- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Do you not know that if we were not in the Father's thoughts we would not exist? Nor would any of the angels or worlds OR anything.
Quote (IM4Truth @ Oct. 13 2007,09:28) Jesus became a Man after He was the Son of God. John 1;1
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.Maybe I'm using the wrong Bible translation, but I don't see “Son of God” anywhere in John 1:1. in fact, the first time “Son of God” is used in GoJ, its here
Joh 1:34 “I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”
Was this said of a pre-existent being? Nope, it was said by John the Baptist AFTER he saw the Holy Spirit descend upon Yeshua like a dove.
So how do you get “Son of God” out of John 1:1-18? Luke 1:35 tells us why he is called the Son of God (no one wants to acknowledge this verse for some odd reason)
Luk 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
What was the reason he would be called the Son of God? Its right there.
Quote (IM4Truth @ Oct. 13 2007,09:24) I took the previous Post from t8
Thank you t8
I hope you will study this with an open mind. I have been in the background reading all of your Post and I must say you are really denying scriptures that t8 has given.Peace and Love Mrs.
Who is this addressed to? If you'll look, I addressed all of the scripture t8 supplied. Believe me, I don't ignore a single verse. But you can't pull verses out of context nor can you use 1 book of the Bible to deny the other 65.All I am going to say to you again, study t8 post, all the answers are in there. But you both just do not want to see it, and that is your problem.
Peace and Love Mrs.
The word in first in John 1 means “thought”.
That word~thought~ became flesh the son of man.I believe we were all in the Father's thought.
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
All tings exist in His thoughts and without HIS thoughts nothing would exist.
We are forgiven of our sins, that is our sin is “forgotten”. When God forgets something “it does not exist”.
To all….> Jesus had to be just like us in (every) was, or his life would not prove anything, he had to be tempted by sin just like us. The difference was God upheld Him and keep him from his iniquity.And when he was born he was a son of God, just like it say's Adam was a son of God, both born by the same Spirit and same God.
God was demenstrating through Jesus how He could live in Us and perfect Us, Just like He did Jesus.By giving Jesus all these untrue supernatural advantages that He did not have (IS DENYING) the work of God The Father who was in Him.
It puts the focus on the man Jesus rather then on the ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD, who was in Him .
I agree with Ken and Kejonn explanations so far. I see Jesus as a pure human man in every way and Antoher Adam without any advantage orther then God was with Him.
And thats the same advantage we who have God's Spirit in us have also, Its the same Spirit that was in Jesus the Annointed Man.Satan wants this Idology of Jesus having advantages over us in order to cause us to push Jesus away from our exact likeness, why becauses it weakens our Faith in God's ability to do the same with us as He did with Jesus.
Thats Satans perpose behind these false teachings, it to eliminate God The Father from the picture.Go check out any Trinitarian or incarnation teaching church it all about Jesus and you hardly ever hear About God the Father. The focus is all on Jesus, But Jesus' focus was all about the Father.
peace to all ……>Gene
not3in1…..> to answer your questions about us being already adopted. It say's we (Have) recieved the Spirit of Adoption all ready which goes into our hearts crying ABA Father.
1 John 3:1-2 ..> Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called the childern of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.
2> Beloved, (now) we are childern of God and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know when He is revealed we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as (or the way) He is.
I believe while we don't yet have our new bodies, we are still childern of God (now).Hope this clearfied what i was saying.
peace and love to you and yours…..geneQuote That's not incarnation, that's indwelling. BIG difference. Incarnation is “A bodily manifestation of a supernatural being.” To say we are filled with the Spirit of God in no ways compares with incarnation. However, when you propose that Yeshua was the Son of God (or a Son of God) before he was born, you provide not a shred of evidence.
Kejonn;
Get a second opinion of what I wrote and see if others see that I have provided a shread of evidence. Try to find someone objective. Perhaps, one among us can comment on my post and give you his or her perspective.
Is not Christ incarnate in us? Does he not dwell in us by the spirit? You say that I pick and choose but haven't you chose only one definition of incarnate?
Why would you want to see an incarnation in the Old Testament? Melchizedek did not have beginning of days according to Paul. If he had no beginning of days he must of been some form of an incarnation. Paul likens Melchizedek to Christ, who is our priest after his order. There's your incarnation in the Old Testament. Something tells me though that you will argue that was not an incarnation or that it was not remotely the same. You have what is called a fixation. It doesn't matter what the word of God says you will not believe it.
Steven
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 13 2007,13:41) Quote That's not incarnation, that's indwelling. BIG difference. Incarnation is “A bodily manifestation of a supernatural being.” To say we are filled with the Spirit of God in no ways compares with incarnation. However, when you propose that Yeshua was the Son of God (or a Son of God) before he was born, you provide not a shred of evidence.
Kejonn;
Get a second opinion of what I wrote and see if others see that I have provided a shread of evidence. Try to find someone objective. Perhaps, one among us can comment on my post and give you his or her perspective.
Is not Christ incarnate in us? Does he not dwell in us by the spirit? You say that I pick and choose but haven't you chose only one definition of incarnate?
Why would you want to see an incarnation in the Old Testament? Melchizedek did not have beginning of days according to Paul. If he had no beginning of days he must of been some form of an incarnation. Paul likens Melchizedek to Christ, who is our priest after his order. There's your incarnation in the Old Testament. Something tells me though that you will argue that was not an incarnation or that it was not remotely the same. You have what is called a fixation. It doesn't matter what the word of God says you will not believe it.
Steven
Whatever the case, “dwell” and “incarnate” ARE two different words. So no, Christ is not “incarnate” in us.Can you show me another definition of incarnate that fits what you'd like it to mean?
And the second opinions you are looking for will come from others who do not think “objectively” but believe in a similar manner as you.
You still have not addressed Luke 1:35.
As to Melchizedek, look at any commentary and you'll find you are way off on trying to represent him as some form of incarnate entity. From bible.cc for Heb 7:3
Wesley's Notes
7:3 Without father, without mother, without pedigree – Recorded, without any account of his descent from any ancestors of the priestly order. Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life – Mentioned by Moses. But being – In all these respects. Made like the Son of God – Who is really without father, as to his human nature; without mother, as to his divine; and in this also, without pedigree – Neither descended from any ancestors of the priestly order. Remaineth a priest continually – Nothing is recorded of the death or successor of Melchisedec. But Christ alone does really remain without death, and without successor.
Keep searching
.Quote (kenrch @ Oct. 14 2007,03:28) The word in first in John 1 means “thought”.
That word~thought~ became flesh the son of man.I believe we were all in the Father's thought.
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
All tings exist in His thoughts and without HIS thoughts nothing would exist.
kenrchYou say…
Quote
The word in first in John 1 means “thought”.Can you prove that is what John meant?
Are you a scholar. Where is your Greek and Hebrew credentials?
Why didnt the 100s of translators translate it “Thought”?
Here is some examples where the “Logos” is not just a thought…
Matt 12:36
[36] But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account [logos]thereof in the day of judgment.Matt 18:23
“Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts [logos] with his servants”Rom 14:12
So then, each of us will give an account [logos] of himself to God.Matt 5:32
[32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause [logos]of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.Acts 8:21
Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter [logos]: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.Acts 10:29
Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent [logos] ye have sent for me?So as you can see the word “Logos” is not always a saying or speech.
So the argument that the “Logos” in john 1:1 has to be interpreted that way is fallacious.
And also because of this…
With God (prov ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Prov with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of prov: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton exomen prov ton patera). See proswpon prov proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of prov. There is a papyrus example of prov in this sense to gnwston thv prov allhlouv sunhqeiav, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of prov here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin‚, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.
(source)
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….375;st=In fact the following is proof that the word is not just a thought….
Rev 19:
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
20 And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
21 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.Notice the “Sharp Sword”, it is the 'Word of God” proceeding out of his mouth. Heb 4:12.
Jesus is not a thought of God. Jesus speaks the “thoughts and plan” of God!
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 13 2007,13:41) You have what is called a fixation. It doesn't matter what the word of God says you will not believe it. Steven
Oh, and as to this: you have what is called an insulting attitude. Those who do not believe as you do are objects of your insults. I've seen you say similar things to WJ.Like the fruit that has been sitting too long at the local market, I find your fruit unappealing.
Mr.Steve ……> what does exaulting, Jesus over His brothers and sisters do. And in order for you to do that your have got to ignore nearly all the OT scriptures the show what Jesus' origin he would come from, so in essence you are calling God a lier. And have joined with the rest of those who say Jesus preexisted as a super being and might as well say He was an incarnated being also. So in your beliefe you have it this way..> God…then super being….then Man. Your super Jesus is not really one of Us is He, so He was just conning Us, because we could never become exactly like Him Could we.
Mr. Steve your views on the preexistence seems to be a fixsation that your are unwilling to even concered others thoughts……. we are all in a learnning process here, so give some consideration to other……peace …..gene
Hi Kejonn.
Quote Poor answer. I've read many of your posts but don't recall responding to any because we weren't posting in common threads until now. So… Your answer with a question is not comparable. The “why do anything” type question has no answer but mine does IMHO.
What I'm getting at is this: what purpose was the conception, the birth, childhood, and 30 years of no ministry if God could have just created another flesh tent from the dust and placed this angelic (or god) being inside of it? Why all of the wasted years? Why did he choose to wait until Yeshua was 30 (as many assume, is that verifiable?) to have him start his ministry? The idea of some celestial being possessing a flesh tent and walking around basically living a human life with very little record of events is preposterous.
This then begs another question: what died at calvary? The flesh tent? Did the celestial or divine being inhabiting the flesh tent die too? Trinitarians say no.
IOW David, why would God find it necessary to place a celestial or divine being inside of the body of a human when He plainly stated in the Tanakh that the Messiah would be like one of us, like Moses? Was Moses inhabited by an angel? Or a god? Is that why God said that Moses would be a god to Pharaoh?
The fact of the matter is, that by placing some eternal, or at least very, very ancient celestial or divine being inside of a human body calls into question God's promises. I, for one, cannot accept that God would lie to His chosen people for 4000 years. If you do not think it is a lie, show me in the OT where God says the Messiah will be inhabited by a celestial or divine being. Remember as I've already pointed out, Yeshua himself said
Joh 5:39 “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
So now you have another dilemma. If God in the OT told us that the Messiah would be man like Moses, like us, and Yeshua says that the OT testified about him — thus agreeing with all God said about him therein — then you must accuse both Father and Son of lying.
–Kejonn.
Yes, it is a poor answer. It was a poor question. Much like yours. That was my point.
Just because “you” can't see a purpose for Jesus pre-existence in no way means anything about whether he pre-existed or not.Quote what purpose was the conception, the birth, childhood, and 30 years of no ministry if God could have just created another flesh tent from the dust and placed this angelic (or god) being inside of it? Why all of the wasted years? Why all the wasted years, you ask? I don't know. Why all the “wasted” years of God not creating humankind? Who said they were “wasted”? You could just as easily ask why God “wasted” all that time without us existing–why did he wait those eons of time?
The purpose of Jesus existence at all is much the same as the purpose of the angels existence and of ours–love.
And the purpose of Jesus being put in that role as a human to vindicate Jehovah's sovereignty, to sanctify his name, to prove the devil a liar, to bring about salvation to mankind–no one would have wanted this more than his own Son, his “only begotten son.”Quote Why did he choose to wait until Yeshua was 30 (as many assume, is that verifiable?) to have him start his ministry?
I don't see how this is at all connected to what you are saying.Quote The idea of some celestial being possessing a flesh tent and walking around basically living a human life with very little record of events is preposterous.
Oh, you think Jesus would have been miracle boy. I see. Jesus purpose wasn't primarily to go around healing people or to be a politician for Satan's world and bring about reform or anything like that. It was primarily the ransom sacrifice–to regain or buy back what adam lost. Only a perfect human (like adam) could do that. Jesus was “made flesh” and became a human (although perfect) without the stain of sin.
And it is not my belief that Jesus was born with the mind or memory of his pre-existence. When the “heavens opened up to him” at his baptism, I believe is when all this came back to him.Quote what died at calvary? The flesh tent? Did the celestial or divine being inhabiting the flesh tent die too?
Jesus, the whole person, Jesus himself, all Jesus is, died. (Jehovah has a pretty good memory. If he created him in the first place, he could resurrect him, bring him back to life, just as before, whether in human form or spirit.Quote David, why would God find it necessary to place a celestial or divine being inside of the body of a human when He plainly stated in the Tanakh that the Messiah would be like one of us, like Moses?
Kejonn, he was like one of us. I'm not arguing that at all. He truly was “made flesh” human, as scripture says plainly. He suffered trials, pain, temptations, etc. And as I said before, more than anyone else, Jesus, the only begotten son of God wanted to sanctify or clear his Father's name of any reproach and put an end to sin, and eventually, Satan, and to prove Satan a liar. More than anyone, Jesus as the beloved Son of God, would have wanted this. For so long, to see his Father's name reproached, to see the lies told about him–more than anyone, he would have gladly stepped forward to accomplish this.Quote The fact of the matter is, that by placing some eternal, or at least very, very ancient celestial or divine being inside of a human body calls into question God's promises. I, for one, cannot accept that God would lie to His chosen people for 4000 years. If you do not think it is a lie, show me
Um. No thanks. If it is a lie, why don't you show me.
Your logic is wierd here. When something simply isn't stated, and then it happens, that doesn't mean it is a lie. If God had said: “He won't be a celestial being” then it would be a lie. So, go ahead, show me that sentence in the Bible.Quote So now you have another dilemma. If God in the OT told us that the Messiah would be man like Moses, like us, and Yeshua says that the OT testified about him — thus agreeing with all God said about him therein — then you must accuse both Father and Son of lying. Again, HE WAS LIKE US, in every way. So where exactly is the lie, exact
ly? Please tell me.I've notice that you've included several phrasings like:
“this beggs the question”, and “this raises this delema” when in fact no such delema or begging of questions exists.I would much rather actually be discussing the scriptures that say Jesus' origins are from early times, etc.
david.
David….> again another assumption, you assume it say Jesus' existence as a (being) was from early times, when in fact it does not spicifically say that.
It can just as easly be said His origns were of the Father in early times. Just like ours were.Your forcing the text to come out the way you want it……Peace…..gene
Quote Your forcing the text to come out the way you want it……Peace…..gene I'm not forcing the text. I'm combining it with all the other scriptures that say he is the “firstborn of creation” the “beginning of the creation of God”
PROVERBS 8:22
““Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago.”
(Jehovah has always had wisdom, so there was no need to “produce” wisdom. It's speaking of wisdom personified, as Jesus)Or this, translate it however you want:
JOHN 8:58
“Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”” (or I am, or whatever.)If Jesus were just a plan or a thought of God, it doesn't make sense. They were speaking about his age: You are not yet 50 years old yet. Then, he responded with the words above.
Here's the thing. I guess I existed years before I really did. My grandparents knew they'd have grandchildren. My parents planned on having children. Maybe they even knew my name years ahead.
So, if someone says to me:You are not yet 50, you didnt' exist before me, I could say (with your reasoning):
“No, but I did exist before you, because I existed as a plan of God, so you see, I'm much older than you.”I feel the burden is definitely on you to interpret this any other way. You argue that it doesn't say that Jesus existed as a person. Well it doesn't say he existed as a plan either.
One has to think that since Jehovah created all the sons of God (the angels) well in advance of humans, that Jesus, the “only begotten son” (the only one created directly by Jehovah) would actually be a person, and that the burden would be on anyone to prove otherwise.david.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 14 2007,07:09) Quote (kenrch @ Oct. 14 2007,03:28) The word in first in John 1 means “thought”.
That word~thought~ became flesh the son of man.I believe we were all in the Father's thought.
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
All tings exist in His thoughts and without HIS thoughts nothing would exist.
kenrchYou say…
Quote
The word in first in John 1 means “thought”.Can you prove that is what John meant?
Are you a scholar. Where is your Greek and Hebrew credentials?
Why didnt the 100s of translators translate it “Thought”?
Here is some examples where the “Logos” is not just a thought…
Matt 12:36
[36] But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account [logos]thereof in the day of judgment.Matt 18:23
“Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts [logos] with his servants”Rom 14:12
So then, each of us will give an account [logos] of himself to God.Matt 5:32
[32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause [logos]of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.Acts 8:21
Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter [logos]: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.Acts 10:29
Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent [logos] ye have sent for me?So as you can see the word “Logos” is not always a saying or speech.
So the argument that the “Logos” in john 1:1 has to be interpreted that way is fallacious.
And also because of this…
With God (prov ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Prov with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of prov: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton exomen prov ton patera). See proswpon prov proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of prov. There is a papyrus example of prov in this sense to gnwston thv prov allhlouv sunhqeiav, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of prov here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin‚, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.
(source)
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….375;st=In fact the following is proof that the word is not just a thought….
Rev 19:
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
20 And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
21 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.Notice the “Sharp Sword”, it is the 'Word of God” proceeding out of his mouth. Heb 4:12.
Jesus is not a thought of God. Jesus speaks the “thoughts and plan” of God!
Word,3056G3056
λόγος
logos
log'-os
From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): – account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.Everything that has a beginning started with a thought BUT you believe Jesus to be God so end of story.
Did the first Adam preexist?Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 13 2007,16:18) Heres a question: If Yeshua was totally dependent on God the Father, why the need to be pre-existent?
Preexistence or the idea of preexistence isn't derived or inferred from this. It has no bearing on prexistence or not.Even angels who are prexist the birth of the messiah are totally dependent on God.
Quote (david @ Oct. 13 2007,15:26) –Kejonn. Yes, it is a poor answer. It was a poor question. Much like yours. That was my point.
The point of my question was to get people to think outside of preconceived notions.Quote
Just because “you” can't see a purpose for Jesus pre-existence in no way means anything about whether he pre-existed or not.
No it doesn't. But I combine this with an overwhelming lack of evidence that he did indeed pre-exist. The majority of the idea of pre-existence springs from the Gospel of John, a very symbolic and figurative book. If one takes everything in GoJ with the same literal sense, what would you have? Perhaps people need to reread GoJ and see how much of it is NOT literal, and then balance it with the Synoptics.Quote Quote what purpose was the conception, the birth, childhood, and 30 years of no ministry if God could have just created another flesh tent from the dust and placed this angelic (or god) being inside of it? Why all of the wasted years? Why all the wasted years, you ask? I don't know. Why all the “wasted” years of God not creating humankind? Who said they were “wasted”? You could just as easily ask why God “wasted” all that time without us existing–why did he wait those eons of time?
The purpose of Jesus existence at all is much the same as the purpose of the angels existence and of ours–love.
And the purpose of Jesus being put in that role as a human to vindicate Jehovah's sovereignty, to sanctify his name, to prove the devil a liar, to bring about salvation to mankind–no one would have wanted this more than his own Son, his “only begotten son.”Quote Why did he choose to wait until Yeshua was 30 (as many assume, is that verifiable?) to have him start his ministry?
I don't see how this is at all connected to what you are saying.Quote The idea of some celestial being possessing a flesh tent and walking around basically living a human life with very little record of events is preposterous.
Oh, you think Jesus would have been miracle boy. I see. Jesus purpose wasn't primarily to go around healing people or to be a politician for Satan's world and bring about reform or anything like that. It was primarily the ransom sacrifice–to regain or buy back what adam lost. Only a perfect human (like adam) could do that. Jesus was “made flesh” and became a human (although perfect) without the stain of sin.
Bingo. Only a perfect human, like Adam. Was Adam inhabited by an angelic or divine being then? You yourself admit that he had to be like Adam, and indeed he is called the second Adam. Yet Adam was not inhabited by another pre-existing being.Quote And it is not my belief that Jesus was born with the mind or memory of his pre-existence. When the “heavens opened up to him” at his baptism, I believe is when all this came back to him.
In abscence of evidence, one can believe anything I suppose.Quote Quote what died at calvary? The flesh tent? Did the celestial or divine being inhabiting the flesh tent die too?
Jesus, the whole person, Jesus himself, all Jesus is, died. (Jehovah has a pretty good memory. If he created him in the first place, he could resurrect him, bring him back to life, just as before, whether in human form or spirit.
Well, at least we agree here.Quote Quote David, why would God find it necessary to place a celestial or divine being inside of the body of a human when He plainly stated in the Tanakh that the Messiah would be like one of us, like Moses?
Kejonn, he was like one of us. I'm not arguing that at all. He truly was “made flesh” human, as scripture says plainly. He suffered trials, pain, temptations, etc. And as I said before, more than anyone else, Jesus, the only begotten son of God wanted to sanctify or clear his Father's name of any reproach and put an end to sin, and eventually, Satan, and to prove Satan a liar. More than anyone, Jesus as the beloved Son of God, would have wanted this. For so long, to see his Father's name reproached, to see the lies told about him–more than anyone, he would have gladly stepped forward to accomplish this.
I don't agree with all of this, because of the pre-existing ideas, but I do believe that the Son of God (Luke 1:35 for why he is called that) would do as you say.Quote Quote The fact of the matter is, that by placing some eternal, or at least very, very ancient celestial or divine being inside of a human body calls into question God's promises. I, for one, cannot accept that God would lie to His chosen people for 4000 years. If you do not think it is a lie, show me
Um. No thanks. If it is a lie, why don't you show me.
Your logic is wierd here. When something simply isn't stated, and then it happens, that doesn't mean it is a lie. If God had said: “He won't be a celestial being” then it would be a lie. So, go ahead, show me that sentence in the Bible.
And now we get to the infamous “position from silence”. That is, since it is not said, it can then be believed. Since Jesus said nothing against Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, why don't you believe in those?The “position from silence” is the weakest of defenses.
Quo
teQuote So now you have another dilemma. If God in the OT told us that the Messiah would be man like Moses, like us, and Yeshua says that the OT testified about him — thus agreeing with all God said about him therein — then you must accuse both Father and Son of lying. Again, HE WAS LIKE US, in every way. So where exactly is the lie, exactly? Please tell me.
Was he? Are we inhabited by pre-existing celestial beings?Quote I've notice that you've included several phrasings like:
“this beggs the question”, and “this raises this delema” when in fact no such delema or begging of questions exists.I would much rather actually be discussing the scriptures that say Jesus' origins are from early times, etc.
david.
The word used for “origin” means “family descent”. Since Luke traces his lineage all the way back to Adam, his family descent IS from ancient times.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.
The purpose of my question was to get people to think. There is no purpose whatsoever to incarnate a celestial or divine being to be the Messiah. Since he was like us in every way outside of his virgin birth, then there IS no purpose.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
