Preexistence

[GeneBalthrop]

t8…..> lets take a look at 1 CO 10:4-5 where you and the trinitarians say its speaking of Jesus as the (ROCK).

And when i am done i want you to tell who the Rock really is.
2Sam 22:2-3 .> The Lord is my (rock) and my fortress and my deliverer, 3.> the God of my strength in whom I will trust; My shield and the horn of my Salvation, My stronghold and my refuge; MY Savior, you save me from violence.

Psa 18:2.> The Lord is my (rock) and my fortress and my delieverer; MY God, my strenght, in whom I will trust; My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

Psa 18:31.> For who is God except the Lord?, and who is a (rock) except our God.

Psa 78:35.> Then they remembered that God was their (rock) and the Most High God their Redeemer.

Psa 89:26.> He shall cry to Me, You are My Father, My God, and the rock of My Salvation. 27.> Also I (will) make Him (Jesus) My Firstborn, the highest of the Kings of the earth.

The above (WILL) implies it hadn't happened yet, at the time it was spoken.

Anyway there is around more then 20 places that show who is the true (ROCK) and they all point to God the Father.

Here is some more if you want to look them up.
Deu 32:4, Deu 32:15 & 18, 2Sam 22:32 & 47. Psa 18:46,Psa 28:1, Psa 42:9, Psa 62:2, Psa 62:6 & 7, Psa 95:1.

All of these show there is only one Rock and theat is God The Father.

peace………..gene

[GeneBalthrop]

T8…> what do you do with Psa 89:26…> God plainly say's I (WILL) make Him my first born. So if God say's (will make Him) doesn't that mean He hasn”t yet made Him His first born at the time of that statement.

Whats your take on that T8……….gene

[PatBiglane]

t8 – In response to your reply to Kejonn in regards to Matt 22:41 – 45, may I offer you something to consider???

In Matthew 22 where Jesus poses this question about whose son is the Messiah, I think the context of this confrontational scene should be noted.

During his ministry, Jesus was constantly being challanged by groups & gatherings of those with political & religious interests – the Sadduces and Pharisees being the most prominent. Due to envy, the aim of their interrogations of Jesus was to discredit and defame him with some thematic approach to scripture.

The Sadduces had just attempted to bring reproach upon him concerning the theme of the resurrection, that is, giving him an opportunity to say something foolish and inconsistent with orthodox Judaism. No doubt, their motive was to defame him in the eyes of the Sanhedrin, the ruling religious body in Israel comprisied of both Pharisees and Sadducees (remember, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection). The Saduccees were the wealthiest among the religious leaders boasting the strongest allegiance and ties with the Roman government. For them, politics was at stake.

With the Pharisees, who were the reputed watchdogs of the Mosiac Law, their approach was more along the lines religious doctrine, which is why they hired a lawyer (one who had a masterful understanding of the Torah) to trip up Jesus. Religious authority is at stake here of which the Pharisees were ever diligent to establish and maintain the upper hand in the public eye.

Jesus' question succinctly challanges both of these groups in view of their respective political and religous interests. The only proper perspective these men could have in view of their interests would be in understanding God's order and arrangement in placing His King, The Messiah, upon Israel's throne. Take a look at Ps 89: II Samuel 7: The terms “Messiah” (translated “anointed” in vv. 20 & 38 of Ps 89), “Father” (the son being subordinate) “Son of God” (that is, this concept seen in the usage of “Father”) and “firstborn” are every bit as much – if not more so in many cases – political titles rather than merely religious. The word “Lord” is also very frequently understood as a political title. The over-arching emphasis here in these verses in Matthew 22 is not on Jesus' origin; but rather, on the legacy of his throne. His rule would be primary over that of David's and the rest of his descendants.

In consideration of what Jesus is asserting in Matthew 22, that is, his being David's Lord, is in view of the primacy of his throne. He is the “Firstborn (begotten) form the dead” ,and the Firstborn among many brethren. Notice it says in Ps 89:27: “also I will make him 'My Firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth”

If you want to talk about pre-existence, I would agree to this concept in regards to his throne (although I think “preeminent” is a better adjective) Historically, his throne (in the heavens) is both new in time and in quality. But it [that is, his heavenly rule] was not inaugarated until the time that he ascended ” to My Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” – John 17:17.

And when he returns to the earth to set up his Kingdom, he will be primary agent, assigning rulership to those of his brethren (like David) who were faithful to His Father during their lifetimes.

Once again, notice Ps 89:27: “…also, I will MAKE him my firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” To make someone for this position infers that there's a time element involved “in the making.” The Scriptures say the same thing:

Galatians 4:1-4: “Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he is lord of all [political position of his household] but is under tutors and govenors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law….”

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 19 2007,19:03)

. John 8:58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. I don't see a contradiction.

T8…> i dont see any counterdiction in them either, what i see is a counterdiction in your interpitation of them.

for instance your are aserting that Jesus meant He (existed) but He did not say that did He, that's your's and the trinitirians take on it. Don't you think Jesus was smart enough to have said I was a live before Abraham, if that what he meant, so why did He phrase it that way, obvisouly it's because He meant He was in the plan and purpose of God Before Abraham was born.

You say you go by the scriptures but it dosn't say specificly that He existed in any life form does it.

Also with regards to Jesus saying to the Father to glorify Him with the Glory He had with Him before the world was, could be taken as a predestined Glory Just as easly as a past Glory that you and the trinitarians espouse.

If Jesus wanted us to understand the glory was something He had when He existed with the Father He would have said it that way, don't you think.

So far you have not proven He preexisted despite your complete ignorance of Plain Scriptures that show the opposite , which me and Kejonn and Kenrch and others have shown you. So how really open minded about this are you T8.
Your position seem to be more closed minded then open minded, on this subject. No offence intended brother…..gene

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,12:39)

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.

Hi all. I am out of town in Jacksonville FL.. Will be back Monday in full force.

Just thought I would comment on a few things before I write my new book to kejonn.

kejonn

You say…

Quote

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?

As I had mentioned before, the words “Abiolish” and “Destroy” do not mean the same thing as you are implying Jesus said.
Jesus used the word “Destroy” not “Abolish”.

Matt 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Destroy Greek katalyō
1) to dissolve, disunite
a) (what has been joined together), to destroy, demolish
b) metaph. to overthrow i.e. render vain, deprive of success, bring to naught
English Definition: for Destroy…
1: to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of ; also : to ruin as if by tearing to shreds 2 a: to put out of existence

2 Cor 3:13
And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

Eph 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Abolish, Greek katargeō
1) to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative
a) to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency
b) to deprive of force, influence, power
2) to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish
English definition for Abolish
1 : to end the observance or effect of : annul

The New covenant has many “New things” contained therein that the Old did not as the word “New Covenanat” implys. The Mystery of Jesus coming in the flesh was hidden for generations until the appointed time. However there are hints of his coming in the flesh as Zech Ch 12 and 14 shows.

Gal 4:30
Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 20 2007,03:21)

T8……> My point which i made clear was in the word (OF) It's meaning means , The preposition denotes (ORIGN) the (POINT) where motion or action proceeds and if you choose to use the word (FROM) it still has the same meaning. My point is thats where Jesus the man originated from. Not originating as some super being in the past as you and trinitarians are proclaiming.

Hi Gene.

Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. “

Deuteronomy 18:15
The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.

Quote

The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midist (of) thee (OF) thy brethern, like Me; unto Him shall you Hearken.

Now the word origin in Micah 5:2 is mowtsa'ah which means

[Proclaimer]

To Gene.

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 20 2007,05:08)

for instance your are aserting that Jesus meant He (existed) but He did not say that did He, that's your's and the trinitirians take on it. Don't you think Jesus was smart enough to have said I was a live before Abraham, if that what he meant, so why did He phrase it that way, obvisouly it's because He meant He was in the plan and purpose of God Before Abraham was born.

That is your spin, but they took his words to mean that he was older than Abraham and I don't see Jesus defending himself against a their interpretation of what he said.

John 8:50-58
50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.
51 I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.”

52 At this the Jews exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death.
53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

So lets recap. They say to Jesus “and you have seen Abraham!” and Jesus replied “I am”.

I am means the following:

I (ego) = I, me, my

am (eimi) = to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

But you say that Jesus would have been smart enough to just say it. But he did just say it, if you read the text. He expressed himself clearly and he said it because he wasn't a liar.

Gene, if you threw away your own understanding and presumption, and looked at what the texts are saying, then you would see it. Why not just let scripture teach, rebuke, and exhort, instead of twisting it to justify a predefined belief.

After all, is this not what Trinitarians, Oneness, and other groups do? Have you thought about the possibility that you belong to a group that do this too? A group no better than the others who also proclaim to have the truth.

[Mr. Steve]

Quote

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.

So you believe the Tanach over the Bible? Why am I not surprised?

Steven

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 20 2007,11:05)

John 8:50-58 50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” 52 At this the Jews exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?” 54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” 58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” So lets recap. They say to Jesus “and you have seen Abraham!” and Jesus replied “I am”. I am means the following: I (ego) = I, me, my am (eimi) = to be, to exist, to happen, to be present But you say that Jesus would have been smart enough to just say it. But he did just say it, if you read the text. He expressed himself clearly and he said it because he wasn't a liar. Gene, if you threw away your own understanding and presumption, and looked at what the texts are saying, then you would see it. Why not just let scripture teach, rebuke, and exhort, instead of twisting it to justify a predefined belief. After all, is this not what Trinitarians, Oneness, and other groups do? Have you thought about the possibility that you belong to a group that do this too? A group no better than the others who also proclaim to have the truth.

T8…> I beg to differ with you the context of John 8:52-58 had to do with Jesus telling them ” If anyone Keeps my word he shall never (taste death) the whole argument they were having was about Jesus aserting himself above Abraham and the Prophets and it apeared to them like Jesus was saying He was better then they were. None of this had anything to do with Jesus' age, until He said “Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my Day, and He saw it and was Glad”. The Jews misunderstood what he meant and responded “You are not yet 50 years old and you have seen Abraham.

58..> Jesus responded , “Most assuredly, I say to you.”Before Abraham was, I Am. Notice he didn't say before Abraham was I was born, you are adding that because it does seem logical, but it would also seem logical to assume if Jesus meant that he was a live being before Abraham He would Have Just said ( I was alive before Abraham) but He didn't say that, so it Just as logical He could have meant He was aready in the plan and destiny of God the Father, before Abraham was born.

Seem's to me you are forcing the text to come out to your way of thinking. Anyway this is not a legimate text to use because it lends itself to different interpitations.

peace to you and yours……gene

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (david @ Oct. 19 2007,14:56)

Quote A primary preposition denoting (ORIGN) (the point whence motion or action proceeds) from , or out from. It's interesting that your source says the “of” means “from” or “out from” Often, if we read modern english such as the one I quoted from that has the “from” as the suggested meaning, the reading is more understandable.

David…..> I have looked these scrptiures up in all these translations ,KJAV,KJV-1611, KJV, JPS, DRB, DARDY, BISHOPS,
and the ASV.
All the above render it as From the Midst (OF) thee, (OF) Thy brethern. and the prepersition in the context it is used here means to originate from.

The Lord thy God [will] (future tense) raise up unto thee a Prophet from the Midest [of'] (Origin) thee, [OF] (Origin) thy brethern.

If God was going to raise up a prophet who came from another source why would He use the prepersition (OF)

And if He was going to incarnate Him why would He say (of )
thy brethern.

If God were to say I make a table (OF) wood from the midest of thee (OF) thy wood. Would you think He was going some where else to get the wood.

David I dont't know where you and T8 got your translations from but I found none of the many I Have that translate the way you guys did, I am not calling you liers< I just saying I couldn't find it translated that way…….Peace to you brothers……gene

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (PatBiglane @ Oct. 18 2007,05:01)

Kejonn-  I really appreciate your posts and have gained some very interesing insights in reading and meditating upon them.  Thanks brother! May I offer you something to consider about some of the harsh – and what I believe to be unfounded – criticism you've been getting???   For years, I've endeavored to do just what you are doing with those who embrace the Trinity and Pre-existence.  I've done so by appealing to the logic of the scriptures – as you have masterfully done –  and to the importance of understanding the Hebrew mindset in the scriptures (as opposed to the pagan).  Unfortunately, I can say I've had little success in convincing these people to question:  what they believe; and why they believe what they do.  In retrospect,  I think there's something very instructive in the words of Jesus when he told Peter:  “Blessed art thou, Simon Bajonna, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto you; but my Father who is in heaven.”  [Matthew 16:17] All the disciples believed Jesus to be The Son of God prior to this (they never addressed him as “God, The Son”); but Peter was given an understanding of who the Son of God was (in terms of origin) that surpassed his peers.  God gave this to him by revelation.  I believe the Pre-existence/Trinity thing causes blindness that can only be overcome by an individual being enlightened by God.  And, similar to salvation, it comes only at a time when the individual is willing to put his pride to death, and seek the truth with humility of mind (as Peter did). As I'm sure you are aware, God will, in the future, undo the blindness of Israel by the revelation of His Son. But the blindness that remains today is oh so pervasive among their community and nation.  In regards to who The Messiah is, I think the Church is also blind.  Perhaps it will take the (literal) revelation of the Anti-christ to bring some to repentance, (no doubt, the spiritual wonders strenghtening the deception will be strong.  Have you ever wondered: “How could it ever be said that The Anti-christ, a man who will proclaim to be God in the Flesh, will challange the beliefs of God's very elect???”  Could it be that these (challanged) elect have been fed an unhealthy diet of the Trinity?  But as is true with the history of man, some will believe and discard the lies, and others will tragically hold on to their deceptive pride.   Don't get me wrong, I think this blogging business is cool way of exhanging ideas and insights with others. But I also believe we should prayerfully excercise practical limits in our reasons and motives in answering the critics. I also know this:  There are plelnty of people outside our computer rooms who are dying because they need to understand and believe who the Messiah is.  Let's get out and preach this stuff…It's where it's at!!!  Have a great day Brother.

patbiglane

You say…

Quote

I believe the Pre-existence/Trinity thing causes blindness that can only be overcome by an individual being enlightened by God.  And, similar to salvation, it comes only at a time when the individual is willing to put his pride to death, and seek the truth with humility of mind (as Peter did).

Everyone on this sight could make this claim.

Your statement is ludicrous. What makes you think that because we dont let go of our faith that we are any more “Proud”  than you for not letting go of yours.

And as far as being blind…

Matt 7:
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

It might shock you to hear that you dont have all truth, neither do yo have a corner on it!

[kejonn]

Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 19 2007,18:26)

Quote 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. So you believe the Tanach over the Bible? Why am I not surprised? Steven

What an uninformed response. What do you think the Tanach IS Steven? What you call the Old Testament. Thank you for insulting the inspired words of God given to the children of Israel. You know, the same one that Yeshua said testified of him?

You better try some skim milk yourself…

[kejonn]

To all,

Micah 5:2 has NOTHING to do with Yeshua's birthplace, but it does have everything yo do with the origin of the Messiah

Mic 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.

1Sa 17:12 Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons. In the days of Saul the man was already old and advanced in years.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 20 2007,12:28)

Seem's to me you are forcing the text to come out to your way of thinking. Anyway this is not a legimate text to use because it lends itself to different interpitations.

Hi Gene.

No I am not forcing the text.

I am saying the following:

“You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

It looks obvious to me. But then again, I don't have an axe to grind. I have no preference as to when Yeshua existed. What matters to me is the truth.

I see that the Jews said “You have seen Abraham?”
And Jesus said “I existed before Abraham”.

Sorry but that is what the text says. I am not forcing a predefined belief, rather I am reading the text.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 20 2007,17:15)

To all, Micah 5:2 has NOTHING to do with Yeshua's birthplace, but it does have everything yo do with the origin of the Messiah Mic 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days. 1Sa 17:12 Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons. In the days of Saul the man was already old and advanced in years.

In other words kejonn, his origins are NOT from ancient times, is what you are saying. You esteem the Old Testament perhaps even above the New, yet you cannot respect what is written here in the Old Testament.

Now lets imagine for a second that it said “his origins will be as a man in the womb of a woman?

I am guessing that you would treat that as a literal proof text, but because it says “ancient times”, you give it different treatment.

I can appreciate that sometimes this is necessary because scripture should be weighed against scripture so as to eliminate contradiction. But this verse read the way it is written agrees with many other verses.

So again, I do not see a contradiction and therefore I just accept what it says.

[IM4Truth]

1 Thes. 5:21 ” Prove all things….”
Gen, t8 has proven to you over and over again that Jesus preexisted before Abraham was and before the world was. So when are you going to except it and believe it?
You have done a good Job, t8 and anybody should understand with these and other clear scriptures, I just do not understand why that it gives them that much troubles.

Peace and Love Mrs.

[kejonn]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 20 2007,05:37)

Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 20 2007,17:15) To all, Micah 5:2 has NOTHING to do with Yeshua's birthplace, but it does have everything yo do with the origin of the Messiah Mic 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days. 1Sa 17:12 Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons. In the days of Saul the man was already old and advanced in years. In other words kejonn, his origins are NOT from ancient times, is what you are saying. You esteem the Old Testament perhaps even above the New, yet you cannot respect what is written here in the Old Testament.

What line is the Messiah to come from? The tribe of Judah, and specifically through King David and his son Solomon. When was King David around? Around 1000 BC. A thousand years wouldn't be ancient to you?

A little history lesson, because the origins of the Messiah coming from Ephrathah go back even further than that.

Rth 1:2 The name of the man was Elimelech and the name of his wife Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. They went into the country of Moab and remained there.

Rth 1:4 These took Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. They lived there about ten years,

Rth 4:11 Then all the people who were at the gate and the elders said, “We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman, who is coming into your house, like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you act worthily in Ephrathah and be renowned in Bethlehem,
Rth 4:12 and may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring that the LORD will give you by this young woman.”
Rth 4:13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.

Rth 4:17 And the women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” They named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David.

Quote

Now lets imagine for a second that it said “his origins will be as a man in the womb of a woman? I am guessing that you would treat that as a literal proof text, but because it says “ancient times”, you give it different treatment. I can appreciate that sometimes this is necessary because scripture should be weighed against scripture so as to eliminate contradiction. But this verse read the way it is written agrees with many other verses. So again, I do not see a contradiction and therefore I just accept what it says.

Finally, the word use for “origins”, “goings forth”, “coming forth”, etc. is “mowtsa'ah”, which means “family descent”. Micah 5:2 is saying that the Messiah will come from the lineage of one who is from Ephrathah of Bethlehem. I have shown the evidence behind this. Since King David was alive around 1000 BC, and was the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, there were even more years to add.

What would you consider ancient?

Jos 24:2 Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'From ancient times your fathers lived beyond the River, namely, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods.

1Sa 27:8 Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites and the Girzites and the Amalekites; for they were the inhabitants of the land from ancient times, as you come to Shur even as far as the land of Egypt.

Job 22:15 “Will you keep to the ancient path Which wicked men have trod,

Isa 44:7 'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; Yes, let him recount it to Me in order, From the time that I established the ancient nation. And let them declare to them the things that are coming And the events that are going to take place.

All of these instances of “ancient” use the same word found in Mic 5:2, “olam”. Do any of these indicate something that was in place before the foundation of the world? No, they just mean a period of many, many years. Here are some definitions for “ancient” from answers.com

• Belonging to, existing, or occurring in times long past
• Of great age; very old

Now, if you were to apply that to Yeshua, over 1000 years would not be ancient?

I don't know why Christians struggle so against the OT.

[Mr. Steve]

To all;

Where does the soul come from? How about the spirit of a person? Does man have anything to do with the soul and spirit of the birth of a child? No, its a miracle. Why? Because God lights every man that comes into the world. When Jesus came into the world, he said sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not but a “body” thou hast prepared for me. (Hebrews 10) When he bringeth his first-born into the world, where did the soul and spirit come from for Christ? According to Jesus he came down from heaven, not of his own will, but was sent. He had to exist in heaven to be sent down from heaven. So in Mary, the conception that took place was that of the body of Christ. A woman does not conceive a soul or a spirit, they come from God. Now we know that the “body” of Christ did not pre-exist, it was conceived. So what is left? His soul and spirit, sent down from above.

A person can only have one origin. When the people said we know his mother and father, how can he say he came down from heaven? This was the truth they need to see to understand.

Steven

[david]

Quote

Since he himself said that the Tanach (Old Testament) testified of him, I thought I could find some proof of pre-existence in the Tanach.

–Kejonn, another thread.

I think that this is the premise for Ken's beliefs on pre-existence, and I think that perhaps this premise is based on false reasoning.

The reason we have the Greek Christian scriptures, is because more needed to be said. Not all the teachings in the Greek scriptures are necessarily found in the Hebrew scriptures. Yes, many things are, BUT not all. And that is my point.

I personally think there is reason to believe that the Hebrew scriptures do mention Jesus pre-existence.

And God went on to say: “Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness,….” (Gen 1:26; see Gen 11:7)

“then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time,. . .and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men.” (Prov 8:30)

Since he himself said that the Tanach (Old Testament) testified of him, I thought I could find some proof of pre-existence in the Tanach.
We know that the Hebrew scriptures did speak of him many times, explaining great details about his life–as a sign that he would be who he claimed to be: The Son of God.

[david]

Quote

Jesus responded , “Most assuredly, I say to you.”Before Abraham was, I Am. Notice he didn't say before Abraham was I was born, you are adding that because it does seem logical, but it would also seem logical to assume if Jesus meant that he was a live being before Abraham He would Have Just said ( I was alive before Abraham) but He didn't say that, so it Just as logical He could have meant He was aready in the plan and destiny of God the Father, before Abraham was born.

–Gene.

Johnny: “I'm older than you.”
Ricky: “No you're not. I existed before you in the plans of my parents who planned on having a child named ricky. Therefore, I am older than you.”

This is somewhat silly.

Quote

Notice he didn't say before Abraham was I was born, you are adding that because it does seem logical

So, yes, you admit that it is “logical” to think that it means the most basic thing that it says.

Quote

it would also seem logical to assume if Jesus meant that he was a live being before Abraham He would Have Just said ( I was alive before Abraham) but He didn't say that

He was responding to a rather simple question of age.
You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

His response was utterly and astoundingly simple and clear:

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

As T8 points out:

I (ego) = I, me, my
am (eimi) = to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

He was saying in “modern” english that he existed before Abraham.

If someone simply says: “I am” what does that mean. It means they are alive, they exist.
“I think, therefore I am” What does this mean to EVERYONE?

the same thing!

I think, therefore I EXIST!

Yes, a bit of trinitarian bias may have crept into countless Bibles as the trinitarian translators translated those words to “I am” to try to match something in the Hebrew scriptures.

But modern normal english would be: I existed before Abraham.

I think, therefore I am, means, I think, therefore I exist. Everyone understands this, do we not?

Google: “Therefore I am.”

Here's what you get:

I dream, therefore I am MEANING (I exist)
I chat, therefore I am MEANING(I exist.)
I doubt, therefore I am MEANING (I exist.)

The most basic normal understanding of Jesus words (especially taking the context and the statement before into consideration) is that Jesus “existed” before Abraham.

True, he didn't say he existed as a spirit person.
He also didn't say he existed as a plan, or a plant or a mathematical equation.

If I say I existed before something, it would just be understood that I existed as myself (unless clearly stated otherwise.)

[Author]

Posts