Who is this Jesus?

Participant

To those who reject the virginal conception of Christ …

First, there is the incredibly conspirant implications that two chapters of the NT were doctored & over 10+ verses were added!!! … a conspiracy & an accusation that no one has proven

Moving on from that …
I soberly meditated on these words:
(Luke 1:18-20) And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years. 19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to show thee these glad tidings. 20 And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed,
because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

If GOD's judgement upon righteous Zacharias [Lk 1.5] was such that he was struck dumb
because he would NOT believe the words of Gabriel, GOD's angel
How much more a sorer judgement will be upon those who do not believe Gabriel's words concerning the fact that since no man had touched Mary, (hence confirming the fact that Mary therefore was a virgin),
the holy child that was to be conceived in her was to be conceived by the power of GOD's holy spirit

To reject the virginal conception of the Messiah is to disbelieve the words of Gabriel, an angel that stands in the presence of GOD; and was sent by GOD to show these glad tidings to Mary, the mother & sole biological parent of Christ.

THINK ABOUT THAT. SELAH.

November 8, 2004 at 1:46 am#4444

Participant

Hi RR,
jn 6.38
“For I HAVE COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN..”
41″ I am the bread that came down out of heaven”

42″ and they were saying ' Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph ,whose father and mother we know? How does he now say 'I have come down from heaven'?

50″This is the bread which comes down out of heaven..”
51″ I am the living bread that came down out of heaven..”
58″ this is the bread which came down out of heaven”
62″ What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending to WHERE HE WAS BEFORE?”

If you say that Jesus did not live in heaven prior to his life on earth you deny his words. He was known as the son of Joseph and 5 blind men knew him as the Son of David as well as the crowds who threw palm branches in front of the donkey in Mt 21.9.

November 8, 2004 at 7:50 am#4447

Participant

Quote (Ramblinrose @ Nov. 08 2004,04:43)

Revelation 22: 16
“I, Yahshua, have sent mine angel to testify to you these things in the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star.”

Why bother with genealogy if it was not an important factor to knowing who the Messiah was when he came. Are you suggesting the the prophets had is all wrong? All say that he will be from 'the seed of David', 'that he would proceed from David's bowels', 'from David's loins', 'which will be of thy sons'. A seed comes from a man, not a woman.

What do I have to defend? Is it not I who am agreeing with all the above scripture?

To RR,

I agree that Christ is both the root and the offspring of David, but it appears that you are the one who does not.
How can Christ be the root of David if he is only his offspring?
The root comes before the branch and supports the branch.

Matthew 22:42
42 “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?”
“The son of David,” they replied.
43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says,
44 ” 'The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.” '
45 If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?”
46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

I am sure that your theology has a way to explain away the root but keeping the offspring as you must have wondered about this. I am not sure what it is though. Perhaps you say that the root is not a preceeding thing but an inherited thing.

I have read some of the pages that you have linked to in the past and they seem to deny the pre-existence of Christ by taking all references to root, I came down from heaven etc to mean the plan. So according to those web pages, the plan is the root or the plan that was hatched in heaven and was realised when God created Yahshua as a man.

But RR, you have failed to realise that the plan that you talk about is Yahshua. He is the plan. He is the one who became flesh and dwelt with the disciples and the Word of God is the one who is coming back to judge the world.

I have said before that truth, life, way and Logos can all be conceptual, such as tell me the truth. But these concepts are derived from Christ. He is the Way the Truth and the Life and his name is the Logos. He actually is those things. Such concepts come from God the Father, but he personified all these attributes in his son, so that his son is actually the expression of Truth and the Logos. The son is the fullness of God's character in visible form. He is not God himself but God's image.

So yes God created the universe with truth and gave his creation life, but this was done through the Truth himself. That is why God said “Let US make man in OUR image”. He was talking to Yahshua by whom he God, created the universe and every living thing.

So the Logos/Plan/Expression/Word that was with God in the beginning, was actually Christ. He is the plan. The plan didn't spawn him, he is the plan itself and the first expression of God. That is why he is called the only begotten of God and the first born.

I have seen those writers who you linked to, show how the only begotten and first born are really only talking about the privilege side of it and not the literal. But may I remind you and the readers here that all firstborns were literally the firstborn unless they gave that up and God gave the privilege of the first born to another. Rather than waste the privileged position God promised to the literal firstborn, he can give the priviledge to one who is more worthy and not the literal first. This however is the exception not the rule. It must first be given up by the literal firstborn before being given to another.

So we both agree that Christ is the firstborn in privilege, but differ with regards to literal. So if Christ wasn't the firstborn literally then who was. Perhaps Adam? Maybe Adams stuff up opened the way for Yahshua to take the firstborn status that was Adams? The problem here is that even though this is true, Jesus is called the firstborn over ALL creation, not just the son of man. He was before creation and he rules over it.

If your interpretation of Yahshua is being only a man that was part of God's plan in the beginning, then why is Yahshua the exception with not being the literal firstborn like all other firstborns were? In other words, who was the firstborn over all creation that lost that priviledge with being that firstborn over all creation? Surely it wasn't an angel or Satan? Scripture says it was Yahshua. He is the firstborn and it doesn't say that he wasn't the firstborn literally does it. When we talk about a firstborn we think about the first son and we think of the priviledge that comes with that.

Genesis 4:4
But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,

Just as Abel sacrificed the firstborn and the Lord looked with favour, so the Lord looked with favour on his son and us, when the firstborn was slain.

So is it just me and a bunch of others who think that Christ pre-existed? Well the answer is not only us, but Jesus himself. He taught it himself so clearly.

John 8:58
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

I am = I existed.

You cannot be anymore clearer than that. I believe these words of Christ. I believe that he existed before Abraham because that is what the Messiah said.

Scripture is also clear that Christ has/had divine nature. He emptied himself of his status and position momentarily when he humbled himself and took on human nature to be like us. Yes he humbled himself. He became a man, a little lower than the angels.

Now a man is one who has flesh or human nature. Christ partook of this nature so he was called a man. But just as Christ was raised back to the glory that he had before with the Father, we too will be raised from the physical body to inherit the spiritual body thereby fulfilling the scripture that we will be partakers of the divine nature.

What about Angels who come to earth as men. Did they pre-exist their taking on the likeness of man or were they created on the spot for those visitations? Of course they pre-existed just as Yahshua did. Yahshua is ancient and I mean that in a nice way. He existed way before he was a man. He existed way back to a time when he existed with the Father only, before creation was created. That is why only Christ has seen God and only he can declare him. All the ways that we see God's glory is through something. But Yahshua dwelt with God before there was a creation.

The scripture says that we will partake of divine nature and that Jesus who was divine partook of human nature. When I am clothed in my heavenly dwelling and free from my human nature, I will have been perfected in body soul and spirit. I can then say that I pre-existed as a human. This is the same with Christ. He pre-existed as a divine person (a son). He was the first of God's works. He humbled himself to become a man and then he returned to the glory that he had with God before the world began. (John 17:5)

November 8, 2004 at 8:27 am#4448

Participant

thx for the encouragement Nick.

November 8, 2004 at 12:33 pm#4449

Ramblinrose

Participant

Quote

4491 riza rhiza hrid’-zah

apparently a primary word; TDNT-6:985,985; n f

AV-root 17; 17

1) a root
2) that which like a root springs from a root, a sprout, shoot
3) metaph. offspring, progeny

November 8, 2004 at 12:43 pm#4450

Ramblinrose

Participant

t8 & Nick

Why is it that you only address posts to me regarding the pre-existence of Yahshua when Adam Pastor has the same belief as I do?

Quote

Like I said, I apologize if I have misunderstood your argument.
Oh BTW, I fully agree that Christ did not pre-exist his conception.

November 8, 2004 at 7:37 pm#4451

Participant

Hi RR and Adam Pastor,
Perhaps Adam Pastor fears God and has repented of this false doctrine since he chooses to not defend it?
Jn 17.3
” Eternal life is this;to know you, the only true God, and him whom you HAVE SENT, Jesus Christ. I have given you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. Do you now, Father, give me glory at your side, a glory I HAD WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN”
v8″ ..They have known that in truth I CAME FROM YOU, they have believed it was you who SENT me”
v18″ As you HAVE SENT ME INTO THE WORLD so I have sent them into the world”
v21″…that the world may believe that you SENT me”
v24″..because of the love you bore me BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN”
v25″”.. and these men have known that you SENT ME”

According to the words of Jesus he existed with, and was loved by, and had his own glory at the side of the Father before the world began. He existed with and was sent by the Father to do the work of the Father.

To argue with these facts is to deny the words of Jesus.

November 9, 2004 at 12:10 am#4452

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 08 2004,19:37)

Hi RR and Adam Pastor,
Perhaps Adam Pastor fears God and has repented of this false doctrine since he chooses to not defend it?
Jn 17.3
” Eternal life is this;to know you, the only true God, and him whom you HAVE SENT, Jesus Christ. I have given you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. Do you now, Father, give me glory at your side, a glory I HAD WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN”
v8″ ..They have known that in truth I CAME FROM YOU, they have believed it was you who SENT me”
v18″ As you HAVE SENT ME INTO THE WORLD so I have sent them into the world”
v21″…that the world may believe that you SENT me”
v24″..because of the love you bore me BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN”
v25″”.. and these men have known that you SENT ME”

To argue with these facts is to deny the words of Jesus.

Many moons ago, I presented this view (which you call false doctrine) on this board …
needless to say it didn't go down well …

Besides, RR presents it well … and he is using many of the arguments and sources that I would use …

So, there is no need for an ECHO; hence, this is why I have seen no need to defend it.

At the end of the day, all the scriptures that appear to speak of a personal pre-existence of Christ [John 17:5ff, etc] … can be explained scripturally, to show that Christ's pre-existence was notional i.e. he was foreordained in the mind of GOD; GOD had a plan (logos) & in the fulness of time, that plan (logos) was made flesh in the womb of Mary; the man Christ Jesus therefore, is what the logos became!

Oh! Look at me … echoing/repeating what has already been said … let me quit!

If any one is serious about investigating the scriptural doctrine of the notional/ideal pre-existence of the Messiah, they are free to email me on the subject.

(1 Pet 1:20) Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
“The logos of the prologue became Jesus; Jesus is what the logos became, not the logos as such”
(Leonard Goppelt, The Theology of the New Testament, Vol. II, p. 297)
“The logos is the mind of God. Jesus is the embodiment of the mind of God. He is the logos made flesh – through the Holy Spirit…What preexists is God’s word or wisdom, God’s spirit and
God’s self (the Father)”
(Colin Brown).
There is no clear indication that the priority of Jesus was intended in a temporal sense. We may conclude that for the earliest church, Jesus was accorded the priority in reality that the Rabbis assigned to the Torah. If one were to make the claim of priority in a temporal sense [as orthodoxy does], one would be claiming that Jesus of Nazareth, born of Mary, had existed with God before the creation of the world. That claim would be worse than unintelligible; it would destroy all coherence in the essential Christian claim that Jesus was truly a human being, that the Word became flesh . . . Jesus of Nazareth began his life, began to exist, at a definite time in history: the Word became flesh
(A Theology of Jewish-Christian Reality, Harper & Row, 1983, 82).
“The conclusion which seems to emerge [from our analysis of John 1:1-14] is that it is only with verse 14 that we can begin to speak of the personal Logos. The poem uses rather impersonal language (became flesh), but no Christian would fail to recognize here [v. 14] a reference to Jesus Christ – the Word became not flesh in general but Jesus Christ. Prior to verse 14 we are in the same realm as pre-Christian talk of Wisdom and Logos [Word], the same language and ideas that we find in the Wisdom tradition and in Philo, where, as we have seen, we are dealing with personifications rather than persons, personified actions of God rather than an individual divine being as such. The point is obscured by the fact that we have to translate the masculine Logos as 'he' throughout the poem. But if we translated logos as God's utterance instead, it would become clearer that the poem did not necessarily intend Logos in vv.1-13 to be thought of as a personal divine being. In other words, the revolutionary significance of v. 14 may well be that it marks not only the transition in the thought of the poem from preexistence to incarnation, but also the transition from impersonal personification to actual person”
(James Dunn, Christology in the Making, p. 243).
Jesus of Nazareth is what the Word (God’s Wisdom) of John 1:1 became. He is the unique expression, as a human being, of the Wisdom of God. It was the Wisdom of God which existed from the beginning, and that Wisdom became a person at the conception of Jesus. This explanation leaves intact the great cardinal doctrine that the One God is the Father and that Jesus is the Lord Messiah, not the Lord God. It was the early Greek Church Fathers who confused the issue of Jewish/Christian monotheism by introducing the idea of a “numerically second God.”
God expressed Himself at the Genesis creation, and finally when the unique Son (John 1:14, 18) came into existence, God spoke His ultimate word in the historical Jesus. Jesus then is the revelation of the word of God. He is wisdom and word in person, but nevertheless a human person. Jesus is what the word, or expression, or promise of God became.
“In the beginning there was a divine word and it was stored in God’s heart and was His own creative self-expression. All things came into being through that divine word and without it nothing was made that was made … And the word/plan became flesh — was realized in a human person — and dwelt among us.”
(Anthony Buzzard)

November 9, 2004 at 12:43 am#4453

Anonymous

Guest

hey adam,

just wondering how you interprete john 8:58, where jesus said, verily i say unto you, before abraham was, i am… ?

cheers,

nate.

November 9, 2004 at 12:53 am#4454

Participant

But Adam Pastor,
The word say in Jn 1 and 1Jn 1 that the Word was “with God” That tells me that he was separate from God but coexisted with the Father. How could a plan or a thought exist outside of the Father and not have personal identity? How could this same thought/plan take part in all of creation before the earth existed with being a person?

Are you a person or a personification? I am sure you would agree you are a person. How do you know? Is it because you have a body? no. You are more than a body I am sure you agree . You are a soul and spirit with ability to think and care but you are also self-aware. You know yourself.and you know when your body dies you still live.

The Word took on a body and the name of Jesus when he was humanly born but that human birth did not make him a person. Did he know who he truly was. At the age of 12 [lk 249]he said, speaking of the temple
” Did you not know that I had to be in my Father's house?”He KNEW even then ,before he had been baptised in the Spirit, that he was not just an ordinary man.

Your teachers are humanist exalting the flesh but denying the life of the Spirit.In so doing they deny and insult the glory of the Son of God and reduce him to mere humanity. They are deceived.

in John 17 he confirmed that he KNEW he had lived in heaven with the Father and had separate existence and glory.If you do not agree then can you explain what Jesus said here?

November 9, 2004 at 3:20 am#4456

Participant

Quote (Guest @ Nov. 09 2004,00:43)

hey adam,

just wondering how you interprete john 8:58, where jesus said, verily i say unto you, before abraham was, i am… ?

cheers,

nate.

It is a basic rule of Bible study that the words of Scripture be read in their immediate context, their wider context (the whole Bible), and above all in their Jewish first-century context (it is very amateur to read words only in the light of 20th-century usage). Some background knowledge and skill is necessary here as well as the witness of the rest of the Bible. First it is wise to examine the several occurrences of the “I am” statements of John. The first occurrence is of particular significance. Jesus is talking to the lady at the well who reminds him that the Messiah is coming … Jesus then says: “I am, namely the one speaking to you” (John 4:26).
The art of translation requires that we make sense of the Greek in the target language, and so translators render this statement “I am he, the one who is speaking with you.” The phrase “I am he” is the equivalent here and elsewhere of the Greek “I am.” It is not a mistranslation to add the word “he.” It is a correct translation to makes sense of the words in English.
Now take that information to John 8:58 and Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I am he.” He has already stated repeatedly that he is the Messiah, and he never said he was God, which would have been absurd in view of his firm belief in the unitary monotheism of Judaism (Mark 12:28ff).
“Before Abraham was, I am he [the Messiah].” This is quite understandable as a reference to the fact that the whole world was created for the sake of the Messiah who embodies God’s great plan of salvation. Not only, says Jesus, did Abraham look forward eagerly to the Messiah’s coming day, but even before Abraham was born, Jesus was “the one, the Messiah.” He was the reason for the whole creation. 1 Peter said the same thing in different words, “The lamb was foreknown before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet. 1:20; cp Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; Rev. 13:8).
(Anthony Buzzard)
Hans Wendt, D.D., The System of Christian Teaching (1907):-
“It is clear that John 8:58 and 17:5 do not speak of a real preexistence of Christ. We must not treat these verses in isolation, but understand them in their context.”
“The saying in John 8:58, ‘Before Abraham came to be, I am he’[7] was prompted by the fact that Jesus’ opponents had countered his remark in v. 51 by saying that Jesus was not greater than Abraham or the prophets (v. 52). As the Messiah commissioned by God Jesus is conscious of being in fact superior to Abraham and the prophets. For this reason he replies (according to the intervening words, v. 54ff) that he was superior to Abraham because Abraham had rejoiced to see his Messianic day. Jesus’ reference to his existence before Abraham’s birth (v. 58) must be understood in the same sense. There is no sudden heavenly preexistence of the Messiah here: the reference is again obviously to his earthly existence. And this earthly existence is precisely the existence of the Messiah. As such, it was not only present in Abraham’s mind, but even before his time, as the subject of God’s foreordination and foresight. The sort of preexistence Jesus has in mind is ‘ideal’ [in the world of ideas and plans]. In accordance with this consciousness of being the Messiah preordained from the beginning, Jesus can indeed make the claim to be greater than Abraham and the prophets.”
“In John 17:5 Jesus asks the Father to give him now the heavenly glory which he had with the Father before the world was. The conclusion that because Jesus possessed a preexistent glory in heaven he must also have preexisted personally in heaven is taken too hastily. This is proven by Matthew 6:20 (‘Lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven’), 25:34 (‘Come, you blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world’), Colossians 1:5 (‘the hope which is laid up for you in heaven about which you heard in the word of Truth, the Gospel’), and I Peter 1:4 (‘an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, which does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you’). Thus a reward can also be thought of as preexistent in heaven. Such a reward is destined for human beings and already held in store, to be awarded to them at the end of their life. So it is with the heavenly glory which Jesus requests. He is not asking for a return to an earlier heavenly condition. Rather he asks God to give him now, at the end of his work as Messiah on earth (v. 4), the heavenly reward which God had appointed from eternity for him, as Messiah. As the Messiah and Son he knows he has been loved and foreordained by the Father from eternity (v. 24).
Both John 8:58 and 17:5 are concerned with God’s predetermination of the Messiah”

November 9, 2004 at 3:24 am#4457

Participant

To Adam Pastor,

Quote (Adam Pastor @ Nov. 09 2004,19:10)

“The logos is the mind of God. Jesus is the embodiment of the mind of God. He is the logos made flesh – through the Holy Spirit…What preexists is God’s word or wisdom, God’s spirit and
God’s self (the Father)”

Let's assume that this is true. That the Logos/logos is the embodiment of the mind of God and that the embodiment is the flesh. Then that means that God took his thought and plan and put a body of flesh around it in order for it to exist and be made manifest. This is the same as the Oneness doctrine in that they also deny that the Messiah and Logos was a unique person (a son). This appears to make Christ nothing more than flesh and denies his divinity and his unique personality and will as that is the realm of the Father according to what you have said quoted above. In otherwords Christ is not a unique person, but a manifestation of the One God an extention so to speak.

You know that we are body soul and spirit, but what you appear to teach seems to be Christ the mind of God made flesh. Where is Jesus soul? Where is his identity. Where is his uniqueness? If we are men and have a soul/mind/will then why doesn't Christ. Is he less than us?

Matthew 26:38
Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.”

Luke 22:42
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

It is obvious that Christ has a soul and will, thereby making him unique. The plan that you speak of is a person not a thing. He has a will and had divine nature before partaking of human nature. He is now clothed in the glory that he had with his Father before the world began.

He came from above, he humbled himself as a man and further by death on the cross. But he rose triumphant and is back with the Father at his right hand side.

This idea that Jesus couldn't be a man if he pre-existed is human reasoning. To be human is to partake in human nature. But we will partake in divine nature and does that rule out the possibility that we will be gods, just because we were/are men?

For Jesus himself said “You are gods” even though we are men. And Jesus became a man even though he was and is divine.

November 9, 2004 at 3:30 am#4458

Participant

Hi Adam Pastor,
You would not need all these complicated rationalisations, justifications and qualifications [ie Lies] if you would only accept the simple truths of the bible as a child would. You would not need to hide behind the words of others if only you could speak from the heart of a child.

Besides where did Jesus state repeatedly that he was the Messiah as you claim?

November 9, 2004 at 4:53 am#4460

Anonymous

Guest

hey adam,

Quote

It is a basic rule of Bible study that the words of Scripture be read in their immediate context, their wider context (the whole Bible), and above all in their Jewish first-century context (it is very amateur to read words only in the light of 20th-century usage).

thankyou adam, i'll take that on board… however, you voided this statement when you said:

Quote

In accordance with this consciousness of being the Messiah preordained from the beginning, Jesus can indeed make the claim to be greater than Abraham and the prophets.”

…because the word “before” here literally means “before”, but you've used it in a 20th century usage as “greater” or “superior”… but you also said:

The art of translation requires that we make sense of the Greek in the target language, and so translators render this statement “I am he, the one who is speaking with you.” The phrase “I am he” is the equivalent here and elsewhere of the Greek “I am.” It is not a mistranslation to add the word “he.” It is a correct translation to makes sense of the words in English.

however, “i am” could also be translated “i existed” or “i was”, and of course, the word is existential…

also, from a contextual perspective jesus was talking about his existence in relation to abraham's “before abraham was [came to pass] i existed”…

spare me the academic pretensions and patronising, i think i've studied both formally and informally as much as anyone else on this board, but if i truly believed such things of great value i wouldn't be asking your opinion… however, i was asking for your opinion… and i guess in a roundabout way you answered my question – you think that the logos (the plan or intent of god) pre-existed jesus' birth, but the person of jesus did not… is this right?

i want to know what “you” believe, and why… and what the spirit of god within you says… don't fear that i'll judge you for your views, i've been told that my own are pretty out there!! but please don't try and go on the offensive – if we're all seeking the truth, then maybe we can help each other along that path, but if we all think we have the truth then we'll just keep fighting…

cheers,

nate.

November 9, 2004 at 6:08 am#4461

Participant

To Ramblinrose,

Quote (Ramblinrose @ Nov. 09 2004,07:33)

4491 riza rhiza hrid’-zah

apparently a primary word; TDNT-6:985,985; n f

AV-root 17; 17

1) a root
2) that which like a root springs from a root, a sprout, shoot
3) metaph. offspring, progeny

So I assume that you are reading the verse as the following:
“The shoot and offspring of David”? If so, is not the shoot and root the same thing anyway? And if 'shoot' meant offspring or branch, then why is it mentioned twice? E.g. The branch and the offspring.

I looked up every instance of this word 'root' in the NT (KJV) and in every case it appears that the translation 'root' or 'shoot' as in the seed or supporting trunk or vine.

If you are not sure about that, then try reading the following scriptures as offspring or branch instead of 'root', 'trunk', 'tree'.

Here is a list of all the scriptures that use the word 'root' (rhiza).

Matthew 3:10
The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

Matthew 13:6
But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.

Matthew 13:21
But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away.

Romans 11:16
If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

Romans 11:17
If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root,

Romans 11:18
do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.

Romans 15:12
And again, Isaiah says,
“The Root of Jesse will spring up,
one who will arise to rule over the nations;
the Gentiles will hope in him.”

1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Hebrews 12:15
See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many.

Revelation 5:5
Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”

Revelation 22:16
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

As you can see these scriptures talk of the root as something that supports the branches. Even Jesus said in John 15:1

“”I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.

and in John 15:5

“”I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

Can I suggest that the meaning that you pointed out (2) that which like a root springs from a root, a sprout, shoot) is the same thing. This word is not conveying 2 opposite meanings. The shoot is not the branch but the main part of the plant that eventually becomes the trunk. From the root/shoot comes the branches. Remember the meaning says like a root or shoots from a root.

For surely if we say that Jesus is the branch only, then how are the branches supported without the vine whom Christ is. Did the branches come first, and then the vine (root/shoot) come next. Surely not.

So if Jesus is the shoot/root of David then he supports his lineage and if he is the offspring then he came from it is well.

Jesus spoke about this in Mark 12:35-37
35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David?
36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
” 'The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.” '
37 David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?”
The large crowd listened to him with delight.

November 9, 2004 at 7:16 am#4462

Participant

Quote (Guest @ Nov. 09 2004,04:53)

spare me the academic pretensions and patronising, i think i've studied both formally and informally as much as anyone else on this board, but if i truly believed such things of great value i wouldn't be asking your opinion…
and i guess in a roundabout way you answered my question – you think that the logos (the plan or intent of god) pre-existed jesus' birth, but the person of jesus did not… is this right?

i want to know what “you” believe

Whoa!!! It was a quote … I was quoting someone else … I wasn't patronizing you or anyone …

Anyways, like you said, in a roundabout way, I have answered you …

Everything came into existence by the word/logos of GOD. [John 1:3] GOD spoke and it was done.
In the fulness of time, that it was made flesh/human … the it became a him … namely, the man Christ Jesus

Nate, is my answer clearer now …

November 9, 2004 at 7:21 am#4463

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 09 2004,03:30)

Hi Adam Pastor,
You would not need all these complicated rationalisations, justifications and qualifications [ie Lies] …

And one wonders why I have chosen not to defend it on this board?
What the point, apparently I am speaking Lies

November 9, 2004 at 7:29 am#4464

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 09 2004,03:24)

Adam Pastor:
“The logos is the mind of God. Jesus is the embodiment of the mind of God. He is the logos made flesh – through the Holy Spirit…What preexists is God’s word or wisdom, God’s spirit and
God’s self (the Father)”

When the scriptures, speaking of the word/logos
being made flesh, it means, the word was made a human being!
Just like, (1 John 4:2) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

means every spirit that confess that Jesus Christ came as true bona fide human being!

No! I am not Oneness, Modalistic or any such like
GOD didn't robe His word.
GOD spoke and His word was made human … that's all, that the word was made flesh means

I earlier posted quotes that reflected my viewpoint, that clearly stated that e.g. Jesus is what the logos became

November 9, 2004 at 7:34 am#4465

Participant

Hey don't take it personally Adam P. We are defending truth here from the foolish teachers who have entrapped you. But those doctrines are silly and weak arguments can you not see? They are beneath a man of your intellect. Wouldn't it be best to throw those toys away and get some more resilient foundations laid-ones that are defensible? How else can we get you to wake up and drink of the living water that shall become a fountain within you leaping up to eternal life?

November 9, 2004 at 7:35 am#4466