Preexistence

[david]

Gene, to quote WJ above:

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

[david]

Jn 6:62
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

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

Scriptures like this, if read plainly, would indicate to most that Jesus existed as a person in heaven before coming to earth.
I would think the burden of proof would be on anyone to explain why they dont think these scriptures should be read and understood in the simplest most straightforward way.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (david @ Oct. 16 2007,19:53)

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?

It's a way that people put a discussion in front of the queue without actually posting a thoughtful post.

I am not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

The people who do it probably feel the need to give that discussion more exposure.

[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.

Hi kejonn.

Yes according to the authority of Wikipedia, there are seven authentic letters. They are:

[kejonn]

t8,

The problem, as I've already pointed out, in taking quotes from the early fathers is that none of them were Jews. The very first Christians were Jews, I find it very, very telling that nothing can be found on their writings outside the biblical canon.

Don't forget t8, the Jews were living around many different peoples, many of them Greek, Roman, and Egyptian. All of these people had pantheons of gods. So it was quite natural for these people to bring in their pagan ideas and use them to then interpret scripture. The Bible is a book by Hebrew people, not Egyptians, Romans, or Greeks.

So be careful that what you are not doing is running with people's ideas that have already been inserting their pagan view into scripture. I know Polycarp's writings are short, but he too was supposed to be a disciple of John, and his writings do not match up with Ignatius' at all with respect to the nature of Yeshua. Why would two students of the same man (supposedly) come away with two different views?

Just take care t8. When you start getting away from scripture you can tread dangerous water. All of it must be balanced by scripture.

[kejonn]

Quote (david @ Oct. 16 2007,03:18)

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

Since WJ also had this in his post (and he said thank God Yeshua was not like us), do you and WJ call the Bible man-made doctrine?

Heb 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

[kejonn]

Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 15 2007,17:16)

Quote Quote Jesus told the people he has seen God. When did he see God? John 6:46

Sorry, didn't get back to this one. The word for “seen” here is “harao”

Joh 6:46 Not that any man hath seen [“harao”] the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen [“harao”] the Father.

Now “harao” can mean to “see” literally or mentally. Tell me, do you think that the Jews preexisted with satan or at least saw satan?

Joh 8:38 I speak that which I have seen [“harao”] with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen [“harao”] with your father

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

But is John 6:46 merely saying that only Yeshua has “seen the Father, or is he speaking of those who are spiritually discerning. He said his disciples were not of the world, just as he was not of the world. Also

Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Do you again see where the GoJ has Yeshua speaking figuratively? Did the disciples actually see the Father? No, but you seem to think that John 6:46 is literal. Are the above verses literal as well? Are you ready to say that Yeshua was his own Father?

[kejonn]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 16 2007,03:00)

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!

Those above are not interpretation, they’re translation. Big difference. When Yeshua said this, was he finished doing all God had sent him to do? Seems he thought so

Joh 17:4  “I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.

But wait, he hadn’t died on the tree yet so how can he literally be saying that he has accomplished all that the Father had sent him to do? Again, this is another instance where people take one verse literally but find that they can’t so in other verses. The Gospel of John is very, very symbolic and figurative.

But how does John 17:5 compare with these verses

Eph 1:4  just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
Eph 1:5  He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

So in Eph 1:4, Paul says that God chose us before the foundation of the world. Then in v5 he clarifies this by saying He predestined us to adoption as sons. Does this not clarify how all things related to the Messiah were predestined? Not pre-existed, predestined. And remember the infamous word “beginning” that pre-existence believers like so much. Here’s one, just for you all

2Th 2:13  But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

Now, you need to be fair and say that if all the other times that the “beginning” means the Genesis creation account, then you must know that we have been chosen by God from the beginning of creation for salvation. So we all pre-exist! I just wish I could remember what I did before I was incarnated…But wait there’s more!

Rom 8:29  For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

There I am again! God knew me before I was born, and other verses show that He has known me from the beginning! I guess that all those who have chosen to follow Christ were destined to do so because we pre-existed and it was just our destiny. We are immortal WJ! Just like Yeshua, only our flesh tent will die, but our soul has always been! Wow, what truthes are being revealed! But we can’t stop there, we’re on a roll

Rev 13:8  All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

Check it out. Our names have been there since the foundation of the world. If that is not proof that we all have pre-existed, I don’t know what is! I wonder if my real name is Kevin, or if I had/will have some other cool, spiritual name. I know “logos” is already taken, but I’m sure there are plenty of awesome names to go around.

Of course, I’m being facetious. But it just goes to show that scripture can be interpreted to mean many things when you want to believe something.

Quote

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

Only if you consider the Bible man-made doctrine…Hebrews 2:17

(ESV)  Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

(ISV)  Thus he had to become like his brothers in every way, so that he could be a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God and could atone for the people's sins.

(KJV)  Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

(NASB)  Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in
things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

(BBE) Because of this it was necessary for him to be made like his brothersin every way, so that he might be a high priest full of mercy and keeping faith in everything to do with God, making offerings for the sins of the people.

(Darby) Wherefore it behoved him in all things to be made like to his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people;

Quote

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.

I am not changing the translation, I am interpreting what has been translated. Does God not speak in Genesis 1 and things are brought forth? Has God sent His Word to men about the coming Messiah? Then why would it then be a stretch that the Word that came to these men of God for thousands of years should finally come to be? Yes, the Messiah was finally born, and his name is Yeshua. Not that hard to fathom, really. How did he become flesh WJ? Like the first Adam, or by the virgin birth?

Isa 7:14  “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

I don’t see anywhere in Isaiah where God said he would implant His “logos” in a virgin.

Quote

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

Hmm….are you certain that is not where the writer of John got his idea from? What makes you so certain? After all, unlike what you believe, which was formulated AFTER the Bible was written, this philosophy preceded the New Testament by 600 years! There is much more basis in all of scripture to believe this than there is that “logos” is some sentient being flitting around heaven, carrying out God’s will.

And did not God send His Word to men throughout the OT, changing the course of things? Did He not send his word to Jonah, who preached that Word, and the people of Ninevah repented, thus changing their course? Or do you suppose when you see the “word of the LORD” in the OT, it was Yeshua going to the men of God? Can you show me how that fits?

The “logos” as a pre-existent being fits your theology. The “logos” as the actual “word” of God fits the rest of the Bible.

Quote

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 description of the “Logos”.

I don’t refuse to believe any of that. I just don’t see them the same way you do. Yeshua could have the name “logos theos” not because he WAS that, but because God’s Word was fulfilled in him.

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

While we are on this, what do you think about this verse WJ

1Jn 1:1  What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—

What does “from the beginning” mean here? After all, unless John pre-existed from the beginning, how could he say this?

Quote

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

And? How does this refute what I said? Did you miss this phrase “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.”

What I have put forth is not Gnostic either. The Gnostics believed “logos” was the evil Jewish God of the OT, and that Yeshua was the “aeon” that would replace or destroy this evil God. So none of what you just listed refutes what I said.

Quote

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

Follow scripture then. Do a
study on “word of the LORD” and “word of God” and you find nowhere else in scripture that “logos” or “dabar” was some sentient being. The only place is John 1 when you force it.

I will respond to the rest of your post later. You wrote several pages again  .

[kenrch]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 16 2007,04:36)

Quote (kenrch @ Oct. 16 2007,01:38) Over and over the son of man said He could do nothing!  That doesn't sound “supernatural”.  If the flesh of the son of man was supernatural and unlike a regular human then His sacrifice is not valid. Why was his sacrifice not valid? Jesus bore in his flesh the totality of our sins, and his body was sacrificed once and for all. Here is a question for you, Ken, as I have been following your posts here (some good stuff) – what makes you think that Jesus is just a man?  Remember that he had a human for a mother, but his father is God Almighty!  What would that combination produce?  Thanks.

Heb 2:17  Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

If Jesus was not “made like the first Adam” then His sacrifice is not valid.

Yes Adam was “created” and not born but we are from Adam.  Once God blew life in him he apparently became flesh.  One kind begets the same kind.

If we had “a supernatural” fleshly body that did not rebel against us what would we be?

Everyone wants to sight the Son of God and rightfully so, but lets not forget Jesus was the son of man like you and I.  BUT like the first Adam without sin.

Jesus was born clean~no sin~ and unlike the first Adam He did not sin.  If the second Adam were not as the first Adam then how could he reconcile the world to Himself being a “supernatural” being.  

Gal 4:4  But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
Gal 4:5  to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

The Father used Flesh as He used dust for Adam.  How did the Father do that?  How did He make dirt flesh?

God made dirt flesh.  Then He made flesh the son of man born without sin as Adam was “born from the earth” without sin.

Jesus was the second Adam but born of flesh.

The son of man~Jesus~ has his own spirit, His own personality, His own being.  But He totally submitted to the Father (unlike the first Adam) .  The son of man was NOT God.  The son of man was “flesh” just as Adam was.

Weather made from dust OR made from flesh Both Adams were made by God.

In the beginning was the Word.  The beginning of What? The beginning of God?  No God has no beginning!  So it is the beginning of creation ~was the Word~the blue print.

That Thought (according to Strong) became flesh.  The son of man who was born of God.  Just as the first Adam was born of the earth Jesus was born of flesh. Where did the flesh come from?

If Jesus was supernatural then so was the first Adam.

Perhaps the first Adam was supernatural (before the fall)compared to we who are sin.

Eph 1:3  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5  he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

We are a “recall” ! We did NOT make the grade fleshly to be called the children of God.  That's why the son of man was created “directly” from the manufacturer.  HE was made Right with no mistakes.  Our flesh has been “rejected”

Did I answer your question?  

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 16 2007,23:53)

Quote (david @ Oct. 16 2007,03:18) Gene, to quote WJ above: BTW! Where does the scriptures say Jesus had to be like us in every way? It dosnt, thats simply a man made doctrine! Since WJ also had this in his post (and he said thank God Yeshua was not like us), do you and WJ call the Bible man-made doctrine? Heb 2:17  Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

kejonn

Did Jesus sin? Then you are again reading into the scripture what shouldnt be there.

You know exactly what I mean. Yet you want to misrepresent me.

Why do you want to bring Jesus down to being just a mere man when he is the Monogenes “Unique” Son of God.

How about these scriptures…

Rom 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

I suppose Paul just added all this extra biblical language about Jesus coming in the “likeness of sinful flesh”?

Phil 2:7
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

So again Paul uses all this extra biblical language when he says “Likeness of men” and “being found in fashion as a man?

Jesus is the bread of life, The way the truth and the life, the light of the world, the eternal life, the Great Shephard, the Head of the Church, The ressurection and the life, The rock of ages, the Mediator, The King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the first and the last, the Alpha and Omega, wonderfull, councelor, the mighty God, The everlasting Father, the image of the invisible God, the express image of his person, the first born from the dead, the firstborn of all creation, the prince of peace, Emmanuel, and the Word that was with God and was God, and by him all things were created that were created.

Do you know of an other being like that kejonn?

Is there any other being ever gonna be those things kejonn?

[kejonn]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 16 2007,03:00)

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.

Actually, I do. OT and NT, not just a few passages in the NT.

Quote

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.

I’ll admit that for a time I struggled with the Gospel of John until I studied it more and balanced it with the rest of the Bible. Certainly, one must balance GoJ with the Synoptics. Sadly, those who believe in the trinity or even in pre-existence don’t seem to do that. Instead, they focus on John and seem to plant themselves there with a few forays into Paul’s epistles when appropriate to support their theology.

Over the last few months, I’ve come to another understanding of why Christians are so eager to shy away from the Tanakh: it doesn’t support their belief in the Messiah as God, and also does not support the idea that the Law can be abolished. But Yeshua plainly stated that the Tanakh testified of him, so why are people so hesitant to read and find out more?

Quote

You say… Quote 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!

Covered above. Search for “word of the LORD” and “word of God” as a phrase and tell me when there was an instance that it was Yeshua as a pre-existent being. If you find any, I’ll be glad to look into them. And Hebrews 2:17 addresses your “Lord help us if that is true”. Indeed, we DO need the Lord to help us!

Quote

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 “Moun t 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!

If I am “going down” to see my Mother (she lives south of me) am I literally descending? And while Jerusalem may have been of a higher elevation, did that mean that they were “floating down” from Jerusalem? Also, what of this verse?

Jas 1:17  Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down [“katabaino”] from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

When was the last time you saw something float down from heaven? Or for that matter, if this is figurative, do you truly believe that God is sending you gifts via “Spiritual Express”? Rather, the Holy Spirit – the same one that conceived Yeshua with Mary – is what gives us our gifts from the Father of Lights. Can you deny that?

Quote

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.

And why can’t he be? We DO know that he was conceived of the Holy Spirit (heaven) and Mary (earth). So his paternal heritage is from above, from heaven, is it not?

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 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.

What does the next verse say?

Joh 6:63  “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

The Spirit WJ? What Spirit?

Mat 1:20  But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

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.

Why would Yeshua speak of ascending back to where he was in one verse and immediately after mention that it is the Spirit who gives life. Context, context. Finally,

Joh 5:26  “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;

The life that Yeshua has is from the Father. The Spirit gives life. The Holy Spirit of God the Father gave life to Yeshua. This is what it means to balance scripture with scripture.

[kejonn]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 16 2007,10:23)

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 16 2007,23:53) Quote (david @ Oct. 16 2007,03:18) Gene, to quote WJ above: BTW! Where does the scriptures say Jesus had to be like us in every way? It dosnt, thats simply a man made doctrine! Since WJ also had this in his post (and he said thank God Yeshua was not like us), do you and WJ call the Bible man-made doctrine? Heb 2:17  Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. kejonn Did Jesus sin? Then you are again reading into the scripture what shouldnt be there.

Did I say he sinned? Nope. Did you sin the very first day you came from your mother's womb? No, but you had in you the propensity to sin. As did Yeshua. So he was not made with sin, nor are we. We choose to sin. He overcame.

Heb 2:18  For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

Heb 4:15  For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin

He was made like us in every way WJ. The Bible says so. The difference is that we choose to disobey while he chose to be perfectly obedient.

Quote

You know exactly what I mean. Yet you want to misrepresent me.

No I don't. You said to show me where Yeshua was made like us and I showed you. There's no misrepresentation there.

Quote

Why do you want to bring Jesus down to being just a mere man when he is the Monogenes “Unique” Son of God.

Why does the writer of Hebrews do the same thing I am doing? Take it up with God, He is the one who inspired the writer of Hebrews to say those things about Yeshua.

Quote

How about these scriptures… Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: I suppose Paul just added all this extra biblical language about Jesus coming in the “likeness of sinful flesh”?

Where does this disagree with what I am saying of him? Or what the writers of Hebrews said of him?

Quote

Phil 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. So again Paul uses all this extra biblical language when he says “Likeness of men” and “being found in fashion as a man?

The Messiah could have claimed so much more for himself. Yet he did not. Thus, instead of claiming glory and power, he made himself of no reputation. That is what this passage says. And just like any other man, he died. Mortal. But God raised him to immortality. He is the firstborn from the dead.

Quote

Jesus is the bread of life, The way the truth and the life, the light of the world, the eternal life, the Great Shephard, the Head of the Church, The ressurection and the life, The rock of ages, the Mediator, The King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the first and the last, the Alpha and Omega, wonderfull, councelor, the mighty God, The everlasting Father, the image of the invisible God, the express image of his person, the first born from the dead, the firstborn of all creation, the prince of peace, Emmanuel, and the Word that was with God and was God, and by him all things were created that were created. Do you know of an other being like that kejonn?

No, never said I did. Yet did you ever seem him glorify himself? Did you ever see him flaunt his status and power as the Messiah? Were all of these things not given to him by his Father for his perfect obedience, and ultimately to the very obedience to the death on the tree? Yet you fail to see that while all of these things are true, the writer of Hebrews said he was made like us in all ways, all respects.

The lesson? We can do great and mighty things if we find ourselves in the center of God's will. THAT was the goal of Yeshua's ministry on earth — to show us how to have a relationship with God. He showed us how he — the “monogenes” Son of God — could humble himself and become of no reputation. And he showed us that all he did was the will of the Father and that all things that he did were through the power of his Father. It was not of himself, but of the power of God in heaven. Can you show me contrary?

Finally, what did Yeshua say to his followers?

Joh 14:12  “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.

Did you see that? He said that those after him will do greater works than he did! So where does the power come from WJ? Was it because he was a pre-existent God-man, or because he received all he knew and did from the Father, and that we too can do many things by trusting in God. If we can do greater things than him, does that make us pre-existent god-men too?

Quote

Is there any other being ever gonna be those things kejonn?

No other will be the Messiah, no. But I didn't write Hebrews. Take up your contention with God.

[Not3in1]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 16 2007,22:39)

Quote (david @ Oct. 16 2007,19:53) 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? It's a way that people put a discussion in front of the queue without actually posting a thoughtful post. I am not sure if that is a good or bad thing. The people who do it probably feel the need to give that discussion more exposure.

Nick would “bump” a topic when he thought it was “topical” or of interest.

Whenever the preexistence thread comes up and gets some attention, I always “bump” the conception thread because I feel the go hand-in-hand.

[Not3in1]

Quote (kenrch @ Oct. 17 2007,03:07)

Yes Adam was “created” and not born but we are from Adam.

Exactly!

Jesus was born into the family of God, and we, like Adam, need to be born-again to be acceptable to God.

We will be adopted; Jesus already belongs.

[kejonn]

Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 15 2007,18:17)

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

I never said it was ambiguous. I just take scripture and balance it with scripture. If only John and a few other passages lead to the idea of pre-existence, why does the balance of the Bible not support the idea? Why is there no hint in the Tanakh of pre-existence when Yeshua clearly stated that the OT testified of Him? Why do we not see any pre-existence themes in the Synoptics?

Again, you have to look at John and understand how very figurative and symbolic it is. It is truth, but its truth is not always literal.

Was Yeshua literally bread? Was he literally a lamb? A door? Did the disciples ever see this?

Joh 1:51  And He said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

If so, show me where.

Are the following verses literal too then?

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

Joh 4:34  Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work. [so he did not need to eat physical food?]

Joh 4:35  “Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest'? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest. [was he speaking of a literal harvest of crops?]

Joh 5:35  “He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. [Was JTB literally a lamp?]

Joh 6:27  “Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.”[again, is this literal food?]

Joh 6:35  Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. [is Yeshua literal bread? When you partake of communion, are you actually eating Yeshua's flesh?]

Joh 6:70  Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?”[was Judas literally a devil?]

Joh 7:38  “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'” [Have you ever met anyone who has literal rivers of water flowing from them?]

Joh 8:44  “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. [Was the devil literally their father?]

Joh 8:52  The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, 'If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.' [Do you know anyone who is literally immortal? We will all die the physical death]

Joh 10:7  So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.[Is Yeshua literally a door?]

Joh 10:16  “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.  [are we literally sheep?]

Joh 11:11  This He said, and after that He *said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, so that I may awaken him out of sleep.” [Was Lazarus asleep or dead? See v14]

To be fair, one must take all things in John literally. Or, you could read what is written and balnce it with other scripture to know what is figurative, and what is literal. That is the way to perform proper exigesis.

[GeneBalthrop]

t8…..> the question is not that Jesus did not sin, But (how) he didn't sin. Was it because he was a supernatural being or had a spuernateral berth.

Or was it He had the Spirit of the Living God in Him and that's what kept Him from sinning.

One way of looking at it gives Glory to Jesus the Man, the other way gives Glory to The Father who was in Him.

Most people wan't to give the glory to Jesus the person and Negating God's work in Him.

The example of Jesus was how God workes in a person to acomplish His will in them, and it the same as He did in Jesus.

Satan does not want us to realize that, so he creates an image of Jesus being another GOD, or some incarnated super being, Who of and by himself overcame sin and the world.

Ask yourself why would Satan Create that false image of Jesus in the first place, the answer is simple, because He wants us to believe we are really not like Jesus and that will cause us to loose faith in what God can Do in ordinary human beings like we are.

You used scripture the said, God created all things through (Christ) and that statement is Right, But the problem is with the word (Christo's) it's not talking about Jesus the Person but the annointing or Spirit, and what does it say in the beginning the Spirit of God moved over the earth and God Said, not Jesus said.

Another good example of that is where it say's that Christ was the Rock that followed the childern of Israel in the wilderness, again it should be rendered the Spirit followed them, not Jesus .

All these extra advantages Trinitarians and incarnationest and super berts gives Jesus (personal) advantages over us and that not what the Father want, He wants us to see Jesus exactly like we are, so we can develope the same Faith Jesus our brother has.

The creation of Jesus as A God is what created the Man of Sin, and is the biggest LIE ever told.

blessings to you and yours….gene

[kenrch]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 17 2007,04:15)

Quote (kenrch @ Oct. 17 2007,03:07) Yes Adam was “created” and not born but we are from Adam. Exactly! Jesus was born into the family of God, and we, like Adam, need to be born-again to be acceptable to God. We will be adopted; Jesus already belongs.

We are adopted because our flesh is sin. When our spirit gets our new body then we will be LIKE Him.

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.

If Jesus the son of man was “supernatural” not like us because of sin But as Adam who was Created by the Same Creator without sin.

Adam became flesh, if he didn't then we would be Mud. The Word became FLESH by God same as the first Adam though using Mary because Flesh had already been created.

Or was God suppose to make the Word out of dirit all over again. God used what was HIS to use. You and I are DIRT we come from Adam who was dirt. That dirt when God blew life into it became a living soul~flesh~ so in reality when God used Mary He was using DIRT that was already flesh.

Their was nothing special about the son of man EXECPT He had no sin just as the first Adam had NO sin.

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 17 2007,03:37)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 16 2007,03:00) 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. Actually, I do. OT and NT, not just a few passages in the NT. Quote 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. I’ll admit that for a time I struggled with the Gospel of John until I studied it more and balanced it with the rest of the Bible. Certainly, one must balance GoJ with the Synoptics. Sadly, those who believe in the trinity or even in pre-existence don’t seem to do that. Instead, they focus on John and seem to plant themselves there with a few forays into Paul’s epistles when appropriate to support their theology. Over the last few months, I’ve come to another understanding of why Christians are so eager to shy away from the Tanakh: it doesn’t support their belief in the Messiah as God, and also does not support the idea that the Law can be abolished. But Yeshua plainly stated that the Tanakh testified of him, so why are people so hesitant to read and find out more? Quote You say… Quote 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! Covered above. Search for “word of the LORD” and “word of God” as a phrase and tell me when there was an instance that it was Yeshua as a pre-existent being. If you find any, I’ll be glad to look into them. And Hebrews 2:17 addresses your “Lord help us if that is true”. Indeed, we DO need the Lord to help us! Quote 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! If I am “going down” to see my Mother (she lives south of me) am I literally descending? And while Jerusalem may have been of a higher elevation, did that mean that they were “floating down” from Jerusalem? Also, what of this verse? Jas 1:17  Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down [“katabaino”] from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. When was the last time you saw something float down from heaven? Or for that matter, if this is figurative, do you truly believe that God is sending you gifts via “Spiritual Express”? Rather, the Holy Spirit – the same one that conceived Yeshua with Mary – is what gives us our gifts from the Father of Lights. Can you deny that? Quote 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. And why can’t he be? We DO know that he was conceived of the Holy Spirit (heaven) and Mary (earth). So his paternal heritage is from above, from heaven, is it not? 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 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. What does the next verse say? Joh 6:63  “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. The Spirit WJ? What Spirit? Mat 1:20  But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 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. Why would Yeshua speak of ascending back to where he was in one verse and immediately after mention that it is the Spirit who gives life. Context, context. Finally, Joh 5:26  “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; The life that Yeshua has is from the Father. The Spirit gives life. The Holy Spirit of God the Father gave life to Yeshua. This is what it means to balance scripture with scripture.

Kejonn……> Amen,and Amen,..brother……gene

[Not3in1]

Quote (kenrch @ Oct. 17 2007,04:48)

The Word became FLESH by God same as the first Adam though using Mary because Flesh had already been created.

I don't believe God “used” Mary as a shortcut to getting Jesus some flesh. I believe there is a significant reason behind the true conception that Jesus underwent. It seems that no one on this site is willing to concede that Jesus was actually conceived. I wonder why? The scriptures testify that he was conceived. The scriptures don't give us any other explaination for conception, they even compare Mary's pregnancy with her cousin Elizabeth!

I wonder what is threatened in Christians when they ponder the fact that Jesus was truly conceived, and is truly God's Son? Are they offended that God could actually have a Son? Are they too pridefull in wanting Jesus to be exactly like themselves (not recognizing him for who he is)?

I dare say, if we were to pose the question, “Who do you say that I am?” on this site, we would ALL answer this question differently! None of us here believe in the same Jesus. Possibly IM4 and t8 agree? I don't know. But the rest of us believe in different Jesus'. It's quite incrediable really.

[david]

Kejonn,

Quote

Since WJ also had this in his post (and he said thank God Yeshua was not like us), do you and WJ call the Bible man-made doctrine? Heb 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Yes, he should be like us in “all things.” Does that mean that he watched TV 3.2 hours per day; that he….
No, the rest of the verse explains. And the verse after that explains even more:

HEBREWS 2:17-18
“Consequently he was obliged to become like his “brothers” in all respects, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priestin things pertaining to God, in order to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people. For in that he himself has suffered when being put to the test, he is able to come to the aid of those who are being put to the test.

HEBREWS 4:15
“For we have as high priest, not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in all respects LIKE OURSELVES, but without sin.”

My quote from WJ was:

Quote

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

We must interpret this “every way” or like us in “all things” according to what the scripture actually says.

He lived as a human. He was truly “made flesh.” He suffered trials, problems, etc. So he can truly sympathize with our weaknesses. He was “tested” in all the ways humans are.
This is what these scriptures actually say.

To this, I would like to add the thought of Jesus being “like” Moses. (Deut 18:15-19) Yes, he was Like moses. In what way? The bIBLE explains:

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 itself tells us and bears out they had many 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 cannot interpet the likeness of them to be whatever you wish. The Bible explains how they were alike.

[Author]

Posts