- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Quote Quote
Question- If Christ did not pre-exist and he was going back to where he was before, where could he go if he didn't exist?Already answered. The context of this passage is his resurrection. Even so, you purport that Yeshua was the Son of God beforee his birth. Why then did he specifically choose “Son of Man” in John 6:62?
Joh 6:62 “What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
Hi Kejonn;
You believe that when Jesus said ascend to where he was before that was referring to his resurrection. What Jesus said was what and if ye see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before? Which one of the disciples saw Jesus ascending from the dead? No one. The ascension he spoke of was after the resurrection where the disciples actually witnessed him ascend to heaven.
So again, where was Jesus prior? Where did he (Jesus) ascend to where he (Jesus) was before?
Quote Quote
Who was Jesus Christ? I believe that you will agree he is the Son of God.Where did he come from? I contend that a person only has one origin. This issue was addressed by Christ many times. He always answered the Father sent him from heaven. He came down from heaven, he is above all, etc. How come he never mentions his virgin birth?
Why? Who knows. Why do you avoid his virgin birth? It is part of scripture too. It seems to be the one part of the life of Yeshua that you want to ignore because “conception” is involved, and not “incarnation”.
He doesn't mention his virgin birth because that's was not his origin. Jesus said he came down from heaven many times. That's where he was from. He also said he (Jesus) was returning there. He said his Father sent him from heaven where he was from.
Quote Luke 1:35 is not just “and he shall be called the Son of God”. (ESV) And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy–the Son of God.
The reason why Christ did not speak of his virgin birth was because that was not his origin. He can only be from one place. The truth in the new testament was given to us by Jesus Christ, not Gabriel or Mary. Jesus was the Saviour that uttered truths that had been kept secret since the foundation of the world. All of the other scriptures are to be interpreted in light of what Christ taught.
Nonetheless, there are many that believe that Jesus origin was in Mary by the Holy Spirit. I hold that if Mary was Christ' origin, how come he never said that he came from Mary. He was born the Son of Man of Mary. But his origin as the Son of God was prior where he had been before and to where he was ascending to after his resurrection. Hence, in Mary he was incarnated as the Son of God.
Revelation says that Christ was the beginning or origin or God's creation. Those are the actual words of Jesus Christ in Revelation. However, that book was written by John the divine who was also the writer of the gospel of John so you might not hold the same interpretation as is apparent on its face.
Regarding the Proverbs 8 passage, I don't see that it refers to Jesus Christ but many do.
But you contend that I've given you no support for the pre-existence of Christ as the Son of God. You stated,
“But the only issue is that you don't have any scriptural evidence to support that he was the Son of God prior to his birth. That's where the rubber meets the road.”
When he refers to his Father in heaven and Christ is from heaven, and he states he will be returning to where he was before, the inference is that Christ was the Son of God in heaven. Evidently, that simple truth annoys you, I don't know why. He was given a work to complete from his Father whom he has seen.
Jesus told the people he has seen God. When did he see God?
After Christ resurrection he was seen by Mary Magnelene, ascended up to the Father, then returned the same day through closed doors to the disciples. Do you believe that? A week later, he came through closed doors again to his disciples. Do you believe that?
Throughout the gospels he hid himself among the unbelievers that was to kill and went through the midst of them. Christ has the ability to disappear and reappear. Why then is it so hard to believe that he was incarnated?
Mr. Steve
Quote Hi all, If Yeshua pre-existed, what does this mean?
Joh 17:18 “As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
How can we be sent into the world in the same manner as Yeshua was sent unless (1) we are pre-existent or (2) he was not pre-existent?
In the book of Acts, they perceive the disciples that they were unlearned and ignorant men, but they took note that they had been with Jesus. They had to exist with Jesus to be with Jesus and to be sent into the world by him. He continues to build his church in the same manner.
Therefore, Christ in the same manner above had to be with the Father to be sent by him. If he existed with his Father prior to being sent which is a requirement, then he was the Son of God prior to being sent.
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 15 2007,15:32) Hi Kejonn; You believe that when Jesus said ascend to where he was before that was referring to his resurrection. What Jesus said was what and if ye see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before? Which one of the disciples saw Jesus ascending from the dead? No one. The ascension he spoke of was after the resurrection where the disciples actually witnessed him ascend to heaven.
Yes, they would have had to hang out inside of his tomb to do that, wouldn't they. Hey, they couldn't even stay awake when Yeshua prayed, I could imagine their attentiveness sitting in a tomb waiting for him to arise. But the fact of the matter is, the very next verse talks about the Spirit giving life which is a direct indication of God giving life back to His Son.Quote So again, where was Jesus prior? Where did he (Jesus) ascend to where he (Jesus) was before?
Prior to his death? He was alive? And he was raised up three days later, back to where he was.Quote
He doesn't mention his virgin birth because that's was not his origin. Jesus said he came down from heaven many times. That's where he was from. He also said he (Jesus) was returning there. He said his Father sent him from heaven where he was from.
Why do the Synoptics, which use much less symbology than John, not have Yeshua speaking in such platitudes? Again, you must balance this scripture with scripture.In your opinion then, Matthew and Luke were wasting their time by mentioning the birth story, because to you, these things are false. When you start picking scripture apart, where do you stop?
I guess Luke and Matthew were in opposition to John? Because if they had not included the birth story, you'd have a field day. But the fact is, God in His wisdom did indeed include the birth story and how the Messiah was conceived, because it provides us with the meaning behind much of what we see in John.
Quote
The reason why Christ did not speak of his virgin birth was because that was not his origin. He can only be from one place. The truth in the new testament was given to us by Jesus Christ, not Gabriel or Mary. Jesus was the Saviour that uttered truths that had been kept secret since the foundation of the world. All of the other scriptures are to be interpreted in light of what Christ taught.
So Gabriel lied? Can an angel lie? I hope he isn't assigned as one of your guardian angels
.Quote Nonetheless, there are many that believe that Jesus origin was in Mary by the Holy Spirit. I hold that if Mary was Christ' origin, how come he never said that he came from Mary. He was born the Son of Man of Mary. But his origin as the Son of God was prior where he had been before and to where he was ascending to after his resurrection. Hence, in Mary he was incarnated as the Son of God.
Still no proof, all just your supposition. I would gladly take your view into consideration if scripture supported it, but it does not. And you are still in hard opposition to Luke 1:35, but I think you are saying at this point that this verse is false.Quote Revelation says that Christ was the beginning or origin or God's creation. Those are the actual words of Jesus Christ in Revelation. However, that book was written by John the divine who was also the writer of the gospel of John so you might not hold the same interpretation as is apparent on its face.
Revelation is end-times, the church, and new creation. All begun with Yeshua as firstborn from the dead. Read it. It speaks of nothing of the Genesis creation.And many scholars disagree that the Revelation and GoJ were written by the same authors.
Quote Regarding the Proverbs 8 passage, I don't see that it refers to Jesus Christ but many do. But you contend that I've given you no support for the pre-existence of Christ as the Son of God. You stated,
“But the only issue is that you don't have any scriptural evidence to support that he was the Son of God prior to his birth. That's where the rubber meets the road.”
When he refers to his Father in heaven and Christ is from heaven, and he states he will be returning to where he was before, the inference is that Christ was the Son of God in heaven. Evidently, that simple truth annoys you, I don't know why. He was given a work to complete from his Father whom he has seen.
This simple “truth” would annoy me if he did not speak it while he was the Son of God on earth. He did not say “I was the Son of God before I came to earth”. Nope, nothing even remotely close. Only in your imagination.Quote Jesus told the people he has seen God. When did he see God?
Passage please. The only thing remotely close is this verse, NOT spoken by YeshuaJoh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
It says no man has seen God. It then goes on to say that the Son has declared Him. It does not say yeshua saw God. That is your eisegesis.
Quote After Christ resurrection he was seen by Mary Magnelene, ascended up to the Father, then returned the same day through closed doors to the disciples. Do you believe that? A week later, he came through closed doors again to his disciples. Do you believe that?
Yes, but what does that have to do with pre-existence?Quote Throughout the gospels he hid himself among the unbelievers that was to kill and went through the midst of them. Christ has the ability to disappear and reappear. Why then is it so hard to believe that he was incarnated? Mr. Steve
Now you ARE thinking more like a trinitarian. That is the same implication that WJ gave of him. At th
is point I'm curious. What is your belief? Do you believe Yeshua is a god who is only second to God the Father? IOW, are you a henotheist?And why do you think he could disappear and reappear? Are you saying his body was different than ours? After the resurrection I'll grant that it was, but not before.
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 15 2007,16:14) Quote Hi all, If Yeshua pre-existed, what does this mean?
Joh 17:18 “As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
How can we be sent into the world in the same manner as Yeshua was sent unless (1) we are pre-existent or (2) he was not pre-existent?
In the book of Acts, they perceive the disciples that they were unlearned and ignorant men, but they took note that they had been with Jesus. They had to exist with Jesus to be with Jesus and to be sent into the world by him. He continues to build his church in the same manner.
Therefore, Christ in the same manner above had to be with the Father to be sent by him. If he existed with his Father prior to being sent which is a requirement, then he was the Son of God prior to being sent.
I guess you can see it that way, but the only way this would be true is if Yeshua sent them into the world AFTER he ascended. Because Father is in heaven and Yeshua was sent into the world. Therefore, if it was like manner, it would have to be Yeshua is in heaven, Apostles sent into the world. Yet we saw where he sent them prior to his ascension. So not that similar. Maybe they took a short mission training seesion trip to heaven first
.Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 16 2007,08:23) Hi all, If Yeshua pre-existed, what does this mean?
Joh 17:18 “As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
How can we be sent into the world in the same manner as Yeshua was sent unless (1) we are pre-existent or (2) he was not pre-existent?
kejonnWith all due respect this is not a proof text against pre-existense.
How was Yeshua sent…
Lk 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,Lk 9:1
Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.The context of the chapter is Jesus praying for those who will continue his mission in bring the Good News to all of mankind.
He does mention where he came from though and that was with the Father sharing his Glory before he was sent.
We know that the desciples did not share the Fathers glory before the world was.
Jn 17:5
“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.Jn 17:8
for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.Could the dicsiples say they came forth from God?
Earlier Jesus said this…
Jn 16:27
for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father.*I Came Forth*
Greek, exerchomai, which means;
1) to go or come forth of
a) with mention of the place out of which one goes, or the point from which he departs
1) of those who leave a place of their own accord
2) of those who are expelled or cast out
It is a compound word, 'ek' – 1) out of, from, by, away from
and 'erchomai' -1) to come a) of persons
1) to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning
2) to appear, make one's appearance, come before the public
Invariably the word is used to denote leaving one place and going to another.
Its the same word used in the following text…
Matt 25:6, Luke 9:5, Luke 10:10, Jn 10:9, Acts 12:17 plus many more.
Then Jesus reiterates his statement…
Jn 16:28
I came forth (exerchomai) from the Father, and am come (erchomai)
into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.Good hermaneutics and just simple english says that if Jesus is leaving the world and going to the Father then he had left the Father and came into the world.
Tie that in with…
Jn 6:
38 For I came down (katabaino) from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.This is powerfull. For not only is Jesus saying he came from the Father but that he came (descended) from heaven.
The words “I came down” is katabaino, which means…
1) to go down, come down, descend
a) the place from which one has come down from
b) to come down
1) as from the temple at Jerusalem, from the city of Jerusalem
2) of celestial beings coming down to earth
This is unambiguous. Jesus again clarifys his statement…
Jn 6:62
[What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?ean oun qewrhte ton uion tou anqrwpou anabainonta opou hn to proteron?
Was – 'en,hn ' = I WAS
Before – proteron = 1) before, prior
a) of time, former
Can any man claim to have come down from heaven?
Before you say we were born from above, true, but the Spirit descended on us and we were born agian here in this world in this body. But we did not exist in heaven neither can we say we were in heaven.!!!
How can these scriptures be interpreted any other way?
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 16 2007,10:16) Quote Quote
Jesus told the people he has seen God. When did he see God?
John 6:46
mr steveWhich begs the question when did Jesus see the Father?
Well he said no man hath seen him, so he must not have been a man when he did.
Quote Quote
So again, where was Jesus prior? Where did he (Jesus) ascend to where he (Jesus) was before?Prior to his death? He was alive? And he was raised up three days later, back to where he was.
Kejonn;
The essence of the whole passage in John 6 is that Christ came down from heaven. He then asks the question, What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before? (where he is saying he came from). I've seen you do some stretching but this is unprecedented that you would contend where he was before was referring to earth.
The gospel of John is clear that Christ is from heaven, not the earth. Christ cannot have more than one origin. He was conceived as the Son of Man when he took on flesh, but was the Son of God prior.
He also said that he had glory with the Father before the world was in John 17. You see the beauty of the gospel of John is that it tells us where Christ came from, who he was, and where he was returning. The gospel is written with an emphasis in that order. That is why the gospel begins with John stating he was preferred before me because he was before me and ends with so much reference to him returning to the Father.
Quote I guess you can see it that way, but the only way this would be true is if Yeshua sent them into the world AFTER he ascended. Because Father is in heaven and Yeshua was sent into the world. Therefore, if it was like manner, it would have to be Yeshua is in heaven, Apostles sent into the world. Yet we saw where he sent them prior to his ascension. So not that similar. Maybe they took a short mission training seesion trip to heaven first No it would only be necessary for Christ to send them after he ascended if the origin of Christ was in Mary. Christ said he was sent from God from heaven not Mary.
I'll give you some scripture reference because you aren't as familiar with the gospel of John as you seem to be with ancient manuscripts. Moreover, you keep requesting scriptures so I won't just paraphrase, I'll give you the actual scripture references. I usually use the King James.
John 8:23 says that “Ye are from beneath; I am from above…”
John the Baptist said the same in John 3:31 that Christ came from heaven and is above all. He also said in the same passage that Christ was testify of what he had seen and heard. So he is not saying God came from above, he is saying that Christ is from above. Moreover, he states that he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God. Then says for the Father loveth the Son and has given all things into his hands. So John the Baptist could not be more clear that Jesus Christ was from heaven above and was the Son of God. He also says that God gave not the Spirit by measure unto him. Every verse clarifies the issue that Jesus is from above, not that God is above, or that the Spirit is from above. The entire passage is about who Jesus is.
Now before Jesus ascended up to heaven he said that he was going to send them the promise of the Father from on high which was the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost then descended upon them on the Day of Pentecost… But none of the disciples declared that they were from above and not from beneath simply because the Holy Spirit came down from heaven and they were born of the incorruptible seed of the Word of God. Their origin was darkness under sin. Christ origin was from above in heaven with his Father. Jesus makes no hint that his earthly birth had anything to do with his origin of being from heaven. His origin as the Son of Man was from the Holy Spirit in Mary. That's known as the immaculate conception.
You asked me earlier today where a certain scripture was about the people saying that they knew his mother and father so how could he say that he was from heaven. That scripture is in John 6 verse 42. They were pondering the same question: How can he be from two places, earth and heaven. As the Son of Man he was of the earth, but as the Son of God he was from heaven before the foundation of the world. That's John 17:5 and 24
I believe that Christ is the Son of God, the head of the Church, but is subject to the Father. That is more henothistic than trinitarian, but then I've also heard trinitarians say that there is an order within the Godhead. Some trinitarians do not believe that Christ was the Son of God prior to his birth but that he was God. So some trinitarians believe that Jesus did not exist prior but was God prior. When I read the scriptures I do not see a God that changes. I do see a God that has sons, whom we are if we believe what he taught. Most Christians that attend trinitarian churches don't know what they believe with respect to the Godhead.
I believe that every time Christ is declared the Son of God it includes the truth that he had an origin, otherwise he could not be a son. It's just Christ is the head of the church, was given all things from his father, commissioned to do a work for the Father in heaven and came down from heaven to finish it.
Take Care
Mr. Steve
WJ;
What a blessing to read your post. You have even brought a greater light with your greek insights that I was unaware of. Thank you so much. I was trying to explain it to KJ and kept get this deer in the headlights response. It doesn't appear ambiguous to me either.
With respect to John 6:46, I believe that Christ saw God in heaven prior to receiving commandment to come down from heaven.
God Bless
Steven
To all….> Jesus during His life on the earth was indeed the ONLY Begotten Son of God, why? because He was at that time the only one who was infussed or impregnated with The Spirit of God, (This day I have begotten you) He was simply begotten by the Spirit of God at that time, but when He was resurrected He became born of Spirit. The first born of many brethern, I think we mix up the begotten with the Berth of Him but infact he wasn't born a spiritual being till He was rasied from the grave. He was however (begotten) by the spirit. Just like we who have the Spirit now are, and we are waiting for our Spritual bodies.
And the reason He was the only begotten Son at the time of His earthly existence was No one else had recieved God Seed into them yet, but sense it came there are many begotten childern of God, Who have the same Spirit in them as He has.
The reason I am bringing this out is so we might see the term only begotten son changed after the Holy Spirit was sent to be in Us. So now it should be rendered Uniquely begotten Son, not only.
Just what i think …..peace to you all………gene.Mr. Steve ….> why Shpuldn't you and WJ see it the same way, you believe in the incarnet Jesus so does He. Now that's all left is to accept the possibility that Jesus was God Himself as the rest of the trinitarians do.
You see the incarnet Idology goes hand and hand with their's .
Anything to seperate Jesus' Likeness from us, thats exactly what Satan want's you to believe and thats exactly what WJ believes also. Jesus is not anything like us, not really is He. Dvide and conquer.
…..Just the way i see it…..gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 16 2007,12:05) Mr. Steve ….> why Shpuldn't you and WJ see it the same way, you believe in the incarnet Jesus so does He. Now that's all left is to accept the possibility that Jesus was God Himself as the rest of the trinitarians do. You see the incarnet Idology goes hand and hand with their's .
Anything to seperate Jesus' Likeness from us, thats exactly what Satan want's you to believe and thats exactly what WJ believes also. Jesus is not anything like us, not really is He. Dvide and conquer.
…..Just the way i see it…..gene
There is a 3rd alternative, Gene. But, one must tread outside of our modern view of what the bible actually teaches is it monotheism or a form of henotheism.Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 16 2007,12:05) Mr. Steve ….> why Shpuldn't you and WJ see it the same way, you believe in the incarnet Jesus so does He. Now that's all left is to accept the possibility that Jesus was God Himself as the rest of the trinitarians do. You see the incarnet Idology goes hand and hand with their's .
Anything to seperate Jesus' Likeness from us, thats exactly what Satan want's you to believe and thats exactly what WJ believes also. Jesus is not anything like us, not really is He. Dvide and conquer.
…..Just the way i see it…..gene
GBI also think that what you believe that Jesus is just a mere man is of satan.
For if all I had was hope in another man like us I would be of most men miserable.
Blessings!
WJ….> I have Hope in A God that took a mere man exactly like me and look what He did with Him. My hope is great because I see someone just like me who God perfected and made Holy, and raised him from the dead.
So i wonder who has the greatest hope me or you, some one who dosen't believe God could do with you as He did with Jesus. Because Jesus was so different then you. What little hope you must have in God's ability.
And thats exactly what Satan want's you and others to think. Your faith in the Father is greatly weaken because of your not relating with the exactness of Jesus.The trinitarian Lie is beyond dought the bigest lie ever told.And it is designed to destory our Fath in God. By lessing what He did through Jesus, a man exactly like us in every way.
As i said before your worshipping the massenger, but missing the message.You need to worship who the messenger worshiped, And gess what WJ it wasen't his self He worshiped.
Just the way i see it…WJ…….gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 16 2007,12:56) WJ….> I have Hope in A God that took a mere man exactly like me and look what He did with Him. My hope is great because I see someone just like me who God perfected and made Holy, and raised him from the dead. So i wonder who has the greatest hope me or you, some one who dosen't believe God could do with you as He did with Jesus. Because Jesus was so different then you. What little hope you must have in God's ability.
And thats exactly what Satan want's you and others to think. Your faith in the Father is greatly weaken because of your not relating with the exactness of Jesus.The trinitarian Lie is beyond dought the bigest lie ever told.And it is designed to destory our Fath in God. By lessing what He did through Jesus, a man exactly like us in every way.
As i said before your worshipping the massenger, but missing the message.You need to worship who the messenger worshiped, And gess what WJ it wasen't his self He worshiped.
Just the way i see it…WJ…….gene
GBYes just the way you see it.
But not the way God sees it!
Morningstar….> wrong, we dont have to go outside what the bible teaches, we Just have to take the Bible for what it actually say.s without making it say things it really doesn't Say as trinitarians do.
If you read the Trinity thread and this thread you will be give alot to think about. Just be honest and have an open mind and you will see what I am talking about. …….Blessings to you…gene
WJ….> so say you, a mere man who doesn't believe God could take a ordinary man and did a mighty work through him. But it might be exactly how God see it to.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 16 2007,04:19) you've totally misunderstood what i was saying. Where did i say I had the Form of God, but if i have the Spirit of God then i have the (Nature) of God in me, like Jesus did.
Yes I am aware that you didn't say that, but Philippians 2:6 says:Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
Can you claim this too?
If not, then you at least have to admit that Yeshua is not a man like you. He had divine nature and then partook of flesh nature. An emptying and humbling experience to become nothing is it not?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 15 2007,17:50) Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 16 2007,08:23) Hi all, If Yeshua pre-existed, what does this mean?
Joh 17:18 “As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
How can we be sent into the world in the same manner as Yeshua was sent unless (1) we are pre-existent or (2) he was not pre-existent?
kejonnWith all due respect this is not a proof text against pre-existense.
How was Yeshua sent…
Lk 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,Lk 9:1
Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.The context of the chapter is Jesus praying for those who will continue his mission in bring the Good News to all of mankind.
He does mention where he came from though and that was with the Father sharing his Glory before he was sent.
We know that the desciples did not share the Fathers glory before the world was.
Jn 17:5
“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.Hey WJ,
If Yeshua knew of this glory that he had as a pre-existing God (IYO), why did he not reveal that he was God as well? Did he have selective memory? Or did the Father reveal things in bits and pieces? If he could remember the glory he had literally, how could he be like us in every way? Do we recall a literal glory we shared with God before the world was?Quote Jn 17:8
for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.Could the dicsiples say they came forth from God?
No, because none could claim a virgin birth by a woman and the Holy Spirit. It seems that both you and Steve forget that little detail.I don't want to get too graphic here…
Quote Earlier Jesus said this… Jn 16:27
for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father.*I Came Forth*
Greek, exerchomai, which means;
1) to go or come forth of
a) with mention of the place out of which one goes, or the point from which he departs
1) of those who leave a place of their own accord
2) of those who are expelled or cast out
It is a compound word, 'ek' – 1) out of, from, by, away from
and 'erchomai' -1) to come a) of persons
1) to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning
2) to appear, make one's appearance, come before the public
Invariably the word is used to denote leaving one place and going to another.
Its the same word used in the following text…
Matt 25:6, Luke 9:5, Luke 10:10, Jn 10:9, Acts 12:17 plus many more.
It can also mean (according to blueletter.org)
- to come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of
- to go forth from one's power, escape from it in safety
- to be made known, declared
- to be spread, to be proclaimed
- emitted as from the heart or the mouth
- to flow forth from the body
Too wide open…so it can be balanced with that pesky conception by the Holy Spirit of God and Mary.
Quote Then Jesus reiterates his statement… Jn 16:28
I came forth (exerchomai) from the Father, and am come (erchomai)
into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.
Ditto. See above.Quote Good hermaneutics and just simple english says that if Jesus is leaving the world and going to the Father then he had left the Father and came into the world.
Perhaps, but there is plenty of room and plenty of scripture to oppose your view. Why DID Luke and Matthew have to record the virgin birth…I sense God at work.Quote Tie that in with… Jn 6:
38 For I came down (katabaino) from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.This is powerfull. For not only is Jesus saying he came from the Father but that he came (descended) from heaven.
The words “I came down” is katabaino, which means…
1) to go down, come down, descend
a) the place from which one has come down from
b) to come down
1) as from the temple at Jerusalem, from the city of Jerusalem
2) of celestial beings coming down to earth
This is unambiguous. Jesus again clarifys his statement…
Hmmm, Strong's saysFrom G2596 and the base of G939; to descend (literally or figuratively): – come (get, go, step) down, descend, fall (down).
That Strong…must have been a heretic. there are several instances where “katabainō” did not mean a literal descension, but a figurative descension.
Mar 3:22 The scribes who came down [“katabaino”] from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons.”
Luk 2:51 And He went down [“katabaino”] with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.
Luk 6:17 Jesus came down [“katabaino”] with them and stood on a level place; and there was a large crowd of His disciples, and a great throng of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon,
Luk 10:30 Jesus replied and said, “A man was going down [“katabaino”] from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead.
Many more, but I don't want to list them all.
Quote Jn 6:62
[What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?ean oun qewrhte ton uion tou anqrwpou anabainonta opou hn to pro
teron?Was – 'en,hn ' = I WAS
Before – proteron = 1) before, prior
a) of time, former
Can any man claim to have come down from heaven?
Before you say we were born from above, true, but the Spirit descended on us and we were born agian here in this world in this body. But we did not exist in heaven neither can we say we were in heaven.!!!
Virgin birth? Holy Spirit of God who is in heaven (above) and Mary? How easily we forget…were you physically born of a virgin WJ?!?Quote How can these scriptures be interpreted any other way?
See above…Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 16 2007,00:00) Anyway, you're already taking the view of pre-existence and then reading it into the verses. Where does Paul refer to a time before Yeshua's birth in these verses? Does he mention his birth at all in any of this chapter? So why assume what is not there?
Hi kejonn.I haven't started with a predefined belief, I have started with scripture. You have to start somewhere and I think scripture is the best place to start.
If the scripture says it then that is a good start. At this point, if you contest it, then you need to explain away the scriptures as they are translated in our English bibles.
It's not like we have a scripture that says, that Adam failed so God created a new man called Yeshua the second Adam who was created and given life for the first time in Mary's womb, and was a perfect man fulfilled what Adam had failed to do. Sure there are hints of truth to this, but scripture has so much more.
Rather it is written:
Philippians 2:5-8
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!As you can see, the text says that he had divine nature and made himself nothing by becoming a servant and coming in the flesh. While he was in the flesh, he humbled himself and was obedient unto death.
We also know that he returned to the glory he had with the Father before the world begun.
John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.This is my so called bias or predefined belief. I don't have a preference for the way truth should be, I just want to know the truth. So if I start with scripture, then that is surely the safest and wisest thing to do, is it not?
So the onus is on you if you disagree with the verses above or the way it is translated because it is quite clear as to what it is saying when you read it. Couple that with a reasonable number of supporting verses and you have quite a good case as to Yeshua preexisting.
Again, at this point if you truly believe that these scriptures are wrong or wrongly translated, then you need to provide the proof.
For the time I have been posting here, I have been open to the possibility of Yeshua not preexisting and that the verses that teach that he did, are all translated incorrectly.
The arguments I have heard thus far sound more like excuses rather than propelling evidence that the translations of these texts are wrong.
To me, I think that a predefined belief is necessary in order to fly in the face of what scripture teaches. In order to go against scripture, a man needs to be convinced by extra-biblical writings, and then try and morph the scriptures toward his now predefined belief. My stance is not as such. I have started with scripture and I haven't seen anything that says that these scritpures are wrong as they are in our English bibles.
If a man starts with scripture as his foundation for doctrine, then he is free to read other stuff to enhance his understanding, but the moment an extra-biblical writing contradicts, then a warning bell should go off. If a man ignores that, and embraces the extra biblical-teaching, then he is in danger of falling for a doctrine of demons and hearing only what he wants to hear.
Scripture is the predefined belief that we should all have, even if we don't understand it. A predefined doctrine like the Trinity which is outside of scripture only leads to deception. I think this is also true of other doctrines such as Jesus being a mere created man, albeit a perfect one. To me they are just 2 sides of the same Greek coin. i.e, Jesus is either God or man.
Both these doctrines have quite a lot of scriptures to overcome and neither the Trinity nor the Unitarian doctrines do a perfect job of that. Yes the attempts are pretty extensive and heavily researched, but compared to scripture it just doesn't agree.
Unless you can prove otherwise.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
