Home Questions & Answers Did Jesus Christ exist before his birth on Earth? Page 49

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 - 961 through 980 (of 25,960 total)
123…484950…1,2961,2971,298
  • Author
    Posts
  • August 18, 2008 at 6:49 am#101971
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    To Gene Balthrop.

    Before or post my reply, I want to get one thing straight regarding your understanding of John 1:1a.
    i.e., “In the beginning was the logos”.

    Are you saying that THE logos is using THE because the logos is actually God, therefore the use of the definite article with Logos?
    Or are you saying that the logos is an attribute of God and the use of the definite article is for another reason?

    If the latter answer, what is the reason for using the definite article if the Logos is not a person (either Jesus or God himself)?

    August 18, 2008 at 1:20 pm#102000
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    T8………what i am saying is applying the definite article to Logos, does (Not) make it a Person an attribute can also be used with definite articles also. for instance (the) intellect of (the) man guided Him, or (the) intellect of man guides him. in both cases the definite article is not separating the man from his intellect is it even though a definite article was used. IN the beginning of all things was the word and the word was with God and was GOD, just as it says. The word is as much part of God as anything else is in fact GOD's word spoke everything into existence as scripture say it did, and Jesus said the words He spoke (ARE)spirit and HE said GOD is Spirit.

    SO if we put it together GOD's WORD (IS) part of HIMSELF. Just as your words are Part of YOU. Your words can not be separated from you, neither can GOD'S words be separated from Him either because words are the expression of the intellect of the mind just as GOD's words are the expression of his mind also. If you read John 1:1 just like it is written and use the meanings of the words used it all makes sense and also remember John knew who Jesus was and if he want it to mean Jesus he would have just said Jesus, don't you think?

    peace brother ………….gene

    August 18, 2008 at 1:38 pm#102003
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    T8………this whole thing about John 1:1 is what trinitarians us to do two things , one to try to show Jesus' preexistence and His Identity as the God of creation. Both preexistences and trinitarians hinge the belief system on this simple verse and the word Jesus is not even in it. It's all just smoke and mirrors, the truth is that John was expressing what was in the very beginning of all things and that was his (ONLY) point and nothing else. If trinitarians as well as preexistences have to have that verse to prove there positions, there positions are weak at best. Because there is no specific mention of Jesus at all in the text and transposing it to mean that is forcing the text. IMO

    love and peace to you and yours T8………….gene

    August 18, 2008 at 2:25 pm#102009
    dirtyknections
    Participant

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 19 2008,01:38)
    T8………this whole thing about John 1:1 is what trinitarians us to do two things , one to try to show Jesus' preexistence and His Identity as the God of creation. Both preexistences and trinitarians hinge the belief system on this simple verse and the word Jesus is not even in it. It's all just smoke and mirrors, the truth is that John was expressing what was in the very beginning of all things and that was his (ONLY) point and nothing else. If trinitarians as well as preexistences have to have that verse to prove there positions, there positions are weak at best. Because there is no specific mention of Jesus at all in the text and transposing it to mean that is forcing the text. IMO

    love and peace to you and yours T8………….gene


    the “word” mentioned at John 1:1 IS referring to Jesus…John is simply showing Jesus relationship to his Father…I have never gotten the big deal with this verse..There are a sufficient amount of other verses to disprove the trinity, I don't see a need to get lost in words over this one.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:07 pm#102011
    Irene
    Participant

    Quote (dirtyknections @ Aug. 19 2008,02:25)

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 19 2008,01:38)
    T8………this whole thing about John 1:1 is what trinitarians us to do two things , one to try to show Jesus' preexistence and His Identity as the God of creation. Both preexistences and trinitarians hinge the belief system on this simple verse and the word Jesus is not even in it. It's all just smoke and mirrors, the truth is that John was expressing what was in the very beginning of all things and that was his (ONLY) point and nothing else. If trinitarians as well as preexistences have to have that verse to prove there positions, there positions are weak at best. Because there is no specific mention of Jesus at all in the text and transposing it to mean that is forcing the text. IMO

    love and peace to you and yours T8………….gene


    the “word” mentioned at John 1:1 IS referring to Jesus…John is simply showing Jesus relationship to his Father…I have never gotten the big deal with this verse..There are a sufficient amount of other verses to disprove the trinity, I don't see a need to get lost in words over this one.


    Well Hello stranger, have not seen you post for awhile, how are you doing?
    You are right, I don/t know either why people fall over John 1:1 so much. We have other scriptures to see if God is a trinity or not ore if Jesus was there before the world was. And He was according to Co. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14 John 17:5 I believe when a scripture is not clear to us, that we should see if there are other scriptures that can help us to understand.
    I mainly writing this for Gen, I know you do understand the preexisting if Jesus.
    Peace and Love Irene

    August 18, 2008 at 3:53 pm#102017
    Samuel
    Participant

    I think we tend to make things more complicated than they actually are.

    We think that it should be something that is hard to understand that only we can understand. Or that you have to go to school to understand and debate about it for years on end to come to a conclusion.

    Lets look at this scripture:

    Quote

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

    How much more plain can that be?

    In the beginning there was the word, and that word was with GOD, and that word was GOD.

    Too much debate. The writer is making a clear point.

    Our salvation is in Jesus Christ.

    No matter what else is said by any one or how they say it…the only way we are going to be saved is by confessing with our mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord. And, obeying his commandments.

    There is no other way.
    This is the way.
    The only way.
    Any other way will cause us to die in our sins.

    August 18, 2008 at 9:41 pm#102059
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi Samuel,
    I think you need to look again at the way of Christ.
    Romans 10 was written to the saints, encouraging them to walk in the Spirit.
    It was never given to us as a new way of salvation that bypasses the cross, the death and resurrection[Rom6]

    August 19, 2008 at 3:08 pm#102165
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Irene…..what's so important about John 1:1, is trinitarians as well as preexistences can not find any other scripture that shows were Jesus is said to specifically preexist at all so they all uses John to try to get across they point, because if they can get people to see Jesus as the Word John is speaking of they both have a specific scripture to prove there points, and with out transposing the word written in John they have (NO) SPECIFIC Text that says Jesus preexisted. That why John 1:1 is the most contested scripture in the bible by scholars and Bible teachers.

    Peace to you and yours……….gene

    August 19, 2008 at 4:35 pm#102172
    Irene
    Participant

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 20 2008,03:08)
    Irene…..what's so important about John 1:1, is trinitarians as well as preexistences can not find any other scripture that shows were Jesus is said to specifically preexist at all so they all uses John to try to get across they point, because if they can get people to see Jesus as the Word John is speaking of they both have a specific scripture to prove there points, and with out transposing the word written in John they have (NO) SPECIFIC Text that says Jesus preexisted. That why John 1:1 is the most contested scripture in the bible by scholars and Bible teachers.

    Peace to you and yours……….gene


    Did you even read my last post? I did give clear scriptures that show the preexsisting of Jesus.
    Thats all I am so tired of this, when people just ignore things.
    Peace and Love Irene
    P.S. thats it for me.

    August 21, 2008 at 4:25 am#102387
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Irene…..I am not trying to be disrespectful, but the issue of Jesus' preexistences has been heavily debated for centuries by Scholars, the reason being there is (NO) (SPECIFIC) Statement of Jesus' preexistences. There is inference but no (absolute) statement or there would not be the heavy debating on the subject as has been over the centuries. Believe me it is (NOT) as clear as you may think.

    Love and peace to you and yours…………gene

    August 22, 2008 at 11:05 am#102595
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    The Pahrisees said “”You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

    Jesus settled it when he replied “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!”

    At this, they picked up stones to stone him.

    Look at it closely. The Jews say you are not yet fifty and Jesus said before Abraham, I am.

    When you say I am, are you not saying that you exist? e.g., are you t8, I am. To say that I am t8 means that I exist.

    I AM THEREFORE I EXIST.

    Jesus also said  “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going”.

    Where did Jesus go? Was it not heaven? If you say that he didn't come from heaven, then does that mean that you one of the people that doesn't know where he came from?

    Jesus also said, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.”

    Jesus spoke such to the Pharisees. Who is he saying this to today?

    August 22, 2008 at 11:18 am#102597
    TimothyVI
    Participant

    Quote (t8 @ Aug. 22 2008,23:05)
    Jesus settled it when he replied “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!”


    Hi T8,
    Actually the word born was added.
    What he actually said was “before Abraham was I am”
    Which is poor sentence structure to say the least.

    Wasn't God called the great I am?

    What if the comma was put after Abraham.
    Could Jesus have just been saying before Abraham,
    was I am? Before Abraham, was God.

    Tim

    August 22, 2008 at 11:34 am#102599
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    The use of I am in the New Testament is relatively common and in no instance is it used to say that someone was God.

    Does the use of “ego eimi” automatically identify the speaker as Yahweh, the I AM?

    In Luke 1:19, the angel Gabriel said, “Ego eimi Gabriel.” In John 9:9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Jesus said, “Ego eimi.” In Acts 10:21, Peter said, “Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek.” Obviously, the mere use of “ego eimi” does not equate one to the “I Am” of Exodus 3:14.

    August 22, 2008 at 3:37 pm#102613
    david
    Participant

    Quote
    Hi T8,
    Actually the word born was added.
    What he actually said was “before Abraham was I am”

    Or, it could just as easily be translated “existed” or “was.” Note the context and why he said what he did. But of course, the word “born” isn't there.

    Quote
    What if the comma was put after Abraham.
    Could Jesus have just been saying before Abraham,
    was I am? Before Abraham, was God.

    Well, they were discussing his age. His obvious response would be to say that he was before Abraham.

    The question of the Jews (verse 57) to which Jesus was replying had to do with age, not identity. Hence the context means it should be translated as AT, Mo, CBW, SE, NWT and other's translate it, as ““Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” Jesus’ reply logically dealt with his age, the length of his existence.

    Says A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson: “The verb [ei·mi′] . . . Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [e·go′ ei·mi′] (Jo. 8:58).”—Nashville, Tenn.; 1934, p. 394.

    August 24, 2008 at 10:48 pm#102820
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    T8….Jesus was not the one who said (HE) saw Abraham that was what the lying Jew were trying to make him out as saying, and no where did Jesus say He was (BORN) before Abraham, your forcing the text to fit your ideology of preexistence. There is only One scripture that the debate of Jesus preexistence comes down to and that is John 1:1 and it will only work if you transpose the word (WORD) to Mean Jesus. as you and the trinitarians do. Don't you think if Jesus preexisted there would be a (SPECIFIC) statement made in Scripture clearing that point. Why is there no such Statement, But we find Peter Making the statement to the foreordained Jesus and Him coming into existence in His time.

    peace brother……..gene

    August 24, 2008 at 11:00 pm#102822
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi GB,
    John 8:56
    ” Your father Abraham rejoiced to see [1492] My day, and he saw [1492] it and was glad.”

    John 8:57
    So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You [3708] seen Abraham?”

    Number 1492
    Transliteration:
    eido {i'-do} or oida {oy'-da}
    Word Origin:
    a root word
    TDNT:
    5:116, *
    Part of Speech:
    verb
    Usage in the KJV:
    know 282, cannot tell 3756 8, know how 7, wist 6, misc 19, see 314, behold 16, look 5, perceive 5, vr see 3, vr know 1

    Total: 666
    Definition:
    to see
    to perceive with the eyes
    to perceive by any of the senses
    to perceive, notice, discern, discover
    to see
    i.e. to turn the eyes, the mind, the attention to anything
    to pay attention, observe
    to see about something
    i.e. to ascertain what must be done about it
    to inspect, examine
    to look at, behold
    to experience any state or condition
    to see i.e. have an interview with, to visit
    to know
    to know of anything
    to know, i.e. get knowledge of, understand, perceive
    of any fact
    the force and meaning of something which has definite meaning
    to know how, to be skilled in
    to have regard for one, cherish, pay attention to (1Th. 5:12) For Synonyms see entry 5825

    Number 3708
    Transliteration:
    horao {hor-ah'-o}
    Word Origin:
    properly, to stare at [cf 3700]
    TDNT:
    5:315,706
    Part of Speech:
    verb
    Usage in the KJV:
    see 51, take heed 5, behold 1, perceive 1, not tr 1

    Total: 59
    Definition:
    to see with the eyes
    to see with the mind, to perceive, know
    to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience
    to see, to look to
    to take heed, beware
    to care for, pay heed to
    I was seen, showed myself, appeared For Synonyms see entry 5822

    August 25, 2008 at 6:07 am#102846
    gollamudi
    Participant

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 25 2008,10:48)
    T8….Jesus was not the one who said (HE) saw Abraham that was what the lying Jew were trying to make him out as saying, and no where did Jesus say He was (BORN) before Abraham, your forcing the text to fit your ideology of preexistence. There is only One scripture that the debate of Jesus preexistence comes down to and that is John 1:1 and it will only work if you transpose the word (WORD) to Mean Jesus. as you and the trinitarians do. Don't you think if Jesus preexisted there would be a (SPECIFIC) statement made in Scripture clearing that point. Why is there no such Statement, But we find Peter Making the statement to the foreordained Jesus and Him coming into existence in His time.

    peace brother……..gene


    Amen to that post brother Gene, no son of man can pre-exist before his birth, if so we make the Mormonism to be proved as they believe all souls pre-exist before their birth.

    Thanks and love to you
    Adam

    August 25, 2008 at 6:14 am#102847
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi GM,
    Of course he is the son of God who was sent into the world[1Jn4]

    August 25, 2008 at 6:26 am#102849
    gollamudi
    Participant

    Thanks for that brother Nick, yes he was born like you and me to a woman on this earth but declared as Son of God by power of the Spirit of God (Rom 1:3-4)

    August 26, 2008 at 2:39 am#102911
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Adam…..one thing about John 1:1, we don't have to switch any meanings and we understand it Just as it is written , i wish others could see that.

    love and peace to you and yours…………gene

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 961 through 980 (of 25,960 total)
123…484950…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