Who is this Jesus?

[SearchingForTheTruth]

Hello,
T8 I enjoy the discussion group and for bringing some questions into light concerning the trinity.  Ramblinrose, I also appreciate your posts for you have also done a very thorough study.  I have to say that I am in agreement that there is one GOD, the father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.  I do have some questions concerning Jesus and I would like to have some feedback or a discussion concerning the following questions:

Was Christ born before creation?
Was Christ Eternal?
Was Jesus Divine or Human? or Both?

I ask these questions because there happens to be 2 conflitcing thoughts about Jesus outside of the Trinity and Oneness groups.  

Thought 1.  Jesus was born/begotton before creation and came to earth in flesh as a man.  (Was he only a man?, Did he have divine attributes? Was his only divinity the father inside of him or did he possess some of his own? If you are the same nature of something  IE GOD, would you not have some divine attributes? A human is born as a human and carries human attributes.)

Thought 2. Jesus’s only birth was that of Mary and thus he was fully human, the only divinity within him was the father working thru him. The father is the father in the literal sense using his spirit to impregnate Mary.

This is where I am at in crossroads to when Jesus came into being and what attributes does Jesus possess.  An open discussion on this would be helpful as it will trigger some thoughts in search of the truth.

GOD BLESS

[Proclaimer]

Q: Was Christ born before creation?

A:  Colossians 1:15-16
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

This verse is quite clear that ALL things were created by or through Jesus.

John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

So there is nothing that was made that didn't involve Jesus/The Word being there. This verse alone answers your question because the universe, angels and men were made. Only the Father and Son were not made. God has always existed and the Son was born from God.

Proverbs 8:22-30 (English-NIV) and it says the following:

22 “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, {[22] Or ; or } {[22] Or ; or } before his deeds of old;
23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,

This verse is talking about Wisdom, whom is Christ. It is an Old Testament scripture that shows us that Jesus was brought forth which seems to compliment the scriptures that teach that Jesus was given birth by God and then created all THINGS though him.

[Proclaimer]

Q: Was Christ Eternal?

A: Look at the following verse which contains the word begotten.
Hebrews 11:17
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

Now Jesus is known as the only begotten of the Father in many verses. Here are some of those verses. John 1:14, John 3:16, Acts 13:33
etc.

Now what does the word begotten mean?
Each of the above uses of the word begotten comes from the following the greek words 'monogenes' (3439) {mon-og-en-ace'}
from 3441 and 1096; TDNT – 4:737,606; adj

AV – only begotten 6, only 2, only child 1; 9

• single of its kind, only
• used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
• used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God

AND

'gennao' {ghen-nah'-o}
from a variation of 1085; TDNT – 1:665,114; v

AV – begat 49, be born 39, bear 2, gender 2, bring forth 1,
     be delivered 1, misc 3; 97

1. of men who fathered children

   • to be born
   • to be begotten
   • of women giving birth to children

2. metaph.

   • to engender, cause to arise, excite
   • in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone
   • of God making Christ his son
   • of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work

So we can plainly see that Jesus was born from God and that he is the only Son who was born from God directly. Now we who are born again are given new birth from God through Christ. But Jesus was given birth from the Father.

Now there is not one verse in the bible that states that Jesus existed before he was born of the Father as far as I know. If there is, then please make a post here and show me.

Now if there is indeed no verse that says Jesus existed forever with his Father, then what right do we have to say that he has existed forever with his Father, which by btw is what the Trinity doctrine plainly states.

Now John 1:1 says that the Word (Jesus) existed in the beginning with God. The word 'beginning' actually doesn't mean that he has always existed as the same word is used in 1 John 3:8, which says:

He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the BEGINNING. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.

Now Christ claimed a lot of things, such as being the Son of God and he claimed that he existed before Abraham. The biblical writers agree that God made all things through the Word and that the Word became Flesh who is none other than Jesus the Christ. But I am yet to find a verse in the bible that says he existed forever like God. On the contrary the scriptures say he was born of God, that he was brought forth as the first of God's works and that he is the firstborn over all creation.

See Colossans 1:15

[Proclaimer]

Q: Was Jesus Divine or Human? or Both?

A: Yes Jesus is divine, but we must remember that there are many divinties and God is the supreme divinity. Jesus came from God and has the same divine nature and btw so should we who are being saved have the nature of God. See 2 Peter 1:4

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

The word divine alone doesn’t mean that you are God rather it is a general name of deities or divinities as used by the Greeks and the New Testament was written in Greek.Now it is very obvious from scripture that Jesus was a Man and was born through a woman. But many say that God became a man. But this is not true. John 1:14 tells us the following:

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[ 1:14 Or the Only Begotten] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So it was the Word who became flesh and he is the Christ, the Son of God. Now the Word came from the Supreme Divinity and is like him in every way. Jesus has a divine nature and we who are being saved through Christ should also partake of that divine nature. God is not a Man and never will be. God is Spirit. It was the Word who became a Man and the scriptures are quite clear that Jesus is a man. See 1 Timothy 2:5

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

So to conclude we have to acknowledge that Jesus is a man and that he is also the Word. He is also born from God and he is the Christ and the only way by which we can be saved. Here is a list of some of the things that Jesus is:

• God has spoken to us through the Prophets and now his Son.
• The Son is that exact brightness of Gods glory.
• He is the express image of God.
• He sustains all things.
• He is seated at the right hand of God
• He inherited a name more superior to the Angels.
• He is worthy to be worshipped by Angels.
• God became a Father when he begat his son “You are my Son, today I have become your Father”.
• He is the Firstborn from the Dead.
• Jesus has first place in everything.
• Jesus is head over the Church.
• He is God’s firstborn.
• Jesus is the Beginning of the Creation of God.
• Jesus is begotten, not created.

[SearchingForTheTruth]

T8,
Those scriptures do bring light onto the subject and I am still a little unsure on where I stand with Jesus’s exsistance.  For right now, I am going to play devils advocate and present an argument from another point of view.

There can be no doubt that Jesus was unique among all human predecessors. He had no earthy sire. He was the "only begotten son of God".
Only one other man shared a comparable uniqueness and that was Adam. Adam possessed no earthy parents but was created from the earth. Paul refers to this connection by calling Jesus the "last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45). However, proving that Jesus was unique among humanity does not prove that he was actually "God in the flesh" or that he pre-existed in some way any more than the uniqueness of Adam proved his literal pre-existence.
In fact, it was the raw material of their being that actually pre-existed both Adam and Jesus. In Adam’s case, it was the dust from which he was created. In the case of Jesus, it was the virgin human woman that God impregnated through his spirit. In both examples viz, a lifeless body and a virgin womb, the spirit of God "breathed". On the one hand, God "breathed" into Adam’s nostrils "the breath of life". One the other hand, God breathed into the virgin womb "the life giving spirit." Adam, then, was the only created son of God, whereas as Jesus was the only "Begotten" son of God. In both cases, they were fathered by God and became living beings independent of man’s procreation.
That Jesus was 100% man cannot be doubted from scripture either. The Hebrew writer describes his humanity like this. (Heb. 2:14, 16-17)
Therefore, since the children shared blood and flesh, he likewise partook of those things, so that through death he might deprive of his energy the one who has the strength of death — that is, the Accuser… For surely he does not take hold of messengers, but he takes hold of Abraham’s seed. Consequently, he was bound to be made in all ways like his brothers, so that he would become a merciful and trustworthy high priest regarding the things that lead toward God — to the point of making atonement for the sins of the people.

These verses do not say that Jesus was formed in some ways like his brothers but in "all ways." This knowledge, then, fashions the dilemma of this discussion. It is common to hear some say that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. This was what the framers of the Nicene Creed were attempting to say by their "obscure" language. The obvious question to such a theme — in the light of what the Hebrew writer so confidently affirms — is how could this be true and Jesus still be described as 100% human? Jesus, himself, said that "God is spirit" (John 4:24). God attests that man is dust! "For dust you are and dust you shall return" (Gen. 3:19). Wouldn’t this make Jesus a schizophrenic in the truest sense of the word?
Biblical scholar and author John Knox states this enigma quite well.
You can have a human Jesus without pre-existence or a non-human Jesus with pre-existence. There is absolutely no way of having both.

I believe the best place to start as we examine the theology of pre-existence is with the gospel according to John. No other historian of Jesus alludes to the theme of "pre-existence" nearly to the extent that John does. Consequently, much of the theology existing today has been inspired by John’s gospel. Not only is the interpretation of John primarily responsible for the view that Jesus was "God incarnate" but it is also the main contributor to the doctrine that also includes the "Holy Spirit" among the "Godhead" — thus the "Holy Trinity."

The KJV and most that have followed have rendered John 1:1 thus.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Greek word translated "Word" is (logos). Most scholars would agree that "word" is inadequate as a definition of logos. Vine defines it thus:
"a. Denotes the expression of thought — not the mere name of an object as embodying a conception or idea… b. A saying or statement…"
Doctor Adam Clark defines it in this fashion.
"It signifies a word spoken, speech, eloquence, doctrine, reason, or the faculty of reasoning."
The entire original manuscript of John was penned in Greek capital letters. Given this fact, to capitalize this word in the English is to interpret its meaning and this is what the majority of versions do. Just the fact that they capitalize it in this verse proves their Trinitarian bias and paradigm but I am going to address the pre-exsistance of this passage. I just wanted to point out that there is translator bias that goes on during the translation process. It does not mean that they are wrong in their theology; it only identifies what their theology was as they entered their labors. If you change the translation of logos to a lower case "message" it carries a greater meaning than the English "Word" and changes completely the theology contained therein.
In addition to capitalizing and translating logos "Word", they also translated the Greek word (pros) "with" — which is not its general use in the accusative case. pros, as with most prepositions, has a very strong directional sense. Chase and Phillips define its use in the accusative as:
To, towards, with reference to, according to.
(Pros) is not the word in the Greek that would have been used if John wanted us to understand the "Word" was "with" God in the English sense. "Meta" would have been used to convey that sense. In John 1:1, I agree with those that render it as "directed toward".
Another thing that happens with this verse in most English translations is the repositioning of the phrase "and ‘God’ was the logos," which is the order it appears in the Greek text. Sometimes switching the sequence of a sentence does not influence the meaning but in this case an entire theology can be bolstered as a result. Therefore, you see it translated "and the Word was God" in most English translations instead of "and ‘God’ the message was".
Another important point that needs to be discussed here is that — in the opinion of most Greek scholars — at least the first portion of the John text is in poetic form. The poetic form that occurs is that the first word or principle meaning of the next sentence is the last word or principle meaning of the proceeding sentence. In view of this, let me quote what some think is a superior translation of the passage taken from the Frank Daniels Non-Eccl New Testament found here:
(http://hometown.aol.com/egweimi/rel.htm)

In the beginning was the message,
And the message was directed toward God,
And "God" the message was.

As you can see illustrated by the above rendering, "message" is the last word of the first line and becomes the first primary word of the second line. "God" — which is the last word of the second line is the first primary word of the next line. This poetic structure appears in other portions of the "prolog" to John, such as:
What has been done in it was life,
And the life was the light of humanity.
And the light shone in the darkness,
But the darkness did not understand it. (vv. 4-5)
Let me emphasize that the above IS a valid rendering and that it is not a perversion designed to undermine the Trinitarian view. The translator, Frank Daniels, did NOT hold the view contained in this thesis when he translated John.
Translating the first verse with the lower case "message" rather than the upper case "Word" also causes the pronoun autoV (autos) — translated "he" by the "authorized" versions — to be translated "it", "this" or "the same" because it refers to a neuter "message
" rather than a person "Word". Instead of the normal rendering of verse 2 which is,
He was in the beginning with God.
it is translated
The same was directed toward God in the beginning.
The pronoun will be masculine or neuter depending upon the gender of the word to which it refers. Of course, we all know that "word" is neuter anyway. However, the KJV assumed that the word — in this case — was a male person, i.e., "Jesus Christ," so they rendered "he." Even the "authorized" versions do not uniformly translate "him" in verses 2 through 4. In verse 2 cited above, they render "He". In verse 3, they give "him". However, in verse 4, they switch to "it". They are not being disingenuous here, only interpreting according to their paradigm. Instead of the KJV rendering,
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shone in darkness and the darkness comprehended it  not.
The alternative would continue the poetic structure with a different and consistent translation as follows:
Through it, all things were done.
And without it nothing was done.
What has been done in it was life.
And the life was the light of humanity.
And the light shone in the darkness.
But the darkness did not understand it.

By the additional rendition of autoV as "he" and "him". On the other hand, by translating logos "message" and autoV "it" you project an entirely different connotation to verse 14 — which some believe states concisely the theme of the gospel of John.
Whereas the "authorized" version gives it as:

And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
the alternative would read,

And the message was embodied (made flesh) and lived among us, and we observed its glory: glory like from a father’s only son, full of favor and truth.
The "authorized" rendering of John 1:3-5 also strongly implies that the personified "Word" was the creator by translating the Greek word dia "by " instead of "through." Almost all later versions, including the RSV, NASV, ASV and NIV, correct this bias of the KJV and give it as "through." However, most follow the error that is compounded by translating (egeneto) — a form of the word (ginomai) — "made", strongly implying in this context create when the basic meaning is "happen"! Wilson aptly comments on its use here as follows:
"Ginomai occurs upwards of seven hundred times in the New Testament, but never in the sense of create, yet in most versions it is translated as though the word was (ktizo). ‘The word appears fifty three times in John, and signifies to be, to come, to become, to come to pass; also, to be done or transacted."
(Egeneto) NEVER carries a "creation" meaning and is never translated such outside the four times rendered such in the first chapter of John (John 1:3,4, & 10) and in these cases the translators strongly suggest create by translating egeneto "made."
It is easy to identify their bias in this example. I reiterate that it does not necessarily mean that their interpretation and theology was incorrect. It most assuredly shows, however, that their Trinitarian bias (coupled with their fear of King James whose many titles included "Defender of the Faith) "colored" their translation.
If we agree that the proper translation of egento is "were done" — which fits this context — you have the makings of a whole new interpretation. Instead of the "message" being the creator itself, it becomes the reason that the "all things" under discussion in this text were "done." Therefore, the rendering

Through it, all things were done.
And without it nothing was done.

The above passage could be interpreted as saying that God brought "all things" into focus historically through and on account of the pre-existent "message," and his whole plan was conceived and purposed toward this end. The next verse identifies the goal of this "message" as "life."

What has been done in it was life. And the life was the light of humanity.

This also explains verse one’s description, "And ‘God’ the message was." God was the source, inspiration, and accomplisher of this plan and the pre-existent and forthcoming "message" would direct mankind toward this truth. God was the content of the message. The great Revelator, omnipotent and omniscient One described by Paul as one who "… calls things that are not as though they are" (Rom. 4:17), would be declared and glorified by a uniquely prepared individual — the Anointed Jesus. In other words, instead of having the person of the "Anointed" pre-existing as God, you have the "message" of the "Anointed" pre-existing and "directed toward God." This message is the same message spoken to Abraham and Moses.
A good example of this distinction can be seen in Ephesians 1:4. Paul writes that Christians were "chosen in him (the Anointed Jesus) before the foundation of the world." No one argues from this verse that Christians literally pre-existed but that the plan and purpose of God for their redemption pre-existed. If this is true concerning the believer (the goal of the message), couldn’t it also be true regarding the "Anointed" (messenger) himself? If not, why not? Simply put, God had the believer in mind before he existed so why could not the "Anointed" have existed only in God’s mind before it became flesh?
(For a more thorough report on the subject the work above was stated from "There is one GOD" by John Bland found at <a href="http://www.friktech.com/rel/1god.htm)

With” target=”_blank”>http://www.friktech.com/rel/1god.htm)

With this in mind the passages stated could represent a pre-exsistent message instead of the the actual person himself.  To further the arguement lets address Colossians 1:15-16

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

I am not going to go into a big discussion again about translator bias but instead of "all things were created by him and for him." should be rendered "through him"
Again, For a more indepth study of this bias (goto http://www.friktech.com/rel/1god.htm)

Instead of Jesus in a pre-existent state as God creating all things for himself or by GOD’s side, you have the Anointed man as the total focus, plan and purpose pre-existing in the mind of an omniscient, omnipotent and loving God. This God, then, carried out his plan by creating all things with redemption in view.
This is the reason that Jesus is described as "the lamb that was slaughtered before the foundation of the world." (Rev. 13:8) This is the reason that Christians are described as chosen "in him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4). It is from this very concept that "predestination" (literally, to set the boundaries before hand) springs. This view speaks to the purpose of God for our redemption through the Anointed Jesus rather than Jesus’ purpose for himself. This is the reason that Jesus is described here as the "firstborn of all creation".
"Firstborn" carries the idea of preference and not first in time or place. Paul is just saying that Jesus was preeminent in God’s eyes. For example, Israel is called God’s "firstborn" in Exodus 4:22, not because they were first in time, place, or
power but that they were preferred (for redemptive purposes) in the heart of God. Jesus was most important to God because he was the center of God’s plan to redeem mankind. It is consistently taught throughout the scriptures as we shall see. Doesn’t the remainder of our text echo this thought.  
… all things were created through him and for him. And he is ahead of all things, and all the things have been made to stand together in him, and he is the head of the body (the assembly): he is the beginning, the firstborn of the dead, so that he might become prominent in all things.

To address the passage:
Proverbs 8:22-30 (English-NIV) and it says the following:

22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, {[22] Or ; or } {[22] Or ; or } before his deeds of old;
23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,

Again, this and all other corosponding passages that refer to the pre-exsistence of Jesus can be laid to being in the mind of GOD and then embodied in the flesh.

T8, I enjoy your discussion board and you take a very analytical approach to examining the scriptures.  I would like your thoughts or anyone elses thoughts for that matter on if Jesus pre-exsisted in the literal sense or as a thought that was emobied in the flesh. Like I said, I am not sure on which way I am leaning but I thought I would present a quick argument for the pre-exsistance in GOD’s mind since you are taking the other stance.  I figured this way we could get a thorough discussion in search of the truth.  I also can say that if you build an argument on the the proverbs verse concerning wisdom that possible Jesus could be proven to exsist as an actual person with GOD.  Wisdom in this verse is talking from the first person perspective, and thoughts dont speak so there could be an argument there.  But in light of that there is a problem.  Proving that Jesus is wisdom through scripture (which I have seen before but need some clarification) and showing that wisdom which is feminine is the masculine Jesus as a pre-exsistent person.  Thanks for discussion and GOD BLESS.

[Proclaimer]

Q: Did Jesus pre-exist in the literal sense or as a thought that was emodied in the flesh later on?

A: I personally believe that Jesus pre-existed in the literal sense and later was embodied in the flesh so he could live as a man in order to redeem man. I do appreciate the evidence given for the other view however.

I believe that Jesus existed first before all things.

John 15:1-2 (English-NIV)
1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.
2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.

If we look at this model we know that the vine supports all the branches and the branches cannot exist without a vine. I know this is talking about all those in Jesus, but if we look at the wild vine, it is Adam who supports those branches and that vine/tree is condemned. I have to admit though that this verse certainly doesn't prove that Jesus came first before creation and Man in a time sense, but I am just using it to suport the fact that no saved person can exist in a state of salvation without Christ. This would have to include all who were born before Jesus birth into this world. Moses and Elijah for example who both appeared with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration both are obviously saved, but they existed and died before the birth of the Messiah onto the earth. Therefore they belong in the vine (Christ) who's work on the cross is for all before and after he was born into this world. In that sense I most certainly believe that Christ is first.

1 Corinthians 11:3 (English-NIV)
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Now the word head in the greek is 'kephale' which can mean head, source or master. Now if we notice the order in a time sense, we have to admit that God is the first as he is the only one who has existed for all eternity with no beginning. We also know from scripture that the man came first and the woman came from the man. So that part is correct if we use a timeline. That just leaves Christ. Did he come between God and Man. I think so, as I believe that all things came from him and this opinion does fit perfectly into this model in a time sense at least. Anyway the word Christ here is 'Christos' which means “anointed”. So the annointed is the head of Man.
God > Christ > Man > Woman

Hebrews 1:6 (English-NIV)
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.”

This verse calls Jesus the firstborn and the first born is brought into the world. Therefore the word 'firstborn' cannot have reference to being born in this world. If the term firstborn meant being born into the world by the Father, then shouldn't it say the Word/Logos/Message was brought into the world?

John 8:56-58
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!”
59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Jesus claimed that he existed before Abraham and the next 2 verses talks about the Son, (not the Word/Logos/Message) before Jesus was born on earth.

Psalm 2:7-9
I will proclaim the decree of the LORD : He said to me, “You are my Son ; today I have become your Father.
8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will rule them with an iron scepter ; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”

Proverbs 30:4 (English-NIV)
Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know!

Both instances of the word son in the Hebrew are 'ben'. The word is used to talk about son, grandson, child, member of a group, and not a thought or message as far as I know. It is also interesting to note in Proverbs 30:4, that the Son is mentioned in reference to creation of the earth and perhaps the heavens.

Also, certain scriptures reveal to us that the demons recognised Jesus as the Son of God e.g. Matthew 8:29.
“What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”

How could the demons know who Jesus was if he was just a thought in God's mind before his earthly  existence. Did the demons know the mind or the thoughts of God. I believe it is because they knew the Son of God as a person before they were cast out of heaven.

John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Here we can see that Jesus prays for himself (just before his death) for the same glory that he had before the world began. He doesn't seem to be asking to become a thought or message, but to be re-instated with the same glory and presence with God that he had before the world began.

Anyway if we believe that Jesus pre-existed before creation only as a thought in the mind of God, then I suppose that we could say the same about us to. But whatever the truth is, it is at least clear that Jesus was before all things in what state I am not sure as he has supremecy in all things. However I suppose that God who is the God of the Living and not the dead, is the source of all life and maybe we are all the thoughts of God, but because God is life, his thoughts also become alive and in that sense we exist when God thinks of us because he is not the God of the dead as is pointed out in Matthew 22:32.

But if God created all things for his Son and his Son was the channel for that creation to come into being, then I can only suppose that Christ existed at this point. As Genesis says: Let us make Man in our image and I assume that God was talking to Christ at this point and I know that that Christ is the image of God and we are the image of Christ and therefore the image of the image of God which is still the image of God. But Christ is the original and first image and I can only assume again that the image existed before the image of the image. A bit like a mirror that reflects a mirror, the original mirror has to exist in order to reflect the second mirror.

I also think when God created all things for Christ and through him, that Christ witnessed this  and delighted in God because of it.

Anyway this writing certainly contains scripture that points to the pre-existence of the Son of God before his birth on earth and other parts are just my thoughts speaking and if I have anything to add I will certainly do so.

Thanks for your time and input. I believe that in the end, if our motives are pure, we will find what we seek.

[SearchingForTheTruth]

T8,
Concerning the following verse:

Hebrews 1:6 (English-NIV)
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God’s angels worship him."

My question that rises to this passage would be if GOD’s angels are to worship him then are the angels first since they are being mentioned?

Are the angels a part of creation?
===========================
"if we believe that Jesus pre-existed before creation only as a thought in the mind of God, then I suppose that we could say the same about us to."
===========================
Do you think we exsisted as pre-spirit beings?

You made some good points and I like the analogy of the vine and also the old testament passages that are pre-human birth of Jesus.

GOD BLESS

[Proclaimer]

I think that the Angels are creatures and therefore are created. They have bodies that must have been created, but I assume that their spirits came from God, like us.

Where God’s Angels are told to worship God’s firstborn it seems to reflect the scripture in Revelation 5:11-13
11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders.
12 In a loud voice they sang:
"Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"
13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing:
"To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"

I personally don’t think that it referring to the Son being created after the Angels, but rather an incredible gratitude for the sacrifice that Jesus was about to make in order to save humanity. But I can understand that Hebrews 1:6 can be viewed in that way, but it is certainly at most an opinion that we cannot make a doctrine from, unless there are other scriptures that show this as a truth.

Regarding your question "Do you think we existed as pre-spirit beings?"
My answer is that I do not know. If we did, then my memory of this has been blocked. I can’t think of any scriptures that may support such an idea, but I have to admit that it may be possible. When I was younger I sometimes wondered if we were once rebellious Angels getting a second chance by starting a new life in this world of temptation, but really such thoughts are not even pondered by the great men who wrote scripture and one day soon we will know the truth anyway as we all have to leave this world and transform into the next. What is important right now for us is to overcome this world and the evil one and the only way to do this is to listen to God and do what he says. Anything else may lead us astray from the mission that God has for us. There is a lot of knowledge that we do not have now, but will be given after we die and I hope that I am patient enough to wait in Gods time for his revelation and to not race ahead of him and neglect the pressing needs that he has for me now.

[SearchingForTheTruth]

I just came across some interesting scriptures, some seem to imply that Jesus is yet to come when GOD was addressing David and others address the firstborn issue.

2 Samuel 7 (NIV)
12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.

And the verse below implies that Jesus was not naturally the firstborn but firstborn as a legal position.

Psalm 89(NIV)
27 I will also appoint him my firstborn,
the most exalted of the kings of the earth.

Other examples of Firstborn are below:
1 Chronicles 5:1:
"Reuben the firstborn of Israel . . . but forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph, and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright!"

Reuben’s lewd conduct earned the rebuke of his father, who deposed him from his legal status of firstborn, and gave the position to a much younger son: Joseph.

Other examples could be multiplied. Ephraim was blessed as firstborn by Jacob, even though he was younger than Manasseh his brother (Genesis 48:14-19), and God endorsed the appointment by describing Ephraim as "His firstborn" (Jeremiah 31:9). Jacob was given the birthright over his older brother Esau (Genesis 25:32-34). Simri was appointed to the position even though he was younger in years than his brethren (1 Chronicles 26:10).

These examples (and they could be multiplied) clearly show that it was often the practice for a younger son to be elevated to the position of legal firstborn in a family. In fact, this was so common that the Mosaic Law prohibited the elevation of a younger son to this position on the mere whim of his father, because of favoritism. It commanded:

"It shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated . . . " (Deut. 21:17).

This prohibition shows that a legal firstborn could be a younger son, and therefore has a great bearing on the interpretation of Colossians 1:15

Just some food for thought, I will post my findings in this discussion as I proceed in search of the truth.

GOD BLESS

[Proclaimer]

Yes there are examples of the firstborn not always being the actual firstborn in a time sense, but sometimes the the second, third .. born could inherit the firstborn status. But as you are aware, this is the exception rather than the rule. The word firstborn is a self explanatory compound, but there are examples where the firstborn loses his right and it is given to another.

I suppose that we could say that Adam was the firstborn and Jesus inherited this title after Adam screwed up, but the term firstborn of all creation doesn't limit us to thinking of humanity, rather all of creation and if Adam was the firstborn, then we know that Satan pre-existed Adam as he was the one who tempted Adam. So we really do not know how long Satan was around before Adam, but he was obviously in a sinful state (later stage of his existence) when he tempted Adam. So if Satan or the Angels are created beings like us, then the firstborn of all creation is a title or authority over all creation. So if we are indeed God's creatures (creations) then Jesus is indeed  firstborn of all creation, but if we believe that Jesus was given this title after Adam, then given the rule or pattern of the firstborn, who was the original firstborn of all creation who lost the title in order for Jesus to inherit it?, because it couldn't have been Adam (he was the firstborn among humans only).  All firstborns were literally the firstborn except when they lost that title and it was given to another. So again who was the original firstborn of ALL creation. Well the bible shows us that the Logos was the one whom God created the world through and we know that the Logos was there in the beginning and then became flesh and walked amongst us. So in my thinking at least, I think that Jesus was the firstborn in a literal sense and he has never lost that title because he has never sinned. To compliment this, we are shown from scripture that Christ is the head/source of Man/Adam. The head of the Woman is the Man and the head of the Man is Christ and the head of Christ is God.

Also as I mentioned before, the demons who came in contact with Jesus knew that he was the Christ, the Son of God. But how could they know this if Christ didn't exist at the time when the demons were Holy Angels. Remember that the demons are cut of from God and his presence (Spirit). Now if man who God works through had trouble recognising the Christ, then what chance would demons have, unless they had met him or knew him personally.

Luke 4:41
Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ.[ 4:41 Or Messiah]

Matthew 8:28-29
28 When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes,[4] two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way.
29 “What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”

Also: I have included a NT scripture that identifies Christ being present in the OT times:

1 Corinthians 10:1-3
1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.
2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
3 They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

PS
I think that 2 Samuel 7:12 & Psalm 89:27 are both talking about Solomon who recieved the firstborn status after Absolom lost it. Not too sure about it though. I will need to check it out. But it's late and I gotta get some sleep.

[Ramblinrose]

I have removed this post as my belief that Yahshua pre-existed has now changed.

The removal of this post has not altered the flow of the posts before and after it, as it was just a short side note and was not addressed in the posts following it.

[Proclaimer]

Hi Ramblinrose,

Good to see you back again.
Haven’t heard from you in a while.

[Proclaimer]

Philippians 2
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This verse is often used in support of the trinity doctrine because of the word 'equal'. But if you are equal to something it means that you are not that thing, rather you are like that thing. This scripture is also very clear about the following: The Father is God and Jesus is Lord and that God exalted Jesus to the highest place.

Another look at verse 7:
but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

This verse points out that Jesus made himself nothing or humbled himself to become a (or like a) human and also a servant. So this suggests to us that he pre-existed in a higher state because to humble oneself is to become lower. If he started life in this humbled state, then it would be incorrect to say that he humbled himself.

Of course it doesn't say that Jesus pre-existed as God, rather he was like God and it confirms that he is the Lord.

A closer look at verse 9
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Now I am not sure if Jesus was exalted higher than he was before he came to this world or whether he was exalted to the exact position that he had before. But if we look at John 17:5 again we can see that Jesus asked to return to his former glory.

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

So if Jesus returned to heaven in his former glory after his death and he was/is exalted to the highest place, then perhaps this was also his former glory.

[SearchingForTheTruth]

T8 and Ramblinrose,

I have not forgot about you. I have been busy this week but in the mean time I am putting together some answers for you. I am currently reviewing the pre-exsistance verses that I know of and I will respond with an answer to each verse as a seperate post. Once I reply to each verse that I know of I will post other verses that dont favor the pre-exsistant position. If you could address each of the verses that I post this will make an organized discussion and make it easier to weigh both sides.

GOD BLESS

[Proclaimer]

Thought I would add this scripture.

Ezekiel 8:1-3
1 In the sixth year, in the sixth month on the fifth day, while I was sitting in my house and the elders of Judah were sitting before me, the hand of the Sovereign LORD came upon me there.
2 I looked, and I saw a figure like that of a man. From what appeared to be his waist down he was like fire, and from there up his appearance was as bright as glowing metal.
3 He stretched out what looked like a hand and took me by the hair of my head. The Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and in visions of God he took me to Jerusalem, to the entrance to the north gate of the inner court, where the idol that provokes to jealousy stood.

This verse is interesting in the sense that the description is very similar to the description of Jesus Christ in Revelation 1:12-18,
12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands,
13 and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,” dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest.
14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire.
15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters.
16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.
18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

[SearchingForTheTruth]

T8,
I agree with you on who this is refering to. But may we keep in mind the dates that Eze. is talking about. He is seeing a vision of the future just as John did. 6th Year etc. I dont have the resources here to look up the scriputures but it seems that he is refering to the end of times. Seven is the number of completness throughout the bible so when he refers to the 6th year he is talking about the end of time.

GOD BLESS

[Proclaimer]

I will reply soon.
For now I will carry across Hebrews 1:1-3 from the trinity post.

1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven

The point here is that verse 2 and 3 are talking about the son and it says that God made the universe through him, (in the context of him being a son). So does this show us that the son pre-existed as the son?

[Proclaimer]

To SearchingForTheTruth

You said that the quote In the sixth year, in the sixth month on the fifth day in Ezekiel is referring to the future i.e the 6th millennium. I do not see it this way for the following reasons.

The mentioned date is normal and consistent with the other books of the prophets. The dates usually refer to the year of the current King. Some books are specific about this, others just give the year and some do not give a date at all. But either way I have never heard that the  dates in these books are used in the context of a millenia time line, i.e From Adam to the present, with each thousand years as one day or one year as you are using it. However, I know that one day can mean one thousand years in some prophecies, especially Revelation and I know that some think that the creation of the world in six days is talking about six thousand years. They use the following scripture to support this: 'One day is a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day to the LORD'. But I have never heard such language used in a historical record like the indication of when a vision took place, as we find in the books of the prophets.

I have decided to quote the first verse of other Old Testament books so we can get a context of how these dates are applied in these books.

Here are some examples:

Ezekiel 1
1 In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Kebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God.
Now, if we interpret Ezekiel 8:1-3 'the sixth year, in the sixth month on the fifth day' as being the sixth millennium, then to be consistent, Ezekiel 1 must be talking about the thirtieth millennium, which is impossible.

More examples below to get a feel for the context in which such dates are used.

Ezra 1:1
In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing:

Nehemiah 1:1
The words of Nehemiah son of Hacaliah: In the month of Kislev in the twentieth year, while I was in the citadel of Susa,
Note: we would have to assume this is the 20th millennium, using the same logic.

Jeremiah 1:2
The word of the LORD came to him in the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah,

Daniel 1:1
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.

Hosea 1:1
The word of the LORD that came to Hosea son of Beeri during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the reign of Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel:

Amos 1:1
The words of Amos, one of the shepherds of Tekoa-what he saw concerning Israel two years before the earthquake, when Uzziah was king of Judah and Jeroboam son of Jehoash [1] was king of Israel.

Micah 1:1
The word of the LORD that came to Micah of Moresheth during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah-the vision he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.

Zephaniah 1:1
The word of the LORD that came to Zephaniah son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hezekiah, during the reign of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah:

Haggai 1:1
In the second year of King Darius, on the first day of the sixth month, the word of the LORD came through the prophet Haggai to Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest:

Zechariah 1:1
In the eighth month of the second year of Darius, the word of the LORD came to the prophet Zechariah son of Berekiah, the son of Iddo:

As you can see, in nearly all cases, it is specifically referring to the reigning year of the current king and I assume where it doesn't mention a King, that it is still referring to the reigning year of the current King. Anyway if there is something here that I am missing and you need to reply to this subject, then I think it would probably pay to start up a new topic, so this one doesn't get side tracked.

Anyway I will post again soon with regards to more scriptures that indicate that the Son of Man existed in Old Testament times.

[Proclaimer]

Here is a scripture that could be referring to the Son of God. I have heard many say it is because they believe the Angel of the Lord is the Son of God, but it I admit that it could be just an Angel however, such as Michael or Gabriel.

I would like to explore the identity of the Angel of the Lord at some stage.

Daniel 3
24   Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astounded and stood up in haste; he said to his high officials, “Was it not three men we cast bound into the midst of the fire?” They replied to the king, “Certainly, O king.”
25   He said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!”
26   Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the door of the furnace of blazing fire; he responded and said, “Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, come out, you servants of the Most High God, and come here!” Then Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego came out of the midst of the fire.
27   The satraps, the prefects, the governors and the king's high officials gathered around and saw in regard to these men that the  fire had no effect on the bodies of these men nor was the hair of their head singed, nor were their trousers damaged, nor had the smell of fire even come upon them.
28   Nebuchadnezzar responded and said, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, who has sent His angel and delivered His servants who put their trust in Him, violating the king's command, and yielded up their bodies so as not to serve or worship any god except their own God.

[SearchingForTheTruth]

T8,

Point taken on that could imply that it is the son of God. Explicitly though we know its a divine being just unsure of who. I have heard the argument from KJV only advocates that it is the son of God. Which they rightfully state because the King James Version does say Son of God instead of Sons of the Gods. I dont think the KJV translated it correctly seeing how no other version translates it as such. I wouldnt have a problem excepting all the Angel apearances throughout the bible being Jesus if I could get proof that
1. Jesus was a pre-exsistent angel.
2. Jesus pre-existed.(which is what we are arguing at this point anyways)

At this point I would also like to state that there are two types of arguments that all of us use that I am sure you are aware of; Implicit and Explicit. Of course we know that explicit verses hold the most weight because they are taken at face value and implicit verses can be formed fit to apply to doctrine but can also be taken in other context such as the passage that you stated above. My explicit argument for Jesus not pre-existing has to do with the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. They explicitly tell us that Jesus came into existance at his human birth. I feel that the book of John seems to imply a pre-existance but can be cleared up with the proper understanding of John’s writing style in which I will address in my next post.

GOD BLESS

[Author]

Posts