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 - 8,501 through 8,520 (of 19,165 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #206474
    terraricca
    Participant

    hi all

    if you would understand what the entire scriptures says about God himself and the one who stands since the beginning beside him, in this case you could understand that God is the master spirit of all thing but to perform all things he as created a first being ,and that being would be placed between him and and all other creation and that name is Jesus Christ ,the WORD, his name may change but his function, will not.

    this is what scriptures reveal to be true.

    Pierre

    #206475

    Quote (JustAskin @ July 27 2010,21:15)
    ha ha, WJ, you are a joker aren't you?

    You can't answer…ha ha, why, did i believe you would? Of course not.
    Scriptures says that he who overcomes will become, 'begotten of God', 'A Son of God, as a Son, then brother to Christ, and as such, HEIR to the inheritence WITH him.

    Son of God. And Godwill be his Father, just as God is Father to Christ.
    Brother to Jesus, being Son also to the same Father.
    Heir to God, as Christ is Heir (But, yes, Jesus Christ is 'firstborn' Heir)

    So, WJ, try again.

    Ok, let me say, different, Jesus is Senior 'brother'. How else is Jesus different to the other 'Begotten of God Sons of God'?


    Ja

    No you try again.

    What part of “Only Begotten Son” do you not understand?

    WJ

    #206476

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 27 2010,22:12)
    Hi WJ,
    We are in the monogenes son by baptism and his Spirit is born into us.[Gal].


    NH

    Then the word “Only” has no meaning right?

    WJ

    #206480

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,12:09)
    So you once again need to put your money where your mouth is and show us one scripture in the NT that puts an “a” before theos like the corrupted version the NWT.

    We believe what the scriptures say literally, while you on the other hand have to make all kinds of inferences and conjectures and reject the scriptures.


    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,22:15)
    Why does the example have to be of the word “theos”?


    Mike

    The bigger question is why John used the word “theos” in the same breath when referring to the Father and Jesus.

    Because the scriptures say there is “only One True God”, right?

    Was John an idiot or did he understand the “title” God does not classify identity but a class of being and so does not use the definite article so to indicate that there is two persons both having the same exact nature as God.

    Let me say it again Mike…

    WAS JOHN AN IDIOT OR DID HE UNDERSTAND THE “TITLE” GOD DOES NOT CLASSIFY IDENTITY BUT A CLASS OF BEING?

    Jesus is in that class for he is the “Only Monogenes (only of its kind) Son of God. Therefore Jesus is True God like the Father!

    But you say Jesus is of the same kind as Satan. Anathema!

    So again, put up Mike or hush up about the word “Theos” having an indefinite article anywhere in the NT except the corrupted version of the Polytheistic JW’s NWT.

    You are making a straw mans argument.

    You cannot produce a single NT scripture that is translated with the indefinite article next to “Theos” can you? In fact the NWT is not even consistent by not translating a single verse with the word “Theos” other than John 1:1.

    There are plenty of scriptures with the word “Theos” that doesn't have the definite article and is referring to the “True God”.

    That is fact.

    WJ

    #206481

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,22:18)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,12:12)

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,19:57)

    Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 28 2010,08:38)
    Total misunderstanding of the words “firstborn” and “beginning.”


    Of course it is Jack.  Yet somehow the early church fathers who actually spoke the Koine Greek language very close to the time the NT was written agree with me and Irene, not you and WJ.   ???

    That's an interesting conundrum, no?

    mike


    Lies.

    For the Forefathers did not believe what you believe when it comes to Jesus having a beginning does it Mike?

    WJ


    Don't make me post the Eusebius and Ignatius quotes along with the questions you ran from for a month.   :D  :laugh:  :D

    mike


    Post them, and I will show you they do not believe what you believe Mike unless you want to say they contradict themselves.

    WJ

    #206482

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,22:29)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,12:38)
    The word begottten is “Monogenes” which means “only of its kind”.


    Oh brother!  ANOTHER definition?

    They started off saying “only one AFTER it's own kind”, but I nailed Jack on that by saying that means Jesus is still AFTER God.  So here's the new fangled definition that resulted, I guess.   :D

    mike


    Monogenes Strongs G3439

    1) single of its kind, only

    Thats the first meaning Mike, I know this must be a thorn in your crawl!   :D

    WJ

    #206485

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2010,22:25)
    Hi JA,

    WJ tried to explain his conjecture that the first “god” was the Father, so therefore the Son could easily be “with” Him.  But I haven't ever heard the “was” part brought up that I remember.


    Wow, how far do you have to spin?

    John is talking about the Word being there with the Father way back there in the beginning, and before all things Jesus “was the Word that “was with God and “was” God”

    Simple grammer. :D

    WJ

    #206486
    Ed J
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,17:32)
    Mike

    The bigger question is why John used the word “theos” in the same breath when referring to the Father and Jesus.

    Because the scriptures say there is “only One True God”, right?

    Was John an idiot or did he understand the “title” God does not classify identity but a class of being and so does not use the definite article so to indicate that there is two persons both having the same exact nature as God.

    Let me say it again Mike…

    WAS JOHN AN IDIOT OR DID HE UNDERSTAND THE “TITLE” GOD DOES NOT CLASSIFY IDENTITY BUT A CLASS OF BEING?

    Jesus is in that class for he is the “Only Monogenes (only of its kind) Son of God. Therefore Jesus is True God like the Father!

    But you say Jesus is of the same kind as Satan. Anathema!

    So again, put up Mike or hush up about the word “Theos” having an indefinite article anywhere in the NT except the corrupted version of the Polytheistic JW’s NWT.

    You are making a straw mans argument.

    You cannot produce a single NT scripture that is translated with the indefinite article next to “Theos” can you? In fact the NWT is not even consistent by not translating a single verse with the word “Theos” other than John 1:1.

    There are plenty of scriptures with the word “Theos” that doesn't have the definite article and is referring to the “True God”.

    That is fact.

    WJ


    Hi WJ,

    This is what you have been taught in the systems of religion!
    The systems of religion and traditions of men do communicate…
    distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit
    .

    God(HolySpirit) is: “The Word”(John 1:1)!
    Jesus is: “a word”   … NOT “THE WORD”!

    “The Word” is (אלהים) “GOD”! (John 1:1)
    “The Word” (Hō Lōgôs) [ο λογος]=443 is the 86th prime
    meaning [אלהים=86] “GOD” ĔL-ō-Hêêm=63 (YHVH=63)!

    (Lōgôs) [λογος]=373 means “Word”, and 373 is the 74th Prime Number!
    (Hō Lōgôs) [ο λογος]=443 means “The Word” and 443 is the 86th Prime Number. (John 1:1)
    “God Word”=86 and אלהים=86 ĔL-ō-Hêêm both equal 86 and ĔL-ō-Hêêm=63 means “YHVH”=63.

    You (WJ) will need to study this for a while for you to grasp “Bible Truth”=117!
    In English, the significant number (74) is attributed to JOSHUA=74, Messiah=74;
    also in the following: JESUS=74, Cross=74, Gospel=74, עד=74, and even English=74.
    Jesus Christ (74×32) also factors 74 in Greek Theomatically:
    [Jesus] Ιησους=74(x12), [Christ] Χριστоς=74(x20).
    [Son of Man] υιος τον ανθρωπου=74(x40).

    one hundred and forty four thousand=373 (Rev.14:3)
    JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS=373 (John 19:19)

    It's a simple matter of simple number associations, I will illustrate what they mean…
    I'm lining up these ideas up better for you to see what the numbers represent; OK?

    The “HolySpirit” is “The Word”(of God)!
                  Hebrew=Greek
                (86)אלהים=ο λογος(86th Prime)
    (ĔL-ō-Hêêm)God=The Word(Hō Lōgôs)

    God=86 in Hebrew and “The Word”=86 in Greek ARE EQUAL.
    Theomatic numbers to prime number counterparts. (John 1:1)

    This symbol ( > ) means GREATER THAN in mathematics
    The pieces fit together perfectly: “The Word” (86) > “Word” (74).
    In English it's comparable to (The LORD JEHOVAH) > (Lord Jesus=74) is the “God Son”=74!
                                                              “The Owner” > “Owner “
                                                                    JEHOVAH > Jesus
                                                                              86 > 74

    The “Paradox” is (JEHOVAH)God(=86) is both equal and unequal to (greater than and equal to) Jesus=74(God Son=74)!
    HolySpirit151 is The LORD JEHOVAH151 and the HolySpirit's Son is “Jesus Christ”151! (Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35)
    John 1:1: “The Word”(HolySpirit) is God(The LORD JEHOVAH). And our family goes by the title (AKJV) LORD of Hosts=151!

    Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
    117=יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā  hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
    Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
    http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

    #206493
    Lightenup
    Participant

    I would think that Ignatius would have a good grasp on what monogenes meant since he was a disciple of John the Apostle who used the term.  Let's revisit what He had to say:

    Quote
    But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began,537537    Or, “before the ages.”  but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For “the Word was made flesh.”

    Now, if monogenes meant “single, only one of it's kind” then that wouldn't fit at all what Ignatius says in the above quote found here:

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.ii.vii.html

    #206494
    Ed J
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,17:46)
    Wow, how far do you have to spin?

    John is talking about the Word being there with the Father way back there in the beginning, and before all things Jesus “was the Word that “was with God and “was” God”

    Simple grammer. :D

    WJ


    Hi WJ,

    “The Word” is (אלהים) “GOD”! (John 1:1)

    “The Word” (Hō Lōgôs) [ο λογος]=443 is the 86th prime
    meaning [אלהים=86] “GOD” ĔL-ō-Hêêm=63 (YHVH=63)!

    Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
    יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā  hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
    Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
    http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

    #206503
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,02:27)
    t8

    Quote (t8 @ July 26 2010,21:54)
    No, it says the Word was god.


    No it says “The Word was God” or literraly “God was the Word”.

    Quote (t8 @ July 26 2010,21:54)
    There is no definite or indefinite article. It is meant as qualitative and is not identifying the Word as God himself or as another god.

    It is you and the JWs that decide to render John 1:1 as having a definite or indefinite article.


    This is circular because the following scriptures do not have the definite article yet they are speaking of the One True God, and there are many many more.

    For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. Matt 15:4

    The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. John 3:2

    t8 knows this and it seems dishonest he would make such a rediculous argument.

    WJ

    WJ, I realise you are hard of hearing, but for the sake of the readers I offer this.

    Even Trinitarians admit that the Word as theos is qualitative, though not all it seems. If the Word was YHWH, then that excludes others from being YHWH.

    If you say that you are 'the adam' or 'Adam', then you are saying that you are the first man. If you say that you are 'adam' with no article, then you are rightly saying that you are of mankind. The same word is now used in a qualitative sense.

    Sorry WJ, but it is the way it is. There is a qualitative use for the  word theos, adam, devil, and others. Have you ever been called an angel? If so, was the person suggesting to you that you were an angelic spirit being, or having a good nature? Were they not using the word in a qualitative sense. And you knew this because of the context and the fact that they didn't include the definite article. In other words, they didn't say, “you are the angel” or “you are Angel”. No they probably said, “you are an angel”.

    So WJ, you can tell that John 1:1c is qualitative by the context, and the grammar supports that stoo.

    It is you who refused to see it.

    You can read much about this subject from some of the early Fathers and even Trinitarian scholars if you prefer. Although the latter seem to be divided on that issue. But it is not hard to see which interpretation is correct because one makes sense and agrees with scripture and the other only agrees with the Trinity Doctrine, an external doctrine. And knowing that, it seems obvious why some Trinitarian scholars can't see what others can. Their bias will just cling to any notion that backs up their Trinitarians beliefs even if the claim is weak or is an option among others.

    Here are some quotes for you, so you might understand a bit more why others do not see it your way.

    -Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.
    The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word. Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction? There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.

    -G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.
    We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God'' of Paul, Col. 1:15.

    -Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.
    As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue's “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.

    #206504
    kerwin
    Participant

    Pierre,

    You seem to speculate that Jesus is or was at one time was an immaterial being and not a human being.  Do you have any scriptures that state that?   I know of scripture that calls Jesus a human being even after his ascension but none that call him any other type of being.

    If you have no evidence that states Jesus is or was an immaterial being then what are you basing that speculation on.

    Your fellow student,

    Kerwin

    #206505
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,12:09)
    Do you see any difference with the 2nd “Theos”? Was John an idiot? You must think so when he could have used other words.

    In what way was John saying John 1:1c was less theos than John 1:1b? Prove it Mike!


    Origen who wrote in the 200s was well versed in Hebrew and Greek. Origen was very insistent that the absence of the definite article in the second instance of the word theos at John 1:1 is indeed extremely significant. He distinguishes between “the god” or “God” as the creator of all things, and his Word which he does not consider to be the creator, and which he does not consider to be “God” but “god” in the sense that the Word is deity by essence but not “God” by identity.

    (Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)
    “We next notice John's use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos…

    If we translate John 1:1c as “the Word was God,” we dishonestly mislead people because in our language a capital “G” means we are identifying the Word as God himself. And by doing that we actually exclude the Father from being God because we are saying that the Word was God.

    Also, instead of thinking that theos is either a true theos or a false one as has been argued here, think of the word 'godly' which is qualitative and is not confused with being a true God or a false god.

    Trinitarians can't help themselves by translating John 1:1c the way they do, but there are actually translations that recognise that the Word was divine, as opposed to the Word was God. Even some Trinitarian scholars agree that John 1:1c used theos in a qualitative sense.

    So it is not about Jesus being less God than the Father, but that there is one true God the Father, the Divine, and the Word is divine in essence, because the Word is of God. It is not hard to understand because we understand the difference between identity and nature when we talk about Adam and Eve as both being adam, but only one of them was Adam or “the adam”.

    John actually wrote his gospel so that we may come to the conclusion that Jesus is truly the Christ and the Son of God. In addition to this important truth we are also told that we may receive life through his name. The Trinity doctrine is not the conclusion that one should draw from this writing. Belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son is the foundation of true faith and Jesus built his Church on this truth. The Trinity Doctrine is not the true foundation and is not John's conclusion

    John 20:30-31.
    30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
    31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. “

    #206507
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (kerwin @ July 28 2010,16:19)
    Now about John 1:14 you seem to believe that the Word of God shape changed into a human being and that the Word of God is a spiritual being that you speculate is the pre-existent Jesus.   Have you also considered that in the beginning God said “let there be light” and thus his Word was transformed into light, Genesis 1:3.


    Kerwin, we are told that Jesus existed in the form of God and emptied himself and came in the form of man, then died, was resurrected and is now back in the glory that he had before the world was.

    Now think about that time, “before the world was”. Also, think about a time when there was no Universe or Big Bang, even time.

    Why would he have a body if he was before all things? Is God a Spirit? Did Christ not exist in the form of God?

    Yes we look through a glass dimly, but there are clues and there are statements that cannot be refuted.

    I notice that yourself and Gene, and perhaps others just believe the complete opposite of all the verses that talk of Christ before emptying himself and taking on the form of man or partaking of flesh.

    You just say the complete opposite.

    e.g., the statement “Before Abraham, I am” to those who he was talking to was in a time sense because they said to him, “you are not yet 50 years and you have seen Abraham?”, yet you just say that it means that he wasn't before Abraham, when the text clearly says he was before Abraham.

    You just take the opposite stance in all those scriptures that we are referring to. In this it is clearly demonstrated that you are under a different influence.

    #206509
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (kerwin @ July 28 2010,16:19)
    In Colossians 1:17 you assume that it is speaking of the old creation.   What evidence do you actually have to back that up especially as Scripture declares Jesus is the mediator of the new creation?


    You can't be serious. How can you teach and say something like this? You seriously expose yourself as inadequate for the task.

    Let's read it again.

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

    When it says 'all things', it means exactly that. Why would we think otherwise? If it was meant to be understood that it was the new creation, then you would read something like, “In the age to come, he is before all things”.

    So it is you who has to prove that it is not speaking of all things because I am simply agreeing with the text and you are not. So you are the one who has to tack on external doctrines and understanding, in order to see it the way you want to see it and want others to see it.

    Again, the influence you are under causes you to take an opposite stance.

    #206513
    kerwin
    Participant

    T8,

    I assure you that I firmly believe that Jesus’ character was Godlike and so he humbled himself to wash the feet of his disciples.  I also agree that being one with God in attitude he did not see being equal to God as something to be desired but instead chose to be humble and serve us all even to the point of dying on the cross for us.

    I also agree that Jesus came into existence in the form of a human being because he is a human being.

    I have no problem believing that the form of his character is an image of God’s as God is spirit and one’s character is like the wind in being invisible except for the effects.   That made him The Son of God born of the Spirit and not of natural decent or of a man’s will.  It does not make him an immaterial being.

    It appears are assuming that Philippians 2 is stating something different that what I just stated I believe.   Everything I just stated is backed up in other places of scripture including that Jesus was conceived, i.e. created, in Mary.

    I find the argument that Abraham was born after Jesus to be rather absurd when you consider that Jesus descended from Abraham.  I have never heard of someone who was born before their own ancestor nor do I believe it is physically possible.   I suppose Jesus could have used time travel to exist before Abraham but that seems quite the stretch.  An alternative interpretation of what is meant in John 8:58 therefore appears to be more reasonable.

    As Peter said some scripture is hard to understand and therefore we do best to take care that any conclusion we make are consistent with the message of the Gospel.

    Your fellow student,

    Kerwin

    #206515
    kerwin
    Participant

    T8,

    The new creation is the result of the transformation set in motion by the the new covenant becomming binding. That is why Paul also teaches that creation has been in birth pains upto the present time, Romans 8:22. Jesus is the firstborn among the dead in that he was resurected from the dead and those that believe are the firstfruits of the Spirit in that they are created anew in Chist.

    Your fellow student,

    Kerwin

    #206517
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (kerwin @ July 29 2010,02:48)
    Pierre,

    You seem to speculate that Jesus is or was at one time was an immaterial being and not a human being.  Do you have any scriptures that state that?   I know of scripture that calls Jesus a human being even after his ascension but none that call him any other type of being.

    If you have no evidence that states Jesus is or was an immaterial being then what are you basing that speculation on.

    Your fellow student,

    Kerwin


    hi KW

    why you try to, to say other wise and be true,according to the scriptures and see??

    Pierre

    #206537
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Quote (kerwin @ July 28 2010,21:34)
    T8,

    I assure you that I firmly believe that Jesus’ character was Godlike and so he humbled himself to wash the feet of his disciples.  I also agree that being one with God in attitude he did not see being equal to God as something to be desired but instead chose to be humble and serve us all even to the point of dying on the cross for us.

    I also agree that Jesus came into existence in the form of a human being because he is a human being.

    I have no problem believing that the form of his character is an image of God’s as God is spirit and one’s character is like the wind in being invisible except for the effects.   That made him The Son of God born of the Spirit and not of natural decent or of a man’s will.  It does not make him an immaterial being.

    It appears are assuming that Philippians 2 is stating something different that what I just stated I believe.   Everything I just stated is backed up in other places of scripture including that Jesus was conceived, i.e. created, in Mary.

    I find the argument that Abraham was born after Jesus to be rather absurd when you consider that Jesus descended from Abraham.  I have never heard of someone who was born before their own ancestor nor do I believe it is physically possible.   I suppose Jesus could have used time travel to exist before Abraham but that seems quite the stretch.  An alternative interpretation of what is meant in John 8:58 therefore appears to be more reasonable.

    As Peter said some scripture is hard to understand and therefore we do best to take care that any conclusion we make are consistent with the message of the Gospel.

    Your fellow student,

    Kerwin


    Kerwin…………Good post i also see it that way brother.

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

    #206548

    Quote (t8 @ July 28 2010,04:50)
    Trinitarians can't help themselves by translating John 1:1c the way they do, but there are actually translations that recognise that the Word was divine, as opposed to the Word was God. Even some Trinitarian scholars agree that John 1:1c used theos in a qualitative sense.


    No Trinitarians can't help but “Translate” it that way because that is what the Greek text says. It is you that can't help but insert into the text something other than what it says.

    The Greek in John 1:1c is the same word in John 1:1b which is “theos”, not  a Greek word for “divine” or “Son” or any other Greek word.

    So the Trinitarians are true to the text while you “Insert” your own ideas into the text.

    You still have not answered the question… “How is Theos in John 1:1c qualitatively different than Theos in John 1:1b?

    Are you qualitatively less human than your Father?

    Jesus is the “Monogenes” (only, of its kind) Son of God, which means t8 that he is not in the same “theos” class of Angels, or men, or satan, which you claim are “True gods” though the scriptures clearly teach there is only “One True God”, Theos.

    You still have not answered the question… “How is Theos in John 1:1c qualitatively different than Theos in John 1:1b?

    Does “Son of Man” mean because one is the Son of man that he is qualitatively less man?

    Then why do you assume that the term “Son of God” is antithetical to the title God?

    See how your logic falls apart?

    WJ

Viewing 20 posts - 8,501 through 8,520 (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