- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Mr Steve.
Yes it is clear as to what this text is saying.
John 6:62
What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!From the explanations that I have heard regarding nullifying the clear message of this and other verses, it seems to me that given the same effort, you could teach that Jesus was God too.
All I see are groups with agendas who will do anything to promote their view and twist scriptures toward their own understanding.
But I encourage everyone to let scripture speak for itself. Snuffing out what scripture is saying can do no good.
Here is a question that I think needs to be asked.
If the image of the invisible God didn't exist prior to 2000 years ago, then how would the angels know of the invisible God?
In addition to that, if they did know God which I assume we all agree with, then who was the image of the invisible God pre-2000 years ago that revealed him?
Unless the argument is made that God is invisible to us, but not to angels.
Quote John 6:62
What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!From the explanations that I have heard regarding nullifying the clear message of this and other verses, it seems to me that given the same effort, you could teach that Jesus was God too.
How could you infer Jesus was God when he said he was the Son of God, and from God and God his Father hath sent him. I think you are referring to the trinity heresy. Jesus said that the Father was his God. Hence, I am not suggesting that Christ was God or a part of a trinity theory.
Mr. Steve
Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 18 2007,09:35) Gene,
Quick question – at what point does a child begin to sin?
Not3in1……> I don't know exactly, but I believe it's when someone becomes award of the wrong their doing. You Know that an interesting question. Jesus said to the Pharisses they would not of had sin if the things He did weren't done infront of them, Did that mean they didn't sin, No it meant it wouldn't have been accounted to them. I think Jesus was talking about their sin of unbelief, because we know they had sins.
Another interesting Idea of accountability is when God said that all the Israelites would die in the wilderness below the age of twenty for not going into the promise land. He seamed to make a difference at that age.
But I really don't know even if there is an exact age, but I know it's not when we were little childern.To me there's nothing more precious the a little child.
Suffer your childern to come unto me forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God.blessing and peace to you and yours Mandy……gene
Quote Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 18 2007,08:33)
Quote
I believe the Pre-existence/Trinity thing causes blindness that can only be overcome by an individual being enlightened by God.To anyone claiming to be enlightened on the following;
Jesus said he was going to ascend to where he was before and every gospel and the book of Acts records the event. If he didn't exist prior, how could he “return” to heaven?
What is metaphorical about the word “before”?
Mr. Steve
Regarding Jesus being in heaven “before” he was born:
There is a common Hebrew and Aramaic idiom that when God is the author of something, the Jews spoke of it as “coming from God,” “coming from heaven,” “coming down from heaven,” etc. God said in Malachi that he would “open the windows of heaven and pour out a blessing,” and today we still use the word “Godsend” for a blessing that comes at just the right time.
The bible speaks of the “bread from heaven” referring to manna, but the manna didn't float down like snow. Rather, it appeared like frost on the ground. It was said to “come down from heaven” because God was it's source.
The Jews would have naturally understood Christ's statements that way, and there is no evidence at all that they would have expected Christ to be speaking of a literal descent fromheaven OR a previous residence in heaven. This is my understanding.
Not3in1;
How is your response inconsistent with the call of my question? I understand that Christ didn't come down from heaven on some form of spiritual magic carpet.
How can the term “before” interpreted as metaphorical? Specifically, ascend to where “he” was before. They saw him ascend to heaven where he said he came down from. If he originated in the virgin Mary then he did not come down from heaven, only the Holy Spirit came down from heaven. But Jesus said that he was from his Father in heaven and was sent from the Father, not of his own will, so he had a will with the Father when he was sent, meaning, he existed as a person, which he states was a Son because he refers to God as his Father at that juncture.
Again, he states he was going back to from whence he came and he knew where that was, so how could he not pre-exist?
He also said that he existed before Abraham.
John the Baptist said he existed before him.
None of these statements are metaphorical. They merely refer to time.
If we do not understand who Jesus is and where he is from, when he taught so clearly on the subject, who is the subject of our faith?
Steven
Mr. Steve……> being you say He didn't come down here on A FLYING CARPET, then please tell us how he did get down here seeing you believe He preexisted in some Form then.
Couldn't it be He only existed in the Mind and plan of God. And at the right time God acted and created Him through Mary.At least this makes sence, and in that sence He did come down from Heaven and he went back where he originated to God the Father.
Whats so hard to understand about that. I think your not wanting to see Jesus exactly as we are has some other deep seeded reason, I don't think you can believe God could actually take a real down to earth Human beign and perfect Him like He did Jesus. Which to me shows a lacke of Faith in what OUr Father can and did do……….gene
Hey, Steven, I gave it my best shot. I do not believe my answer was unrelated to your question. However, if you see it as such, then that tells me that you missed my point entirely.
I guess the term “before” can be taken as metaphorically as the term “conceive”
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 18 2007,11:39) Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 18 2007,09:35) Gene,
Quick question – at what point does a child begin to sin?
Not3in1……> I don't know exactly, but I believe it's when someone becomes award of the wrong their doing. You Know that an interesting question. Jesus said to the Pharisses they would not of had sin if the things He did weren't done infront of them, Did that mean they didn't sin, No it meant it wouldn't have been accounted to them. I think Jesus was talking about their sin of unbelief, because we know they had sins.
Another interesting Idea of accountability is when God said that all the Israelites would die in the wilderness below the age of twenty for not going into the promise land. He seamed to make a difference at that age.
But I really don't know even if there is an exact age, but I know it's not when we were little childern.To me there's nothing more precious the a little child.
Suffer your childern to come unto me forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God.blessing and peace to you and yours Mandy……gene
Thanks, Gene, I appreciate your honest answer.I wondered about this because I believe we are all born under the Law, under sin (even babies). But I'm not sure how I feel about this entirely. I mean, how can a baby accept Christ and ask for forgiveness?
We are told that even those who didn't break the Commandments sinned – so it must be a *condition* of our flesh (for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God). And of course this would apply to children as well.
Hmmmm this is an interesting subject, indeed. I wonder if my brain is too overloaded with other topics to introduce this one? Ha! Thanks again!
Not3in1;
Thank you for your response.
What I'm trying to discuss is that the word “before” has to do with time, specifically, the order of things on a certain time line.
To conceive has nothing to do with time, it is an act or event. So the two would not be comparable. John the Baptist said that Christ was before him but the conception of Christ was after the conception of John the Baptist. So John was saying that the origin of Christ was before him.
We all want to know “how” these things can be but if the scriptures state they are true then we should accept them in faith without respect to how they may have occurred. Who can comprehend how the worlds were framed by the word of God, but the word says it so it is true and must be accepted in faith without respect to the aspects of how. With God all things are possible.
Take Care
Steven
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 19 2007,05:30) To conceive has nothing to do with time
Have you ever tried and tried to get pregnant? It has everything to do with timing! But I understand what you mean. Ha!
Are you ready for the storm? I'll be heading up to Seattle to spend some time with my sister this weekend. Batten down the hatches.
Not3in1
The rythmn method was popular once. I know what you mean, though. My lights just flashed here in Kent.
Steven
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 17 2007,19:08) t8 You say…
Quote# That God cannot have been known pre 2000 years ago, if only he can reveal God
This really is a valid point that the “Unitarians” obviously look over.
Thx WJ.An invisible God without his image is a God that no one can see or know.
Only Yeshua can declare God.
It seems to me that our adversary wants people to believe anything but the truth.
Jesus is God or he is a man. (OK, that is obvious).But there are more than 2 options and having only 2 options is a known strategy especially by politicians for avoiding the truth, or forcing something onto people that they wouldn't ordinarily accept.
E.g., As what happened in New Zealand once. Do you want an ID card or an invisible id number. I think the latter prevailed, but NZers actually didn't want either.
If we believe that Jesus is the son of God, the firstborn of all creation, and the image of the invisible God, then we do well.
If we believe that he was divine, or existed in the form of God, and became nothing to partake of the flesh, and even in the frailty of flesh further humbled himself to be obedient and totally reliant on the Father to the exclusion of his own will, then we are starting to understand the real Jesus. The Jesus that we should preach.
He was with the Father and the Father created all through him and for him. He came to his own, and they received him not. He was crucified and rose from the dead, and is now back with his Father in glory at his right hand side.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2007,17:42) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 17 2007,19:08) t8 You say…
Quote# That God cannot have been known pre 2000 years ago, if only he can reveal God
This really is a valid point that the “Unitarians” obviously look over.
Thx WJ.An invisible God without his image is a God that no one can see or know.
Only Yeshua can declare God.
If an invisible being looks in a mirror, what image does he see?Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2007,17:50) It seems to me that our adversary wants people to believe anything but the truth.
Jesus is God or he is a man. (OK, that is obvious).
And who defines the truth?Quote But there are more than 2 options and having only 2 options is a known strategy especially by politicians for avoiding the truth, or forcing something onto people that they wouldn't ordinarily accept. E.g., As what happened in New Zealand once. Do you want an ID card or an invisible id number. I think the latter prevailed, but NZers actually didn't want either.
If we believe that Jesus is the son of God, the firstborn of all creation, and the image of the invisible God, then we do well.
If we believe that he was divine, or existed in the form of God, and became nothing to partake of the flesh, and even in the frailty of flesh further humbled himself to be obedient and totally reliant on the Father to the exclusion of his own will, then we are starting to understand the real Jesus. The Jesus that we should preach.
But Paul does not say he “became nothing to partake of the flesh”. That is merely the way you choose to interpret it.Quote He was with the Father and the Father created all through him and for him. He came to his own, and they received him not. He was crucified and rose from the dead, and is now back with his Father in glory at his right hand side.
Only if you want to condradict the Tanach. Most Christians don't care about the Tanach anyway because its dusty old covenant material to them anyway.Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,11:12) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2007,17:42) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 17 2007,19:08) t8 You say…
Quote# That God cannot have been known pre 2000 years ago, if only he can reveal God
This really is a valid point that the “Unitarians” obviously look over.
Thx WJ.An invisible God without his image is a God that no one can see or know.
Only Yeshua can declare God.
If an invisible being looks in a mirror, what image does he see?
Invisible.But Yeshua is the visible image. The keyword is “visible”.
Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,11:33) Paul does not say he “became nothing to partake of the flesh
Paul doesn't say he existed in the form of God or had divine nature and then flesh.Paul was a human from the start.
Of course Yeshua was a man because it is written that he was.
He became like us (including Paul) in everything thing.Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2007,18:35) Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,11:12) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2007,17:42) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 17 2007,19:08) t8 You say…
Quote# That God cannot have been known pre 2000 years ago, if only he can reveal God
This really is a valid point that the “Unitarians” obviously look over.
Thx WJ.An invisible God without his image is a God that no one can see or know.
Only Yeshua can declare God.
If an invisible being looks in a mirror, what image does he see?
Invisible.But Yeshua is the visible image. The keyword is “visible”.
Ah, grasshopper, you are starting to understand more of the symbolism found throughout the NT. One can not take everything so literally.Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,11:33) Only if you want to condradict the Tanach. Most Christians don't care about the Tanach anyway because its dusty old covenant material to them anyway.
It's not a competition between the Tanach and the New Testament.Rather see it as the Old and the New.
The new is based on the old, but it has a greater revelation.
The old, doesn't have ALL the answers.
God is still working through people and primarily through his vessels today.
It's not like he revealed all that he is going to reveal.
In fact it is written that in the last days, that men would dream dreams and see visions.
Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,11:40) Ah, grasshopper, you are starting to understand more of the symbolism found throughout the NT. One can not take everything so literally.
So God being invisible and Yeshua being visible are only symbols?Well it just so happens that Yeshua was visible.
We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
What do you think the chances are that God is invisible?
If you think he is, then you have a literal understanding.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
