Home Questions & Answers Did Jesus Christ exist before his birth on Earth? Page 6

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 - 101 through 120 (of 25,960 total)
123…567…1,2961,2971,298
  • Author
    Posts
  • December 16, 2004 at 1:33 am#4935
    NickHassan
    Participant

    cont
    Jn 17
    These things Jesus spoke; and lifting his eyes to heaven, he said
    'Father ,the hour has come; glorify thy Son, that the Son may glorify thee, even as thou gavest Him authority over all mankind, that to all whom thou hast given him he may give eternal life.
    And this is eternal life,that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do.
    And now ,glorify thou me together with thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was”.

    So the Word of God written by the Spirit through John says

    Jesus calls God Father. No one had ever done that before. He knew he was the Son of God even at age 12.

    Jesus was in heaven with his Father. He said so.

    Jesus was sent by the Father. When? It is not recorded in his life record on earth.

    Jesus had glory in heaven. He said so.

    This was before the world was. He said so.

    Jesus was given authority over all men? When? It is not recorded as being given in his time on earth.

    Jesus and John, I know were of God. I am still very ignorant so I will go with them.

    December 16, 2004 at 6:55 pm#4938
    WhatIsTrue
    Participant

    Nick,

    I am not going to quibble with you over the meaning of the Greek word “monogenes”.  We obviously disagree.  I think that it is clear from the Hebrew passage that the word means “unique”.  You think that I have simply taken the verse out of context, and that “monogenes” really means “begotten”, even though there is already another Greek word for that.  Let's just leave it at that.

    Quote
    I serve the God of the Abraham, Moses and Jesus. I am baptised into the body of Christ so am a part of that body on earth. I serve the Head of the Body-Jesus. I do not worship Jesus as I am in him. He has divine nature and is worthy of worship by angels and natural men and accepted that worship though he did not seek it but led others to worship his Father. He is, though, The Son of God, subject to his God, the Father.

    So, you serve Yahweh and “Jesus”, both of whom are gods by your understanding.  Yes?  Are you afraid to call “Jesus” a god?

    Quote
    Surely you are not now questioning the validity of John's gospel as well? I agree he had a special gift of spiritual wisdom that showed  he knew the origins of Jesus and he expressed them more clearly and deeply than his peers. But Peter and Paul also showed his origins and the other gospels showed who he was by what he did.

    I am trying to build on the foundation of the OT, so anything that seems contrary to its teachings are suspect.  For example, in John's gospel “Jesus” says the following:

    John 2″
    “19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” “

    So here's my question.  Did “Jesus” raise himself, or did God raise him?  If “Jesus” was able to raise himself, then doesn't that make him a god in his own right who did not need the Father?  Or better yet, doesn't this better fit the Trinitarian view that he is THE God of the universe?  By the way, why is it that none of the other gospels record him saying that he would raise himself?

    John's gospel seems to contain a lot of figurative language that can easily be interpreted to the Trinitarian position.  Admittedly, I now take the position that if a doctrine can only be proven from the gospel of John, and does not seem to show up anywhere else in scripture, then that doctrine is suspect in my mind.

    Quote
    What about talking about your foundation too WIT?
    You say Jesus is not just a man so what is he to you?

    Even the Muslims say he was a great prophet.

    My confession is that Yeshua is the Messiah, the Annointed One of God, the promised suffering servant and the worthy lamb of God.  The muslim would not confess the same, but would say that Muhammed is God's most Holy Prophet and that the Quran is more sacred than the “Jewish scriptures”.  My confession, by the way, is not much different than Peter's:

    Matthew 16:
    “16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.””

    Mark 8:
    “29“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ.””

    Luke 9:
    “20“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “The Christ of God.””

    Notice that Mark does not use the term “Son of God”.  Did he get the confession half right, or is it possible that “Christ” and “Son of God” essentially meant the same thing, as in the way Matthew uses it?

    Notice also that John's gospel does not have any such confession.  The most famous confession in John is this:

    John 20″
    “28Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!””

    The confession in John leads people down the path of the Trinity.  The confession in ALL the other gospels leads one to the OT witness of a promised Prophet and King, who would be the light of all men.

    December 16, 2004 at 8:10 pm#4939
    NickHassan
    Participant

    No Wit,
    Fear is not my motive except fear of God. Him I fear greatly and I honour and have great respect for His Son.

    No Jesus did not raise himself. Surely you agree with this. A quick look through Acts alone finds at least 7 testimonies that Jesus was raised by his Father.
    eg Acts 2.32, 3.15, 4.10, 5.30, 10.40, 13.30, 17.31.
    So it is plain Jesus was not promising to raise his own body as that would be contrary to scripture.

    So what was Jesus saying? He talked about the temple of the Holy Spirit – his body – just as Paul called our bodies in Jesus, temples of the Holy Spirit. Surely he was speaking of the future in the spirit of prophecy – the Father's Spirit
    speaking through him?

    You must not have read my previous posts about Jesus to make the statements you do WIT. Even men are called gods by Jesus so why would I not say that about him? But he is not the Father.

    The Father is the gardener but Jesus is the Vine and I am a branch who serves the vine to produce a little useful fruit for the gardener. I worship God by honouring, obeying and serving the Son. As well I have direct access to the Father in prayer and worship thanks to the work of the Son.

    Ignoring ,denigrating or not truly respecting the Son would prove I did not honour or respect his Father..

    December 16, 2004 at 9:04 pm#4940
    NickHassan
    Participant

    cont.
    Talking about the temple in Jerusalem as in Hebrews 9. it is described as being of THREE parts.I think we can compare it with ourselves as we are compared to a temple.

    The outer court -equivalent to the body – of the world.

    The holy place-where the common daily worship was performed-equivalent to our soul where our heart and mind are retrained in the pursuit of the ways of God.

    The Holy of Holies where the glory and evidence of God presence with men was-equivalent to the spirit of man designed to hold the Spirit of God.

    What do others think?

    December 16, 2004 at 9:24 pm#4941
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Cont
    Your comparisons between the three versions of Peter's statement about Jesus cause me problems. As I understand it all those statements stand alone. One can add meaning to the others but none can take away meaning as you seem to be doing by reducing the Matthew version to be equivalent to the others.
    I thought Christ comes from the greek word for LIGHT but some have said it means Messiah-I will check.

    December 16, 2004 at 9:38 pm#4942
    NickHassan
    Participant

    cont
    John certainly testified himself about Jesus in all his letters and in far greater detail than in the other gospels
    As well as quoting all that Jesus said about himself he said of Jesus in Jn 13.3
    “..Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come forth from God and was going back to God, rose from supper..”

    December 16, 2004 at 10:00 pm#4943
    NickHassan
    Participant

    cont
    John certainly testified himself about Jesus in all his letters and in far greater detail than in the other gospels. We need to learn from him and not question his Spirit or suggest conspiracy interpretation theories surely?

    As well as quoting all that Jesus said about himself he said of Jesus in Jn 13.3
    “..Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come forth from God and was going back to God, rose from supper..”

    December 16, 2004 at 10:20 pm#4944
    NickHassan
    Participant

    No WIT,
    I say 'monogenes' is poorly shown as 'only begotten' but is better read as 'only' as in Hebrews or 'begotten' in the other verse from John which really is the same thing as 'begotten alone' or 'derived from one'

    December 16, 2004 at 11:50 pm#4945
    WhatIsTrue
    Participant

    Nick,

    Quote
    No Jesus did not raise himself. Surely you agree with this. A quick look through Acts alone finds at least 7 testimonies that Jesus was raised by his Father.
    eg Acts 2.32, 3.15, 4.10, 5.30, 10.40, 13.30, 17.31.
    So it is plain Jesus was not promising to raise his own body as that would be contrary to scripture.

    So what was Jesus saying? He talked about the temple of the Holy Spirit – his body – just as Paul called our bodies in Jesus, temples of the Holy Spirit. Surely he was speaking of the future in the spirit of prophecy – the Father's Spirit
    speaking through him?

    I am not sure what you are trying to say here – (it's as confusing as many Trinitarian explanations) – but if you look at the context, it is clear that “Jesus” is talking about his ressurection.

    John 2:
    “19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20The Jews replied, “It has taken fortysix years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.”

    In John's gospel, “Jesus” raises himself.  If that is not what it is saying, then the language in John's gospel is so figurative as to make it extremely difficult to understand.  Which do you say it is?

    Quote
    Your comparisons between the three versions of Peter's statement about Jesus cause me problems. As I understand it all those statements stand alone. One can add meaning to the others but none can take away meaning as you seem to be doing by reducing the Matthew version to be equivalent to the others.
    I thought Christ comes from the greek word for LIGHT but some have said it means Messiah-I will check.

    I think that you would agree the gospels record the same events from varying points of view.  Peter's confession was a singular event.  Look at the verses in context.  They are describing the same event.  Peter did not confess to three different things.  He made one confession, and Yeshua confirmed it.  All three gospels capture the essence of what Peter confessed.

    Quote
    John certainly testified himself about Jesus in all his letters and in far greater detail than in the other gospels. We need to learn from him and not question his Spirit or suggest conspiracy interpretation theories surely?

    Well, if the term “Messiah” and the term “Son of God” are not the same, then explain how Mark missed one half of the most important confession of Peter's life WITHOUT questioning Mark's spirit or suggesting conspiracy.

    Frankly, I think it's clear that the two terms mean the same thing.

    Quote
    I say 'monogenes' is poorly shown as 'only begotten' but is better read as 'only' as in Hebrews or 'begotten' in the other verse from John which really is the same thing as 'begotten alone' or 'derived from one'

    It seems rather convenient that the word changes to exactly fit your doctrine.

    Quote
    You must not have read my previous posts about Jesus to make the statements you do WIT. Even men are called gods by Jesus so why would I not say that about him? But he is not the Father.

    I am reading your posts.  I just have yet to see you state plainly that you serve two gods.  You seem to shy away from declaring your faith in simple terms, but rather launch into various defenses.  Proclaim your faith boldy!  If you believe “Jesus” is a god, like his father, then just say very simply that you serve two gods.

    I am off on holiday for a little while, so you will have plenty of time to load me up with rebuttals!  Enjoy!

    December 16, 2004 at 11:56 pm#4946
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi WIT,
    You say you are “trying to build on the foundation of the OT”
    Jesus said in Mt 13.52
    “Every scribe who is learned in the reign of God is like the head of a household who can bring out from his storeroom both the new and the old”
    We know that no other foundation stone can be laid but that of Jesus himself [salvation]
    But Jesus also said “Anyone who hears my words and puts them into practice is like the wise man who built his house on rock”
    So Jesus specified which of the Testaments we are to build on – The NT rather than the OT. He also said people prefer old wine to new and told them not to put new wine into old wineskins.

    The first scripture above tells us both are to be used but the NT interprets the OT. Let us face it that the jews only had the Holy Spirit in the form of prophets, who they largely ignored, and the written word ,which Jesus had to explain to them. They did not recognise the Messiah despite the study of OT. Jesus showed them he was spoken of in that Word but they never had found those meanings.

    The NT explains and fulfils the OT not vice versa.To look at the NT through the eyes of the OT will never encompass the teachings of Jesus and the apostles and will risk the same trap the jews fell into-missing the visit of the Son of God entirely.

    December 17, 2004 at 12:48 am#4947
    NickHassan
    Participant

    WIT,
    Does the branch serve the vine?
    Did Matthew not write a longer gospel than Mark? Does that mean the extra was superfluous and all statements in them are to be reduced to the lowest common denominator? No that would distort scripture.

    December 17, 2004 at 1:28 am#4948
    NickHassan
    Participant

    HiWIT,
    As i pointed out Jesus did not raise himself so that scripture has to be interpreted according to what did happen. Jesus was raised by his Father. Even the OT supports this as
    ” thou wilt not allow thy Holy one to undergo decay”
    speaks of Jesus's  death-but who will not allow Jesus body to decay? Himself? No the Father.

    December 17, 2004 at 2:02 pm#4949
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 14 2004,17:46)
    So now, from what I gather, “Jesus” is not just “The Logos”, he is the embodiment of everything that God is.  So, what exactly is his identity again?  Is he “the Word” in identity?  Is he “the Truth” in identity?  Is he “the Way” in identity?  Is he “the Life” in identity?

    To WIT,

    Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life. He didn't say I have truth and I have life and I am a way. Anyone could say that.

    He embodies all that God is.

    Colossians 1:19
    For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,

    Life and truth are of God. Jesus has these and all his other attributes. Like Father, like son.

    So the answer that you seek is that he is all those things and more. Also we are encouraged to attain the full measure of Christ.

    Ephesians 4:13
    until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

    December 17, 2004 at 2:12 pm#4950
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 14 2004,17:46)
    Romans 1:
    “3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:”

    (Note: This would be a perfect time for Paul to say that “Jesus” was born of God before the world began, since he is talking of the Christ's earthly and heavenly credentials. Paul missed his opportunity to state this plainly here, but then again, so did all the writers of the bible.)


    To WIT,

    Romans 1:3-4
    3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,
    4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead:

    Jesus partook of the flesh, he is not the flesh itself. It also says that all things were made through him. So if Jesus was created, then he was made through Jesus. It doesn't make sense.

    John 1:3
    Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

    Hebrews 1:2
    but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

    December 17, 2004 at 2:22 pm#4951
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 15 2004,12:39)
    Revelations 1:
    “5and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.”

    Colossians 1:
    “18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.”

    Death is not birth, as you have said, but ressurrection, according to scripture, is.

    Again, where is your concept of being “begotten before the world began” coming from?


    To WIT,

    If you read further in Colossians 1 you will see that it mentions 2 specific births.

    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.
    17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
    18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
    19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
    20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Colossians is a very revealing passage of scripture regarding Christ. This part of scripture answers your questions.

    December 17, 2004 at 2:26 pm#4952
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 15 2004,12:39)
    If the term “son of God” is exclusive to the messiah, and can not refer to men, then there are some OT writers who need some rebuking:


    To WIT,

    We are sons of God and there are many. But Jesus is excuslively the Son of God.

    In the same way there are many gods but there is but one God the Father. He is the God.

    December 17, 2004 at 2:32 pm#4953
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 15 2004,18:06)
    Now, I ask you again, where is your concept of being “begotten before the world began” coming from? Where is it in scripture?


    To WIT,

    Apart from the scriptures I have already quoted regarding Christs pre-existence, you should read the first chapter of John with careful consideration.

    I also offer you the following teaching:
    https://heavennet.net/answers/answer31.htm

    December 17, 2004 at 10:53 pm#4957
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Hello all
    I happened on this site within the last few days, having spent more than a few years trying to sort out Trinity.
    Reading your back and forth I conclude the discussion to be the “crop circles” of Trinity.
    So here it is
    I don't believe in the trinity. Period. Once I discovered I was “different” I had to decide whether I was damned to …. or enlightened. Let me know if I'm damned. I'll want to pack all my coolest clothing.
    Seriously, I would appreciate opinion on where to pack for.

    December 17, 2004 at 11:00 pm#4958
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Welcome HM,
    I will be promoting the trinity as soon as I find it in the bible. So far no luck so in the meantime I suggest you only carry treasures that are useful as it is a long way and bags of other stuff get heavy.

    December 18, 2004 at 12:05 am#4963
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Hi holymackeral,

    Belief in the Trinity is not required for salvation. The Trinity doctrine seems to have replaced the true foundation for a lot of people.

    As far as our messiah is concerned you are required to believe that Jesus (Yahshua) is the Christ and the son of God. This is the foundation that you should build on. You are not required to believe in Greek philosophy to be saved.

    I offer you the following writing as it focusses on the true foundation of our faith and why the Trinity doctrine is not what the scriptures teach.

    https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity.htm

    There are no “crop circles” there. Just a focussed teaching looking at nearly all the scriptures that are used in the Trinity teaching.

    If you have the patience, you could read the Trinity discussion as it has representives from both sides of this view.
    https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….=1;t=70

    There is some good stuff there.

    God bless you in your journey and may God give you the strength to stand for the truth not matter what men say.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 101 through 120 (of 25,960 total)
123…567…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
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