The Trinity Doctrine

[martian]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 17 2008,12:25)

Quote (martian @ April 16 2008,10:25) Lightenup, I apologize if I seemed harsh in my post to you. I am however not going to apologize for my frustration at your continual ignoring of the principles of interpretation that you agreed were appropriate. I do not have to rewrite this particular scripture. That has already been done by the Trinitarians. I attempt to get back to the original text and not what a biased translator has written. Several points for you to consider. 1. The theory of a Pre-existant Christ is a primary ingrediant of the Trinity theory. There are literally hundred of times in our modern translations where a verse or word has been translated in light of the Trinitarian doctrine. They assumed the Trinity to be true (including the preexistant Christ) seeing to it that words and phrases were translated to support that doctrine. This was done without any textural support in context or language. 2. According to the NAS Greek Lexicon the Greek word eimi  is used 300 times in the NT. Only 4 times is it translated existed. This Greek lexicon is  based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.” 3. The primary meaning of “eimi” is “to be” and is most often (130 times) translated as “am”. 4. Context – 15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'” —– Here the context is set. John the Baptist begins comparing himself to Christ. He states clearly that Christ is of a higher rank then him. Then John the Baptist says why. “for He to be before me”. In preeminence, Christ is to be ahead of John the Baptist. In rank Christ is to be above or before John the Baptist. TO BE future tense, not in some preexistant state. Now John the apostle goes on to clarify why Christ is ahead of all of us in rank.—————- 16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. —————– Verses 16 through 18 John the Apostle points out two things. 1) Christ is above Moses in rank. 2) That Christ’s rank is due to these things. A) We received grace upon grace which happened at Calvary. B) Grace and truth realized through Christ which was an act of His Earthly ministry “I am the truth and the light”. C) He is in the bosom of the Father which happened after His resurrection. D) Christ explained God to us in His Earthly ministry.   John gives clear evidence as to why Christ is of higher rank then us. Not because of pre-existing but because of His work on Earth. ——————————————— 19This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” 21They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not ” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.” 22Then they said to him, “Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” 23He said, “I am A VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAY OF THE LORD,' as Isaiah the prophet said.” 24Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 25They asked him, and said to him, “Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” 26John answered them saying, “I baptize in water, but among you stands One whom you do not know. 27″It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.” ————————- Again John the Baptist carries on the context of Christ being of higher rank then he. The context of verses 16 through 27 is about the rank or preeminence of Christ over John the Baptist, John the apostle, Moses and us. The reasons for that preeminence are made clear. They are because of His work on Earth and not because of some pre existence.————————— As you have often done in the past, you have not studied the Greek word origins nor have you considered the context of the verse. You did not consider the word usage of eimi in other places in scripture but instead accepted a meaning that fits your theory. You have again played cut and paste theology. Taking a scripture out of context and attempting to use it to prove a pet theory. Again you have set out in your study with a preconceived idea of doctrine and only go as far as needed to get some form of supposed proof for what you already have decided is true. You are not looking for truth. You are looking for proof. To all, John 1:15 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ' He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me. NASU The greek word used in this verse for existed is “een” NT:2258 It is definitely not written in the future tense (as Martian wants to claim) according to “The NIV English-Greek New Testament-A Reverse Interlinear”. The original greek word is written as a verb in the imperfect, active, indicative, third person, singular form. The word “imperfect” means that it describes a past continuous action, it does not tell us whether that action was ever completed or not. The term “active” means that the subject is doing the action of the verb as opposed to the subject receiving the action as in a “passive” way. Therefore, Christ existed in the past in an active way.  It was Christ doing the existing and the existing wasn't being done to him (as if He were simply a “plan” or “purpose” or “will” of God). You can see how Martian has gone so far as to change the tense of the verb from the past tense to the future tense.  And then He has the gall to accuse others.  Be on the alert!

Beware is right.
I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong. Are you?
En is Strong’s number 2258. The word translated in John 1:15 is Strong’s number 1510. You have the wrong word completely. Existed = 1510 is verified in studylight.org interlinear. Westcot and Hort Greek translation, A. T. Robertson’s Greek NT, and the NAS concordance. Perhaps you should check more then one source instead of finding one that fits your doctrine. Again you are looking for proof rather then truth.
The word translated in John 1:15 is eimi.
In fact there are 4 words translated existed in the NAS.

1096
existed* givnomai ginomai

1510
existed eijmiv eim

1510
existed* eijmiv eimi

5225
existed uJpavrcw huparcho

In John 1:15 the word is eimi
Strong's Number: 1510
Browse Lexicon
Original WordWord Origin
eimithe first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb
Transliterated WordTDNT Entry
Eimi2:398,206
Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech
i-mee' Verb
Definition
to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

eimi
The Greek verb ? means “to be”, and like the English word “to b
e”, it is one of the most common words in the language. Both English and Greek words can take different forms depending on who we are talking about, e.g.”he is”, “you are”, “I am”. It is used for present or future tense.
The term “for” in verses 15, 16 and 17 is the Greek word oti which means “because”.
In addition the word “is” is often implied but rarely written. It is added in literal English translations to clearify the context.
Now with the proper translation —

15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, because (oti) He (is) to be (eimi [Gr] 1510) before me.'” Because (oti) of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. Because (oti) the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

It is so very simple for those that are honest. John the Baptist is talking about Jesus being of a higher rank then him. John the apostle then goes on to tell us why. Not because Jesus lived in some pre-existant state, but because of all of the things He did after His birth to Mary.

Not only does the proper translation line up with the actual Greek words, it also fits the context of the verse.

[martian]

One more thing. If what you say is true then what John the Baptist was saying was that Christ rank above his was based on Jesus’ pre-existence and not on his work on Earth. This takes away from the glory He received because of His Earthly work as the Messiah and places the reason for His glory and position on pre-existence.
Some on this board have said that Christ pre-existence had no effect on His Earthly life. If you are correct then it certainly had an effect on His rewards in Heaven. That also brings into question Christ as our example. How can we really be joint heirs with Him if part of His inheritance is based on a pre-existence that we did not have?

[TimothyVI]

Quote (martian @ April 18 2008,04:32)

One more thing. If what you say is true then what John the Baptist was saying was that Christ rank above his was based on Jesus’ pre-existence and not on his work on Earth.  This takes away from the glory He received because of His Earthly work as the Messiah and places the reason for His glory and position on pre-existence. Some on this board have said that Christ pre-existence had no effect on His Earthly life. If you are correct then it certainly had an effect on His rewards in Heaven. That also brings into question Christ as our example. How can we really be joint heirs with Him if part of His inheritance is based on a pre-existence that we did not have?

Exactly martian.
Well said.

Tim

[GeneBalthrop]

martian……amen brother.

peace and health to you and yours……….gene

[Not3in1]

Quote (TimothyVI @ April 18 2008,04:46)

Quote (martian @ April 18 2008,04:32) One more thing. If what you say is true then what John the Baptist was saying was that Christ rank above his was based on Jesus’ pre-existence and not on his work on Earth.  This takes away from the glory He received because of His Earthly work as the Messiah and places the reason for His glory and position on pre-existence. Some on this board have said that Christ pre-existence had no effect on His Earthly life. If you are correct then it certainly had an effect on His rewards in Heaven. That also brings into question Christ as our example. How can we really be joint heirs with Him if part of His inheritance is based on a pre-existence that we did not have? Exactly martian. Well said. Tim

I also agree with you, Martian. Good points.

Good debate going with Lightenup. Good work guys!

[Lightenup]

Quote (martian @ April 17 2008,11:22)

[Beware is right. I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong. Are you? En is Strong’s number 2258. The word translated in John 1:15 is Strong’s number 1510. You have the wrong word completely. Existed = 1510 is verified in studylight.org interlinear. Westcot and Hort Greek translation, A. T. Robertson’s Greek NT, and the NAS  concordance. Perhaps you should check more then one source instead of finding one that fits your doctrine. Again you are looking for proof rather then truth. The word translated in John 1:15 is eimi. In fact there are 4 words translated existed in the NAS. 1096 existed* givnomai ginomai 1510 existed eijmiv eim 1510 existed* eijmiv eimi 5225 existed uJpavrcw huparcho In John 1:15 the word is eimi Strong's Number:   1510 Browse Lexicon Original WordWord Origin eimithe first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb Transliterated WordTDNT Entry Eimi2:398,206 Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech i-mee'    Verb Definition to be, to exist, to happen, to be present eimi The Greek verb ? means “to be”, and like the English word “to be”, it is one of the most common words in the language. Both English and Greek words can take different forms depending on who we are talking about, e.g.”he is”, “you are”, “I am”. It is used for present or future tense. The term “for” in verses 15, 16 and 17 is the Greek word oti which means “because”. In addition the word “is” is often implied but rarely written. It is added in literal English translations to clearify the context. Now with the proper translation — 15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, because (oti) He (is) to be (eimi [Gr] 1510) before me.'” Because (oti) of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. Because (oti) the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. It is so very simple for those that are honest. John the Baptist is talking about Jesus being of a higher rank then him. John the apostle then goes on to tell us why. Not because Jesus lived in some pre-existant state, but because of all of the things He did after His birth to Mary. Not only does the proper translation line up with the actual Greek words, it also fits the context of the verse.

To all,
The lexicon form of the word translated “existed” in John 1:15
is Strong's #1510 meaning “to be”. The conjugated form of #1510 used in this verse is Strong's #2258. The lexicon form is always in the first person, present tense. The words are definetly related. In English, the conjugations of “to be” are: is, am, are, was, were, be, being, been. Strong's #2258 is a conjugation of #1510. It is the imperfect tense, in other words the past tense form of the term “to be”. In the verse John 1:15, the word is properly translated as existed, past tense.

Martian, I suggest you go back to studylight.org and go to the King James Version so that you can see the tense, voice and mood of the verb in this particular verse. You may have looked at the NAS version and that is maybe where you got confused because it doesn't tell you the tense, voice and mood of the verb. Easy to do.

NT:2258

en (ane); imperfect of NT:1510; I (thou, etc.) was (wast or were)
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright  1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
As a correction of my previous post:

The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.”

In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.

Nevertheless, it is past tense and not future or present tense.

I really have to put this debate on hold for now. I have a huge project coming due.
Happy debating!

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 18 2008,07:54)

Quote (martian @ April 17 2008,11:22) [Beware is right. I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong. Are you? En is Strong’s number 2258. The word translated in John 1:15 is Strong’s number 1510. You have the wrong word completely. Existed = 1510 is verified in studylight.org interlinear. Westcot and Hort Greek translation, A. T. Robertson’s Greek NT, and the NAS  concordance. Perhaps you should check more then one source instead of finding one that fits your doctrine. Again you are looking for proof rather then truth. The word translated in John 1:15 is eimi. In fact there are 4 words translated existed in the NAS. 1096 existed* givnomai ginomai 1510 existed eijmiv eim 1510 existed* eijmiv eimi 5225 existed uJpavrcw huparcho In John 1:15 the word is eimi Strong's Number:   1510 Browse Lexicon Original WordWord Origin eimithe first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb Transliterated WordTDNT Entry Eimi2:398,206 Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech i-mee'    Verb Definition to be, to exist, to happen, to be present eimi The Greek verb ? means “to be”, and like the English word “to be”, it is one of the most common words in the language. Both English and Greek words can take different forms depending on who we are talking about, e.g.”he is”, “you are”, “I am”. It is used for present or future tense. The term “for” in verses 15, 16 and 17 is the Greek word oti which means “because”. In addition the word “is” is often implied but rarely written. It is added in literal English translations to clearify the context. Now with the proper translation — 15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, because (oti) He (is) to be (eimi [Gr] 1510) before me.'” Because (oti) of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. Because (oti) the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. It is so very simple for those that are honest. John the Baptist is talking about Jesus being of a higher rank then him. John the apostle then goes on to tell us why. Not because Jesus lived in some pre-existant state, but because of all of the things He did after His birth to Mary. Not only does the proper translation line up with the actual Greek words, it also fits the context of the verse. To all, The lexicon form of the word translated “existed” in John 1:15 is Strong's #1510 meaning “to be”.  The conjugated form of #1510 used in this verse is Strong's #2258.  The lexicon form is always in the first person, present tense.  The words are definetly related.  In English, the conjugations of “to be” are: is, am, are, was, were, be, being, been.  Strong's #2258 is a conjugation of #1510.  It is the imperfect tense, in other words the past tense form of the term “to be”.  In the verse John 1:15, the word is properly translated as existed, past tense. Martian, I suggest you go back to studylight.org and go to the King James Version so that you can see the tense, voice and mood of the verb in this particular verse.  You may have looked at the NAS version and that is maybe where you got confused because it doesn't tell you the tense, voice and mood of the verb.  Easy to do. NT:2258 en (ane); imperfect of NT:1510; I (thou, etc.) was (wast or were) (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.) As a correction of my previous post: The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.” In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action. Nevertheless, it is past tense and not future or present tense. I really have to put this debate on hold for now.  I have a huge project coming due. Happy debating!

LU

I am surprised that so many are so quick to jump on the band wagon with this guy without checking things out for themselves.

You go girl. You say…

Quote

It is the imperfect tense, in other words the past tense form of the term “to be”.  In the verse John 1:15, the word is properly translated as existed, past tense.

Exactly! The form of the verb EIMI (“to be”) here is HN ‘en’ (“was”).  It is in the “imperfect” tense. The imperfect bears the sense of “continuous or linear existence in past time”
(The Analytical Greek New Testament, Timothy and Barbara Friberg).

So who is it that is using proper translation techniques? But, again this will not matter to those who appose you. For they believe the translators were biased and corrupt.

Yet just about every translation out there translated the scripture as you say.

NIV
15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'

NASB
15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'”

AMP
John testified about Him and cried out, This was He of Whom I said, He Who comes after me has priority over me, for He was before me. [He takes rank above me, for He existed before I did. He has advanced before me, because He is my Chief.

NLT
John testified about him when he shouted to the crowds, “This is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘Someone is coming after me who is far greater than I am, for he existed long before me.

KJV
John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

ESV
John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said,(B) 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'”)

CEV
John spoke about him and shouted, “This is the one I told you would come! He is greater than I am, because he was alive before I was born.

NKJV
John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me

NCV
John tells the truth about him and cries out, saying, “This is the One I told you about: 'The One who comes after me is greater than I am, because he was living before me.

21st CKJV
15John bore witness of Him and cried, saying, “This was He of whom I spoke, `He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.

ASV
John beareth witness of him, and crieth
, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me: for he was before me.

NET
John testified about him and shouted out, “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, because he existed before me.

NWT
(John bore witness about him, yes, he actually cried out—this was the one who said [it]—saying: “The one coming behind me has advanced in front of me, because he existed before me.

This is not all of them!

John who wrote these words also penned these…

1 John 4:2
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come (Gr. Erchomai) in the flesh is of God:

The Greek word for come is “erchomai”,  which means, 1) to come
a) of persons
1) to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning
2) to appear, make one's appearance, come before the public
2) metaph.
a) to come into being, arise, come forth, show itself, find place or influence
b) be established, become known, to come (fall) into or unto
3) to go, to follow one

It is found about 653 times in the NT and almost invariably it is translated in the sense of going from one place to another.
But you have to ask yourself, “why would John make such a statement about Jesus “Coming in the flesh”?

Why wouldn’t he just say something like “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ has come is of God:” ?

But he used the term in the flesh “erchomai en sarx”. Which contextually agrees with what John says here…

1 John 1:1
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us

A thought and a plan has no life. This is further confirmation Jesus was with the Father from the beginning along with John 1:1, and then of course his coming in the flesh in John 1:14. It is explained very well here…

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1375

Blessings

[Lightenup]

Hi WJ,
Thank you for your post. That is interesting about erchomai. I will have to check that out further. I will be gone for a while. Have fun!
God bless!!

[GeneBalthrop]

WJ…… no matter how much proofs you get you just won't except them why, what good would it be if
God took another God and he walked perfect on earth. How do we gain hope from that seening he would (really) not be exacltly like us in (every) way. You steal glory from the Father and give it to Jesus. Jesus did not save himself it was God who saved Him, He was an ordinary man who had God with him at birth he never preexisted except in the plan and will of God and there is no scriputre that disagrees with this. How can we come to the (FULL) stature of Christ if he preexisted as a God before his berth and created all the universe as you say he did. Jesus was simply an ordinary man who God preordained as Peter said and brought him forth or Manifested at the proper time. What God did in Jesus He can and will do in all of humanity eventually, why because He is the one and (ONLY TRUE GOD).

IMO……….gene

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 18 2008,14:31)

WJ…… no matter how much proofs you get you just won't except them why

GB

It looks like you are the one not accepting the proofs. Why not?

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 18 2008,14:31)

, what good would it be if God took another God and he walked perfect on earth. How do we gain hope from that seening he would (really) not be exacltly like us in (every) way.

But you are forgetting something. He was like God in everyway also, was he not?

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 18 2008,14:31)

You steal glory from the Father and give it to Jesus.

You can’t give glory to the Father apart from Jesus. I give him the same honor I give the Father because he tells me to.

John 5:23
That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

The Greek word for honour is, “timao”, which means,

1) to estimate, fix the value
a) for the value of something belonging to one's self
2) to honour, to have in honour, to revere, venerate

It comes from the root word “timios”,which means, 1) as of great price, precious
2) held in honour, esteemed, especially dear

So Jesus is saying we are to have the same honour, esteem, reverence, for Jesus as we do the Father by placing the same fixed value on him as the Father. Jesus said if you don’t give him this honour then you don’t honour the Father.

Tell you what, show me a scripture that says we should give Jesus less honour and glory than the Father.

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 18 2008,14:31)

Jesus did not save himself it was God who saved Him,

Can you give me a scripture that says “Jesus needed to be saved”. Was Jesus a sinner?

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 18 2008,14:31)

He was an ordinary man who had God with him at birth he never preexisted except in the plan and will of God and there is no scriputre that disagrees with this.

Really? We just showed you several. Why don’t you believe them?

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 18 2008,14:31)

How can we come to the (FULL) stature of Christ if he preexisted as a God before his berth and created all the universe as you say he did

.

I only repeat the scriptures. They speak plainly that he preexisted and and that it was by his hand all things were made that was made.

As Far as coming to the full stature of Christ, how does his preexistence and the fact that he is like the Father in everyway stop us from coming into full maturity and becoming like him?

By the way, are we supposed to become like the Father or Jesus? Can you tell the difference?

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 18 2008,14:31)

Jesus was simply an ordinary man who God preordained as Peter said and brought him forth or Manifested at the proper time. What God did in Jesus He can and will do in all of humanity eventually, why because He is the one and (ONLY TRUE GOD).  IMO……….gene   sfsfg

Sorry, Jesus was no ordinary man. Do you know anybody who came down from heaven and was born from a virgin?

He was brought forth all right! He came down from heaven and ascended back where he was before.

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

Blessings!

[GeneBalthrop]

WJ…..The problem we have here is shifting from one subject to another with out settling anything.

Lets….Deal with this one question and nothing else, What good would it be if God took another God and He walked perfectly on the earth, How can we gain Hope from that, Seeing He (really) would not be the same as us? Lets not shirt or divert to something else Just answer this one question if you can.

peace to you and yours…………..gene

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 19 2008,03:44)

WJ…..The problem we have here is shifting from one subject to another with out settling anything.

GB

No, it is you who is shifting the conversation. The conversation was about Jesus preexistence, but when you didn’t have answer for what we showed you then you do what you usually do, you start attacking the Trinitarian faith in order to add some validity to your statements. I just simply answer your comments.

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 19 2008,03:44)

Lets….Deal with this one question and nothing else,

See there you go, changing the subject to what you want. Fine, go ahead and avoid the issue of his preexistence. I understand why, it is because if he did preexist then that would blow a big hole in your theology, for Jesus would not be just an ordinary man.

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 19 2008,03:44)

What good would it be if God took another God and He walked perfectly on the earth,

First of all your “assumption” here is wrong.

Jesus was not “another god”. Scriptures clearly teach the Word/God came in the flesh.

Jesus himself said “If you have seen me you have seen the Father/God”. Now we know the Father was in heaven was he not?

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 19 2008,03:44)

How can we gain Hope from that, Seeing He (really) would not be the same as us?

Have you forgotten that the Hebrews looked to God as their Savour?  For them to accept a mere man who claims to have power to forgive men’s sins against God and as their only way to God would be blasphemous.

Make up your mind GB, you say you only believe in the Father as your God, yet you want us to have hope and faith in a mere man to forgive us our sins and to be our Savour.

If Jesus was as you say then he was a sinner as we are.

Do you believe in his virgin birth or not? If you do tell me why he had to come into this world through a virgin, why not just be born like us if he is in every way like us?

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 19 2008,03:44)

Lets not shirt or divert to something else Just answer this one question if you can. peace to you and yours…………..gene

It is your turn. What about the scriptures showing his preexistence? If God is our only Savour, why did he need a mere man?

[martian]

lightenup

Contrary to WJ’s statements or actions I am willing to admit when I have made a mistake. I may have made a mistake concerning the Greek in John 1:15. I have referred this matter to someone that is better versed in Greek then me. As I understand it the manuscript evidence for een is taken from those manuscripts used to translate the KJV. One problem does arise in this respect. There was only one scholar that defined the Texas Receptus which is the primary source of the KJV and he had only 8 to 10 incomplete manuscripts from which to work. I am not an expert on manuscripts but it would be enlightening to know what Greek word is in the older and more prolific manuscripts.

There are still other points concerning interpretation that we have not explored. Study of the original language is only one.

15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'”

The word “protos” is translated :before” in this verse. Protos has several meanings. Among them are –
first in time or place
in any succession of things or persons
first in rank
influence, honour
chief
principal
first, at the first

It is not clear to my study if it is talking about before in time or placement of rank. Certainly the entire context of the portion of verse is about John’s proclaiming his lower rank then Jesus. Obviously there are many times this word depicts a placement of honor and not a linear placement of time.

A.T. Robertson in his pictures of the NT says this
“For he was before me (oti prwtov mou hn).
Paradox, but clear. He had always been (hn imperfext) before John in his Pre-incarnate state, but “after” John in time of the Incarnation, but always ahead of John in rank immediately on his Incarnation.”

In other words Robertson is saying that Christ was before John in existence because He existed prior to His earthly birth. After John in His birth on Earth and higher in rank after His birth on Earth. If Robertsons’ statement is true then Christ in His pre-existence was not higher in rank then John the Baptist. That placement of rank supposedly happened upon His incarnation. This would seem to contradict His ability to have very much power as in creating the heavens and Earth if lower in rank the John the Baptist.

Earlier in the quote by Robertson he calls this section of verse a paradox. A paradox is something that seems impossible but proves itself to be true. You will notice the specific words that Robertson uses. His conclusions are based on the premises that there was an incarnation. Robertson resolves this paradox by assuming that the incarnation is a fact.

In my early years of Bible study I would often (more often then now) assume certain things to be true about scripture without taking them to their ultimate conclusion. Often the conclusions would open a can of worms and bring more things into question then they would solve.
For example
If your interpretation is correct about this verse then —
1.Christ was of a lower rank in His pre-existence then John the Baptist.
2. Christ rank among men (both in heaven and on Earth) is at least partially based on His pre-existence.
3. Because Christ had a supernatural pre-existence, He is fundamentally different then other humans and therefore cannot claim to be the perfect example for us. (unless you are willing to say that all of us pre-existed)
4. If as you have said Christ was an “active” individual in His pre-existence, what happened to all the memories and the life that He had prior to His birth to Mary? Did He remember and know how to create the universe the moment He came out of her womb?
5. If you say that Christ did have advantage from His earlier life how do you reconcile that with scripture that is very clear that He is human and made like His brethren in every way. Not in every way but a dual nature. Not in every way except memories of a former life. Not in every way but the experiences of an earlier life, BUT IN EVERY WAY.

In conclusion, Even if I grant you every conclusion you have on this verse, one verse does not a doctrine make. I have yet to see anyone show me a consistent teaching throughout the word.

Now I know that some Trinitarians think they know the answers to my questions, however to me they might as well be saying that Christ was a Green haired Cyclops from mars then to babble off their science fiction.

[Not3in1]

Thanks for clarifying Martian.

[GeneBalthrop]

Wj….Again you have skerted around the direct question i ask by asking all kind of other questions. I ask you what good would it be if God took a perfect God who walked perfectcly himself because of some supposed preexistence, what hope or gain would that be for us humans, Seening he would (NOT) be (Exactly) like Us. Please answer Just this question only.

IMO……….gene

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 19 2008,10:32)

Wj….Again you have skerted around the direct question i ask by asking all kind of other questions. I ask you what good would it be if God took a perfect God who walked perfectcly himself because of some supposed preexistence, what hope or gain would that be for us humans, Seening he would (NOT) be (Exactly) like Us. Please answer Just this question only. IMO……….gene

GB

Its simple!

Only God could save. Only the Hebrew God was their Saviour.

But you want us to believe in just another anointed man or prophet like all the others in the past that could not save and forgive sins.

I repeat…

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 19 2008,03:44)

What good would it be if God took another God and He walked perfectly on the earth,

First of all your “assumption” here is wrong.

Jesus was not “another god”. Scriptures clearly teach the Word/God came in the flesh.

Jesus himself said “If you have seen me you have seen the Father/God”. Now we know the Father was in heaven was he not?

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 19 2008,03:44)

How can we gain Hope from that, Seeing He (really) would not be the same as us?

Have you forgotten that the Hebrews looked to God as their Savour?  For them to accept a mere man who claims to have power to forgive men’s sins against God and as their only way to God would be blasphemous.

Make up your mind GB, you say you only believe in the Father as your God, yet you want us to have hope and faith in a mere man to forgive us our sins and to be our Savour.

If Jesus was as you say then he was a sinner as we are.

Do you believe in his virgin birth or not? If you do tell me why he had to come into this world through a virgin, why not just be born like us if he is in every way like us?

[GeneBalthrop]

WJ…..So your saying He (really) wasn't exactly like us then right. Then please tell me why it say's, for it behoved Him to be made like His (BRETHREN) Why would it behove the almighty God to be like His brethren, it says his brethren , not his children, I throught we were God's children not brethren. Looks like we have another deli-ma, but i am sure the trinitarians have figured a way around that also, so let's hear it. And you still have not answered my question, What hop or gain or advantage from a God appearing as a God on earth would there be to me, (NONE). But i know what advantage we would receive if a ordinary Man who has the living God in Him and guiding Him and empowering Him to overcome sin, would be to Us. Especially if that same God can indwell us also and empower us to overcome sin like He did Jesus through the annointing that was in Him. That would give great hop to us all. There is (only one God and one Medeatior (Between) God and Man, the (MAN) Jesus the anointed or Christ, either way it means the same thing. The medeator is a (MAN) NOT A GOD.

IMO…..gene

[GeneBalthrop]

WJ……Let me show you what you do in answering questions…I said, “you steal (GLORY) from the Father and give it to the Son', something Jesus never did. You came back and said, ” You can't give glory to the Father apart from Jesus.” (Then you changed the wording to),” I give him the same (HONOR) i give the Father because He tell's me to. Then you quote scripture saying that all men should (HONOR) the son even as they (HONOR) the Father, then you give a whole host of meannings for the word (HONOR) which was Not the word I used. You simply swithed words to fit you preceptions and if Glory and Honor were the same word then there would be no need for one of them would there. This is what i see you do a lot in our descusions it deverts the issues and confusses things.

IMO………..gene

[Not3in1]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2008,10:47)

But you want us to believe in just another anointed man or prophet like all the others in the past

But didn't Moses say that is who Jesus would be?

That God would provide another “prophet” from among the brethren who was just like him? Or am I remembering that part wrong? Thanks.

[gollamudi]

Hi Not3in1,
You are not wrong in remembering that Jesus has to be a prophet like Moses. It has been confirmed by St Peter in Acts 2. Really I'm blessed by your views and as well as of Gene.
Do write more. I am happy to read explanations of yours and Gene's with great joy. There no confusion in them. I always expereience peace when I gothrough your posts.
Thank you Sis. I'm Adam from India.
God bless all
Adam

[Author]

Posts