Search Members

[PatBiglane]

Not3, Mandy, I was blessed to read that you've studied under the Abrahamic Faith Church. Actually, your church is affliated with ours. In fact, several in our church have gone down to the Atlanta Bible College and studied under Anthony B. & Joe M. I could chat more about this, but I don't know if this is the proper place.

[PatBiglane]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PatBiglane]

Kejonn-  I really appreciate your posts and have gained some very interesing insights in reading and meditating upon them.  Thanks brother!

May I offer you something to consider about some of the harsh – and what I believe to be unfounded – criticism you've been getting???   For years, I've endeavored to do just what you are doing with those who embrace the Trinity and Pre-existence.  I've done so by appealing to the logic of the scriptures – as you have masterfully done –  and to the importance
of understanding the Hebrew mindset in the scriptures (as opposed to the pagan).  Unfortunately, I can say I've had little success in convincing these people to question:  what they believe; and why they believe what they do.

 In retrospect,  I think there's something very instructive in the words of Jesus when he told Peter:  “Blessed art thou, Simon Bajonna, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto you; but my Father who is in heaven.”  [Matthew 16:17] All the disciples believed Jesus to be The Son of God prior to this (they never addressed him as “God, The Son”); but Peter was given an understanding of who the Son of God was (in terms of origin) that surpassed his peers.  God gave this to him by revelation.

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

As I'm sure you are aware, God will, in the future, undo the blindness of Israel by the revelation of His Son. But the blindness that remains today is oh so pervasive among their community and nation.  In regards to who The Messiah is, I think the Church is also blind.  Perhaps it will take the (literal) revelation of the Anti-christ to bring some to repentance, (no doubt, the spiritual wonders strenghtening the deception will be strong.  Have you ever wondered: “How could it ever be said that The Anti-christ, a man who will proclaim to be God in the Flesh, will challange the beliefs of God's very elect???”  Could it be that these (challanged) elect have been fed an unhealthy diet of the Trinity?  But as is true with the history of man, some will believe and discard the lies, and others will tragically hold on to their deceptive pride.  

Don't get me wrong, I think this blogging business is cool way of exhanging ideas and insights with others. But I also believe we should prayerfully excercise practical limits in our reasons and motives in answering the critics.

I also know this:  There are plelnty of people outside our computer rooms who are dying because they need to understand and believe who the Messiah is.  Let's get out and preach this stuff…It's where it's at!!!  Have a great day Brother.

[PatBiglane]

Not3in1: Mandy, you mentioned that Jesus didn't need to be born again in order to see the kingdom of God, but the he merely instructed others of their necessity. May I encourage you to consider prayerfully – and research wise – what the meaning of the saying Jesus spoke [at a time period WELL AFTER he had been baptized of John] when Jesus said, “I have a baptism to be baptized of, and Oh how I straightened until it be accomplished!”

[PatBiglane]

Take a look at Ezekial chapter 37. (Valley of the “Dry Bones”) Again, in view of Jesus's expectation of Nicodemus in John chapter 3, here's a graphic picture of the resurrection, that is, the new birth. The word BREATH in verse 5 is Ruach (hebrew for “spirit”) This is literally being born of the spirit.

[PatBiglane]

Not3in1- One last note, Mandy. Notice again what God says in Ezekial 36, during the time when His people are gathered into their inheritance: “So you will be My people, and I will be your God.” This is when Israel will be the “True sons of God.”

[PatBiglane]

Mandy, I just wanted to let you know that I believe that Jesus Christ was no ordinary man. I believe he was supernaturally conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, just as it says in the scriptures.

By the same token, I also believe that scriptures give great emphasis to the sonship of God's Son being in the resurrection when The Messiah is placed in Jerusalem (“on my Holy Hill, Zion”) and reigns as the King of the earth.

The Jews understood this concept very well. Notice the words of Nathaniel in John 2:49, where he greets Jesus, saying, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” [which is also identical in meaning as the title “Messiah” found in verse 44].

In Psalm 2:7, the Psalmist's words herald the announcement of a king who has officially received his kingdom: “I will surely declare the decree of the Lord: He said to me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.”

Once again, take some time to correlate this verse with Acts 13: 32, 33. It's the day of his regeneration, or, resurrection that this decree is referring to. Perhaps the very words of this decree in Psalms 2:7 will actually be uttered by Jesus Christ, or a herald in his court, on the very day that he returns to the earth to receive his kingdom as was promised in the Davidic covenant recorded in II Samuel 7: 10-17 & I Chronicles 17: 7-14.

The very next verse in Acts 13: (verse 34) also speaks of this time when it says that Jesus (as well as David) will be the recipient of “the sure mercies of David”. (Ref; Isaiah 55:3)

When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus in John 3, he fully expected Nicodemus to understand everything that he was talking about. When Jesus sensed his ignorance of the new birth, Jesus was surprised – and rightlfully so; Nicodemus was a Pharisee, a man fully knowlegeable of the Hebrew scriptures; he should have known about this basic concept revealed in Ezekial chapter 36. (Read it!) In this chapter, the new birth concept of John 3 is illustrated beautifully as being a time during the regeneration of Israel when God will gather His people from all the nations of the earth and will “sprinkle clean water on them”, and, “I will cleanse you from ALL your filthiness and from all your idols”, and , v.27: “I will put My spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers [Abrahamic covenant] so you will be My people, and I will be your God.”

Jesus is definately the King today, however, his kingdom is not yet in effect on the earth. It will be officially inaugarated, however, on the day of his return to the earth to set up the Kingdom of God. (as recorded in the parable of the kingdom
illustrated in Luke 19:12-27 (The parable of the Nobleman). Jesus is this nobleman “who went into a distant country [which we know to be heaven] to receive for himself a kingdom and to return”. “And when he called his servants,” this is the time when he will give judgement to those who believed, and those who rejected his reign.

[PatBiglane]

not3in1: I think you made a good point, Mandy, in saying that Jesus is different on account of his being “The second man is the Lord from heaven.” By his birth, he inherited a name that is more excellent than the angels. However, aside from the fact that he had a perfect body to start out with (un-infirmed by sin), the greatness of who he was really didn't really start to manifest itself until after the time of his baptism with John, a time when he received the spirit that gave his life a supernatural dimension as it did with Elijah (except with greater magnitude than Elijah's portion ) However, even the fact that he had the spirit of God, in and of itself, did not guarantee the receiving of his inheritance. His perfect obedience (faith) is the thing that prompted God to exalt him above every name that is named.

The verse you quoted in I Corinthians, in its context, is actually referring to the regenerate man with the new body. “The Lord from heaven”, is the Lord with a new body just as the church will receive at the resurrection. Jesus was the first born (begotten) from the dead; ofcourse being the firstborn among many brethren includes the idea that there will be others to follow.

I know the Bible says that now we are the sons of God in I John 3; however, consider the scriptures in the Bible that indicate that this sonship we have now – along with the accompanying inheritance – is by promise (on His Part) and something to be apprehended (on our part, as Paul says in Phillipians 3:13) We will receive His promised inheritance if we remain faithful as it says in Hebrews 3:14: “for we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance [ Hupostasis; which is the word translated “substance” in Hebrews 11:1 “FAITH IS THE SUBSTANCE of things hoped for..”] stedfast unto the end”. It is the obedience of faith that makes us sons of God today, and we are to be faithful unto the end.

The spirit bears witness with us (personally & intimately) that we are God's children (as it says in Romans 8); however, having the spirit, in and of itself, is no guarantee that we will receive the promised inheritance of life in the age to come. “Lord, didn't we cast out demons in your name, and do many miracles in your name?” Depart from me you workers of iniquity, I never knew you.”

Jesus could have lost out on his promised inheritance had he decided to not remain stedfast unto the end. (THANK GOD HE DID remain!!!) In the same way, we could suffer the same fate (as God says in Hebrews: …”but if any man shrinks back, My Soul shall have no pleasure in him.” “But we are not those who shrink back unto perdition, but of those have have faith to [ eis = “unto” meaning motion towards an object until it is reached] the saving of the soul. We're to have faith all the way to the saving of the soul. When is the time period when it will be said that our soul is saved, that our sonship is fully realized??? Consider these scriptures:

Ezekial 37:13, 14, 22-28. This is the time period of the resurrection of the just. (Bear in mind, the Christian church is included in this time period. Jesus told Peter and other apostles that they would sit on thrones [along with Abraham, Isaac & Jacob] judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Notice what it says in verse 27: “My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.” Was not Israel God's people before this resurrection? God tells Pharoah that Israel is My son, my firstborn.” As it says in Hebrews, there was a requirement for them, as well as for us, to continue in faith. There's a whole lot of other verses in the Old Testament that say these same things, and I'll show you them if you'd like to see more.

In view of these things, on what occasion is Jesus Christ MOST emphatically declard to be The Son of God?? Correlate Psalms 2 with Acts 13:33. (Bear in mind, Psalm 2 is a direct reference to the millenial kindgom when The Messiah brings all nations into his subjection vv. 8 -12).

Ps 2: 7: “I will surely declare the decree of the Lord: He said to me, “You are my Son, Today I have begotten you.” What day is this “begetting” referring to??? You don't find out until you get to Acts 13:33 where it is directly quoted:

Acts 13:32, 33: “”And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that HE RAISED UP Jesus, as it is written in the second Psalm: “You are My Son' TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.' Isn't that cool???

Romans 1:3. ….”concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection of the dead, according tto the spriit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord {NASB]. cont'd

[PatBiglane]

For years, the I AM statement made by Jesus John 8:58 puzzled me. Those who believed in Pre-existence and/or the Trinity seemed forthright in their explanation of Jesus' existence before Abraham when cross-referencing Exodus 3:14.

Having taken some time and thought with this subject, the meaning of Jesus' statement is much clearer to me now. Recently, I've come across an excellent post on the website: http://www.kingdomready.org (blog topic: “Is Jesus the I AM”? by Sean) In this post, he goes into some translational considerations of the words I AM in these two sections of scripture with great clarity. Because Sean did such an excellent job in this aspect of the study, I'd like to defer you to his blog/notes for the important translational considerations of this topic. In the meantime I'd like to share my notes concerning the textual considerations.

Is I AM another name for God? Exodus 3: 13-15

“…Now they may say to me (Moses), 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM; and He said, “thus shall you say to the Sons of Israel, 'I AM sent me to you.' God furthermore said to Moses, 'Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ''the LORD [Yahweh], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and of Jacob, has sent me to you”. This is my name forever, and this is my memorial name to all generations.”

It seems apparent to me that God uses the verb to be, I AM, not as the designation of His name (which is recorded as YHWH in verse 15), but as a title that draws emphasis to His being.

Once again, in reading the text, it appears that God does not give a direct answer to Moses when he asks what His name is. Rather, God makes “I AM”, a descriptive title associated with His name Yahweh (mentioned later in verse 15).

The Lamsa translation of this verse (from the Peshitta text of the Aramaic Language) is quite interesting. It reads in verse 14:

“And God said to Moses, I am AHIAH ASHAR HIGH (that is, THE LIVING GOD); and he said, Thus shall you say to the children of Israel: AHIAH has sent me to you.”

In view of having been in idolatry- and the ensuing bondage thereof – for over 400 years, I find it quite interesting that God would reveal Himself in this manner. No doubt, the Israelites had learned to take refuge in other gods, that is, dead ones made by somebody's hands; but now, here's a god who claims to an uncreated, Living God.

lContextual Considerations of John 8:58: Why Jesus is not claiming deity.

Nowhere in the verses leading up to v.58 of the eighth chapter of John is Jesus trying to prove He is God; nor does he make any inferences to his being pre-existent to Abraham. In the immediate context of verse 56, he makes a statement in regards to Abraham that is just the opposite of pre-existence, saying: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, [future tense] and he saw it and was glad.”

Jesus is primarily engaged in convincing his audience that he is the Son of God, and that if they continued in his word, blessings would follow; and if they rejected him, damnation.

The words I AM, are translated from the Greek, ego eimi. These exact same words are translated: “I am he”, in verses 24 and 28 of this 8th chapter of John. [Also translated, “I am the one” in John 9:9. (This latter reference was spoken by the guy who was born blind.)] Although these Greek words are a translation of the present tense of the verb to be , “I am” in the Greek, the context determines
the appropiate rendering. CONT'D

[PatBiglane]

Dear Group, I admit it; I've squeezed in too much info too fast with my previous posts. Please forgive this imposition…I'm new to this whole blogging thing. Guess I got a little too excited finding this website blog (there's not too many Christians out there who hold monotheistic beliefs as you do.) Anyway, after re-reading and considering the previous posts I made, I realize that it doesn't communicate the ideas I had intended very well. I'll endeavor to write out my thoughts before posting them and see if my 11 Y/0 daughter undertands them before throwing another blog in your face. CHEERS

[PatBiglane]

This statement of Jesus in John 8:51 (concernig the power of his word over death) is really the “Granddaddy” of exaltation he makes in this section of scripture. With this statement, he not only exalts himself over the Pharisees, but he's also exalting himself over Abraham and the prophets. Their resistance over Abraham is understandable. The promise of everlasting life was borne out of a covenant that God made with a man who lived over a thousand years before Jesus was born. This man is Abraham. In Genesis 13:15, God promises to give Abraham and his future descendants a possession of land (Canaan) for an everlasting possession. (Why would He offer this land for an everlasting possession if the promised recipients were not alive forever to enjoy it?) This covenant to Abraham is known in the Bible as an everlasting covenant, meaning that it had a beginning date, and it will continue (at some point in the future with the resurrection) forever. However, The Word is eternal. God's purposes and plans – in other words, His Logos [Word], in all that the scriptures disclose about His Son (both in OT & NT), was in His mind from time immemorial. (Also included in His mind with His Son was the children He would have as a result of faith in His Son – Ephesians 1:4: “Just as He chose us in him (Jesus Christ) before the foundation of the world”.) In Genesis 21:12, God made clear to Abraham that His covenant with him would be called, or “ratified” via a descendant of Isaac (see Galatians 3:16). This descendant, Jesus Christ, would also be the one who would bless all nations of the earth [Genesis 22:18]. According to other scriptures, it is only in the resurrection that all nations of the earth will get blessed, and will inaugarate the time period of the fulfillment of the this covenant to Abraham. In this respect, Jesus said: “before Abraham was, I AM”. God swore an oath to Abraham, but that which will give life to this covenant is His Word, which will be spoken by Jesus when he calls the dead out of their graves. The next post, I'd like to show that the translation of “I AM” in John 8:58 really should have been translated “I am he”, an expression which is used in this chapter in verse 24.

[PatBiglane]

The problem with inserting pre-existence into Jesus' statement: “Before Abraham was, I AM” can be seen in studying the context of this eighth chapter beginning in verse 12: Here, Jesus proclaims to be “The light of the world” and, “he who follows me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” The Pharisees immediately accused him of self-glorification (& self honor) and denounce this witness as being a lie. These statements set the stage for the controversy that ensues for the remainder of Chapter: that is battle for honor. Jesus refuted their charge by saying “I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going.” Furthermore, Jesus proceeds to validate the truthfulness of his testimony (or witness) by saying that his Father's testimony that He gives of him and the testimony he gives of himself are true. Bear in mind that the testimony that Jesus is giving credence to is his saying: “I am the light of the world, and he who follows”…etc.,. But, what is the essence of this witness that gives light to the world??? From the remaining context of this chapter, it is the relationship of The Father with His son. Jesus wanted people to follow him around because they would become free from the truth of the Word he spoke. How? Because the Father's testimony (that is, His works and word) would bear witness of Jesus' testimony because his Father commisioned him for this very purpose. The rest of the chapter displays the Pharisees, who, like the spiritually orphaned children that they were -they knew nothing about this Father-Son relationship- speaking blasphemous things about Jesus and His Father. They revelled in their perceived pre-eminence over Jesus because of their ancestrial relationship with Abraham. They assumed Jesus was born of fornication, was a half-Jew (Samaritan with a demon) and that he had no part with their covenantal inheritance in Abraham. Then, in verses 49 – 54, the honor issue resurfaces. Here, Jesus challanges the beliefs of the Pharisees in regards to the gloriousness of his word (due to his resolve to honor His Father) in that his word has power over death. To these Jews, Jesus was making an absurd statement about his authority (coming from his word) over death. (CONT'D)

[PatBiglane]

I do not believe Jesus pre-existed before his birth. The main verse Trinitarians feed off of to substantiate their pre-existence belief is John 8:58 (which seems to say that he did, however, a closer look at the context of this verse reveals that the “I AM” of this verse is clearly not the “I AM” of Exodus 3:13 & 14. In my next posts, I'd be blessed share some insights I've been given in this.

[Author]

Posts