Preexistence

[Proclaimer]

Apart from scripture, I have also yet to read anything from pre-nicene apostle/teacher that taught that Christ was only a man. From what I can see, they taught in accordance with scripture regarding who Jesus was and is.

They seem to agree that Christ was a divine being who partook of the flesh. Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 110 A.D) taught the following for example:

Whosoever, therefore, declares that there is but one God, only so as to take away the divinity of Christ, is a devil, and an enemy of all righteousness. He also that confesseth Christ, yet not as the Son of the Maker of the world, but of some other unknown being, different from Him whom the law and the prophets have proclaimed, this man is an instrument of the devil. And he that rejects the incarnation, and is ashamed of the cross for which I am in bonds, this man is antichrist. Moreover, he who affirms Christ to be a mere man is accursed, according to the prophet, since he puts not his trust in God, but in man. (To the Antiochians, IV-V).

I think that what this debate is about is the true Jesus. Because it is possible to preach another Jesus.

[kejonn]

Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 15 2007,18:06)

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.

Can you show me where the bread he compares himself too, the manna, literally fell from heaven? Yes, it was or heavenly origen, but it was created on the earth. Just like Yeshua was born — and died and resurrected — on earth.

Exo 16:13 So it came about at evening that the quails came up and covered the camp, and in the morning there was a layer of dew around the camp. [No manna yet]
Exo 16:14 When the layer of dew evaporated, behold, on the surface of the wilderness there was a fine flake-like thing, fine as the frost on the ground. [no record of it descending from heaven]
Exo 16:15 When the sons of Israel saw it, they said to one another, “What is it?” For they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, “It is the bread which the LORD has given you to eat.

Quote

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.

STILL NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO THIS, JUST YOU ASSERTION. Please, please provide scriptural evidence, not heavy apologetics.

Quote

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.

I answered this on my last post to WJ. Check it out. And I've also answerd the “before” reference for JTB. No refutation?

Quote

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.

Poor Mary. Had she known she was just a test tube baby carrier, she would have never come to the cross to see HER son die.

You DO have a mother Steve, right? I hope you honor her. You act as if Yeshua broke the commandment to honor Father AND MOTHER.

Quote

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…”[/quote[ Answered, over and over and over and over again. Besides, how does this compare with Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. Joh 17:14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. According to you, the disciples pre-existed along with Yeshua!!! Do we pre-exist too, or was this just for the disciples that Yeshua knew while on earth? You DO know he was speaking to the self-righteous Jews, right? THAT is why he said he was from above, and they were from below. John the Baptist said the same in John 3:31 that Christ came from heaven and is above all.

Is that all he said? Don't forget it all…

Joh 3:31 He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all.

Again, the Holy Spirit conception fits. But you don't believe in the virgin birth, so I should just stop mentioning it. I guess I have no defense left then. You pick and choose which part of scripture is true to you.

Quote

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.

Virgin birth…oh, wait, you don't believe that part of the Bible is true. Sorry, forgot.

Quote

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.

Hey you acknowledged its existence in scripture!! There are firsts in this life. But you soon write it off as no value. Oh well, God tried to show you.

Quote

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 fr om 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

Hmm, do you think the little Yeshua ran around the playground at recess (joke) and said “I was born of a virgin and conceived by the Holy Spirit”? He may have not made it past his teen years…not many knew of the reality of his conception. All they knew was what you listed

Joh 6:42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?”

Quote

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.

Well, that's cleared up. You ARE a henotheist. Nothing wrong with that. Greek in origin, but its your life.

Quote

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

Later.

[GeneBalthrop]

T8…..> the problem isn't that we don't have the nature of God in us as Jesus did, its our lack of Faith, Jesus said if we had the Faith the size of a grain of mustard seed we could say unto a mountain, be you cast into the sea and it would happen. So you see it not a lack of God's nature, It's a lack of faith.

remember when Jesus said that those who were his deciples would greater works then He did, why would he say that if it weren't true, and we are to over come even as He did.
See there is no seperation between us and Him acording to Him anyway, the only difference as I see it is our lack of Faith in the Father.

What causes this lack of Faith in The Father is believing Jesus was not really like us in every way and it's just what Satan want's us to think. Because if we believe Jesus was different we won't even try to express the same Faith Jesus had and thats is exactly what Satan wan't.
T8…> It's this separation of our and Jesus' identy is what Satan want's.
Just try to see Jesus just like you are and see if your courage and Trust in The Father dosen't increase. What the Father did for Jesus He will do for You. Just believe brother and there is nothing impossible for you.

blessing to you and yours……gene

[Proclaimer]

Gene the issue is not faith or lack of faith.

Jesus came as a man and was obedient unto death. Preexistence or not is of no effect regarding this point.

Jesus had divine nature and emptied himself and partook of flesh and now he is back with the Father with the same glory he had with him before the world begun.

God sent a perfect being into the world. Not just another Adam and therefore another chance, but his ONLY begotten son.

Jesus came as one of us, except that he had the answer to life, which we did not. He still had to choose God's will over his own.

[kejonn]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 15 2007,21:52)

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.

Then show me in Philippians where Paul speaks of the birth of Yeshua. That is scripture, correct?

Did you know that most of Paul's epistles preceded the gospels in the date of writing? And do you suppose that Paul sent his letter to the Philippians along with his letter so to other churches? So please look it is as it is written: a letter to the Philippians. There is nothing in chapter 1 or 2 that would lead the Philippians to a view of pre-existence. They understood the use of the word “morphe” to be used in relation to expressed outward appearance, as the use of “morphe” in the Septuagint bears out.

Quote

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.

No, it says nothing of a nature. It says that Yeshua, as a man of God, represented God and could have, as the Messiah, demanded worship and praise, along with earthly power. Yet he never did, and this was a stumbling block to the Jews. He always pointed the way to his Father. He is our example — we should point people to the Father! Let us never be seen, but let God be seen in us. That IS the meaning of Phil 2:5-8!

Quote

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.

Answered above in another post somewhere.

Quote

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?

But what scripture are you supposedly starting with? Scripture that supports your belief, or scripture that points to the Messiah — the Tanakh? He said so himself (John 5:39).

Quote

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.

Yes..and no. Yes if you use the Gospel of John with a smattering of Paul's epistles. No, if you use the other books of the Bible. All 66 books.

Quote

Again, at this point if you truly believe that these scriptures are wrong or wrongly translated, then you need to provide the proof.

They are not wrong or wrongly translated, they are wrongly interpreted!

Quote

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.

Again, no translation error. But you have to view the translations with (a) a Jewish mindset and (b) a Greek mindset. That is, the writers were Hebrew, but the NT was recorded in Greek. Stop strictly viewing them in English alone.

In England a diaper is called a napkin. Can you see the difference? Would you want to wipe your mouth with a diaper?

Quote

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.

Actually, pre-existence IS all extra-biblical. Look to the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythology, and then look at Jewish belief. Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians have gods coming in the flesh, Jews do not. Need I say more?

Quote

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.

See above. Show me pre-existence in the Tanakh, then we'll ta
lk.

Quote

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 coin and the coin is of the world.

Was Jesus a Jew or a Greek, Roman, or Egyptian? Stop looking at him outside of the scripture that testified of him, the Tanakh (OT).

Quote

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.

I have nothing to prove. All I have is scripture, both OT and NT. Not just the Gospel of John sprinkled with some Pauline epistles. Please stop ignoring the Old Testament.

[GeneBalthrop]

T8…..> God The Father even went so far to show us what he could do in Us that He made sure Jesus apearence was not very Good , infact it say's He had no special beauty or apearence that we should desire Him, So he took this lowely and proberly homely looking person and did a great work through Him, a work He himself did. Which brings Glory to God Himself and Jesus gave him the Glory for it too. Saying I have glorified You on the earth. Jesus was God the Father's workmanship from start to finish, and He gets the glory for what he does, God the Father said He gives His Glory to (NO) man.

peace to you and yours……gene

[Proclaimer]

Here is what I see:

Scripture says that Yeshua came down from heaven, became nothing in order to partake of flesh and become like us. He was obedient unto death and then returned to the glory he had with the Father.

So Unitarians have to then teach their disciples something like this. “OK, He didn't really come down from heaven. He wasn't really a being of divine nature who emptied himself and partook of flesh. He didn't really exist before Abraham. He wasn't really the rock that followed the Israelites. He wasn't really wisdom from God. He wasn't really the firstborn of all creation. He wasn't really the root of David who also said the LORD said to my Lord. He wasn't really the Word who was in the beginning with God. He didn't really return to heaven to the glory he had before with the Father.”

What gives you that idea? Oh scripture. Well let me explain this all away for you. Now listen carefully…

Sounds to me like the Trinitarians who say something to their disciples like:
“Oh Jesus didn't really say that the Father was the only true God to the exclusion of himself. Oh Jesus isn't really seated at the right hand of God, coz he is God. Oh Jesus isn't really second only to God, coz he is God. Oh the head of Jesus isn't God, coz Jesus is God…”

What gives you that idea? Oh scripture. Well let me explain this all away for you. Now listen carefully…

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 16 2007,15:35)

T8…..> God The Father even went so far to show us what he could do in Us that He made sure Jesus apearence was not very Good , infact it say's He had no special beauty or apearence that we should desire Him, So he took this lowely and proberly homely looking person and did a great work through Him, a work He himself did. Which brings Glory to God Himself and Jesus gave him the Glory for it too. Saying I have glorified You on the earth. Jesus was God the Father's workmanship from start to finish, and He gets the glory for what he does, God the Father said He gives His Glory to (NO) man. peace to you and yours……gene

That's good Gene. It is written that he had divine nature, became nothing and partook of flesh. He humbled himself while in the flesh. He did only the Father's will, therefore all glory goes to the Father for his perfect will and some glory goes to the lamb for laying his life down.

[kejonn]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 15 2007,21:59)

Apart from scripture, I have also yet to read anything from pre-nicene apostle/teacher that taught that Christ was only a man. From what I can see, they taught in accordance with scripture regarding who Jesus was and is. They seem to agree that Christ was a divine being who partook of the flesh. Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 110 A.D) taught the following for example: Whosoever, therefore, declares that there is but one God, only so as to take away the divinity of Christ, is a devil, and an enemy of all righteousness. He also that confesseth Christ, yet not as the Son of the Maker of the world, but of some other unknown being, different from Him whom the law and the prophets have proclaimed, this man is an instrument of the devil. And he that rejects the incarnation, and is ashamed of the cross for which I am in bonds, this man is antichrist. Moreover, he who affirms Christ to be a mere man is accursed, according to the prophet, since he puts not his trust in God, but in man. (To the Antiochians, IV-V). I think that what this debate is about is the true Jesus. Because it is possible to preach another Jesus.

t8,

It is good to look at the early fathers to figure out where the church went after the apostles an Yeshua, but you should exercise care with them. Have you noticed that not a single one of them was a Jew? They were ALL gentiles. Yes, I am a gentile, but the Bible was written by Hebrews, all 66 books. So you should proceed with caution when a Gentile, who may have come from a pagan lifestyle, converts to Christianity and brings their pagan baggage with them. Why else do you think that the trinity came to be? If you are not careful, by studying them, you may fall in lockstep with them and stop recalling the YHWH WAS the God of Israel before He allowed the gospel of His Son to be preached to the nations.

Finally, the book you quote from was one of Ignatius' spurious writings. IOW, he likely did not write it and it came much later than his legitimate works. So it is quite “bogus”. Please be careful with your sources.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 16 2007,15:35)

Then show me in Philippians where Paul speaks of the birth of Yeshua. That is scripture, correct?

kejonn.

There is no reference to Michael or Gabriel's birth or creation either. We just assumed that the sons of God were present though.

Yeshua's existence is not defined by a scripture giving the exact date that he came from the Father, but by descriptions of him as being the rock that was with the Israelites and that he returned to the glory that he had with God before the world began, and that he was before Abraham.

We are told that he is the firstborn of all creation. Not the firstborn of men, but of all creation. That is the cosmos.

Firstborns are usually the first born and because of that, they have special privileges. This status can be lost and given to another, but is given first to the literal firstborn unless they prove to be unworthy or give it away.

So Christ is the firstborn of all creation and Adam was the first human. As far as I know, Adam wasn't the firstborn of all creation. So to say that Jesus replaced Adam only, is to say that he is no greater than the firstborn among men, but not of all the cosmos.

This also leads us to think that if Adam hadn't of sinned, then there would be no Yeshua at all, even though God created all things through him and for him to begin with. Makes no semse to me.

I can see where you are coming from, it is not a lack of understanding. But I disagree with your opposition to the texts that speak of Yeshua.

Also, if firstborns are the first to be born, then the onus is on you to prove that he is not the literal firstborn, but firstborn in privilege only. For the word firstborn is self explanatory.

This raises another question:

If Christ isn't the literal firstborn of all creation, then who was/is?

Who was the firstborn of all creation who failed and consequently the privilege being passed to a created Jesus 2000 or so years ago?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 16 2007,15:48)

Finally, the book you quote from was one of Ignatius' spurious writings. IOW, he likely did not write it and it came much later than his legitimate works. So it is quite “bogus”. Please be careful with your sources.

What was the book called?

I will look it up.

[Proclaimer]

Duh, it was to the Antiochians.

[GeneBalthrop]

T8…..>your wrong it's all about Faith, you just aren't seeing it.

Jesus did not empty himself of devine nature, in order for that to happen The Spirit of God would have to leave him. He humbled Himself despite the devine nature he had, even to the point of death.

And Paul disagrees with you He said Jesus was the second Adam. God simply made another Adam and put His spirit in Him, He created DNA Just like he did for the First Adam, and put it in Mary and She bore the son God wanted to make.
remember even the first Adam is called the son of God too.

You said God sent a perfect Being into the world, then how could he be tempted in all manner of sin as we are, Surely a perfect Person wouldn't be effect by sin would He and if He wasn't then what did he overcome. And why tell us to overcome as He did seening were not perfect, as he was.

It truly was and is about Faith, Why does it say without Faith it's impossible to please God then ?.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 16 2007,16:30)

God simply made another Adam and put His spirit in Him, He created DNA Just like he did for the First Adam, and put it in Mary and She bore the son God wanted to make.

Wow. Where is this in scripture?

Bro Gene, with all due respect, I believe you are putting what you so desperately want to believe above scripture.

We are told that Jesus was conceived, and we are told that Jesus is God's *only* Son. What do these scriptural truths mean to you? I know it is tempting to read between the lines, but we must take scripture for what it says. And scripture tells us Jesus was conceived of God and Mary. If this is true, and I believe the scriptures are true, then we must believe that Jesus is a combination between God and Mary – a true Son. God's *only* Son.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 16 2007,04:49)

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 15 2007,22:15) We go from physical to spiritual and that means that we are not being humbled so to speak, but will be exalted in God's time. For the spiritual body is greater than the physical. Christ emptied himself and partook of the flesh. He made himself nothing. Hi t8, This above quote is of some interest to me because it appears that your first sentences are saying one thing, while your last sentence about Christ seems to say another?   I know that you believe that Jesus preexisted in a spirit form – I am correct to believe this, right?  And if you do hold to this belief, your above quote is misleading. You say that the physical comes first, then the spiritual.  But according to your Jesus, the spiritual came first, then the physical, then back to the spiritual again.  It appears there is an extra step in your theory?  I offer that the extra step is the preexistent Jesus. 1 Corinthians 15:43-46, in part …..it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. It appears to me that the scriptures say the natural came first *then* the spiritual.  While you contend that the spiritual came first *then* the natural (because you say that Jesus existed as a spirit before coming to be a man).  This is an opposite teaching of the above scriptures.  I may be confused, and ask that you clarify for me and others.  Thanks, brother.

t8, I wonder if you missed my post to you above? This thread is moving so quickly, you may have missed it. I bumped it for your review. I really would like your thoughts on it. Thanks, Mandy

[Proclaimer]

To Gene.

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 16 2007,16:30)

And Paul disagrees with you He said Jesus was the second Adam. God simply made another Adam and put His spirit in Him, He created DNA Just like he did for the First Adam, and put it in Mary and She bore the son God wanted to make. remember even the first Adam is called the son of God too.

So God didn't create all things through Christ and if Adam hadn't sinned then Yeshua wouldn't even exist.

With all respect, I disagree strongly with you on your point.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 16 2007,16:30)

You said God sent a perfect Being into the world, then how could he be tempted in all manner of sin as we are, Surely a perfect Person wouldn't be effect by sin would He and if He wasn't then what did he overcome. And why tell us to overcome as He did seening were not perfect, as he was.

Adam was a perfect being and he sinned. Even Satan was perfect once and without sin, but he sinned too.

If Jesus wasn't perfect, then he was a sinner.

What is remarkable is that he took upon him flesh in all its' weakness. But he was without sin.

Yes sin is not of faith, so it is about faith.

But Jesus wasn't a sinner and he had faith in God always.

[david]

Question. What does “i bumped it” mean?

Often, I see people saying “bump bump.”

Am I out of the loop on this? Could someone explain?

[Worshipping Jesus]

You say…

Quote

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?

LOL. Use another argument to rebut an argument. Ok, lets look at it your way. Jesus is not God. Now what does that have to do with Yeshua sharing the Fathers Glory before the world was?

How many times have you accused me of having trinity glasses on and reading into a text?

Well who has “Unitarian” glasses on now.  Jesus plainly says….

Jn 17:5
“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

He is not saying the Glory I had with you as a thought or a plan!

Your interpretation disagrees with all of these translations.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Now, Father, give me glory in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world existed.
King James Bible
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
American Standard Version
And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Bible in Basic English
And now, Father, let me have glory with you, even that glory which I had with you before the world was.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with thee.
Darby Bible Translation
and now glorify me, thou Father, along with thyself, with the glory which I had along with thee before the world was.
English Revised Version
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Tyndale New Testament
And now glorify me thou father in thine own presence, with the glory which I had with thee yer the world was.
Weymouth New Testament
And now, Father, do Thou glorify me in Thine own presence, with the glory that I had in Thy presence before the world existed.
Webster's Bible Translation
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thy ownself, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
World English Bible
Now, Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.
Young's Literal Translation
'And now, glorify me, Thou Father, with Thyself, with the glory that I had before the world was, with Thee

You are interpreting scripture that has already been interpreted by the experts.

The Glory I had with you before the world was

Hey Jesus what do you mean you had Glory with the Father before the world was? That’s just simply not true!  

BTW! Where does the scriptures say Jesus had to be like us in every way? It dosnt, thats simply a man made doctrine!

You say…

Quote

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…

No it is you that is forgetting that little detal its called the “virgin birth”.

Jn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

You defy the translations and most of the translators and most of the commentators to follow a man made theory.

Here is where your theology comes from concerning the “Logos” that was with God and was God!

Note: A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe.
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang….ion=kjv

But John tells us his interpretation of it in 1 Jn 1:1-3 and Rev 19:13, but you refuse to believe the words of John and his descrption of the “Logos”.

Here is some more info on the “Logos” which refutes what you say.

The Greek for “Word” is LOGOS.  Much speculation has surrounded John's source for this term.  Many have suggested Philo as a likely source.  However, recent scholarship has focused more on Jewish Wisdom tradition, which spoke of God's Word in a metaphoric sense as having personal attributes.  The discovery of a native Jewish origin for LOGOS has caused most scholars to abandon the notion that John's Gospel represents an early Gnostic text (championed by Bauer and others).  If John's audience was familiar with the use of LOGOS as a personified attribute of God, it must be asked whether they would consider John's LOGOS to be a separate being, or still in some way a “part” of God – either literally or still an exaggerated personification.  It is impossible to tell with certainty, of course, but it seems likely that their prior understanding of the term would lead them to consider the LOGOS primarily a “part” of God, though in what sense, they could only wait for John to explain.  This seems particularly likely, given that the Wisdom tradition was also poetic in nature.  Thus, John audience would have understood that in the Beginning, God has with Him His creative Word – the Word by which He spoke the universe into existence.  They would, at this point, perhaps have more readily thought of the Word as yet another poetic personification of an attribute of God; it is unlikely they would have assumed that the Word that was intimately with God was another god, a secondary created being, whose creation appears nowhere in this passage, and whose existence stretches back before the beginning of creation.
All this is evidence that Yeshua pre-existed.
http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm

I would rather follow the scriptures than a man made theory. I don’t have to read into the text.

You say…

Quote

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

I am sure it is a pesky conception to you since you cannot take all the scriptures together to form your theology.

See above. The Gospel of John is also scripture and was written years later when there was more revelation concerning his existence, and John was also the beloved disciple who seemed to have a special relationship with Jesus. So to deny his words or belittle his writings is also to deny the scriptures.

You say…

Quot e

Ditto. See above. 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.

No there is plenty of scripture opposing your view without having to read into them with the preconceived notion that Jesus was a thought or plan in the Fathers mind. There is no scriptural basis for this man made theory. GB goes as far as saying that Yeshua is just a man, oh but that’s right you say he was just like us in every way. Lord help us all if that is true!

I said…

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…

You said…

Quote

Hmmm, Strong's says From G2596 and the base of G939; to descend (literally or figuratively): – come (get, go, step) down, descend, fall (down).

So this is how you read it…
Jn 6:
38 For I came down (katabaino) from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me, But I only speak figuratively!

So then when he did the Fathers will that was figuratively also right?

You say…

Quote

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.

 So they “came down” from Jerusalem figuratively?

Man you are really grasping for straws now?

But strange as it may seem, the City of Jerusalem as it existed in the time of Christ Jesus was also reckoned to be the “City of Seven Hills.” This fact was well recognized in Jewish circles. In the Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, an eighth century midrashic narrative (section 10), the writer mentioned without commentary (showing that the understanding was well known and required no defense) that “Jerusalem is situated on seven hills” (recorded in The Book of Legends, edited by Bialik and Ravnitzky, p. 371, paragraph 111). And, so it was. Those “seven hills” are easy to identify. If one starts with the Mount of Olives just to the east of the main City of Jerusalem (but still reckoned to be located within the environs of Jerusalem), there are three summits to that Mount of Olives. The northern summit (hill) is called Scopus [Hill One], the middle summit (hill) was called Nob [Hill Two], the highest point of Olivet itself, and the southern summit (hill) was called in the Holy Scriptures the “Mount of Corruption” or “Mount of Offence” [Hill Three] (II Kings 23:13). On the middle ridge between the Kedron and the Tyropoeon Valleys there was (formerly) in the south “Mount Zion” [Hill Four] (the original “Mount Zion” and not the later southwest hill that was later called by that name), then the “Ophel Mount” [Hill Five] and then to the north of that the “Rock” around which “Fort Antonia” was built [Hill Six]. And finally, there was the southwest hill itself [Hill Seven] that finally became known in the time of Simon the Hasmonean as the new “Mount Zion.” This makes “Seven Hills” in all.
http://www.askelm.com/prophecy/p000201.htm

And you say Strongs must be a heritic!

I said…

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 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.!!!

You said…

Quote

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?!?

No. But then I or no other man can say that I will ascend up where I was before. You make the argument that the Holy Spirit is from above therefore implying Jesus is calling on his virgin birth here.

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

I was born from above by the Spirit, I cant make that claim, can you? Have you been in heaven?

Yeshua literally came down from heaven, to deny this is to deny the scriptures.

[david]

Quote

And what I said about the Denying the OT is what do you do with were Moses Said God would raise up a prophet (Like Me) from among your brethern, notice He didn't say from somewhere else like a preexistent Angle or anything else did He. And He told Abraham that a seed would come from His loins. That would inherit the blessings. And we Know that seed was Jesus. And God told that the seed of the woman would bruise the Head of the serpent. And that seed was Jesus. And there are others that show that seed was to come from the flesh and blood human race, and nothing more. Jesus was exactly a second Adam Just as Paul Said he was. The only difference between the first Adam and The second Adam is that God the Father was in Him via His Spirit. That was Jesus' advantage, and nothing more, and we who have that same Spirit in us have that same adventage in Us also, So Jesus could say “He that overcomes even as I have I will grant to sit with me in the kingdom.” People who give Jesus all these extra preexistent or incornation advantages are not reconizing the work that the One and Only True God was doing in Jesus. prove to me one advantage for Jesus being preexistent or incarnated, if you do then I will say He really wasn't like me at all. And he really wasn't a true brother of mine and I am not an heir with him either.

–Gene.

Wow, this thread moves fast.

And what I said about the Denying the OT is what do you do with were Moses Said God would raise up a prophet (Like Me) from among your brethern, notice He didn't say from somewhere else like a preexistent Angle or anything else did He.

DEUTERONOMY 18:15-19
“A prophet from your own midst, from your brothers, like me, is what Jehovah your God will raise up for you—to him YOU people should listen— in response to all that you asked of Jehovah your God in Ho′reb on the day of the congregation, saying, ‘Do not let me hear again the voice of Jehovah my God, and this great fire do not let me see anymore, that I may not die.’ At that Jehovah said to me, ‘They have done well in speaking what they did. A prophet I shall raise up for them from the midst of their brothers, like you; and I shall indeed put my words in his mouth, and he will certainly speak to them all that I shall command him. And it must occur that the man who will not listen to my words that he will speak in my name, I shall myself require an account from him.”

Yes, he was a prophet, like Moses. One example:
MOSES:
EXODUS 34:28
“And he continued there with Jehovah forty days and forty nights. He ate no bread and he drank no water. And he proceeded to write upon the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Words.”
JESUS:
MATTHEW 4:2
“After he had fasted forty days and forty nights, then he felt hungry.”

Another example:
MOSES:
NUMBERS 12:3
“And the man Moses was by far the meekest of all the men who were upon the surface of the ground.”

JESUS:
MATTHEW 11:29
“Take my yoke upon YOU and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and YOU will find refreshment for YOUR souls.”

Again:
HEBREWS 3:2
“[Jesus] was faithful to the One that made him such, as Moses was also in all the house of that One”

Jesus seems to be the Greater Moses (acts 3:22)

Yes, God did raise up a prophet like Moses. You require the word “like” to indicate that they be alike in every way. I see that scripture bears out they had many similarities.

They had similarities:
While they were infants, the lives of both of them were jeopardized by tyrannical rulers, but God saw to it that the babies were spared. (Exodus 1:20–2:10; Matthew 2:7-23) Both men spent 40 days fasting at the start of their careers as Jehovah’s special servants. (Exodus 24:18; 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:18, 25; Matthew 4:1, 2) And Moses and Jesus both performed miracles by God’s power.—Exodus 14:21-31; 16:11-36; Psalm 78:12-54; Mark 4:41; Luke 7:18-23; John 14:11.

You interpret the word “like” to mean what you want it to mean.

And He told Abraham that a seed would come from His loins. That would inherit the blessings. And we Know that seed was Jesus.

And God told that the seed of the woman would bruise the Head of the serpent. And that seed was Jesus.

And there are others that show that seed was to come from the flesh and blood human race, and nothing more. Jesus was exactly a second Adam Just as Paul Said he was.

Yes, the seed came from Abraham's loins (through his lineage) did it not?

[Author]

Posts