- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote I believe the Pre-existence/Trinity thing I wonder in how many minds these two are connnected.
If you believe God is a trinity you must believe in pre-existence.
However, just because the trinity is wrong does not in itself mean pre-existence is not scriptural.Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2007,18:42) 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.
Stop and think of what you are saying. You are basically saying that what God said in the NT is better than what He said in the OT. Are you really willing to adhere to this belief?Quote 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.
No, but Yeshua said the Tanach testified of him. Nothing there abot the Messiah being pre-existent. Such an idea is totally foreign to the Tanach. But it is NOT foreign to the many various pagan mythologies that were abundant around the region where Christianity grew up.Quote (david @ Oct. 18 2007,18:49) Quote I believe the Pre-existence/Trinity thing I wonder in how many minds these two are connnected.
If you believe God is a trinity you must believe in pre-existence.
However, just because the trinity is wrong does not in itself mean pre-existence is not scriptural.
It is not scriptural, it is pagan. Is the Tanach scripture? Paul said so. No pre-existence in the Tanach.Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2007,18:48) 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.
Can there be a symbolic meaning of “invisible”?Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,11:54) Stop and think of what you are saying. You are basically saying that what God said in the NT is better than what He said in the OT. Are you really willing to adhere to this belief?
It's a better covenant.
So those who hold the old covenant in higher esteem to the new one, do so against Paul's advice at least.Hebrews 7:22
Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.Hebrews 8:6
But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.Hebrews 12:24
to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,11:58) It is not scriptural, it is pagan. Is the Tanach scripture? Paul said so. No pre-existence in the Tanach.
Is there a saviour and apostles who form the foundation of the Church in the Tanach.I am not rejecting the Tanach, just putting it into perspective given that we live in the 21st century and many things have happened since then.
God's dealings with men do not stay still.
There is a plan and we are further into that plan than the days of the Tanach.
Why are so many scared to move with God? Why do they seek the old and not the new?
Were not the Pharisees like that. They were of the old, the letter, but they failed in the new, the spirit.
The point of the old was to bring in the new.
Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,11:59) Can there be a symbolic meaning of “invisible”?
Anything can be turned into a symbol. But using this method because you disagree with clear teachings is not a good thing.Symbols are usually spoken as symbols. Often times there is even an interpretation following.
But there are obviously clear teachings too.
Jesus spoke in symbols and parables to some and as they were to others.
If we symbolise everything, then we can make statues of Christ and put them into the building (a symbol of the temple).
Some things are not symbols, and shouldn't be taken that way.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2007,19:12) Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,11:54) Stop and think of what you are saying. You are basically saying that what God said in the NT is better than what He said in the OT. Are you really willing to adhere to this belief?
It's a better covenant.
So those who hold the old covenant in higher esteem than the first one, do so against Paul's advice at least.Hebrews 7:22
Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
What makes the new covenant better? One needs to be prepared to answer that before just hanging their hat on this one verse.Quote Hebrews 8:6
But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
What are those better promises?Quote Hebrews 12:24
to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
Do you truly understand the implications of this new covenant?Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,11:58) No pre-existence in the Tanach.
No non-preexistence either.Not all is written in the Tanach.
Some is written in the new.
The new is based on the old, but also has new things. This doesn't make it wrong. Just a greater or further revelation applicable to these times.
Even so, it is certainly debatable that the Tanach has no mention of Yeshua previous to partaking of flesh.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2007,19:17) Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,11:58) It is not scriptural, it is pagan. Is the Tanach scripture? Paul said so. No pre-existence in the Tanach.
Is there a saviour and apostles who form the foundation of the Church in the Tanach.
No, and frankly, that is beginning to bother me.Quote I am not rejecting the Tanach, just putting it into perspective given that we live in the 21st century and many things have happened since then.
But the Bible you read was not written in the 21st century.Quote God's dealings with men do not stay still. There is a plan and we are further into that plan than the days of the Tanach.
Perhaps.Quote Why are so many scared to move with God? Why do they seek the old and not the new?
Its not a matter of that. Its a matter of Christians neglecting the old and turning it into something that contradicts the old. God has never abolished any covenants. He improves them, and adds to them, but He does not contradict them. Man does that. Even Yeshua said he did not come to abolish but to fulfill. So how can he fulfill something that was not written?Quote Were not the Pharisees like that. They were of the old, the letter, but they failed in the new, the spirit.
No, the old was not the problem. It was the way that the Pharisees interpreted it.Quote The point of the old was to bring in the new.
The point to the old was to be a base for the new. The new doues not replace but improve.Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,12:39) No, and frankly, that is beginning to bother me.
I can see that.Quote But the Bible you read was not written in the 21st century. But 2000 years later we are still in the new covenant. In that respect it is applicable. We also have much experience since then too.
Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,12:30) What makes the new covenant better? One needs to be prepared to answer that before just hanging their hat on this one verse.
Hang your hat on these:Galatians 3:24
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.Galatians 3:25
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2007,19:31) Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,11:58) No pre-existence in the Tanach.
No non-preexistence either.
No trinity either. Your point?Quote Not all is written in the Tanach.
But contradictions are suspect.Quote Some is written in the new. The new is based on the old, but also has new things. This doesn't make it wrong. Just a greater or further revelation applicable to these times.
Even so, it is certainly debatable that the Tanach has no mention of Yeshua previous to partaking of flesh.
No debate whatsoever. The Messiah was to be a man, plain and simple. He was not to be an angel-man or god-man, just a man.Look to pagan religions and you will find plenty of “god men”, incarnated men, that qualify for what you seek: Horus, Mithras, Krishna, Osiris, Romulus, Alexander the Great, Augustus, Dionysus, Scipio Africanus, etc. If you would like to add Yeshua to that long list, feel welcome to it.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2007,19:49) Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,12:30) What makes the new covenant better? One needs to be prepared to answer that before just hanging their hat on this one verse.
Hang your hat on these:Galatians 3:24
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.Galatians 3:25
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
But did you ever go to the school to learn? How can you discard the teaching if you've never learned it?Let me ask you, what exactly was Abraham's faith?
Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,12:56) No trinity either. Your point?
If something is mentioned, then it isn't to be taken as an impossibility. There were many things that were not written regarding Christ for example, as it says there wouldn't be a enough books.Writings for the new covenant say that Christ was before Abraham. So are we then to say that it cannot be true because the Tanak doesn't say that.
Sure if it disagreed, then that would be something, but if it didn't mention it, then it is not a sure thing that it opposes it.
As I said before however, the notion that a preexistent Yeshua is not mentioned is debatable anyway.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2007,20:04) Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,12:56) No trinity either. Your point?
If something is mentioned, then it isn't to be taken as an impossibility. There were many things that were not written regarding Christ for example, as it says there wouldn't be a enough books.Writings for the new covenant say that Christ was before Abraham. So are we then to say that it cannot be true because the Tanak doesn't say that.
Sure if it disagreed, then that would be something, but if it didn't mention it, then it is not a sure thing that it opposes it.
As I said before however, the notion that a preexistent Yeshua is not mentioned is debatable anyway.
But you are not offering anything to debate from the Tanach.Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,13:10) But you are not offering anything to debate from the Tanach.
How about we complete this line of thought first, and then we can move onto that?Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,13:00) But did you ever go to the school to learn? How can you discard the teaching if you've never learned it? Let me ask you, what exactly was Abraham's faith?
When I went to Primary school I learned to speak better English and to paint, play different sports.These things are still with me today, but I do not need to go back and focus on these things. They are part of me now.
In college I learned of greater things. Based on my previous experience of course and without the former, I wouldn't have the latter.
But when you move on to greater things, it is a waste to go back to the former to the detriment of the latter.
E.g., I had to learn to walk once. Now I can run. So what would be the point to go back and learn to walk, when I can run?
Likewise the law is in us. But we are now practicing the greater things of the new. If I was to go back, then that would be digressing as opposed to progressing.
Even in my walk, Jesus started something in my heart, and he will finish it. What would be the point of going back 4 years and staying there?
I hope to move on to new things, and from glory to glory. In fact I hope to be doing this for all eternity.
This is what it means to be lead by his Spirit. i.e., to not stay still or sit on 1 talent, but to make 5 more.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
