- This topic is empty.
- AuthorPosts
- May 23, 2013 at 3:45 am#345359ProclaimerParticipant
Hi JB2U. I was wondering if you would be interested in a debate about the origins of the son, Yeshua.
I noticed in your debate with Kathi that you say that the son did not pre-exist in any way and is essentially a 2000 year old man with no prehistory as anything else.
While I have been keen to follow your points in other debates due to your ease of exposing false teachings brought here by others, I think you would be a worthy person to discuss this particular subject because you seem to have the ability to reason and you have a good understanding of scripture too.
Myself and Mike have debated with others who hold the same or similar view to you and they have never given us good proof of this or even a good reason for this. While I remain open minded to all that I believe, I would certainly love it if you would share why you hold that view while hearing why myself and Mike hold a different view.
My hope is not that any egos will be soothed, but that the truth is the clear winner by the time this conversation is done. And if I have to change I most definitely will and I am sure that Mike would concur with him changing too if that was in order.
So how about it. Me, Mike, and you.
Please no others, unless JB2U invites another to even up the numbers.
May 26, 2013 at 6:53 pm#345704mikeboll64BlockedHave you seen this yet, jb? Are you interested?
May 30, 2013 at 2:13 am#345957mikeboll64Blockedjb? Are you interested in having a scriptural discussion about the pre-existence of Jesus?
June 22, 2013 at 1:14 pm#348396jb2uParticipantSorry guys, I did not see this.
Yes. We can have the discussion. I believe you both to be very reasonable. I, too, only want to know the truth. As I told Kathi, I would never put anything on here without first great consideration for I fear the Lord! That being said, I believe that He has revealed this to me through my prayer and Bible studies; so, I feel an obligation to “not keep it to myself.” I look forward to our discussion.
May God lead us all to the truth so that we may have a sound understanding of His word, and so that we may better know and understand our savior, Jesus. (This is not to say that I am right and you are wrong. Only to say that I want us all, as men of God, to see the truth. If I am wrong, I want to know so that I do not mislead others. If I am correct, then I want to be able to reveal the truth to others.)
I will let one of you start this debate.
June 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm#348460mikeboll64BlockedI will defer to t8, since this discussion was his idea.
June 24, 2013 at 12:37 pm#348572ProclaimerParticipantYeah I look forward to this. I think all of us are looking for the truth and I know that all of us give full answers when necessary and do not avoid questions because they do not agree with them. I only ignore questions because I haven't read them yet or they are too much work to answer and put them off till I have time to give a good and complete answer.
I will start the discussion off tomorrow as it is very late here.
But I thought I would post this, just to remind each other to not get too patriotic on our views and to be open minded enough to accept truth when it is presented.
June 26, 2013 at 4:02 pm#348816jb2uParticipantNo problem t8.
I try to come on here as much as possible. I usually work 6-7 days a week; so, time can be short for me. Even so, I try to come on here daily.
I will answer all questions as timely and completely as I can.
June 26, 2013 at 11:00 pm#348848ProclaimerParticipantjb2u, the following scripture talks about God and Christ in the context of now, in the future, and before all ages.
Jude 1:25
to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.How does this sit with your view because it clearly states that glory, authority, and power is to God through Jesus Christ before all ages.
If Jesus were not there before all ages, then why does Jude make this statement?
June 27, 2013 at 2:17 am#348870jb2uParticipant“before all ages” refers to God, not Jesus.
Now, HOW does God get to be our Saviour, show his majesty, power, and authority?
Well, it was THROUGH Jesus, just like scripture says!! For, without Jesus, man would have fallen and remained such; however, because of Jesus, God is able to forgive our sins. Through Jesus, God showed his power, majesty, and authority throughout the Gospels.
This is a piece from my debate from Kathi. I will start with this. I can post the whole post if you want, or we can just go point by point.
Let's see why the angel, Gabriel, said that Jesus would be called the Son of God!!
Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.The Greek word “therefore” is “dio” meaning “on which account.” Meaning that BECAUSE of the power of God causing a virgin to conceive, this child will be called the Son of God!!
Adam was also called the Son of God. Adam was also a non-preexistent man!! Jesus had no Earthly father, just like Adam!!
Notice that Gabriel doesn't say Jesus is the Son of God because He is existing in heaven now, but will be brought down and put in your womb. No, he says that because of the virginal conception Jesus would be called the Son of God. Due to the fact that He has NO earthly father, He will be the Son of God.
What do you both have to say about the above?
June 27, 2013 at 10:01 pm#348910ProclaimerParticipantQuote (jb2u @ June 27 2013,16:17) “before all ages” refers to God, not Jesus.
I would argue that it is referring to God our Savior (as you say) but through Jesus Christ our Lord. And that this is true before all ages, now and forevermore!In other words, God through Jesus Christ for all ages. Not just the ages after his coming in the flesh.
Your view would require that only God is before all ages, now and forevermore! and the 'through Jesus Christ' part would only refer to when he came in the flesh onward.
But the verse in English at least supports the way I view it, and I assume that Mike takes it that way too. Is that the case Mike?
June 27, 2013 at 10:04 pm#348911ProclaimerParticipantQuote (jb2u @ June 27 2013,16:17) Let's see why the angel, Gabriel, said that Jesus would be called the Son of God!!
Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.The Greek word “therefore” is “dio” meaning “on which account.” Meaning that BECAUSE of the power of God causing a virgin to conceive, this child will be called the Son of God!!
Adam was also called the Son of God. Adam was also a non-preexistent man!! Jesus had no Earthly father, just like Adam!!
Notice that Gabriel doesn't say Jesus is the Son of God because He is existing in heaven now, but will be brought down and put in your womb. No, he says that because of the virginal conception Jesus would be called the Son of God. Due to the fact that He has NO earthly father, He will be the Son of God.
What do you both have to say about the above?
I believe that Jesus existed as the Word that was with God and then he came in the flesh and became the son of God in the context you describe.So in the beginning, there was God, then the Word came from God, and God created all through that Word. Then the Word came in the flesh and was called the son of God and had the name Yeshua.
June 27, 2013 at 10:08 pm#348913ProclaimerParticipantBTW, my view with the debate with Kathi is that you did her a favour. You were easily dispelling the delusion of her teaching, but she has successfully used this argument to detract from your original good work. Perhaps you could focus this subject here and get back to pulling down the error of her doctrine. It would help keep things focused and be easier for you too. Up to you of course.
June 28, 2013 at 12:20 am#348933mikeboll64BlockedQuote (t8 @ June 27 2013,16:01) Your view would require that only God is before all ages, now and forevermore! and the 'through Jesus Christ' part would only refer to when he came in the flesh onward.
Yeah, it seems to be a major elephant in the room – as far as I can tell.If the glory, majesty and power is literally TO God before the ages, then the subsequent clause ,”THROUGH Jesus Christ”, would also be literally before the ages, IMO.
I hate to jump around so quickly into the discussion, but 1 Cor 8:6 argues the same point:
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
In my mind, it seems absolutely necessary for the “all things” that came FROM God to be the same exact “all things” that came THROUGH Jesus. Why would they be different? So if the universe is one of the “all things” that came FROM God, then the universe is likewise one of the “all things” that came THROUGH Jesus.
I bring this verse up because it seems to identically match Jude 1:25 in that whatever was TO God before the ages was also THROUGH Jesus before those same exact ages. There is no reason to understand it differently.
Is the glory to God and through Jesus NOW? Yes.
Will the glory be to God and through Jesus FOREVERMORE? Yes.
So why wouldn't the glory have been to God and through Jesus BEFORE THE AGES?
June 28, 2013 at 12:33 am#348934mikeboll64BlockedQuote (jb2u @ June 26 2013,20:17) The Greek word “therefore” is “dio” meaning “on which account.” Meaning that BECAUSE of the power of God causing a virgin to conceive, this child will be called the Son of God!!
Agreed. That word is also translated as “for this reason” and “that is why” in the NET Bible.I see your point, and agree with your assessment of the Greek word……….. but I'm not really seeing anything there that would prohibit Jesus from being God's Son BEFORE he was to be called the Son of God on earth.
Even certain people who DO believe Jesus pre-existed insist that he was not named Jesus until he was born of Mary. They use a scripture that is similar to yours (Matthew 1:21) in that it says, “you will call his name Jesus”.
But the fact that Mary was told to call him Jesus on earth doesn't necessarily prohibit Jesus from being his name before he came to earth.
Anyway, I'm seeing your verse the same way. I hear what you're saying, but don't see how it prohibits Jesus from being the Son of God before he was the Son of God on earth.
June 28, 2013 at 9:44 pm#349095jb2uParticipantQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 28 2013,11:33) I hear what you're saying, but don't see how it prohibits Jesus from being the Son of God before he was the Son of God on earth.
We are very early into this topic. It will come.How about this..
2 Samuel 7:14
I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:1 Chronicles 17:13
I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:1 Chronicles 22:10
He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?This does not say, “He is my son.” It says, “He SHALL be my son, and I WILL be his father.” I take these verses for what they are. God foretold of a coming messiah. Hebrews links it up with the OT prophesy.
June 28, 2013 at 10:09 pm#349097jb2uParticipantI guess that I should have started off with a “statement of faith.” Since we are in the beginning. I will go ahead with it now.
I believe that God was alone in eternity. He literally SPOKE the world into existence. My GOD is that big. He doesn't need someone to “do the work” or do anything really. Just stand back and watch!
I believe that God, being omniscient, knew that He would need a “savior for humanity”, a “sacrificial lamb,” before He ever spoke the world into existence. And so, He went ahead and created this world that He knew would fall, and Jesus would save. Because of this, He has a special LOVE for Jesus!! He has a special love for Abraham, Noah, David, and Moses. He loved them before they were ever born because He knew their hearts before they were ever born. Why would we not think that God has a special love for the one that He created and anointed as His Son, Jesus. The perfect man. The one and ONLY man that would resist the temptations of the devil! The one man that “walked the walk” and “talked the talk.” Yes, I believe that Jesus was a man, as the Bible tells us, that was anointed by God, as the Bible tells us, and God exalted Him..not to where He was before..BUT exalted Him above all others for his obedience and sacrifice, as the Bible tells us.
I will show that any wording that implies a “past life” is only because of bad translations or due to phrasing that means something different to the Jews, just like certain phrasing in America would not be “gotten” elsewhere.
I started my search believing in a pre-existent Jesus; however, I believe that God revealed, in my heart, the truth. I know that the trinitarians started this concept; and so, we should reject it in the same way we reject the trinity.
I thank you both for the time that you will put into this discussion. I think highly of you both.
June 29, 2013 at 1:33 am#349120ProclaimerParticipantjb2u,
Thanks for showing us what you believe and why. My post below will do the same so you can know from where I am coming from.
I am open minded about when Jesus became the son of God.
As for pre-existence, I believe that he existed in the form of God, emptied himself, came in the flesh, died for our sins, was resurrected to the right-hand of God in the glory that he had with the Father before the world began.I admit that Jesus doesn't appear to be called the son of God before coming the in the flesh, but that doesn't rule it out either. Regardless, he was the Word that was with God. He probably existed as the Word in the form of God which is likely spirit. From there, God created all things for him and through him. And just as all things that are made were made through him, so it is that all things that are redeemed are redeemed through him. There is no other name under heaven whereby we can be saved.
Further if God is the head of Christ, and Christ the head of man, and man the head of the woman, then we can see that in order of who came first, it was God, then man, then woman. The debate is where Jesus comes.
You say, God > Man > Woman > Christ
We say, God > Christ > Man > WomanSo if the head is the source, then our view would have to be the correct one. If it means authority only, then there is still the idea that authority comes by source. In other words, the first has great authority. e.g., Adam sold out the whole human race because he was the first man. See how being first means you have great authority.
Finally, if Jesus were not the first work of God as the early fathers taught, then who was the first? Who was the first begotten of God? You have to admit that the first would have to be very special and given the authority that Adam had, imagine the authority the first after God must have.
In your view you do not know who this is. We believe it is Jesus as we believe that he existed before all creation, and thus why his is the only name that can redeem all things.
So just as Adam brought death to all humans, so it is that Christ can bring life to not only humans, but he can bring about a new heavens and Earth too.
June 29, 2013 at 7:13 pm#349188jb2uParticipantQuote (t8 @ June 29 2013,12:33) jb2u, Thanks for showing us what you believe and why. My post below will do the same so you can know from where I am coming from.
I am open minded about when Jesus became the son of God.
As for pre-existence, I believe that he existed in the form of God, emptied himself, came in the flesh, died for our sins, was resurrected to the right-hand of God in the glory that he had with the Father before the world began.I admit that Jesus doesn't appear to be called the son of God before coming the in the flesh, but that doesn't rule it out either. Regardless, he was the Word that was with God. He probably existed as the Word in the form of God which is likely spirit. From there, God created all things for him and through him. And just as all things that are made were made through him, so it is that all things that are redeemed are redeemed through him. There is no other name under heaven whereby we can be saved.
Further if God is the head of Christ, and Christ the head of man, and man the head of the woman, then we can see that in order of who came first, it was God, then man, then woman. The debate is where Jesus comes.
You say, God > Man > Woman > Christ
We say, God > Christ > Man > WomanSo if the head is the source, then our view would have to be the correct one. If it means authority only, then there is still the idea that authority comes by source. In other words, the first has great authority. e.g., Adam sold out the whole human race because he was the first man. See how being first means you have great authority.
No, I'd say that, as far as creation..
God created Man, then Woman, then Christ..But, as far as authority, it would be..
God>Christ>Man>Woman
Keeping in mind that Jesus was EXALTED to this position! Notice that in scripture the first born was always “past over” and not given their “birth right”, including Adam. However, Jesus was the “first-born” that will receive His birth-right.
Quote Finally, if Jesus were not the first work of God as the early fathers taught, then who was the first? Who was the first begotten of God? You have to admit that the first would have to be very special and given the authority that Adam had, imagine the authority the first after God must have. I do not believe that the early fathers taught this, if of course we are referring to the Bible. The first created being was Adam; however, the first BORN of God was Jesus. Keep in mind, Adam was NOT born, he was created..so was EVE. So yes, the first born, Jesus, is VERY SPECIAL!!
Quote In your view you do not know who this is. We believe it is Jesus as we believe that he existed before all creation, and thus why his is the only name that can redeem all things. Jesus did not have to exist “before all creation” in order to have importance. All of God's chosen did NOT exist prior to their birth!! Also, God states “I will make him my first born.”
Psalm 89:27
27 Also I WILL MAKE him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.The thing that we need to remember is just how powerful and ALL KNOWING is our God. God knew when He would need and send HIS Messiah into the world. I do not believe that He had a need to create this Messiah before He needed Him to enter the world. Furthermore, He did not see the need to create Moses, Noah, Abraham, or David before their birth? They, too, are important to God's plan for humanity's salvation, right?
Quote So just as Adam brought death to all humans, so it is that Christ can bring life to not only humans, but he can bring about a new heavens and Earth too. Agreed. And what is Jesus called..the SECOND Adam.
1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.June 29, 2013 at 8:29 pm#349198mikeboll64BlockedQuote (jb2u @ June 28 2013,15:44) This does not say, “He is my son.” It says, “He SHALL be my son, and I WILL be his father.”
Hi jb,2 Samuel 7:14 NET
I will become his father and he will become my son. When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings.We must remember that these words were originally written about Solomon, and although they are later showed in the NT to have been prophetic about Christ, not everything fits exactly. For example, when exactly did Christ “sin”? When did God have to “correct him” with the rod of men?
Also consider the following:
Jeremiah 24
6 My eyes will watch over them for their good, and I will bring them back to this land……7 They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart.
The fact that Jehovah said I WILL BE their God doesn't really mean that He had at any time ever STOPPED being their God, does it?
But we can talk more about this later. Right now, I accept your challenge……………….
June 29, 2013 at 8:34 pm#349199mikeboll64BlockedQuote (jb2u @ June 28 2013,16:09) I will show that any wording that implies a “past life” is only because of bad translations or due to phrasing that means something different to the Jews, just like certain phrasing in America would not be “gotten” elsewhere.
Okay, let's start with Phil 2, since t8 has already brought it up.5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, existing in the form of God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped;7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the form of a servant,
being made in human likeness.To me and t8, this clearly teaches that Christ was existing in one form, but then emptied himself and was made in the likeness of a human being.
How do you understand this passage?
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.