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 - 8,541 through 8,560 (of 19,165 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #206596
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    WJ,

    You said:

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

    I wonder if “god” has ever been used in the scriptures to refer to a mighty one who was NOT God?  Oh yeah, dozens of times.   ???

    You said:

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

    More tricks you learned from Jack!   :D  :laugh:  :D   What I said was that Jesus is a god in the same sense that Satan is a god.  They are both mighty ones who are NOT the Father God Almighty.  Prove me scripturally wrong in this statement or pipe down about it.  (Disclaimer so Jack doesn't start crying again:  I am in no way comparing the person of Jesus and the wonderful things he has done with the Devil who has been a manslayer and liar from the beginning.  I am only saying the title “god” was applied to many persons who were not “God” – Jesus and Satan are just two of them.)

    You said:

    Quote
    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.


    More of Jack's crap being spewed by you?   :D   Do you really think the group of people who named themselves after the only true God and view Jesus as God's Son, not God Himself are polytheistic?  Why would an educated person like yourself even make such a claim?  

    You said:

    Quote
    You cannot produce a single NT scripture that is translated with the indefinite article next to “Theos” can you?


    I haven't actually looked for one yet.  But will you answer to why the “a” was added twice in John 8:44?  Why does the word have to be the word “theos” to show how the Greeks wrote it compared to how the English translated it?  Wouldn't any adjective work just the same?  Is “god” a different kind of adjective than “manslayer” and “liar”?

    You said:

    Quote
    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.

    And that makes John 1:1 even more clear to anyone who seeks truth.  In most cases in the Bible, Jehovah is just called “God” with no definite article.  But when trying to distiguish Him from others, it makes sense to add the definite article.  For example, Paul says Satan is “a god”, but that doesn't mean he's calling him “THE God”.  You see how I used the definite article to distinguish THE God from just “a god”?  Do you think maybe John had the same thing in mind?

    mike

    #206603
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,17:34)
    Post them, and I will show you they do not believe what you believe Mike unless you want to say they contradict themselves.


    Really WJ?  Do you promise you'll actually answer the question this time?  I asked it of you, like, 50 times and you ran each time.  But now you want to look “tough” and “unafraid” on this thread.  Remember the last time you and KJ and Is 1:18 did that on the CF Debate thread?  You three were talking all tough, so to shut you up, I posted the simple question you all had been avoiding.  What happened?  Oh, that's right……you all suddenly remembered you had other threads to post in and disappeared.   :D

    If you want to answer the question, feel free to answer it on Jack and my original debate thread.  It's the last question posted.  It's been waiting for an answer from Jack for a couple of months now.

    Put up or shut up.

    mike

    #206605
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 29 2010,04:53)
    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?


    Thanks for bolding the text, it brought it to my attention.

    I don't think there is any difference qualitatively speaking in all of John 1:1a-c.

    That is because God himself, is also qualitatively speaking divine or possessing divine nature, spirit, or essence.

    The important thing is that all of John 1:1 identifies God with the exception of John 1:1c.

    Let's look at this in another way to gain understanding of the structure.

    Adam is qualitatively adam and Eve is qualitatively adam. Only Adam is actually Adam and Eve is most certainly not.

    Another example. The Devil is qualitatively devil, and Judas was qualitatively devil, but only the Devil is actually the Devil himself.

    The difference between qualitative and identifying clears up any difficulties with the word 'theos'. Ignoring that, you will then enter much confusion and will need the support of external doctrines.

    Regarding your second question it is sort of answered above, but I will give it it's own explanation in case you think I am trying to ignore it.

    The son of man is qualitatively man meaning that he is fully man. I myself am also fully man. Yet when we identify the son of man, I am not sure that includes me, but certainly both Jesus and myself are/were men. I say were because Jesus did initially exist with the nature of God and then emptied himself and took on the nature of man. However, he is now back with God in the glory that he had with him before the world began. So he is now at the right hand of God.

    WJ, I wonder if it is possible for you to acknowledge what I am saying or disprove it. Please attempt one of them and I will look forward to the reply in the meantime.

    #206606
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,17:38)

    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


    Well, Strong is half right.  He gives the definition of the “mono” part.  

    Let's see what he says on this site:

    http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin….nogenes

    Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results

    Result of search for “monogenes”:
    3439. monogenes mon-og-en-ace' from 3441 and 1096; only-born, i.e. sole:–only (begotten, child).

    Hmmmm…….what gives here?  Who's crawl is the thorn in now, Keith? :) Have you purposely been neglecting to post all of the words in the definition? Or, is it like I told Jack…..Strong's various concordances and lexicons seem to vary by some definitions.

    mike

    #206607
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2010,11:19)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,17:34)
    Post them, and I will show you they do not believe what you believe Mike unless you want to say they contradict themselves.


    Really WJ?  Do you promise you'll actually answer the question this time?  I asked it of you, like, 50 times and you ran each time.  But now you want to look “tough” and “unafraid” on this thread.  Remember the last time you and KJ and Is 1:18 did that on the CF Debate thread?  You three were talking all tough, so to shut you up, I posted the simple question you all had been avoiding.  What happened?  Oh, that's right……you all suddenly remembered you had other threads to post in and disappeared.   :D

    If you want to answer the question, feel free to answer it on Jack and my original debate thread.  It's the last question posted.  It's been waiting for an answer from Jack for a couple of months now.

    Put up or shut up.

    mike


    WJ, it looks like you also have to reply to mikeb too.

    I guess we both look forward to your acknowledgement to what we are saying, or to refute what we are saying coupled with why you refute it.

    BTW, you are actually allowed to say that you do not know. Many of us respect honesty. It is okay to say that you do not have an answer and still have respect.

    So feel free to say that you do not know, or put up the evidence.

    #206608
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,17:46)

    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


    And how do you know that “THE God” was the Father? Couldn't it have been the Holy Spirit God you also worship?

    It doesn't say “Father”, so how do you know, Keith?

    mike

    #206610
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 29 2010,04:53)
    Then why do you assume that the term “Son of God” is antithetical to the title God?


    WJ. We are the sons of God. What do you think about that?

    #206611
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2010,11:31)
    And how do you know that “THE God” was the Father?  Couldn't it have been the Holy Spirit God you also worship?

    It doesn't say “Father”, so how do you know, Keith?

    mike


    How dare you question his right to pick and choose what ever is most convenient and supportive of his view.  :D

    #206613
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 29 2010,06:29)
    Gene,

    Jesus was still a servant when He called His Father the “only true God.” He is exalted and now John calls Jesus the “only true God” (1 John 5:20).

    servant
      exalted
    servant
      exalted
    servant
      exalted

    the Roo


    You are so lame Jack.

    First, Jesus STILL calls the Father “my God”.  Second, 1 John doesn't say anything of the sort.

    Does anyone else here see what's going on?  Once again, while being thoroughly tromped on about John 1:1, the trinitarians have to resort to the “everything at the speed of light” defense.  We must now deal with every proof text they offer at once.  They do it that way, because one at a time, they know they have nothing, so they try to pile so much on that their failure to answer the points we make are lost in a muddled up mess.

    mike

    #206614
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 29 2010,04:53)
    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.


    Here are quotes from Trinitarians that acknowledge the truth about the qualitative rendering of John 1:1c.
    NOTE: I do not necessarily support their conclusions on this.

    And,  I would appreciate a statement from you to say that they are wrong or an acknowledgement that I am right or even possibly right on this one. Please do not ignore this request and then regurgitate the same argument later on. We are trying to stop this sort of thing.

    C. K. Barrett: “The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity.”
    The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76.

    C. H. Dodd: “On this analogy, the meaning of theos en ho logos will be that the ousia [substance (“what”)] of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos…That this is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase.”
    New Testament Translation Problems II,” The Bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), p. 104.

    James Moffatt: “'The Word was God…And the Word became flesh,' simply means “.the word was divine…And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man…”
    Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p.61.

    Philip B. Harner: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.” This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.”
    “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87.

    Henry Alford: “Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,–not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It does not = theios, nor is it to be rendered a God–but, as in sarx egeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:–that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,–was with God (the Father),–and was Himself God.
    ” Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II (Guardian Press, 1975; originally published 1871), p. 681

    B. F. Westcott: “The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person… No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word.”
    The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans, 1958 reprint), p. 3.

    The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, emporion d' en to korion, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. .Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with theos. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theos.
    (H. E. Dana, Julius Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1950) pp. 148-149).

    “The Word was God. Here the word “God” is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality or character. Thus, John teaches us here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes.”
    (Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, vol. 3, “Golden Nuggets,” p. 52).

    “In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity”
    (Wuest, Word Studies, vol. 4, p. 209).

    “The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation “The Word was God.” Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also “with God”. What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase “what God was, the Word was”, brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can…So, when heaven and earth were created, there was the Word of God, already existing in the closest association with God and partaking of the essence of God. No matter how far back we may try to push our imagination, we can never reach a point at which we could say of the Divine Word, as Arius did, “There was once when he was not”
    (F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983), p. 31).

    #206618
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (t8 @ July 29 2010,11:41)

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2010,11:31)
    And how do you know that “THE God” was the Father?  Couldn't it have been the Holy Spirit God you also worship?

    It doesn't say “Father”, so how do you know, Keith?

    mike


    How dare you question his right to pick and choose what ever is most convenient and supportive of his view.  :D


    :laugh:

    #206620
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (t8 @ July 29 2010,11:30)
    WJ, it looks like you also have to reply to mikeb too.

    I guess we both look forward to your acknowledgement to what we are saying, or to refute what we are saying coupled with why you refute it.


    Hi t8,

    He won't answer.  It's been months already for my question.  

    John 1:1 is pretty easy to understand.  And if the English never started using capital letters, it wouldn't even be a “proof text” at all, IMO.

    Do you know how many people believe in the trinity based solely on the two capital G translation of John 1:1?  Almost every one I've ever discussed it with.  They will eagerly admit that they don't actually understand the trinity concept, but “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” says it all for them.

    And that's a shame, because it is so clear that John calls one “THE god” and the other “god”.

    I have one bone to pick with you though, t8.  You seemed to slam the JW's translation because they add the “a”.  In your examples about “Adam” and “Devil”, the “a” just adds clarity.  Just like every translation feels free to add it twice in John 8:44 for clarity…..Satan was “a” manslayer and “a” liar.

    You can say Eve was adam, but not THE Adam.  But you can just as easily say Eve was “an” adam, but not THE Adam.

    My friend is Navajo.  My friend is “a” Navajo.

    Just my two cents on the NWT translation.  I think it makes it more clear what is really being said than just capping one G and leaving the other lower case.  And I think most people would understand that better than differentiating between “qualifying” and “identifying”.  The only problem with it is you immediately have to start explaining the many other uses of the word “god” in the scriptures and how you're not a polytheist. :)

    mike

    #206649
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,06:51)

    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


    hi KW

    God did in a similar way ,what he did with Adam wen he create EVE,

    in the same way he took from himself to create Jesus ,Christ, the WORD, the SON of GOD,ect.

    Pierre

    #206651
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2010,12:24)
    Hi t8,

    He won't answer.  It's been months already for my question.  

    John 1:1 is pretty easy to understand.  And if the English never started using capital letters, it wouldn't even be a “proof text” at all, IMO.

    Do you know how many people believe in the trinity based solely on the two capital G translation of John 1:1?  Almost every one I've ever discussed it with.  They will eagerly admit that they don't actually understand the trinity concept, but “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” says it all for them.

    And that's a shame, because it is so clear that John calls one “THE god” and the other “god”.

    I have one bone to pick with you though, t8.  You seemed to slam the JW's translation because they add the “a”.  In your examples about “Adam” and “Devil”, the “a” just adds clarity.  Just like every translation feels free to add it twice in John 8:44 for clarity…..Satan was “a” manslayer and “a” liar.

    You can say Eve was adam, but not THE Adam.  But you can just as easily say Eve was “an” adam, but not THE Adam.

    My friend is Navajo.  My friend is “a” Navajo.

    Just my two cents on the NWT translation.  I think it makes it more clear what is really being said than just capping one G and leaving the other lower case.  And I think most people would understand that better than differentiating between “qualifying” and “identifying”.  The only problem with it is you immediately have to start explaining the many other uses of the word “god” in the scriptures and how you're not a polytheist. :)

    mike


    Yes translators do on many occasions add in the indefinite article to complete the sentence in English even though there is not such thing as an indefinite article in Greek.

    However, in this case, adding an indefinite article then translates as “the Word was another god” which I don't think is the intention of the text, and it also raises the issue of there being one True God the Father, making the other god a false god.

    Yes it is true that when Jesus said, “one of you is devil”, that it is translated as “one of you is a devil”, but the problem is also prevalent here because Jesus wasn't actually saying that Judas was an actual devil being or demon, but that his nature or character was like that of the Devil.

    So adding the indefinite article can in itself be wrong too, even though English demands it grammatically. This is one of the problems with translating from Greek to English.

    This is why we see “the Word was divine” and “what God was the Word was” in some translations. It is only the NWT (as far as I know) that says, “the Word was a god”.

    I also should say that if the Word was God or the Word was a god, both of these translations are identifying the Word. But I think neither is correct because qualifying is not the same as identifying and John 1:1c is qualifying not identifying the Word.

    However if you say that he was a god and you mean that he is god in nature, then that might be okay, but most won't understand it that way, rather they will read it as him being another god, who is not the one true God of the bible and I believe that this notion is not John's intention.

    #206657
    kerwin
    Participant

    Pierre,

    As for scripture that states Jesus is a human being, look at 1st Timothy 2:5 which clearly calls him a human being who after his ascension to heaven mediates between humankind and God.  I do not believe he transformed into a human being after his ascension and I know he was called The Son of Man while he walked this earth before his ascension and that title refers to those descended from human beings, i.e. human beings.  In Luke he is not spoken of before his conception except to when an angel calls him son and holy thing(one) which tells he is one set aside by God and the male offspring of Mary who herself is a human being, Luke 1:31,35 .  He is also spoken of in prophecy as the coming Anointed One though not by name.  None of these is evidence that he was an immaterial being before his conception in Mary’s womb.

    We are also told that Jesus was tempted by evil just as we are in Hebrews 4:15 and that is a point of faith as among other things Jesus stands as our example that a human being can resist all the temptations that the evil one throws at them if they live by the spirit of righteousness.

    To create Jesus God took from Mary thus making Jesus the offspring of Mary and the descendant of David who like Jesus were human beings.   In a similar way Eve could be said to be the offspring of Adam as such is the miracle of creation.

    God did give Jesus his spirit of righteousness to live by and Jesus does and thus the character of Jesus is the image of God.   This is why Jesus is called the Son of God as he was born of God’s spirit and not of a man’s desire or of natural decent, John 1:13.

    Your fellow student,

    Kerwin

    #206658
    Ed J
    Participant

    Quote (JustAskin @ July 29 2010,08:18)
    Jesus was 'Spirit' and was then 'Man' and was then 'Spirit' again…so he changed…therefore cannot be 'God' because 'God' does not change, hence His glorious name 'I AM'. Think about it, 'I AM'! What a succint name that perfectly describes the ONE and ONLY, God Amighty, who Is and Was and Always Will Be…the same, never 'changing', complete perfection, there can be nothing better so there is nothing to change to that could be the same or 'better'. Perfection doesn't, WJ, inhabit imperfection.


    Hi JustAskin,

    God's Name is יהוה and translates directly into English as YHVH!
    There is no such construct in Hebrew as 'i am'? (Mark 13:6)

    Are you here at h-net to deceive JustAskin? (Click Here)
    Mark 13:6 For many shall come in my(Christian) name,
    saying, 'i am'; and shall deceive many. (Col.2:22-23)

    The systems of religion and traditions of men communicate…
    distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit
    .

    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)

    #206664
    kerwin
    Participant

    Mike,

    You are correct that the Greek word is “seautou” but that is translated to own self

    The “para” is the one you believe is correctly translated to “presence” and the King James Version translates to “with”.  The New International Version splits the baby by translating the first occurrence as “presence” and the second as “with”. Both seem to be legitimate synonyms for the word “para” though I am of the opinion “with” fits the context better.  

    Never the less let’s go with the New Revised Standard Version clause “the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.”  . The subject is of the clause is clearly “glory” and not Jesus.   The description of that glory is that it is the glory that was credited to Jesus in the past, i.e. before the world existed.   The location of that glory was that it was with, or in the presence, of God.

    You may believe that is an absurd way of wording the idea but that is never the less how it is worded.   That may be due to your viewpoint, the Greek language sentence structure, the translator’s actions, or to a combination thereof but the bottom line is it is what is written.

    Are you having difficulty with the idea that Jesus was predestined by God to be the Messiah?   This is what I am stating Jesus is speaking of in part of this verse as well as that destiny being fulfilled in the other part.

    Your fellow student,

    Kerwin

    #206700

    Hi All

    Just concentrate on the scripture and the way it was translated and reads…

    What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up **WHERE HE WAS BEFORE**”? John 6:62

    John 6:38-40
    For “I have come down (katabainō) 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 every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

    Notice nowhere does our Lord in John 6 indicate he is just the plan of the Father that came down from heaven. If it is possible for that to be conveyed in the Text the Translators could have made it so, but there is not a Bible in the world that says such.

    So if you cannot agree to its reading without inference then you look into the Greek to see why it is translated that way and in this case the tenses show that Jesus is the one doing the “descending” (katabainō) just as the Holy Spirit and the Angel did. Matt 3:16 and Matt 28:2

    The Greek for “I have come” is Strong's G2597 – katabainō which is defined…

    1) to go down, come down, descend
    a) the place from which one has come down from
    b) to come down

    In every place the word is used it is referring to a literal action by a person and not an abstract “thought or plan”“.

    katabainō  is in the “perfect” tense, and the “active voice” and the “indicative” mood!

    The perfect tense” in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes “an action” which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.

    The active voice” represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, “The boy hit the ball,” the boy performs the action.

    SO WHEN JESUS SAID “I HAVE COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN” THE GREEK TENSE SAYS HE IS DOING THE ACTION, THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE INTERPRETED “A THOUGHT OR A PLAN CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN” BECAUSE THOUGHTS AND PLANS DO NOT PERFORN AN ACTION ON THEIR OWN!

    That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched–this we proclaim concerning “the Word of life“. *THE LIFE APPEARED*; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you “the eternal life, WHICH WAS WITH THE FATHER” and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And “our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 1 John 1:1-3

    WHO IS THE **WORD OF LIFE** THAT WAS WITH THE FATHER ???

    In the beginning was the Word, and “the Word was with God”, and the Word was God. “THE SAME WAS IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD“. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. “IN HIM WAS LIFE AND THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN. John 1:1

    The Word became flesh and “made his dwelling (Greek – tabernacled) among us“. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

    The scriptures say that Jesus came down from heaven and he was not of this world!

    And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; **I AM FROM ABOVE** (NOT I AM GODS PLAN FROM ABOVE): ye are of this world; **I AM NOT OF THIS WORLD**. John 8:23

    AT Robertson states…

    I am from above (egw ek twn anw eimi).
    The contrast is COMPLET IN ORIGIN AND CHARACTER, already stated in (John) 3:31, and calculated to intensify their anger.

    HE THAT COMETH FROM ABOVE” is above all: “he that is of the earth is earthly“, and speaketh of the earth: “HE THAT COMETH FROM ABOVE” is above all. John 3:31

    Blessings WJ

    #206709
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi WJ,
    You mean Jesus or the Christ?
    Jesus became the anointed one at the Jordan.
    He was conceived and born of a woman, Mary before that.

    #206711

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 29 2010,14:38)
    Hi WJ,
    You mean Jesus or the Christ?
    Jesus became the anointed one at the Jordan.
    He was conceived and born of a woman, Mary before that.


    NH

    What are you talking about? Is this some new doctrine that you have developed.

    And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, “he demanded of them where Christ should be born. Matt 2:4

    For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, “which is Christ the Lord“. Luke 2:11

    When he was anointed at the Jordan did the Father say you are now the Christ?

    He is the Christ that followed the Children of Israel in the wilderness.

    One and the same person Nick!

    WJ

Viewing 20 posts - 8,541 through 8,560 (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