Search Members

[SearchingForTheTruth]

T8,
Can he not be his Lord and son thru bloodline? Mary called him Lord, is she not his mother? In that particular verse, it is used by Jesus a few times in the New Testament. Jesus uses that to prove his superiority to all. Just because your superior dosnt mean you are older or came first. Preemience in position is the emphasis, not age. Just my thoughts.
GOD BLESS

[SearchingForTheTruth]

T8,
I agree with you on what people today think the trinity doctrine truely is. The apostles creed and the Nicene creed seem to support the ontological arguement but when you fast forward a few hundred years you end up with the Athansian creed which seems to imply a triad if anything. I have seen trinitarians use the athansian creed as their basis but for the most part the ones that I debate with lean on the first two creeds and the ontological argument. (They probably do this because they know they cant prove the triad with scriptures so you have to back off a little and reason with oneself on what to debate.) I feel they have found a happy medium using the ontological argument which I feel is gaining acceptance as the trinity argument. I can say that they havnt always used this argument that for many years as you can see in the athansian creed they where forcing a triad on people. Also within the creeds I think they are talking about the universal church and not the Roman Catholic church.

GOD BLESS

[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

[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

[SearchingForTheTruth]

T8,
I feel that you have explained the apperant mystery of seeing GOD in the Old Testament. I now have one that is a little long winded but should challenge anyones thinking on the trinity forum.

I would like to dig deeper into the trinity arguments and show that many people are in argeement but dont even realize it. I am not saying that I have figured out an age old problem but I would like to shed some light on a very complex subject that I dont feel has been addressed. First I will list a poem and start from there.

"There were three men of Indostan, to learning much inclined,
Who went to see the elephant,
though all of them were blind,
That each by observation might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant, and happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side, at once began to bawl, GOD BLESS ME! but the elephant is nothing but a wall!

The second, feeling of the tusk, cried: HO! what have we here, so very round and smooth and sharp? To me, its mighty clear, this wonder of an elephant is very much like a spear!

The third no sooner had begun about the beast to grope, than seizing on the swinging tail that fell within his scope, I see, quote he, the elephant is like a rope!

And so these men of Indostan disputed loud and long, each in his own opinion exceeding stiff and strong, though each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong!

So, oft in theologic wars the disputants, I ween, rail on in utter ignorance of what each other mean, and prate about an elephant NOT ONE OF THEM HAS SEEN!
-John Godfrey Saxe"

I feel that sets the tone for my argument so here I go.

Let me begin by defining the trinity according to the Nicene Creed.
“We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic(unified) and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. “
I feel that most trinitarians are argueing for a triad and not the definition of what a trinity is. Some of the desperate attempts to apply scripture using circular reasoning just weakens their argument. I also must say that I feel most arians (The belief Jesus is not GOD, pre-exisist or not) misrepresent the trinity. Both groups are argueing against the triad not the trinity.

Triad = 3 seperate GODs (Mormonism)
Trinity = 3 seperate people or beings that are ontologically the same not functionally the same.

Ontologically the same would be the same nature. The president of the United States is functionally higher than me but he is no more human than me. Ontologically he is of the human nature. IE, the trinitarian creed says same substance/nature.

So we have GOD the Father who is 100% divine.
They have his son Jesus, who they say is made up of the divine nature and the human nature. So ontologically he is divine in nature thus it makes him GOD. He is also human in nature thus it makes him man. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son so ontologically he is of the divine nature, IE GOD. In this sense three people equal one GOD.

The father is GOD which always was, is, and will be eternal. The son is begotton from the father which means he had a beginning either outside of time or when he was born of the virgin Mary. If he is of the same nature (divine) then the divine nature originates within the father who always existed. So to say they are co-eternal is correct because the divine nature is eternal. To say they are co-equal is also correct because the divine nature is equal. To say they are very GOD, of very GOD, and light of light then that is also correct according to the trinitarian view.

Now as far as the arian point of view goes, I don’t have a creed but to sum it up there is One GOD the father, and one Lord Jesus the Christ. Arian point of view says GOD is the father and is supreme and Jesus is the son of GOD and not GOD. I have seen 2 points of view on the arian concept.

1.Jesus existed as a divine being with the father in heaven and created the worlds.
2.Jesus came into existence through his birth on earth.

For the sake of this argument I have classed the two under arian thought. I am not going to dive into the details of either one. The common ground is both say that Jesus was more than just human nature.

*There is an arian school of thought that says Jesus was just a man in nature and nothing more IN NATURE. He was more than a man in other ways (IE, a prophet, a representative of GOD, sinless, perfectly obedient to the father, was given the spirit without measure, and an example for us all.) I will address this school of thought later but for right now we are going to approach the argument that Jesus had a divine nature.

I would like to use the argument that I heard on a message board.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

To better understand this, a good analogy was provided.
In the beginning was Women, and Women was with Man, and Women was Man.

Hence women came from man (the rib of Adam). This now makes women separate from man but of the same nature, HUMAN.

So to say that the Word (Jesus) was in the beginning, was with GOD, was GOD; Is to say the same about women and man.

So common ground has it, Jesus was once a part of GOD(the father) and the divine nature. Both views say Jesus originated with the father and has the same substance.
I am not going to argue the Holy Spirit point but both views are clear that the Holy Spirit originated and proceeds from the father as well.
Jesus, as God’s Word and Wisdom, was and is eternally an attribute of God the Father. Just as our own words and thoughts come from us and cannot be separated from us, so it is that Jesus cannot be completely separate from the Father. But there is more to this explanation, related to the distinction between functional subordination and ontological equality. We speak of Christ as the "Word" of God, God’s "speech" in living form. But a word did not need to be uttered or written to be alive. A word was defined as “an articulate unit of thought, capable of intelligible utterance” or “an expression of a thought” It cannot therefore be argued that Christ attained existence as the Word only "after" he was "uttered" by God. Some of the second-century church apologists followed a similar line of thinking, supposing that Christ the Word was unrealized potential within the mind of the Father prior to Creation. This agrees with Christ’s identity as God’s living Word, and points to Christ’s functional subordination (just as our words and speech are subordinate to ourselves) and his ontological equality (just as our words represent our authority and our essential nature) with the Father. A subordination in role is accepted by both sides, but a subordination in position or essence (the "ontological" aspect) is a heretical view by both sides called subordinationism.
To summarize here is the common ground by both sc
hools of thought.

GOD is not a triad. There is not three separate GODs, Only one.
The Father is GOD and is divine.
The Son is divine, of the same nature of the Father.
The Holy Spirit is divine and of the same nature of the Father.

Three divine beings, but one in divine nature.

Ontologically one.

The Father was first, then the Son, and then the Holy Spirit.

Functionally three.

This is where the three in one aspect comes from.
3 people, 3 separate wills, 1 in divine nature.

If you claim that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are divine with the Father than you believe in the trinity.

Here is where the main problem lies. The trinitarians use scriptures to argue for the triad and try to prove that the Son is equal in functionality with the Father but deny that they do. The arians argue against the triad and prove it with scripture that the Son is subordinate to the Father. If both sides come to agreement and realize what they are arguing for the same thing then we can better come to a better understanding the truth and the unity of the church.

Hopefully this as challlenged the thinking of everyone.
GOD BLESS

[SearchingForTheTruth]

T8,
I thank you for your review. Another thing to consider at this point is if GOD cant been seen and is invisiable which no man has seen only the son who revealed him then who was the one considered the LORD? I did notice the same thing stateing that 2 of them were angels, but who was the one called LORD?

GOD BLESS

[SearchingForTheTruth]

T8,
Got another difficult verse that I found to be interesting that possible supports the trinity. Take a look at this and tell me what you think.

Genesis 18

The Three Visitors

1 The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.
3 He said, "If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, [1] do not pass your servant by. 4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5 Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way-now that you have come to your servant."
"Very well," they answered, "do as you say."
6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. "Quick," he said, "get three seahs [2] of fine flour and knead it and bake some bread."
7 Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. 8 He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.
9 "Where is your wife Sarah?" they asked him.
"There, in the tent," he said.
10 Then the LORD [3] said, "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son."
Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him. 11 Abraham and Sarah were already old and well advanced in years, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. 12 So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, "After I am worn out and my master [4] is old, will I now have this pleasure?"
13 Then the LORD said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really have a child, now that I am old?’ 14 Is anything too hard for the LORD ? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son."
15 Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, "I did not laugh."
But he said, "Yes, you did laugh."

Notice above it says the LORD which translates Jehovah. Now, Jehovah appeared to Abraham and conversed with him in the form of 3 people?

This passage and the ones I posted above my be something to consider a close look at. Tell me what you think.

GOD BLESS

[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

[SearchingForTheTruth]

JesusFreak,
I agree with you on there is one way to heaven. The verses you quoted have been answered with very explicit answers if you check back thru the message board. I personally have to say that the arguement for the trinty is very weak and you have to read into the scriptures even to see it.

GOD BLESS

[SearchingForTheTruth]

Although I do not beleive in the trinity I was presented with a few scriptures that imply some plurality. If anyone has any thoughts or comments on these I would like to hear them.
Gen. 19:24, "Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens." The word "LORD" in the Hebrew is the word YHWH from where we get God’s name, sometimes known as Jehovah. Look at the verse and you will see that there appears to be two Jehovah’s; that is, two LORD’s.
Amos 4:10-11, "I sent among you a plague after the manner of Egypt; Your young men I killed with a sword, Along with your captive horses; I made the stench of your camps come up into your nostrils; Yet you have not returned to Me," Says the LORD. 11"I overthrew [some] of you, As God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, And you were like a firebrand plucked from the burning; Yet you have not returned to Me," Says the LORD."

Is GOD refering to himself in the third person?

GOD BLESS

[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

[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

[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.

[SearchingForTheTruth]

Here is a non-ecclesiastical translation of the new testament. This author seems to point out some intresting points against the trinity in the following articles.  non-eccl New Testament: http://hometown.aol.com/egweimi/rel.htm
Article on 1 GOD and his Son:
<a href="http://www.friktech.com/rel/1god.htm

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

GOD BLESS

[SearchingForTheTruth]

Here is a non-ecclesiastical translation of the new testament. This author seems to point out some intresting points against the trinity in the following articles.  non-eccl New Testament: http://hometown.aol.com/egweimi/rel.htm
Article on 1 GOD and his Son:
<a href="http://www.friktech.com/rel/1god.htm

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

GOD BLESS

[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

[Author]

Posts