Home Questions & Answers Did Jesus Christ exist before his birth on Earth?

Did Jesus Christ exist before his birth on Earth?

, , Questions & Answers, , , , , 25,959
Baby Jesus

It seems that most who call themselves Christian belong to one of two camps. Jesus is either God or a mere created man. This debate has been raging since the days of Athanasius of Alexandria and Arius.

What the does the Bible say? Well it is quite clear on who Jesus is and his origin. Let’s take a look at what is written.

Scripture says the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and when Jesus returns, his name is called ‘The Word of God’.  (John 1 & Revelation 19:13)

It says that God created all things through THE WORD and nothing was created without him. (John 1:3)

It says that the universe was created through THE SON and he is before all things. (Colossians 1:15-17)

It says that all things were created through JESUS CHRIST. (Hebrews 2:9)

This is what the Bible says about Jesus Christ, the son of the living God, the one named: ‘The Word of God’ who was with God in the beginning.

He emptied himself, took upon himself our nature, was obedient to his God and our God, died for our sins as it is written, and is now in the glory he had with the Father before the cosmos.

Jesus is not God in the flesh, rather the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us. He was with God in the beginning. He was the first to be with God.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 25,960 total)
123…1,2961,2971,298
  • Author
    Posts
  • September 26, 2003 at 2:57 pm#3699
    Trinityisheresy
    Participant

    If it says that in the beginning was the comprehension, or word, and that the word was to God, or with God, or for God, it is impossible to go on and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God

    Certainly the apostle John was not so unreasonable as to say that someone (“the Word”) was with some other individual (“God”) and at the same time was that other individual (“God”).

    John proves that the Word who was with God “was made flesh” and became Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ was “the Son of God.”

    So it would be proper to say that the Word was the Son of God. For anyone to say that the Word was God, “the only true God,” would be contrary to what the apostle John proves by the rest of his writings.

    In the last book of the Bible, namely, in Revelation 19:13, John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his name is called The Word of God.” (AV; Dy)

    Note that his name is not called “God the Word,” but is called “The Word of God,” or God’s Word. Hence John 1:1 must mean, at most, that the Word was of God.

    EN    ARKHEI       EN     HO     LOGOS,    KAI    HO     LOGOS
    IN    BEGINNING    WAS    THE    WORD,     AND    THE    WORD

       EN     PROS    TON    THN,    KAI    THS    EN     HO     LOGOS.
    WAS    WITH    THE    GOD,    AND    GOD    WAS    THE    WORD.

    HOUTOS    EN     EN    ARKHEI       PROS    TON    THN.
    THIS      WAS    IN    BEGINNING    WITH    THE    GOD.

    It is necessarily without the article (theós not ho theós) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person

    It would be pure Sabellianism to say “the Word was ho theós [The God ]”.

    the omission of the definite article the before the Greek word theós makes the word theós like an adjective that “describes the nature of the Word” rather than identify his person.

    This fact accounts for it that some translators render it: “And the Word was divine.”

    According to trinitarians the Word was only a third of God, a coequal Second Person in a three-in-one God. However, our consideration of all that John has written has proved how false such a teaching is, a teaching that even the trinitarians themselves cannot understand or explain

    The Word is the Son of God, not the Second Person of God.

    The Four Gospels, by C. C. Torrey, shows the difference between theós with ho (the definite article) and theós without ho by printing his translation as follows: “And the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (Second edition of 1947)

    He is the “only begotten Son” because he is the only one whom God himself created directly without the agency or cooperation of any creature. (John 3:16, AV; AS; Dy)

    Like a word that is produced by a speaker, the Word or Logos is God’s creation, God’s first creation

    To show that he was God’s Word or spokesman, Jesus said to the Jews: “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” Explaining that he spoke for God, Jesus also said: “Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.”—John 7:16, 17; 12:50, AV.

    Since Jesus Christ as the Word of God occupies a position held by no other creation of God, we can appreciate why the apostle John wrote, in John 1:1: “And the Word was a god.” We can appreciate also John’s words in John 1:18, as recorded in the most ancient Greek manuscripts: “No man hath seen God at any time: an Only Begotten God, the One existing within the bosom of the Father, he hath interpreted him.” (Ro) Since he is “an Only Begotten God” who has interpreted his heavenly Father to us, we can appreciate the proper force of the words of the apostle Thomas addressed to the resurrected Jesus Christ: “My Lord and my God.”—John 20:28.

    Because Jesus Christ as “the Word of God” is the universal Spokesman for God his Father, the apostle John very fittingly presents Jesus Christ as God’s Chief Witness. The bearing of witness was the chief purpose of the Word or Logos in becoming flesh and dwelling among us creatures of blood and flesh. Standing before the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate when on trial for his life, the Word made flesh said: “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”—John 18:37, AV.

    In view of his record when he was on earth as God’s chief witness, the “Word of God” in heavenly glory could say, in Revelation 3:14: “These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” (AV) Consequently the apostle John could pray for grace and peace to the Christian congregations from God and “from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.” (Rev. 1:4, 5, AV)

    1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

    1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
    1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
    1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
    1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
    1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
    1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
    1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

    1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

    Jesus Christ himself said, “The Father is greater than I am” and referred to the Father as his God, “the only true God.” (John 14:28; 17:3; 20:17; Mr 15:34; Re 1:1; 3:12) On numerous occasions Jesus expressed his inferiority and subordination to his Father. (Mt 4:9, 10; 20:23; Lu 22:41, 42; John 5:19; 8:42; 13:16) Even after Jesus’ ascension into heaven his apostles continued to present the same picture.—1Co 11:3; 15:20, 24-28; 1Pe 1:3; 1Jo 2:1; 4:9, 10.

    Paul showed how first-century Christians correctly understood the relationship between Jesus and his heavenly Father when he wrote that “there is actually to us one God the Father . . . and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.

    This Word, or Lo´gos, was God’s only direct creation, the only-begotten son of God, and evidently the close associate of God to whom God was speaking when he said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” (Ge 1:26)

    1869: “From before Abraham was, I have been.” The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.
    1935: “I existed before Abraham was born!” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
    1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am.” Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.
    1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible.

    1984: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

    There was [a time] when [the Son] was not, and, before being born He was not, and He came into existence out of nothing, and the Son of God is of a different hypostasis [ essence ] or substance than the Father, is created, is subject to alteration or change.

    Novatian (c. 200-258 C.E.) commented: “Since He said ‘one’ thing,[] let the heretics understand that He did not say ‘one’ person. For one placed in the neuter, intimates the social concord, not the personal unity. Moreover, that He says one, has reference to the agreement, and to the
    identity of judgment, and to the loving association itself, as reasonably the Father and Son are one in agreement, in love, and in affection.”

    Irenaeus (c. 130-200 C.E.): “We may learn through Him [Christ] that the Father is above all things. For ‘the Father,’ says He, ‘is greater than I.’ The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge.”—Against Heresies, Book II, chapter 28.8.

    There the Son is called “Mighty God,” ´El Gib·bohr´, not “Almighty God.” That term in Hebrew is ´El Shad·dai´ and applies uniquely to YHWH God.

    ‘’The Father is supreme; the Son is subordinate: the Father is the source of power; the Son the recipient: the Father originates; the Son, as his minister or instrument, executes. They are two in number, but agree, or are one, in will; the Father’s will always prevailing with the Son.”

    The Church of the First Three Centuries says: “The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers, that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ’’

    One of the earliest non-Biblical statements of Christian faith is found in a book of 16 short chapters known as The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Some historians date it before or about the year 100 C.E. There is no Trinity in this.

    God the Father is, as it were, God par excellence.  Olny the father is unoriginate, immortal, immutable, ineffable, invisible, and ingenerate. It is He who has made all things [ including the Son ] out of nothing.

    Apostolic Fathers:

    Clement of Rome’s First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians: “The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ.”

    Let all the nations realize that you are the only God, that Jesus Christ is your Child.”

    Ignatius of Antioch: “the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son,”

    Ignatius shows that the Son was not eternal as a person but was created, for he has the Son saying: “The Lord [Almighty God] created Me, the beginning of His ways.”

    Polycarp says: “Peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour.” Here again, Jesus is distinct from Almighty God.

    Hermas’ the Shepherd: “The Son of God is older than all his creation.” He clearly viewed the Son as a creature.

    The fact is that the Son is not eternal. He was created as a spirit creature of high rank, before other spirit creatures, such as the angels, who were created by means of him

    Son of God is a separate, lesser, subordinate spirit creature whom God created to serve Him in accomplishing His will.

    Apologists:

    Justin Martyr (110 to 165 C.E) says in his Dialogue With Trypho: “The Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit.”

    Dialogue With Trypho: “There is . . . another God and Lord [the prehuman Jesus] subject to the Maker of all things [Almighty God]; who [the Son] is also called an Angel’’

     Tertullian (c. 160 to 230 C.E.) “The Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: ‘My Father is greater than I’.

    Tertullian’s Against Hermogenes: ‘’That [God] which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that [the Son] which had an author to bring it into being.”

    “We should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated’’

    Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 to 215 C.E.) Clement calls the Supreme God “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus”

    Agreeing with Clement of Alexandria Peter, Paul, and the apostle John, who mind you also wrote john 1:1, each state and talk of the ”GOD and Father of JESUS ( LOGOS ) ”, this is stated in 1 Peter 1:3, ephesians 1:3, 1:17, 2 Corinthians 1:3, revelation 1:6, 1 corinthians 15:24. Jesus Himself, after He has been resurrecred refers to YHWH God as ”MY GOD” once in revelation 3:2 and no less than 4  TIMES! in Revelation 3:12. Now, anyone who calls someone MY GOD, obviously is NOT THE GOD. To say that would be silly. Obviously the Father is the Supreme One, THE GOD, without beginning and greater than ALL, including Jesus ( john 14:28, 1 corinthians 11:3 )! The trinity doctrine was merely a heresy invented by Greek ”Church Fathers” in the 4 century. Arius was simply one man along the long list of predecessors who taught the supremcacy of the Father above all. At around the end of the 2 century, Tertullian supposed that God was ”one substance in three persons” but even His trinity was not the one existent today, for He said there was a time when the Son was not, as Arius did. He and Theophilus were the first ones to introduce the word trinity and triad, around the end of the 2 century. In the 3 century the ones that came after them expounded on these ideas and very slowly and gradually, toward the end of the 4 century, 200 years LATER, the ”Most Holy Trinity” was formed. One must keep in mind that trinites were UNIVERSAL in the ancient world, basically almost every pagan religion had a trinity and even Plato himself had one, called the divine trinity. His concept of God later called ” The Good” by his disciples was represented triadically by Plato, also Aristotle mentioned the number three as unique and Arthur Weigall, in his book The Paganism in Our Christianity on page 198  gives a brief history of the trinity doctrine, saying:

    “In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: ‘All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bound by threes, for the end, the middle, and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity.’

    The ancient Egyptians, whose influence on early religious thought was profound, usually arranged their gods or goddesses in trinities: there was the trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, the trinity of Amen, Mut, and Khonsu, the trinity of Khnum, Satis, and Anukis, and so forth. The Hindu trinity of Brahman, Siva, and Vishnu is another of the many and widespread instances of this theological conception. The Apostles’ Creed, which is the earliest of the formulated articles of Christian faith, does not mention it.
    The words “trinity,” “triune,” “God-man,” “first person,” “second person,” “third person,” “three persons,” do not appear anywhere in the inspired text of either Catholic or Protestant Bibles. Nowhere in the Bible do we find terms such as “God the Son,” or “God the Holy Spirit,” but rather we read “the Son of God,” “the spirit of God,” or just “holy spirit.” Nowhere in Scripture is God revealed as three persons, but always as one God. Now if the very words that are necessary to express the doctrine of the trinity do not appear in the Holy Scriptures, how can we suppose the doctrine to be found or taught therein? Impossible.
    There is no difference wether the Trinity worshiped is Horus, Isis and Osiris or Father Son Holy Spirit, they are both wrong, and only difference with the second one is that it is ”claimed” to be christian and true, but the pagans also claimed that their previous triads were true also. One thing to remember are the words of Jesus, He said..my kingdom is no part of the world, john 17, and He said they persecuted me, they will persecute you also, now if we expect the world to hate us and persecute us, how could the world so suddenly, 313 ad, and also the Emperor of Rome himself, one of the emperors of an empire of which virtually every previous emperor had persecuted christians come to suppossedly accept christianity? Th
    at is truly impossible, UNLESS , in the 300 years since Christ, the christianity of Constantine’s time was not the christianity of the time of Jesus and the Apostles which the Romans so vehemently opposed, but a ”paganized christianity” filled with a multitude of religious errors and pagan customs which is exactly what christianity had become by the time of Constantine. I have a lot more info on this subject and its origin but i will not post unless someone wants me to post them for their learning and knowledge. I have also noticed that when given the numerous and countless verses showing clearly the subjection of the Son to the Father, many so-called Christians simply reject them, and in return brand you a ”heretic” when you simply quote the truths of the bible. Now, i am not sure wether that is because they are mislead by satan or because they simply do not want to accept the truth, but i sincerely hope they come to realize that without ”accurate” knowledge of the truth, they will not inherit eternal life, as Jesus said in John 17:3…this means eternal life, their taking in ACCURATE knowledge of YOU, the ONLY True GOD, and the One you SENT FORTH, Jesus Christ.
    :)

    October 7, 2003 at 5:17 am#3700
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    @Trinityisheresy

    Great post.


    @tribbles7    ,

    Your post is answered in another post

    Is the Oneness doctrine correct?

    October 8, 2003 at 2:11 am#3697
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Foot Note from the Greatest Hebrew to English Translation ever..;o)
    From (The Book Of Yahweh The Holy Scriptures)
    Yahchanan ( Hebrew which means Yahweh is Merciful )
    English John 1:1-5
    1: In the beginning was the PLAN of Yahweh and the PLAN was with Yahweh, and the PLAN was Yahweh’s.
    2: The same PLAN was in the beginning with Yahweh.
    3: All things were done according to it, and without it
    nothing was done , that was done.
    4: In this PLAN was life, and that life was the light to mankind.
    5: Now that light shines in the darkness, but the darkness does not take hold of it.

    PLAN: Translated from the Greek LOGOS- meaning something said including the thoughts; by implication: a topic or subject of set discourse; also reasoning with the mental faculties, and motive. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, Page 380-382. This Greek word LOGOS shows to be itself the Greek translation of the ORIGINAL Hebrew word DABAR, which means: Yahweh’s revealed will….His WHOLE PLAN and purpose for mankind. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 4, Page 870-871.

    To view this page of the Scriptures go to

    Home

    Iyyob

    October 14, 2003 at 8:20 am#3701
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Does anyone else agree that the Logos means the Plan?

    I think that the Word is a person and the Word was divine. In other words the Word had the nature of God and then he emptied himself of that nature to partake of the human nature and was given it back when he was raised from the dead.

    I saw on a Forum once where people were debating the word Logos, and one guy said that the closest interpretation in English was soul. The others in that Forum thought it was controversial, but then later saw his reasoning as sound. If I can find it, I will link to it.

    Does anyone else have an opinion, and if so please explain why. I am interested in finding out as much as possible regarding the word "Logos".

    February 25, 2004 at 9:55 pm#3698
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Thought I would bring this post to the front.

    I am still seeking information regarding the Logos and it's meaning.

    Logos is translated as Word, and can mean a thought and/spoke word. Some say expression, even soul.

    Was/is the Logos a person in his own right?
    Was/is the Logos ever once just contained within God?
    Is Jesus still the Logos?

    October 12, 2004 at 3:15 am#3702
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi t8,
    There many visions of the Logos in the Word.

    1. In the beginning as spirit only separate from the Father.
    2. Incarnate and born as the Son of Man conceived of the Holy Spirit. In this state He was worshipped by the Astrologers.
    3. His childhood. He was a voracious student of the OT such that by age 12 he astounded the experts.
    4. His Baptism in water and empowerment for ministry by baptism in the Holy Spirit. He did no works of God prior to this time as far as we know.
    5. His death on the cross and release from His weak natural body.
    6. His return to earth in His new resurrected body.This seemed like our body to look at as the disciples recognised him and he ate with them but he had amazing new abilities to pass through walls and appear and disappear.
    7. His return to heaven in that body. There is no mention of Him returning to His original condition as spirit only in heaven as far as I know.

    I would like to hear more from others on these things as I admit my ignorance.

    October 12, 2004 at 3:35 am#3703
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Of course I missed out Jesus the carpenter, not noted to be different from the other members of His family and living in Capernaum

    October 21, 2004 at 1:59 am#3704
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi ,
    John the Baptist was known to be born before Jesus as Mary was told by the angel the conception of Jesus that Elizabeth was already 6 months pregnant.[Lk 1.38]
    But John the baptist spoke thus of Jesus
    “This was He of whom I said 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I BECAUSE HE EXISTED BEFORE ME”

    ..as the Logos,in the beginning ,with the Father.

    October 21, 2004 at 2:39 am#3705
    NickHassan
    Participant

    cont.
    so when Jesus said to the Jews
    “Truly ,truly I say unto you. Before Abraham was born ,I AM”
    he was simply stating the truth, not saying He was the Father but he existed in the beginning with the Father.

    October 21, 2004 at 2:41 am#3706
    Anonymous
    Guest

    hey guys,

    i can't say i've ever looked deeply into a definition of logos – i guess i've always just understood it to mean the spoken word… my greek's a bit rusty – but “logarithm” comes from the greek word logos, meaning reason or proportion… of course word meanings can change significantly over time, but the “reason” of god, i suppose could also be interpreted the “logic” of god… which i guess is similar to a plan… also, logarithms are used to abridge arithmetical calculations… so, in this sense we could say that the logos is kind of “bridge” to god… but it's stretching the concept a bit… hehehe…

    interestingly, i was talking to a rabbai from the reform jews a couple of weeks ago, and he interpretes the “spirit” (rahaw in the hebrew i think) as the “intent” of god… so if jesus is the word (?plan) of god, and the holy spirit is the intent of god, i guess we could conclude that god has made his word and his will known to us… all purely philosophical conjecture though…

    cheers,

    nate.

    October 21, 2004 at 8:03 pm#3707
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi nate,
    The answer is well covered in the first post on this subject.

    October 22, 2004 at 3:46 am#3708
    Anonymous
    Guest

    oh, i thought we were talking about possible variations of the translation of logos…

    word meanings change over time, eg. nice:

    pleasant (ad2000)
    uninteresting (ad1800)
    ignorant (ad1600)

    of course, these are just “accepted” interpretations, i know that “nice” is also a skate term roughly equatable to “gnarly”… it is also a term sometimes used to mean “plain” – “oh, she's nice, i guess.”

    cheers,

    nate.

    October 23, 2004 at 8:53 pm#4319
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi nate,
    The funny thing to me is that the bible is so easy. The text is so smooth and logical and so coherent. And the old testament is no dfferent to the new and they flow into one another and confirm one another. If you ever read the mormon bible you will see the difference. It lacks that flowing quality. Also there are repeats of whole sections of the OT tacked in amongst the book of mormon. It is full of indecision and disparity. It does not have the essence of love in it-the Spirit of God. The books of Shakespeare too are much less understandable than the bible.The teachings of the old church writers such as Origen or Clement also have the clarity of truth showing God at work in the writers.

    But knowledge of the bible is just vanity if the teachings do not bring about the changes in our life that show God at work. The fruit of the Spirit is that evidence and I know my life still needs much changing. I do not want to be just a clanging cymbal.

    I am not yet much use as a servant but the reason I write is to try and be of some use to God's people investing my coin in God's bank so that He may gain the interest. Words are still just words if our actions are yet lacking love and mercy as I know that is really what the master wants of all of us.

    October 24, 2004 at 9:41 am#4322
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    I hold to the belief that Christ was the Logos that was with God in the beginning. I see the meaning of Logos as the expression, the Word, maybe even the image of God. I think that the Logos was a person or a life with his own will seperate to that of the Father, but choosing the Fathers will.

    I quite like the way Tatian (165 A.D) put it.

    “For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Word, coming forth from the Word-Power of the Father, has not divested of the Word-Power Him who begat Him”.

    Agree? Disagree? Why?

    October 24, 2004 at 7:04 pm#4324
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi t8,
    We know that Jesus pre-existed his human life as the “reflection of the Father's Glory and exact representation of the Father's being” from Heb 1, Jn 1 and 1Jn 1.as well as Ps 2 and others.
    We know from Phil 2 .6 that in that state he was separate and had choices. He was perfect and perfectly in submission then and always.
    He was sent into the world [Jn3. 17]and chose obedience at every step.[Jn 5.19]
    He had his own will on earth too as shown in Jn 5.17 and 21.and even in the Garden of Gethsemene he had to submit his will to that of the Father.
    God created everything through Jesus [Heb 1 ,Jn 1 etc] and so the Word [Logos] was the contact point with earth for the Father who is Spirit.
    The sword of the Spirit is the spoken Word or Rhema and Jesus is seen with the sword in his mouth[rev 2 and 19]

    October 24, 2004 at 9:34 pm#4325
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi Adam,
    Jn 14..6 ” I am the way ,the truth and the LIFE”
    11.25 ” I am the resurrection and the LIFE”
    6.35 ” I am the bread of LIFE”
    Acts 3.15″ ..but put to death the Prince of LIFE”

    Jn 1.4″.. In him was LIFE and Life for the light of men”
    1Jn.1 “…we speak of the word of LIFE [this LIFE became visible , we have seen and bear witness to it and we proclaim to you the eternal LIFE that was present to the Father and became visible to us]

    So was Jesus as spirit and soul in heaven prior to his appearance in a body? Or did he have a heavenly body and does only the Father exist as Spirit only? Do angels have heavenly bodies? They do appear and disappear on earth. 1Cor 15 .40 says “there are heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies” so my guess is that Jesus and the Angels had heavenly bodies which Jesus gave up but reassumed after his resurrection but I would like other's views.

    The other sites you take us to in your other post ,Adam, seem to have questionable doctrines. Do you claim these as your own?

    October 24, 2004 at 11:53 pm#4328
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    I know that there are some who believe that Jesus/Yahshua didn't exist before he partook of flesh. I have even read some writings that argue this view. But I remain unconvinced. It seemed to me that these writers go to great lengths to say that a spade isn't a spade.

    Using cultural differences these arguments suggest that the Hebrew culture often speaks of something that will exist in the future as if it were now. This may be true to a degree, but I cannot fathom all the scriptures that talk of Christ as pre-existing, to be interpretted this way.

    Scripture seems clear when it says that the Logos became flesh and dwelt with us. It also states that the Logos was WITH God in the beginning, before creation.

    The Book of John is not alone in this teaching. You will find it throughout the NT. It is even in the OT although not as prolific.

    I would like to talk about this in greater depth, but I usually get a link to visit instead. I have read them but remain unconvinced.

    How about some dialogue on these views? After all, we should always be prepared to give an answer to what we believe. It is easy to let a denomination, creed or organisation do the thinking for us, but does that lead us to truth.

    To those who believe this to be so, why is the Logos not a who?
    How can the Logos be with God, if the Logos is a thought inside God (as some say).
    If the Logos is an expression, then surely this expression existed seperate or different to God, with unity of will and spirit?
    Is not the Logos written of in the Book of John, not the same image of God written in other scriptures?

    I look forward to any possible dialogue regarding the Logos.

    October 26, 2004 at 7:03 am#4333
    Anonymous
    Guest

    hey t8, etc…

    i'm a bit lazy today, otherwise i'd check it out for myself – but does anyone other than john call jesus the logos?

    it occurs to me that perhaps john was using this word as an expression of some quality of jesus… or of the message he brought (or was)…

    anyway, just a thought…

    cheers,

    nate.

    October 26, 2004 at 7:52 am#4334
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Yes the word logos appears in nearly all NT books, but which ones are talking about Christ I do not know.

    I should look at these other scriptures and determine which ones are preceeded with a definite article (in Greek). In English, it appears that most have the definite article, but that is done by the translators to make it readable in English.

    For times sake, I will take 1 scripture at random. 1 Timothy 5:17 (NIV)
    The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

    1 Timothy 5:17 (KJV)
    Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

    In the Greek the article (the) is not present before the word 'logos' in 1 Timothy 5:17, therefore defining it not as a person. But in John 1:1 the word Logos is preceeded with an article. An article is used when talking about a person. E.g in Greek, 'Jesus' is preceeded with the, i.e. 'the Jesus'.

    So I would like to look at the scriptures that use an article and the ones that do not, to see if a pattern emerges. I would expect to find that the ones with an article are talking about Christ and the ones without to be talking about the written word. But I will see what emerges and will not let my pre-defined belief get in the way of truth.

    Should be an interesting answer, but I will need time to look though the verses.

    October 27, 2004 at 2:08 am#4335
    Anonymous
    Guest

    hey t8,

    sound like a good plan… tell us how you go… like i said, i have an idea that john was the onle one to use logos as a name for jesus… but i haven't the evidence to back that up, so maybe you'll be able to answer that for me…

    just a note though – i think that perhaps logos without the definite article would be more appropriate to “message” than “written word”… it occurs to me that if they were talking about the written word, they would use “rhema”… but i'm open to correction…

    cheers,

    nate.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 25,960 total)
123…1,2961,2971,298
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

 

CREATE NEW TOPIC
POPULAR TOPICS
ACTIVE TOPICS
SITE SEARCH
SUPPORT US
REGISTER

Recent Replies

ALL REPLIES →

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
 Log in with Facebook
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

 Log in with Facebook
or

Create Account