Did Jesus pre-exist before his birth on Earth?

Where did Jesus come from?

John 6:38-40
For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

The first verse suggests that Jesus came down from Heaven. This seems to contradict that belief which suggests he first existed as a man when he was born into this world. For if Jesus came into existence for the first time when he was conceived through Mary, how could he come down from Heaven? We (Man) came into existence when we are born into this world, but would it be correct to say that we came down from Heaven too? If a verse said that we came down from Heaven, would you think that we pre-existed in Heaven? If so, then why not Jesus?

John 3:17 is another verse that provides support that Jesus came down from Heaven or was sent rather than created.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

The word ‘send’ is the Greek word ‘apostello’.

apostello {ap-os-tel’-lo}
1) to order (one) to go to a place appointed
2) to send away, dismiss
2a) to allow one to depart, that he may be in a state of liberty
2b) to order one to depart, send off
2c) to drive away

To be sent surely implies existence otherwise you would just say born or created. In fact this word (sent) is similar in meaning and sound to the word Apostle (apostolos), which means “one sent forth with orders”. To be sent forth with order, you must exist.

John 6:62
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Jesus is clearly stating here that he came from above since he eventually ascended into Heaven to be at the right-hand of God.

How old is Jesus?

John 1:15
15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.‘ “

John the Baptist was six months older than Jesus Christ. So it is physically impossible for Christ to be before him in age. If this verse is referencing age, then it shows preexistence. Jesus existed before  John the Baptist in the least.

John 8:58
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!

Jesus claimed to exist before Abraham, the father of the Jews. The words ‘I am’ mean ‘I exist’. So Jesus claimed existence before Abraham. We can see that Jesus is getting older as we explore the scriptures. But how old?

Jude 1:25
to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

Here we can see that majesty, power, and authority through Jesus Christ is before all ages (all worlds) and forever more into the future. This strongly implies that Jesus existed even before all things. But can we substantiate this?

Did Jesus exist before all creation?

Colossians 1:17
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Colossians answers the question outright. It states that “He is before all things“.  But are there other verses that support this idea?

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

So there is nothing that was made that didn’t involve Jesus being there. This verse alone answers the question because the universe, angels, and men were made and Jesus was present when they were created according to these verses. In case that is not enough to convince you, I also add another clear verse that says the same thing.

Hebrews 1:1-2
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
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.

Is Jesus the Word of God?

But some say that this is talking about the Word and not all believe that Jesus is the Word of God. They argue that Jesus came from the Word, but is not the Word itself that was with God in John 1:1. If you believe this, then please explain the next two verses within their wider context:

Revelation 19:13
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

Colossians 1:15-18
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 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.

Okay, if you are honest, this is a closed case. God created all things through the Word. Jesus is called the Word of God and also the son of God. We are also told that God created all things through the son of God. Even if you do not believe that Jesus is the Word, then you still have to believe that Jesus pre-existed on account of him being the son of God. But what we know from scripture is that Jesus existed as the Word of God before he came as a man called Jesus. We know that the Word became flesh.

More proof verses

If Jesus pre-existed, then you might expect that even though the above verses are clear, there would be more verses that teach or at least imply that he pre-existed. So let’s see if this is the case.

Revelation 22:16
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

Here we see that Jesus is the offspring of David, yet he is also the root of David, which at appears to show existence before King David. He also claims to be the bright Morning Star and we read in Job how the Morning Stars were present when God created the Earth.

Job 38:6-7
“On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy? 

Luke 10:18
He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

Comparing Luke 10:18 with Revelation 12:1-10, some say that Satan and his angels fell to the earth before the birth of Christ as a man. If this was the case, then Jesus saw an event that took place before he was born as a man. However, others argue that Satan hasn’t fallen to the Earth yet, or that he has, but Jesus saw this in a vision. Regardless, it certainly doesn’t contradict that Jesus pre-existed.

Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

The above verse talks about someone who will rule Israel and whose origin is from ancient times. Who but Jesus could fit that description?

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

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[ 1:14 Or the Only Begotten] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Clearly, Jesus was with God in the beginning as the Word of God. This places his existence as before all things and thus comes as no surprise that he was there when God created all things.

The Angel of YHWH

We know from certain scriptures that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath and many assume that Jesus gave the Law of God. We are told in Acts:7:30-39 for instance that an Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses through whom God spoke and this is the same Angel who spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai and passed on the living words (The Law) to Moses.

30 “After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai.
31 When he saw this, he was amazed at the sight. As he went over to look more closely, he heard the Lord’s voice:
32 ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.’Moses trembled with fear and did not dare to look.
33 “Then the Lord said to him, ‘Take off your sandals; the place where you are standing is holy ground.
34 I have indeed seen the oppression of my people in Egypt. I have heard their groaning and have come down to set them free. Now come, I will send you back to Egypt.’
35 “This is the same Moses whom they had rejected with the words, ‘Who made you ruler and judge?’ He was sent to be their ruler and deliverer by God himself, through the angel who appeared to him in the bush.
36 He led them out of Egypt and did wonders and miraculous signs in Egypt, at the Red Sea and for forty years in the desert.
37 “This is that Moses who told the Israelites, ‘God will send you a prophet like me from your own people.’
38 He was in the assembly in the desert, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; and he received living words to pass on to us.
39 “But our fathers refused to obey him. Instead, they rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt.

So is this Angel of the Lord, Jesus? Well it seems possible. Perhaps the correct model to look at is the one mentioned in Revelation 1:1

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

Here we can see that the order of the Revelation started with the Originator which is God. He then passed the message to Jesus Christ who in turn sent it to his Angel and then to John. So perhaps it is possible that the angel in Revelation is the same angel mentioned in Acts:7:30-39.

But the Angel of YHWH or Angel of the LORD is described as one like the son of gods.

Daniel 3:24-25
Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astounded and stood up in haste; he said to his high officials, “Was it not three men we cast bound into the midst of the fire?” They replied to the king, “Certainly, O king.” He said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!”

The idea that a preincarnate Jesus was this Angel of the LORD is a popular one. We know that this Angel of the LORD is never mentioned while Jesus is walking the earth which supports this idea. But it could also be a coincidence. One connection that can be made with Jesus being this messenger is found in Judges 13:18.

Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, “What is your name, so that when your words come to pass, we may honor you?” But the angel of the LORD said to him, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?”

Now read what Isaiah prophesied in Isaiah 9:6 .

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Clearly, Isaiah was speaking of Jesus Christ and note that he was called Wonderful Counselor. Is there a connection here? Perhaps. What we do know is the word ‘angel’ is the same word messenger in the Old Testament, and while it is held that Jesus is not an angel in kind, we know he certainly was a messenger of YHWH and would be fair to say even ‘The Messenger of YHWH’.

So the idea that he may be this angel is not that far fetched. Some vehemently oppose this idea, but they are not aware that both Jesus and John are called angels in the messenger sense.

More to come here……

More proof that Jesus pre-existed

Rev 3:14
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.

Moving on we read the following in Philippians 2:5-11
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Surely the above verses assumes preexistence.  Look at verse 7: ‘but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness’. This verse points out that Jesus humbled himself to become a (or like a) human and also a servant. So this suggests to us that he preexisted in a higher state because to humble oneself is to become lower. If he started life in this humbled state, then it would be incorrect to say that he humbled himself. Further, he “found himself in appearance as a man” is a weird statement to make if he first existed as a human baby.

This verse is often used in support of the trinity doctrine because of the word ‘equal’. But if you are equal to something it means that you are not that thing, rather you are like that thing. This scripture is also very clear about the following: The Father is God and Jesus is Lord and that God exalted Jesus to the highest place.

A closer look at verse 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: Now I am not sure if Jesus was exalted higher than he was before he came to this world or whether he was exalted to the exact position that he had before. But if we look at John 17:5 again we can see that Jesus asked to return to his former glory.

John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

The above verse is clear about Christ’s pre-existence in glory before the world began. Just to prove this is not an isolated scripture here is a similar verse:

John 16:28
I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”

The next verse also confirms that Jesus pre-existed in Heaven.

John 3:12-15
12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven, the Son of Man.
14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,
15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

Ezekiel 8:1-3
1 In the sixth year, in the sixth month on the fifth day, while I was sitting in my house and the elders of Judah were sitting before me, the hand of the Sovereign LORD came upon me there.
2 I looked, and I saw a figure like that of a man. From what appeared to be his waist down he was like fire, and from there up his appearance was as bright as glowing metal.
3 He stretched out what looked like a hand and took me by the hair of my head. The Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and in visions of God he took me to Jerusalem, to the entrance to the north gate of the inner court, where the idol that provokes to jealousy stood.

This verse is interesting in the sense that the description is very similar to the description of Jesus Christ in Revelation 1:12-18,

12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands,
13 and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,” dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest.
14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire.
15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters.
16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.
18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

Have a look at the next verse. 1 Corinthians 11:3 (English-NIV)
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Now the word head in the Greek is ‘kephale’ which can mean head, source or master. Now if we notice the order in a time sense, we have to admit that God is the first as he is the only one who has existed for all eternity with no beginning. We also know from scripture that the man came first and the woman came from the man. So that part is correct if we use a timeline. That just leaves Christ. Did he come between God and Man. I think so, as I believe that all things came from him and this opinion does fit perfectly into this model in a time sense at least. Anyway the word Christ here is ‘Christos’ which means “anointed”. So the anointed is the head of Man.
God > Christ > Man > Woman

If God created all things for his Son and his Son was the channel for that creation to come into being, then we can only assume that Christ existed at this point. As Genesis says: Let us make Man in our image. God was talking to Christ at this point and we know that Christ is the image of God and we are the image of Christ. Therefore the image of the image of God (man) is still the image of God. But Christ is the original and first image and we can only assume again that that image existed before the image of the image. A bit like a mirror that reflects a mirror, the original mirror has to exist in order to reflect the second mirror.

So we know that Christ preexisted before creation and now we will look at some more scriptures that show that he was born before creation itself?

Colossians 1:15-16
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

The above verse is quite clear that ALL things were created by or through Jesus.

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

So again, there is nothing that was made that didn’t involve Jesus/The Word being there. Only the Father and Son were not made. God has always existed and the Son was born from God before the creation of the universe, before anything was made. The next verse describes clearly who/what was the first of God’s works.

Proverbs 8:22-30
22 “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, {[22] Or ; or } {[22] Or ; or } before his deeds of old;
23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,

This verse is talking about Wisdom, whom many believe is Christ. This scriptures compliments other scriptures that that teach that Jesus was given birth by God and then created all THINGS though him.

So from this verse we can see the following points.

Wisdom was brought forth as the first of Gods works.
Wisdom was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
Wisdom was given birth before creation.
Wisdom was the craftsman at his side and rejoiced in his presence before creation.
Some say that Wisdom isn’t Christ, rather this is just wisdom in a conceptual sense and it is true that wisdom is being spoken of in that way. But from verse 22 onward it changes tempo. With terms like I was given birth, I was the craftsman at his side and I was filled with delight, we have to admit that it seems to be talking about a person. Now have a look at the following verses:

1 Corinthians 1:24 (English-NIV)
but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

1 Corinthians 1:30 (English-NIV)
It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God–that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

Let’s look at some other concepts that Jesus personifies:

Jesus is the Truth. Yet truth is also a concept.
Jesus is the Way. Yet the way is also a concept.
Jesus is the Life. Yet life can also be a concept.
Now look at the following mystery:

1 Corinthians 2:6-9
6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
7 No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 However, as it is written:
“No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him”

Ephesians 3:8-10
8 Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,

Perhaps another scripture alluding to Jesus being the Wisdom of God.

Finally I leave you with the following OT scripture that suggests that God had a Son before the birth Of Jesus Christ on earth.

Proverbs 30:4
Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know!


Discussion

Viewing 20 posts - 3,001 through 3,020 (of 19,165 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #91008

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2008,17:47)

    Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,09:13)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2008,16:55)

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,08:46)
    I guess not.  What do you think it means?

    Anyway, I do believe that God is the source of everything (including his own Son, Jesus).  Because Jesus is human, he provided what was needed.  Pure and simple.  In my opinion, of course.  :)


    Mandy

    The creation of man was twofold.

    God formed him from the dust of the ground and then breathed into him the breath of life and man became a living soul/spirit.

    What makes Yeshua Divine is not his body which the Lord prepared for him, (Heb 10:5) which was purely physical. It is the Eternal Spirit which was with God. John 1:1

    So Yeshua is the Word/Spirit which was made flesh or tabernacled among us. John 1:14, Phil 2:4-6

    Blessings!


    Hi again WJ,
    You say eternal spirit and this is one point where I disagree with you.  If He was eternal, He would be no one's son.  He might be a partner but not a son.
    LU


    LU

    Yeshua's sonship started here…

    And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Lk 1:35

    The Holy thing that was to be born would be called the “Son of God”!

    In response to this I thought Is 1:18 had a good answer Here.

    “I don't mind replying. I don't hold that Yeshua was the perpetual Son. I think scriptures like Luke 1:35, Romans 1:4 and Hebrews 1:5 unmistakably bear out that the sonship of Yeshua relates to His earthly birth. That is not to say that He did not preexist the incarnation – He did! As the Logos”.

    Endure sound teaching…..

    http://bibletools.org/index.c….NT

    Blessings.

    Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,10:35)

    Hello again WJ,

    I read this with a different emphasis:

    And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Lk 1:35

    I think that this clears up any misunderstanding that might call the child the biological son of Joseph.

    “…therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” and not the son of Joseph.

    His sonship as Yeshua started with Mary.
    Matt 1:21
    21 “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus,
    NASU

    Agreed!

    Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,10:35)

    His sonship as the begotten God started before creation as the “firstborn of all creation”. He was the first to be BORN before the rest of creation.

    I assume your reference is to Col 1:15.

    There are several scriptures that may seem to imply that Yeshua had a beginning before his natural birth. I will be using KJV unless otherwise noted. Here they are…

    Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Col 1:15

    There they are!!! You may be asking yourself, “did you leave some out”? No I didn’t leave any out.  This is the only scripture found that even hints at Yeshua being born or having a beginning (besides the ambiguous Prov. quote) before he came in the flesh.

    Many on this sight have quoted this verse to support the Idea that the pre-existing Yeshua had a beginning, or that he was created. Most of the time it is quoted as being in opposition to the Trinitarian view.

    Lets look at its context and see if that is at all what this verse is saying. This is the verse quoted in its context…

    15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 18 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Col 1:15-17

    NET
    1:15  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn 28 over all creation, 29 1:16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him – all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers – all things were created through him and for him. 1:17 He himself is before all things and all things are held together  in him.

    The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prwtotokos) could refer either to first in order of time, such as a first born child, or it could refer to one who is preeminent in rank. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (EGGNT), 43, expresses the meaning of the word well: “The ‘firstborn’ was either the eldest child in a family or a person of preeminent rank. The use of this term to describe the Davidic king in Ps 88:28 LXX (=Ps 89:27 EVV), ‘I will also appoint him my firstborn (πρωτότοκον), the most exalted of the kings of the earth,’ indicates that it can denote supremacy in rank as well as priority in time. But whether the πρωτό- element in the word denotes time, rank, or both, the significance of the -τοκος element as indicating birth or origin (from τίκτω, give birth to) has been virtually lost except in ref. to lit. birth.” In Col 1:15 the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus’ rank as over and above creation (cf. 1:16 and the “for” clause referring to Jesus as Creator).
    29tn The genitive construction πάσης κτίσεως (pash” ktisew”) is a genitive of subordination and is therefore translated as “over all creation.” See ExSyn 103-
    Source

    So we see that “Firstborn doesn’t necessarily speak of the first to be born and in fact in context here is not.
    Paul uses the same word (prwtotokos) in the next verse…

    1:18 He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the firstborn32 from among the dead, so that he himself may become first in all things.33

    32tn See the note on the term “firstborn” in 1:15. Here the reference to Jesus as the “firstborn from among the dead” seems to be arguing for a chronological priority, i.e., Jesus was the first to rise from the dead.
    33tn Grk “in order that he may become in all things, himself, first.” Source

    Now we know that Yeshua wasn’t the first person to rise from the dead, but he was the first person to rise from the dead in the New Creation.
    Simply put, Yeshua is the firstborn because he is the first in all things! By and through him all things were created and without him nothing was made that was made. That would not include him for he didn’t create himself.

    Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,10:35)

    Always a Son of God.


    Again, is there a scripture for this?

    Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,10:35)

    A firstborn lamb is also the first male to come out of the womb.  The firstborn lamb sacrifice was an example of what the Son of God would be for us.

    Yeshua didn’t become the lamb until he took on the likeness of sinful flesh without sin.

    For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: Heb 1:4, 5

    Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,10:35)

    Colossians tells us that the Son of God was born before anything was IN heaven or ON earth.  There s you scripture that makes Him a son before Mary.


    Don’t think so. Colossians is talking about his preeminence. By him all things were made, “Invisible and visible”, and as John clearly shows in John 1:3 without him was not anything made that was made. He is the firstborn in rank over all creation.

    Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,10:35)

    His sonship with power and authority started at His resurrection:


    Huh? So he has 2 sonships?

    Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,10:35)

    Acts 13:30-35
    30 “But God raised Him from the dead; 31 and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. 32 “And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33 that God has fulfilled this promise  to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.' 34 “As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ' I WILL GIVE YOU THE HOLY and SURE blessings OF DAVID.'
    NASU

    With all due respect,
    LU

    These scriptures are post incarnation. No sonship of Yeshua before he was born a Son!

    With all due respect,

    WJ

    #91009
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi WJ,
    The monogenes Son was sent into the world.
    1Jn4

    #91012

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,08:55)

    Isn’t that all that the woman contributes anyway? Who does the creating? The woman? Who does the forming?


    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,17:02)

    Unless we are talking about the same thing we will never come to an understanding.  When talking about conception, we have to at least agree what conception is.  It sounds like we believe it means two different things.  Obviously a women doesn't just contribute SKIN.  Come on, now.  Give us more credit than that.  What we know of reproduction gives us a lot more credit than that!  :;):

    Sorry Mandy. Woman bear children in pain because of the fall. The woman doesn’t do the creating or forming or the giving of the life, God does through his creative process called seed bearing seed. The Lord breathes the breath of life in the embryo. Adam and Eve were the only created humans without being born, all other creatures who are born are created.

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,08:55)

    But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine. Isa 43:1

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,17:02)

    Forming a nation of people is a little different than fathering a son.


    You left a scripture out. Here ill give you another one also.
    Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Jer 1:5

    Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. Isa 44:2

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,08:55)
    A woman’s body and the sperm doesn’t birth the soul and Spirit, which God breathes into the body and man becomes a living soul/spirit

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,17:02)

    I disagree.  I believe that the union of the two parents provide all that is needed for the new individual – including their personality and spirit (life).  It gets pretty dicey when you want to take a human a part and ascribe “sections” of the human and who contributed what.  

    Nothing dicey at all. Man is a Spirit who has a soul who lives in a body that is called the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

    Jesus said that which is flesh is flesh, and that which is Spirit is Spirit.

    The flesh of Mary or a woman doesn’t begat Spirit.

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,08:55)
    God doesn’t have sperm. God creates sperm. God doesn’t have DNA God creates DNA.

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,17:02)

    This is perhaps true, however, it still doesn't negate God providing what was needed as the source of Jesus.

    There is no scripture that says God is the source of Yeshua’s Spirit. The spirit of Yeshua is the Spirit of God. Rom 8:9

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,08:55)
    Could it be it causes problems with yours?  


    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,17:02)

    I won't lie to you, the scriptures say that Jesus is conceived and I believe them. If for some strange reason I find out differently or find that the scriptures are wrong……I'll have a problem with that.
    Thanks for the chat,
    Mandy

    But it seems your Idea of conception is purely physical and not spiritual. God is Spirit. So it would stand to reason that what ever God begets would be Spirit also.

    Blessings. :)

    #91015
    942767
    Participant

    Hi:

    I would like to ask the following question and that is can the word “monogenes” as used in John 1:18 be translated “unique” rather than “only begotten”? If so, then that scripture would read the unique God who is in the “bosom of the Father” he hath declared Him.

    #91016
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi 94,
    There are two parts to the word
    MONO
    and
    GENES

    Unique may relate to the first but GENES is to do somehow with beginnings[genesis]

    #91023
    gollamudi
    Participant

    Hi all pre-existence and non-trinitarian believers, see the explanation of WJ on Col 1:15-18, it talks about Jesus' pre-eminence not that he was born first. I now have to laugh at this. That's why I was telling repeatedly you can not be in between rather on two boats like one side believing in pre-existence of Jesus and rejecting the Trinitarianism. It is a utter confusion you create to scriptures by assuming that 'Light was Jesus that God first created or begot whatever you think like that'. Instead of believing such dogma better you appreciate Trinitarianism because they are better in interpreting scriptures, though I personally belive in monotheism. As Wj rightly quoted the verses like Heb 1:5; Acts 13:30-35 or Ps 2 all these are post -Jesus' birth on this earth (I don't use the term incarnation).
    Please don't confuse others by misinterpreting the scriptures like that.
    Peace to you
    Adam

    #91026
    dirtyknections
    Participant

    Ok…I have a question for everyone who believes in “NO pre existence”…Prove it using 10 scriptures..treat me like a new bible student you are studying with…also provide references to the 1st century congregation, that show that those immediate followers of Jesus and the Gospel also believed in “NO pre existence”…

    When I'm researching I always like to see what the 1st century congregations thought, believed, and taught..

    Also, lets see what the Post 1st century Pre Constantine Christians believed…

    And I'll do the same research…and post it…and lets see where the evidence points

    #91049

    Quote (942767 @ June 04 2008,19:44)
    Hi:

    I would like to ask the following question and that is can the word “monogenes” as used in John 1:18 be translated “unique” rather than “only begotten”?  If so, then that scripture would read the unique God who is in the “bosom of the Father” he hath declared Him.


    Hi 94

    In a response I made earlier to LU, I think was a reply to you from her, I explain this Here.

    NH is right, keeping in mind he was called “Unique” after he came in the flesh.

    Blessings!
    :)

    #91052
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Hi 94,
    I looked in 5 or 6 Bible versions and didn't find the word unique in any of them in the whole New Testament. I also do not see “unique” listed in the Strong's definitions.

    http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=3439

    NT:3439

    monogenes (mon-og-en-ace'); from NT:3441 and NT:1096; only-born, i.e. sole:

    KJV – only (begotten, child).

    NT:3441

    monos (mon'-os); probably from NT:3306; remaining, i.e. sole or single; by implication mere:

    KJV – alone, only, by themselves.

    NT:1096

    ginomai (ghin'-om-ahee); a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen”- erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.)

    (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright  1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

    The term used is monogenhv qeov it is not mono qeov. I do not see that “unique God” would be an accurate translation.

    Let it be 94, only begotten God.

    #91053
    gollamudi
    Participant

    Hi DK
    Yes I can quote many verses like these
    1) 1 Pet 1:20 “Jesus was predestained before the foundations of the world”
    2) Gal 4:4 “when fullness of time came …Jesus was born through a woman”
    3) Rom 1:3-4 “born of a descendant of David…declared the son of God ..by the resurrection from the dead”
    4) Heb 1:1-2 ” …in these last days He spoke to us in His son”
    5) Eph 1:4-5 “… He chose us in him(christ) before the foundations of the world”
    6) Jn 17:5 “..glorify me ..with the glory which I had before the foundations of the world”
    7) Jn 17:24 ” ..for thou didst love me before the foundations of the world”
    8) 2 Sam 7:12-16 ” …I will be a father to him and he will be son to me”
    9) Ps 2:7 ” Today I have begotten thee..”
    10) Isa 11:1-5 ” a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse”
    Like this I can quote many scriptures that prove that there is no pre-existence of Jesus whatsoever except he was foreordained in the plan of God to take birth through a woman when the fullness of time comes according to Paul in Gal 4:4. I know you may interpret some of these scripture towards your pre-existence, then I leave to your dogma. The glory Jesus was mentioning in Jn 17:5 was pre-ordained glory for Jesus on his successful completion of God's will in his life not the pre-existing glory as you believe. Jesus was raisen to the level of this glory only after he rose from the dead not that he was already sitting with the father before his birth. Where do you find such verses to support that dogma?
    Hope you will study these scripture in details and submit your anology.
    Adam

    #91054
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,10:35)

    Quote (942767 @ June 04 2008,19:44)
    Hi:

    I would like to ask the following question and that is can the word “monogenes” as used in John 1:18 be translated “unique” rather than “only begotten”?  If so, then that scripture would read the unique God who is in the “bosom of the Father” he hath declared Him.


    Hi 94

    In a response I made earlier to LU, I think was a reply to you from her, I explain this Here.

    NH is right, keeping in mind he was called “Unique” after he came in the flesh.

    Blessings!
    :)


    Hi WJ,
    Where was the term unique used? I looked at several different Bibles and didn't see that word anywhere in the New Testament.
    LU

    #91059
    dirtyknections
    Participant

    Quote (gollamudi @ June 05 2008,02:53)
    Hi DK
    Yes I can quote many verses like these
    1) 1 Pet 1:20 “Jesus was predestained before the foundations of the world”
    2) Gal 4:4 “when fullness of time came …Jesus was born through a woman”
    3) Rom 1:3-4 “born of a descendant of David…declared the son of God ..by the resurrection from the dead”
    4) Heb 1:1-2 ” …in these last days He spoke to us in His son”
    5) Eph 1:4-5 “… He chose us in him(christ) before the foundations of the world”
    6) Jn 17:5 “..glorify me ..with the glory which I had before the foundations of the world”
    7) Jn 17:24 ” ..for thou didst love me before the foundations of the world”
    8) 2 Sam 7:12-16 ” …I will be a father to him and he will be son to me”
    9) Ps 2:7 ” Today I have begotten thee..”
    10) Isa 11:1-5 ” a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse”
    Like this I can quote many scriptures that prove that there is no pre-existence of Jesus whatsoever except he was foreordained in the plan of God to take birth through a woman when the fullness of time comes according to Paul in Gal 4:4. I know you may interpret some of these scripture towards your pre-existence, then I leave to your dogma. The glory Jesus was mentioning in Jn 17:5 was pre-ordained glory for Jesus on his successful completion of God's will in his life not the pre-existing glory as you believe. Jesus was raisen to the level of this glory only after he rose from the dead not that he was already sitting with the father before his birth. Where do you find such verses to support that dogma?
    Hope you will study these scripture in details and submit your anology.
    Adam


    Now research and see if the 1st century congregation…who were immediate followers of jesus and the apostles…and see if they understood those scriptures that way….

    Also look at the “post-1st century-pre constantine” era Christians…and then get back to me…

    Notice the eras I want you to research are “Pre 300ce aka Constantine aka Counsel of Nicea aka Trinity”..

    Thats important because you say our thoughts are more in line with trinatarians…once YOU do some REAL research….then I will respond…

    Remember Jesus prophecied a “Great Apostacy”..so its important we get the understandings and beliefs of those as close to Jesus as possible..not that we have to believe them, but rather they may help us come to a greater appreciation for scripture.

    #91060

    Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2008,02:53)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,10:35)

    Quote (942767 @ June 04 2008,19:44)
    Hi:

    I would like to ask the following question and that is can the word “monogenes” as used in John 1:18 be translated “unique” rather than “only begotten”?  If so, then that scripture would read the unique God who is in the “bosom of the Father” he hath declared Him.


    Hi 94

    In a response I made earlier to LU, I think was a reply to you from her, I explain this Here.

    NH is right, keeping in mind he was called “Unique” after he came in the flesh.

    Blessings!
    :)


    Hi WJ,
    Where was the term unique used?  I looked at several different Bibles and didn't see that word anywhere in the New Testament.
    LU


    LU

    “unique”

    1: being the only one : sole
    2 a: being without a like or equal : unequaled b: distinctively characteristic : peculiar 1

    Source

    There are many words not found in the Bible which we use to describe a Biblical truth.

    For instance “Bible”, “Rapture” “Omniscient” Etc.

    The dictionary seems to agree with these…

    NLT John 1:18
    No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart; he has told us about him.
    Footnote:
    Some manuscripts read his one and only Son.
    New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

    NIV
    No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
    Footnote:
    a Or the Only Begotten
    b Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son

    ESV
    No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
    Footnote:
    a Greek in the bosom of the Father
    b Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son
    The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

    NET
    No one has ever seen God. The only one,45 himself God, who is in closest fellowship with46 the Father, has made God47 known.48
    Footnote
    45tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ �1,13 � lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. �75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in �66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

    tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenh”) see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.

    Blessings!

    :)

    #91062
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2008,17:38)

    Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,09:13)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2008,16:55)

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,08:46)
    I guess not.  What do you think it means?

    Anyway, I do believe that God is the source of everything (including his own Son, Jesus).  Because Jesus is human, he provided what was needed.  Pure and simple.  In my opinion, of course.  :)


    Mandy

    The creation of man was twofold.

    God formed him from the dust of the ground and then breathed into him the breath of life and man became a living soul/spirit.

    What makes Yeshua Divine is not his body which the Lord prepared for him, (Heb 10:5) which was purely physical. It is the Eternal Spirit which was with God. John 1:1

    So Yeshua is the Word/Spirit which was made flesh or tabernacled among us. John 1:14, Phil 2:4-6

    Blessings!


    Hi again WJ,
    You say eternal spirit and this is one point where I disagree with you.  If He was eternal, He would be no one's son.  He might be a partner but not a son.
    LU


    Hi LU

    There is no scripture that says Yeshua was a son before he was born a son.

    Sons of God in the Hebrew scriptures are said to be angels. This may explain why the JWs believe Yeshua was Michael.

    For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 1 John 1:2

    John goes on to confirm in this Epistle who it is that was with the Father.

    And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life. 1 John 5:20 NET

    Foot note.
    The pronoun This one (οὗτος, Joutos) refers to a person, but it is far from clear whether it should be understood as a reference (1) to God the Father or (2) to Jesus Christ. R. E. Brown (Epistles of John [AB], 625) comments, “I John, which began with an example of stunning grammatical obscurity in the prologue, continues to the end to offer us examples of unclear grammar.” The nearest previous antecedent is Jesus Christ, immediately preceding, but on some occasions when this has been true the pronoun still refers to God (see 1 John 2:3). The first predicate which follows This one in 5:20, the true God, is a description of God the Father used by Jesus in John 17:3, and was used in the preceding clause of the present verse to refer to God the Father (him who is true). Yet the second predicate of This one in 5:20, eternal life, appears to refer to Jesus, because although the Father possesses “life” (John 5:26, 6:57) just as Jesus does (John 1:4, 6:57, 1 John 5:11), “life” is never predicated of the Father elsewhere, while it is predicated of Jesus in John 11:25 and 14:6 (a self-predication by Jesus). If This one in 5:20 is understood as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to “the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” Thus it appears best to understand the pronoun This one in 5:20 as a reference to Jesus Christ. The christological affirmation which results is striking, but certainly not beyond the capabilities of the author (see John 1:1 and 20:28): This One [Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life.

    There simply is no unambiguous scripture that says the pre-incarnate Yeshua had a begining.

    Blessings.


    Hey WJ,
    Are you saying that the “son of God” did not begin till His conception within Mary?

    I thought that the trinity speaks of an eternal Son. If the Son didn't always exist then the second person of the trinity shouldn't be called the “Son”. Was there a triune God, (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the Old Testament times? How could there be if there were no Son, as you yourself have pointed out?

    Blessings to you!
    LU

    #91064
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,11:13)

    Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2008,02:53)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,10:35)

    Quote (942767 @ June 04 2008,19:44)
    Hi:

    I would like to ask the following question and that is can the word “monogenes” as used in John 1:18 be translated “unique” rather than “only begotten”?  If so, then that scripture would read the unique God who is in the “bosom of the Father” he hath declared Him.


    Hi 94

    In a response I made earlier to LU, I think was a reply to you from her, I explain this Here.

    NH is right, keeping in mind he was called “Unique” after he came in the flesh.

    Blessings!
    :)


    Hi WJ,
    Where was the term unique used?  I looked at several different Bibles and didn't see that word anywhere in the New Testament.
    LU


    LU

    “unique”

    1: being the only one : sole
    2 a: being without a like or equal : unequaled b: distinctively characteristic : peculiar 1

    Source

    There are many words not found in the Bible which we use to describe a Biblical truth.

    For instance “Bible”, “Rapture” “Omniscient” Etc.

    The dictionary seems to agree with these…

    NLT John 1:18
    No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart; he has told us about him.
    Footnote:
    Some manuscripts read his one and only Son.
    New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

    NIV
    No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
    Footnote:
    a Or the Only Begotten
    b Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son

    ESV
    No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
    Footnote:
    a Greek in the bosom of the Father
    b Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son
    The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

    NET
    No one has ever seen God. The only one,45 himself God, who is in closest fellowship with46 the Father, has made God47 known.48
    Footnote
    45tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ �1,13 � lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. �75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in �66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

    tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονο&
    #947;ενής (monogenh”) see the note on “one and only” in 1:14
    .

    Blessings!

    :)


    WJ,

    So that would be no verses that actually use the word “unique”.

    You seem to like this translation so I will ask you a question using it also.

    ESV
    No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
    Footnote:
    a Greek in the bosom of the Father
    b Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son
    The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

    If Jesus is “the only God, who is at the Father's side,” then the Holy Spirit is not also God at the Father's side.

    This post and my last post to you are pointing out problems with your understanding if there truly is a triune God. You are contradicting your own doctrine.

    LU

    #91065
    gollamudi
    Participant

    Hi Dk, the verses I quoted were written by the first century christians and apostles like Peter, John, Paul who else you need I don't follow the dogma of Nicea or any other historicals like Arians who made utter confusion in understanding God. See the scriptures with God's Spirit not with human dogma because the wise of this world will be caught in their dogma.
    Take care
    Adam

    #91067

    Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2008,03:17)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2008,17:38)

    Quote (Lightenup @ June 04 2008,09:13)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2008,16:55)

    Quote (Not3in1 @ June 04 2008,08:46)
    I guess not.  What do you think it means?

    Anyway, I do believe that God is the source of everything (including his own Son, Jesus).  Because Jesus is human, he provided what was needed.  Pure and simple.  In my opinion, of course.  :)


    Mandy

    The creation of man was twofold.

    God formed him from the dust of the ground and then breathed into him the breath of life and man became a living soul/spirit.

    What makes Yeshua Divine is not his body which the Lord prepared for him, (Heb 10:5) which was purely physical. It is the Eternal Spirit which was with God. John 1:1

    So Yeshua is the Word/Spirit which was made flesh or tabernacled among us. John 1:14, Phil 2:4-6

    Blessings!


    Hi again WJ,
    You say eternal spirit and this is one point where I disagree with you.  If He was eternal, He would be no one's son.  He might be a partner but not a son.
    LU


    Hi LU

    There is no scripture that says Yeshua was a son before he was born a son.

    Sons of God in the Hebrew scriptures are said to be angels. This may explain why the JWs believe Yeshua was Michael.

    For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 1 John 1:2

    John goes on to confirm in this Epistle who it is that was with the Father.

    And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life. 1 John 5:20 NET

    Foot note.
    The pronoun This one (οὗτος, Joutos) refers to a person, but it is far from clear whether it should be understood as a reference (1) to God the Father or (2) to Jesus Christ. R. E. Brown (Epistles of John [AB], 625) comments, “I John, which began with an example of stunning grammatical obscurity in the prologue, continues to the end to offer us examples of unclear grammar.” The nearest previous antecedent is Jesus Christ, immediately preceding, but on some occasions when this has been true the pronoun still refers to God (see 1 John 2:3). The first predicate which follows This one in 5:20, the true God, is a description of God the Father used by Jesus in John 17:3, and was used in the preceding clause of the present verse to refer to God the Father (him who is true). Yet the second predicate of This one in 5:20, eternal life, appears to refer to Jesus, because although the Father possesses “life” (John 5:26, 6:57) just as Jesus does (John 1:4, 6:57, 1 John 5:11), “life” is never predicated of the Father elsewhere, while it is predicated of Jesus in John 11:25 and 14:6 (a self-predication by Jesus). If This one in 5:20 is understood as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to “the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” Thus it appears best to understand the pronoun This one in 5:20 as a reference to Jesus Christ. The christological affirmation which results is striking, but certainly not beyond the capabilities of the author (see John 1:1 and 20:28): This One [Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life.

    There simply is no unambiguous scripture that says the pre-incarnate Yeshua had a begining.

    Blessings.


    Hey WJ,
    Are you saying that the “son of God” did not begin till His conception within Mary?

    I thought that the trinity speaks of an eternal Son.  If the Son didn't always exist then the second person of the trinity shouldn't be called the “Son”.  Was there a triune God, (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the Old Testament times?  How could there be if there were no Son, as you yourself have pointed out?

    Blessings to you!
    LU


    LU

    I think I have already explained what I am saying.

    I do not hold to the creeds that speak of Yeshua as being the Son eternally generated from the Father.

    There is no scriptural evidence Yeshua was declared to be the Son of God before he took on the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man. I believe There was the Father, and the Word (who now is named Yeshua) that was with God and was God, and the Holy Spirit were One YHWH, Three persons In One God.

    If you study this you will see that Yeshua was the One who appeared to all of the Prophets and Patriarchs as YHWH.

    For no man could come to the Father but by who we now know as Yeshua, which means “YHWH” is salvation.

    Here is a link a sight that explains that Yeshua is the God of the OT.

    Click here!

    Yeshua scripturally cant be “a god”!

    He either is God in the flesh or he is not a god at all.

    Men have tried to destroy the view that Yeshua is God for centuries and the beat goes on.

    Blessings!  :)

    #91073

    Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2008,03:31)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,11:13)

    Quote (Lightenup @ June 05 2008,02:53)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2008,10:35)

    Quote (942767 @ June 04 2008,19:44)
    Hi:

    I would like to ask the following question and that is can the word “monogenes” as used in John 1:18 be translated “unique” rather than “only begotten”?  If so, then that scripture would read the unique God who is in the “bosom of the Father” he hath declared Him.


    Hi 94

    In a response I made earlier to LU, I think was a reply to you from her, I explain this Here.

    NH is right, keeping in mind he was called “Unique” after he came in the flesh.

    Blessings!
    :)


    Hi WJ,
    Where was the term unique used?  I looked at several different Bibles and didn't see that word anywhere in the New Testament.
    LU


    LU

    “unique”

    1: being the only one : sole
    2 a: being without a like or equal : unequaled b: distinctively characteristic : peculiar 1

    Source

    There are many words not found in the Bible which we use to describe a Biblical truth.

    For instance “Bible”, “Rapture” “Omniscient” Etc.

    The dictionary seems to agree with these…

    NLT John 1:18
    No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart; he has told us about him.
    Footnote:
    Some manuscripts read his one and only Son.
    New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

    NIV
    No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
    Footnote:
    a Or the Only Begotten
    b Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son

    ESV
    No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
    Footnote:
    a Greek in the bosom of the Father
    b Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son
    The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

    NET
    No one has ever seen God. The only one,45 himself God, who is in closest fellowship with46 the Father, has made God47 known.48
    Footnote
    45tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ �1,13 � lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. �75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in �66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 1
    1:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

    tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenh”) see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.

    Blessings!

    :)


    WJ,

    So that would be no verses that actually use the word “unique”.  

    You seem to like this translation so I will ask you a question using it also.

    ESV
    No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
    Footnote:
    a Greek in the bosom of the Father
    b Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son
    The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

    If Jesus is “the only God, who is at the Father's side,” then the Holy Spirit is not also God at the Father's side.

    This post and my last post to you are pointing out problems with your understanding if there truly is a triune God.  You are contradicting your own doctrine.

    LU


    LU

    I see no contradiction.

    There is no disparity in the Godhead. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God.

    With your logic you are simply confused.

    Is Yeshua in the Father? Is the Father in Yeshua? Then how can they be in each other at the same time.

    How can they be in each other and be beside each other?

    Tell me LU, how many spirits did you drink or was baptised into?

    Does the Father live in you, or the Son or the Holy Spirit?

    If you answer these questions then you will know the nature of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for they are ONE, not the same in person, but One God.

    The Henotheistic view has many flaws, for they claim Yeshua preexisted as “a god” much like the Jws. But scriptures are clear only YHWH created all thinngs “By himself”, with none other.

    :)

    #91075
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    to all………God is NOT A (MAN) that He should LIE nor a (SON OF MAN) that He should repent.So i guess Jesus was lying when He said he was a (SON OF MAN), some one please tell me who was lying here, was it Jesus or God or both. And when Jesus said (THOU) art the ONLY TRUE GOD, He was lying right< Because he is the only true God right.

    And indeed the beat goes on.

    IMO……………….gene

    #91079
    Lightenup
    Participant

    WJ,
    So you say there is no eternal “Son”, then it stands to reason that there is also no eternal “Father”. You then have your own idea of a trinity. I may be wrong but I was taught that the first person of the trinity was the Father, the second person of the trinity was the Son, and the third person of the trinity was the Holy Spirit and they are co-eternal.

Viewing 20 posts - 3,001 through 3,020 (of 19,165 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2026 Heaven Net

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account