he didn't see his Father doing and only spoke what his Father spoke. I think the conflict is in your own head kejonn.

No, conflict lies in scripture IF you believe in pre-existence as a sentient being. See my last post.

Quote

Yeshua even said that no one is good except God. He was saying that even his goodness comes from God. He is the image of God after all. Certainly with this understanding it is easy to see that God created all things and he did it for Yeshua. That is the love that God has for him.

What about “by him”? Its in scripture. Unless you can note “I go to prepare a place for you”.

Quote

Who would say that Yeshua wasn't good? Yet, Yeshua says that his goodness is from his Father and not of himself. So taking this into consideration, how can Yeshua create anything that wasn't really from his Father?

How could he have created anything at all when YHWH said He created all things by Himself and alone?

Quote

The Father is the one true God. He is the one true creator. He is the one true source all all good. He is the Father of spirits and lights. Yeshua is his image and is the source of nothing that comes from God. And your talk of the Trinity being the only argument that works for Yeshua being before Abraham. This only strengthens their false argument and you are creating the opposite of what you are trying to achieve.

Nope. You unwittingly are strengthening their argument by believing in a pre-existent sentient being. If you take that belief and then read OT and NT scripture with that belief, you either have conflicts or you move towards either a trinitarian or modalist theology.

Quote

Your mind is confined to Yeshua being God if he preexisted. And that is why you sell yourself short. You have set the rules and not even scripture so it seems will talk you out of your rules.

Where does scripture say he is anything else besides the Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah? All of those were said of him while he walked the earth and after, not before. But it also calls him “theos” which I can understand in light of the times (1st century). But when you throw pre-existence into the mix…

Quote

If this is indeed your attitude, then you are the same as the Trinitarians. You have a predefined template for scripture to fit into. Until you destroy the template, scripture will only say what you want it to say.

Yes, I do have a predefined template. Its called “matching the OT with the NT”. The Bible was written by Hebrew people. All 66 books. Pre-existence does not exist in all of the OT, why would it all of a sudden change in the NT? Unless the idea came after through people such as Justin Martyr (a Gentile with no understanding of Jews, but a disciple of Socrates and Plato).

Seek a Hebrew mind t8, not a Greek philosophical mind. That is why people are doing themselves a grave injustice by not studying the Tanakh.

Quote

Now if you were open minded as I thought you were and concluded from scripture something, then I would think that there was merit to that. But believing something to deny the opposition any victory is like killing all the suspects in a murder trial in order to get the right one. You seem more interested in putting the Trinity away than what scripture is actually saying. If this is indeed your attitude, then you will also be led to believe something other than the truth. The truth is for those who love it that much that they would die for it and would suffer for it and even be misunderstood for it. But people use scripture for all kinds of political means. Even the KKK use scripture for their agenda. Why sell yourself short? Would it not be better to just let scripture say what it is saying and then put the pieces together to form the picture. Even if it takes your life time to comprehend, is that not better than using scripture for your own desires and ends? If a man has a predefined belief, then if he is noble, he would let scripture show him otherwise if indeed scripture did say otherwise. But all too often I meet people who come here and they just cannot throw away their agendas. Their pride is too strong and they will hold onto their belief till the bitter end. I am careful to not fall for this trap and everything I believe is challengeable. But I have told you clearly why I and others believe the way we do and to date, no one has given a good explanation as to why we should walk away from what these scriptures are saying. I could easily be convinced if the verses were fraudulent or mistranslated, but there has to be convincing evidence. No one who loves the truth will depart from what scripture is saying unless it can be proven that it isn't scripture or the translation is misleading. I am sure you can understand these reasons.

I would challenge you to study Jews. Study the Torah, the Tanakh. Stay away from early fathers and other Gentiles. Try to understand the God of Israel and the very Jewish Messiah. It will open your eyes.

[kejonn]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 12 2007,03:07)

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 12 2007,15:43) All of this is based on the presumption that (a) Logos is Yeshua as some sentient, pre-existent being and (b) you throw the Old Testament away where no such being was ever mentioned. No it actually isn't. If that were the only scripture or reference then that would be way to terse for me. No there are quite a number of scriptures that talk about Yeshua's past. I noted some of them in posts in the last few pages and I noticed that you didn't talk about them.

Which ones? I may have missed them, but I will address them if listed again. Or at least point to the post(s).

[kejonn]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 11 2007,17:52)

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 11 2007,23:15) Where do you see anywhere in the Bible anything remotely like “and he shall be called the Son of God because he was brought forth from the Father”? Luke 1:35 tells us why he is the Son of God. Hi kejonn. I don't say that scripture specifically says that Yeshua was the son of God before being born through Mary. Although that doesn't mean that he wasn't a son. But I won't argue that, as it isn't specifically written. He was the Logos that was with God, that much we know. John 1:1-3 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Ah, the prologue to John. Every group claims it as their own, and there seems to be three prevailing views:

• Trinitarian – the “logos” is Yeshua, the “logos” is God, therefore Yeshua is God.
• Arian – the “logos” is Yeshua, the “logos” is a god or divine, therefore Yeshua existed with God as a sentient being in the beginning
• Unitarian – the “logos” was what it was everywhere else in scripture; that is “logos” here, as elsewhere was an utterance, reason, or an expression. God spoke and it came to be. God provided his prophets with his “word” (“logos” in the Septuagint) and those prophecies came to pass. Thus the prophecies given to man about the promised Messiah came to be in the person of Yeshua. Therefore, the “logos” was not Yeshua.

At this point, all of scripture taken in context leads to the Unitarian stance IMHO. While you do not prefer labels, it is helpful to know where your theology falls, and that is indeed with Arianism. JWs are perhaps the best example of modern day Arians.

Now stop and remember why the Gospel of John was written. The writer tells us at the end of ch 20

Joh 20:31  but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

Irenaeus said this about the Gospel of John in Against Heresies.
BOOK III. , Chap. XI — Proofs in Continuation, Extracted from St. John’s Gospel. The Gospels Are Four in Number, Neither More Nor Less. Mystic Reasons for This.

John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that “knowledge” falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father of the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another, who also continued impossible, descending upon Jesus, the Son of the Creator, and flew back again into His Pleroma; and that Monogenes was the beginning, but Logos was the true son of Monogenes; and that this creation to which we belong was not made by the primary God, but by some power lying far below Him, and shut off from communion with the things invisible and ineffable. The disciple of the Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and to establish the rule of truth in the Church, that there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.

Cerinthus was an early Gnostic. The Gnostics were heavy into Greek philosophy and extensively made use of “logos”, “monogenes”, etc. That is why the prologue to John’s Gospel is unlike the Synoptics. It appears to be a refutation to early Gnostic “heresies” that said “logos” was the evil God of the OT and Christ (not Yeshua, but Christ – Yeshua was the mortal man inhabited by the Christ) was the “aeon” sent to destroy this evil “logos” of the OT. Thus, GoJ starts out with the bold statements that “logos” is God and that it was “logos” who created the world, but also that “logos” was also the Father of “monogenes”. Also, as John 20:31 so beautifully summarizes, all that was written in GoJ was to prove that Jesus IS the Christ, and not that Jesus was inhabited by the Christ for a time and then fled when the mortal man Jesus was suffering and dying on the tree at Calvary.

Quote

His origins are from ancient times. Micah 5:2 “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.”

I have previously addressed this verse. The word used for “origins” here is “mowtsa'ah” and it is used only one other time in the OT (2 kin 10:27). The other time it is translated as “draught house” in the KJV, “latrine” in modern versions. But its other meaning, according to Strong’s is “family descent”. This is how the CEV renders it:

Mic 5:2(CEV)  Bethlehem Ephrath, you are one of the smallest towns in the nation of Judah. But the LORD will choose one of your people to rule the nation– someone whose family goes back to ancient times.

All one has to do is check out the genealogy listed in Luke to figure out the truth in that one! Here is the last part of his listed family line

Luk 3:38  the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Seems his family tree goes back to the first man, therefore making his “origins” from “ancient times” wouldn’t you say?

Quote

He was before Abraham John 8:58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

Covered this one as well. The Messiah was promised long before Abraham came along and was then promised again directly to Abraham. Therefore, he certainly existed in the plan for the redemption of mankind.

Joh 5:39  “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

Quote

He also accompanied the Iraelites. 1 Corinthians 10:4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

Where do you see Yeshua here? All I see is “Christ”, which means “anointed one”. When you see “Jesus Christ” it is “Jesus the anointed one”.  Here is the rock that the children of Israel drank from:

Exo 17:6  “Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, that the people may drink.” And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

Num 20:11  Then Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation and their beasts drank.

Neh 9:15  “You provided bread from heaven for them for their hunger, You brought forth water from a rock for them for their thirst, And You told them to enter in order to possess The land which You swore to give them.

In each case, it was a physical rock. Are you saying that Yeshua inhabited the rock and provided the water?

Finally, what was the Messiah, the Christ, to be to the people of Israel? A deliverer, a savior. Were the people not saved from dying of thirst by drinking the water from the rock? Were they not delivered from death? Does not our Savior deliver us from death and bring us to life? What does Yeshua say:

Joh 4:14  but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”

Joh 7:38  “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'”

We are looking at an analogous relationship here, an allegory. The rock provide the children of Israel with physical water to be saved from physical death, Yeshua provides us with living water to be saved from spiritual death. It is a beautiful message you miss if all you see is Yeshua living inside of a rock. Did the rock tumble after the children everywhere they went?

Quote

He is the root of David and offspring Revelation 22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

He is both descended from David (see genealogies) and David’s Lord. Yeshua can be the root because the Messianic prophecies are rooted in him, and David was included in these prophecies. Yeshua is the King of kings.

Quote

He was before John, yet John was older than the human Yeshua. John 1:15 15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' “

“Before” here is “protos”. It is used many times to describe things of precedence. The first (“protos”) commandment was not actually “Love God” but it is the commandment of precedence (Mat 22:38). In Mat 20:27, “protos” is rendered “chief”, and that does not imply “before”. Thus, the idea here in John 1:15 is that Yeshua is much greater than JTB, and Yeshua says as much

Mat 11:11  “Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Quote

God is glorified through Yeshua, now and into the future, as well as before all the ages. Jude 1:25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

How does this show pre-existence? This is directly to God. Are you coupling “before all ages” with “Jesus Christ our Lord”?  Not good English. How about

(ESV)  to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

(ISV)  to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority before all time and for all eternity! Amen.

(NASB)  to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

(CEV, 24-25) Offer praise to God our Savior because of our Lord Jesus Christ! Only God can keep you from falling and make you pure and joyful in his glorious presence. Before time began and now and forevermore, God is worthy of glory, honor, power, and authority. Amen.

Quote

We can speculate about this and that, but until someone comes up with good reasons as to not believing what the above texts are saying, then why should I depart from that which is written?

See above.

[kejonn]

Hi all,

More evidence that Yeshua did not pre-exist his birth as an angel or God.

Deu 18:15  “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers–it is to him you shall listen–

Act 3:22  Moses said, 'The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you.

How could Yeshua be a prophet like Moses if he was an incarnate angel or God? Will you then say that Moses was also an incarnate spiritual being?

Gen 22:18  and in your [Abraham's] offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.

How can Yeshua truly be Abraham's offspring if he was merely placed in Mary's womb to incubate? Next…

2Sa 7:12  When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.
2Sa 7:13  He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
2Sa 7:14  I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men,

Heb 1:5  For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?

How can a pre-existent being come from the body of King David? Or is the Bible merely speaking of the flesh tent that the incarnate spiritual being resided in? Is your flesh tent really who you are? Are we all incarnate pre-existent beings, waiting for our time to come to earth to inhabit a flesh tent? If we are identified by our flesh tent, what happens when it goes to the ground? Do we lose our identity?

But Yeshua is called the “firstborn of all creation” in Col 1:15, so that means he is the very first one born of all creation, right? Nope! Lets look deeper

Gen 48:14  But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh's head, crossing his hands, although Manasseh was the firstborn.
Gen 48:15  He blessed Joseph, and said, “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, The God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day,
Gen 48:16  The angel who has redeemed me from all evil, Bless the lads; And may my name live on in them, And the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; And may they grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.”
Gen 48:17  When Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on Ephraim's head, it displeased him; and he grasped his father's hand to remove it from Ephraim's head to Manasseh's head.
Gen 48:18  Joseph said to his father, “Not so, my father, for this one [Manasseh] is the firstborn. Place your right hand on his head.”
Gen 48:19  But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know; he also will become a people and he also will be great. However, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations.”

Jer 31:9  “With weeping they will come, And by supplication I will lead them; I will make them walk by streams of waters, On a straight path in which they will not stumble; For I am a father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn.”

What do we see here? Manasseh was the firstborn by birth, but Ephraim was appointed as firstborn by God! So it has more to do with birthright than the order of birth. It is about rank and preeminence. What else do we find?

Psa 89:27  “I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.

If Yeshua was the firstborn because of ancient existence, why would God say “I also shall make him My firstborn”? Would he not already be firstborn?

LG&LP,
Kevin

[PatBiglane]

For years, the I AM statement made by Jesus John 8:58 puzzled me. Those who believed in Pre-existence and/or the Trinity seemed forthright in their explanation of Jesus' existence before Abraham when cross-referencing Exodus 3:14.

Having taken some time and thought with this subject, the meaning of Jesus' statement is much clearer to me now. Recently, I've come across an excellent post on the website: http://www.kingdomready.org (blog topic: “Is Jesus the I AM”? by Sean) In this post, he goes into some translational considerations of the words I AM in these two sections of scripture with great clarity. Because Sean did such an excellent job in this aspect of the study, I'd like to defer you to his blog/notes for the important translational considerations of this topic. In the meantime I'd like to share my notes concerning the textual considerations.

Is I AM another name for God? Exodus 3: 13-15

“…Now they may say to me (Moses), 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM; and He said, “thus shall you say to the Sons of Israel, 'I AM sent me to you.' God furthermore said to Moses, 'Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ''the LORD [Yahweh], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and of Jacob, has sent me to you”. This is my name forever, and this is my memorial name to all generations.”

It seems apparent to me that God uses the verb to be, I AM, not as the designation of His name (which is recorded as YHWH in verse 15), but as a title that draws emphasis to His being.

Once again, in reading the text, it appears that God does not give a direct answer to Moses when he asks what His name is. Rather, God makes “I AM”, a descriptive title associated with His name Yahweh (mentioned later in verse 15).

The Lamsa translation of this verse (from the Peshitta text of the Aramaic Language) is quite interesting. It reads in verse 14:

“And God said to Moses, I am AHIAH ASHAR HIGH (that is, THE LIVING GOD); and he said, Thus shall you say to the children of Israel: AHIAH has sent me to you.”

In view of having been in idolatry- and the ensuing bondage thereof – for over 400 years, I find it quite interesting that God would reveal Himself in this manner. No doubt, the Israelites had learned to take refuge in other gods, that is, dead ones made by somebody's hands; but now, here's a god who claims to an uncreated, Living God.

lContextual Considerations of John 8:58: Why Jesus is not claiming deity.

Nowhere in the verses leading up to v.58 of the eighth chapter of John is Jesus trying to prove He is God; nor does he make any inferences to his being pre-existent to Abraham. In the immediate context of verse 56, he makes a statement in regards to Abraham that is just the opposite of pre-existence, saying: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, [future tense] and he saw it and was glad.”

Jesus is primarily engaged in convincing his audience that he is the Son of God, and that if they continued in his word, blessings would follow; and if they rejected him, damnation.

The words I AM, are translated from the Greek, ego eimi. These exact same words are translated: “I am he”, in verses 24 and 28 of this 8th chapter of John. [Also translated, “I am the one” in John 9:9. (This latter reference was spoken by the guy who was born blind.)] Although these Greek words are a translation of the present tense of the verb to be , “I am” in the Greek, the context determines
the appropiate rendering. CONT'D

[kejonn]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 10 2007,16:22)

To Gene. Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 10 2007,14:22) t8…..> you are not seperating Christ from Jesus, they do not always have the same meaning the Christos in the Spirit of God that Jesus was annoited with. This was the Father in Him, Not Him the person Jesus. Just like Us the Spirit of God in us is Not Us it is God in us. Jesus plainly said it was the Father in HIM that was Doing the work. Jesus wasn't God's Spirit in a flesh shell. Jesus is a person who had the Spirit of God and a body of flesh. Similarly I have a body of flesh and I should have the Spirit inside me. Now I can be lead by the Spirit or the flesh, yet I am neither, exclusively.

But what of your own spirit? Did Yeshua have his own spirit? You say a body of flesh but the spirit of God…this implies he did not have his own spirit. So are you also implying that when we are reborn, our spirit is replaced by the Holy Spirit?

[kejonn]

Hi Not3in1,

I have looked over your recent posts in this thread and I can find little disagreement with them. Thus far, what you have written fairly reflects what I have been shown in scripture. To state that Yeshua was simply a normal man as any other overlooks his virgin birth. In that, there is no comparison.

Yet in some odd way, our rebirth is much akin to his virgin birth. Whereas he was born of the Holy Spirit and Mary by the power of God, we are reborn of the Holy Spirit and water baptism (“the water of the womb”) by the power of God. It is like saying what Yeshua had at birth, we have upon rebirth.

Does that mean that I believe water baptism is essential to salvation? No, and yes. No, in that if one accepts Christ and passes away through an accident or whatever before they are given the opportunity to be baptized, then they are still saved. But yes, if one just refuses to get baptised. It is, after all, an act of obedience. If one refuses to obey one simple thing such as baptism, can they truly claim salvation? What, are they scared of water?

Back on subject, I think Yeshua's birth shows us that he was born with a greater affinity towards things of the Spirit, and was able to resist sin to a greater capacity. That is why we are given the Holy Spirit. In theory, we too have the same capacity through the indwelling of the Spirit to overcome as Yeshua did! We are a new creation as he is is the firstborn of that creation.

When the book of Hebrews say he was made like us in all respects, it is assumed that the book is read by Christians. That is, those who have the indwelling Spirit. Therefore, he was like us in all ways as we are after our rebirth into the Spirit. What he had from birth is what we have at rebirth.

Why else did Yeshua say he must go so that the Helper, the Comforter, the Holy Spirit would come? Notice that the baptism by the Holy Spirit did not happen until after Yeshua ascended. What dwelled in him is now available to all who would believe!

That's my $0.02. I hope I don't get any change back

[Mr. Steve]

Quote

You have yet to address this verse: Isa 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone, Now compare that with the NT Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him. Let me know how these two verse do not conflict each other if your belief is that Yeshua is a pre-existent sentient being.

Kejonn;

Where did Jesus say he received his power? From the Father. Indeed, he lives by the Father. So if God gave Christ the power to create and then Christ created accordingly, by whose power alone was the earth created?

Jesus said he was uttering mysteries that were kept hidden from the foundation of the world. Paul said that God kept the mystery of Christ hid. Jesus even hid the fact that he was going to die from his own disciples until the right time. Jesus even spake in parables so that those who sought the truth would find it and not those which were corrupt.

The Jews were divided as to where the Messiah would be born. The disciples believed that Christ kingdom was here on earth and were willing to fight for him when he was apprehended. His own disciples were scolded by Jesus for their lack of understanding.

Steven

[Mr. Steve]

Quote

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 12 2007,03:24) Hi kejonn. God created all things for Yeshua and through him. Yeshua said that he never did anything that he didn't see his Father doing and only spoke what his Father spoke. I think the conflict is in your own head kejonn.

Amen

[Mr. Steve]

Quote

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 12 2007,03:24) Hi kejonn. God created all things for Yeshua and through him. Yeshua said that he never did anything that he didn't see his Father doing and only spoke what his Father spoke. I think the conflict is in your own head kejonn. No, conflict lies in scripture IF you believe in pre-existence as a sentient being. See my last post. Quote (t8 @ Oct. 12 2007,03:24) Hi kejonn. God created all things for Yeshua and through him. Yeshua said that he never did anything that he didn't see his Father doing and only spoke what his Father spoke. I think the conflict is in your own head kejonn. No, conflict lies in scripture IF you believe in pre-existence as a sentient being. See my last post.

In the gospel of John the disciples come to Jesus and ask him what they can do to work the works of God. Jesus response was to believe in him whom he hath sent. Then he goes into a lengthy discourse about how he is the bread of God that came down from heaven sent by God. This very long passage of scripture makes clear where Christ came from and who sent him down from heaven. Jesus states he came down from heaven five times in this passage. He doesn't say the Holy Spirit came down from heaven even though that was true, too. His focus here is where he came from. Then he concludes by stating what and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before. Jesus could not have made it clearer that he was in heaven with God before coming to earth as the Son of God. He was speaking as the Son of God and makes no indication that he was something else prior in heaven. He says he was in heaven before. So who is “he”? He says it over and over, the Father sent me, that makes him his Son.

What is so incredible about this passage is that it was in response to the disciples asking how they could do the works of God. Jesus doesn't say pray and fast or go into the whole world and preach here. He says to believe in him whom he hath sent. Why is this so important? Because if you do not know who Jesus is, and believe who he said he was, and where he said he was from, there's nothing you can do to please God until you do.

With that in mind if you do not believe that Christ was the Son of God prior to coming to earth, you don't believe the scriptures.

In the third chapter of John's gospel, John the Baptist, talks to his disciples about Jesus. In verse 31 he says he that cometh from above is above all. Not just from above but from heaven. He said what Jesus has seen and heard Jesus is testifying. He says for he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God and is above all. He says God gave not the Spirit by measure unto him. Then he says that the Father loveth the Son. So we know that John is referring to Christ as the Son of God. He concludes by saying if you believe on the Son you have everlasting life but if you don't the wrath of God abides on you.

There are numerous truths that John the Baptist states that are all mirrored in the teachings of Christ. He is from heaven, meaning, he was there prior. He was sent from God, meaning, he was with God prior. He is God's Son, also meaning, God is his Father. He is above all, meaning he is second only to him who sent him (Jesus said the Father was greater than himself).

So if Jesus Christ is above all (second only to his Father) in heaven from the beginning, how can anyone conclude that he may have been only an angel, a spirit, a word or power, or a sentient being? In many cases I hope it's a lack of truly understanding. But in other cases, it's because of what Jesus said, he that believeth not. It's called unbelief. Because some just want to believe what they want to believe regardless of what Jesus says, of John the Baptist says, or anyone else.

It's also amazing the efforts that some will expend to refute what Christ says and claim to believe what he says at the same time.

This passage of John the Baptist is very clear and succinct. I believe Christ is the Son of God and is above all and was with God in heaven prior to being sent down from the Father for our salvation.

If we don't have this truth right, how can we testify that we believe in him whom he hath sent.

Steven

[Mr. Steve]

Hey Gang:

It's also interesting to note that when anyone in scripture said that Jesus was the Son of God, they always would say “the Son of God”, not just a Son of God. He is the one that is above all. If God wants to address Jesus as God in Hebrews, who are we to disagree? He still is the Son of God. He is above all.

Steven

[Not3in1]

Hi Kevin,
Thanks for taking time to read my posts. I appreciate your comments.
Love,
Mandy

[Author]

Posts