Did Jesus Christ exist before his birth on Earth?

This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 6 days, 21 hours ago by Keith.

Viewing 20 posts - 261 through 280 (of 25,960 total)

Author
Posts

October 24, 2005 at 8:03 pm#9830

Participant

“Could it be that the disciples were not of the world even in the same sense that Jesus their Master was not of the world … could it be that simple!!”

YES, it could be that simple. They were to be “not of the world” as Jesus was “not of the world.” Or, as some Bible’s translate it: “no part of the world.”

John 15:19
“If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. THAT IS WHY THE WORLD HATES YOU.” (NIV)

“If you belonged to the world, the world would treat you with affection and would love you as its own. But because you are not of the world [no longer one with it], but I have chosen (selected) you out of the world, the world hates (detests) you.” (Amplified)

“The world would love you if you belonged to it, but you don't. I chose you to come out of the world, and so it hates you.” (NLT)

John 15:19 (English Standard Version)
“If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Even if we look at translations such as this, notice it says “because you are not of the world, BUT I HAVE CHOSE YOU OUT OF THE WORLD,” therefore the world hates you.” Right after telling that they are “not of the world,” we see what this means, for he goes on to say: “but I have chose you out of the world.” So we are told what being “not of the world” means in the following words. It means they are separate from the world being ruled by Satan with it’s wicked ways. So even if you have a Bible translation that translates it that way, the rest of the sentence doesn’t leave room for your interpretation.
Also consider that he finishes saying, “therefore the world hates you.” It was because of being “not of this world,” or “no part of this world” (NWT) that the world would hate Jesus’ followers.

Also, consider this:

SATAN IS THE GOD OF THIS WORLD
Over this world of unrighteous human society and its kingdoms, God’s Adversary, Satan the Devil, exercises rulership; in fact, he has made himself “the god” of such world. (Mt 4:8, 9; Joh 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; compare 2Co 4:4.)

THE WHOLE WORLD IS LYING IN SATAN’S POWER
God did not produce such unrighteous world; it owes its development to his chief Opposer, in whose power “the whole world is lying.” (1Jo 4:4, 5; 5:18, 19)

SATAN AND DEMONS ARE THE WORLD RULERS
Satan and his “wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places” act as the invisible “world rulers [or, cosmocrats; Gr., kosmokrátoras]” over the world alienated from God.—Eph 6:11, 12.

So Jesus would not be a part of this wicked world ruled by Satan. He would be “not of the world,” or “no part of the world.” And his followers were to remain separate or not belonging to the world and it’s wicked ways either, like Jesus.

Hence, with great frequency, kósmos (world) is used to signify all non-Christian human society. This is the world that hated Jesus and his followers because they bore witness concerning its unrighteousness and because they maintained separateness from it; such world thereby showed hatred for Jehovah God himself and did not come to know him. (Joh 7:7; 15:17-25; 16:19, 20; 17:14, 25; 1Jo 3:1, 13)

david.

October 24, 2005 at 8:33 pm#9831

NickHassan

Participant

Hi david,
Coll 1.13
” For he delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son”
1 Peter 29
'…that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who has called you out of darkness into His marvellous light”
Satan is the god of the world and the prince of darkness.
Jesus said however “I am the light of the world”
Jn 3.19
“…the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light”

The satanic spirit of antichrist hated and killed Christ and continues to hate his followers.

October 24, 2005 at 8:36 pm#9832

david

Participant

Right. I agree. My point was simply that since Satan rules this wicked world, that is why Jesus and his followers are to be no part of this world.

david.

October 24, 2005 at 8:46 pm#9833

NickHassan

Participant

Hi david,
Repentance and Baptism takes us out of the kingdom of darkness and into the kingdom of light and brings us into conflict with our enemy anyway. Yet we are to be the salt of the earth, the light on the hill, the lamp not hidden. Taking ourselves away from men of the world is not the plan of God but making us different to other who see us and can see the light in us is. Isolating ourselves prevents that light from being seen.

October 24, 2005 at 9:27 pm#9834

david

Participant

Again, I agree with you. I never said to remove ourselves from the world. Neither Jesus nor his disciples did that. Nor do we. For how could we carry out the preaching work if we did that? To shun the world's ways is what I was pointing out. I was pointing this out in reponce to Adam Pastor.

October 24, 2005 at 10:13 pm#9835

NickHassan

Participant

Hi david,
To what extent do you do this? Do you eat with heathens or watch TV? Do your children attend their schools and do you vote? I am interested in wht the word “shun” means to you.

October 24, 2005 at 10:43 pm#9836

david

Participant

I really don't understand why you keep questioning my comments. I keep agreeing with you.
I don't have children. I've been married for a year.
I vote for God's government, his Kingdom and place my trust in it.
When they wanted to make Jesus a king, he withdrew. We similarly don't become involved in politics or hold office. We don't look to the governments of this world for solutions, but look to God's Kingdom. We remain politically neutral. We stay out of wars and don't take part. We pay our taxes, follow the law of the land, unless it conflicts with God's.

But, what I was saying was that we remain “no part of the world,” meaning, we are separate from worldly attitudes, and influences and it's way of thinking and acting. For, Satan is the ruler of the world. And his influence is strong.

October 24, 2005 at 10:59 pm#9838

NickHassan

Participant

Thank you. I understand better.

November 18, 2005 at 2:01 am#10392

NickHassan

Participant

Hi,
Coll 1.15
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation..”
Heb 1.3
” and he is the radiance of His glory, and the exact representation of His nature..”

So how can Christ be such things if he is only a man? Men are made in the image of God but they are not the image. Men are only the breath of God into a body of clay.They are not begotten from the being of God himself. That is why Christ existed before his older cousin John and came in the flesh.

December 7, 2005 at 4:44 pm#10722

NickHassan

Participant

Hi sultan,
You may find help here.

May 6, 2006 at 6:11 pm#13323

NickHassan

Participant

Hi,
Is 1.18 has been discussing the Logos or Word of God.Perhaps the debate could be continued here?

May 6, 2006 at 10:46 pm#13326

NickHassan

Participant

Hi,
If the Word was with God in the beginning
how could also being God
mean that he was that God he was with?

May 6, 2006 at 10:51 pm#13327

NickHassan

Participant

Hi,
The returning Jesus Christ as the mighty and valiant sword bearing King of Kings and Lord of Lords is named, in Revelation 19.13 as the Word of God. Is there any doubt that Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is also the Word of God?

May 8, 2006 at 2:10 am#13369

NickHassan

Participant

Quote (Trinityisheresy @ Sep. 26 2003,15:57)

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.) commen
ted: “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 k
ingdom 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? That 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.

Hi,
While I do not agree with everything here it is valuable in it's historical perspectives and in other ways.

May 8, 2006 at 3:02 pm#13392

liljon

Participant

The part about the ECF has no value at all because they misquoted and misrepresented every one of them. They also later on misquoted Ignatius

May 8, 2006 at 9:29 pm#13398

NickHassan

Participant

Hi liljon,
Can you please expand on this?

May 10, 2006 at 1:59 pm#13481

Artizan007

Participant

Can anyone give me a scripture to state that Jesus was not created?

I have looked and cannot find one that specifically states this!

Thanks

May 10, 2006 at 7:18 pm#13490

NickHassan

Participant

Hi A7,
There are none.
He is called”the beginning of the creation of God ” in Rev 3.14
Coll 1 says he is “before all things” and
“By Him all things were created” and
“all things have been created through him and for him”
Heb 1 says “Through him he made the world”

Then there is the “monogenes” “only begotten” aspect.

May 10, 2006 at 8:37 pm#13492

liljon

Participant

Are there any that say he was created. (Rev 3:14 have diff translations)?
Plus in John 8:58 he says he is eternal.
Also his name was the Eternal Father and even if it isn't ALL things were made thorugh him
John 1:3, Col1

May 10, 2006 at 8:38 pm#13493

liljon

Participant

Bible.ca shows the deception of the SYBTT booklet including the ECF quotes.

Author
Posts

Viewing 20 posts - 261 through 280 (of 25,960 total)

←1 2 3…131415…1,296 1,297 1,298 →

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Recent Replies

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

Navigation

Did Jesus Christ exist before his birth on Earth?

Recent Replies

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

TOPICS

Navigation

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?

Create Account