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 - 8,581 through 8,600 (of 19,165 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #206770
    Arnold
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2010,12:43)

    Quote (t8 @ July 30 2010,12:08)
    So I think John's intention was to say that there were two in the beginning or before the universe. God and the Word and the Word was divine, or of the same essence as God. I don't think he meant us to think that there was the Big God and a smaller god in the beginning.

    It might not seem like there is not much of a difference, but the outcome of saying that the Word is another God has profound consequences to the whole of scripture and seems to conflict with all statements that there is one who is identified as God and that he is the only true God. In effect, you could nullify all those other scriptures on account of that interpretation of John 1:1c.


    Hi t8,

    I can live with the first statement above.  Divine could be what John intended.  But IMO, he more likely meant that the Word was with THE MIGHTY ONE, and the Word was himself “a mighty one”.

    And while I see what you're saying in the second paragraph, I have just never had that “THERE'S ONLY ONE GOD, PERIOD” thinking.  The Bible mentions many, and we can't just wish them away.

    If people would just substitute “tough one” or “master” or “strong one” or whatever, the problem would solve itself.  Insert the word “king”.  David was a king.  Jesus is a King.  But God is THE KING.  So what Paul and Jesus were both implying was that although there are many kings over many kingdoms, God is the only true KING in that He is, was and always will be KING over any and all other kings, including Jesus.

    But like I said, I understand we don't view or use the word “god” the same way as it was used in Biblical times.  And so I definitely see where you are coming from.

    mike


    Mike!  That is also how I have always thought Jesus was in John 1:1 and Hebrew 1:8.  Also in Ancient times many were called Gods.  So I find it either way, as long as we understand that The Word of God in Rev. 19 is Jesus.  Because that I cannot see any other way.  He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  That makes no trinity, because of God's Holy Spirit is not a person.  The trinitarian will want to use it for their believes that is why I say that.  Oh sprechen Sie deutch????:):)that comes directly out of the Catholic Church……….One more thing, in the Old Test. LORD is always in capital letters, while Jesus is Lord of Lords. and LORD is Jehovah God…..Peace Irene

    #206772
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2010,19:21)

    Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2010,11:15)
    it is understood that God, i mean the true and only God,can make god out of any one he feel to use as is will needed,just like he did with Moses,it is this way that it make sense to understand how Jesus ,the WORD,the Christ became god according to the will of GOD his father,(Christ did not become got of his father ,he is nominate by his father,big difference)


    Hi Pierre and All,

    The word “god” simply indicated a “mighty one” in both Hebrew and Greek culture.  But only Jehovah is called the God of gods.  In other words, He alone is the “mightiest of the mighty ones”.  That is why He alone is called “Almighty God”.  That is also why, although Jesus is a god, he still calls Jehovah “my God”.

    It is no problem whatsoever that Jesus is “a god”, or “mighty one”.  He is the second most powerful being in existence – of course he is a “mighty one”.  

    What Kathi fails to remember is, although there are many “mighty ones”, we are commanded to worship only the ALMIGHTY ONE.

    And where the trinitarians get confused is, although Jesus is the Almighty God's Son and servant, and calls the only Almighty God “my God”, they still somehow think he is the same exact being as this Almighty God who is his Father that begot him.  ???

    mike


    hi mike

    i have no problem with that , But only Jehovah is called the God of gods.because i know there is but only one true GOD.

    (my mother was a JW)

    Pierre

    #206775
    Arnold
    Participant

    Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2010,13:33)

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2010,19:21)

    Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2010,11:15)
    it is understood that God, i mean the true and only God,can make god out of any one he feel to use as is will needed,just like he did with Moses,it is this way that it make sense to understand how Jesus ,the WORD,the Christ became god according to the will of GOD his father,(Christ did not become got of his father ,he is nominate by his father,big difference)


    Hi Pierre and All,

    The word “god” simply indicated a “mighty one” in both Hebrew and Greek culture.  But only Jehovah is called the God of gods.  In other words, He alone is the “mightiest of the mighty ones”.  That is why He alone is called “Almighty God”.  That is also why, although Jesus is a god, he still calls Jehovah “my God”.

    It is no problem whatsoever that Jesus is “a god”, or “mighty one”.  He is the second most powerful being in existence – of course he is a “mighty one”.  

    What Kathi fails to remember is, although there are many “mighty ones”, we are commanded to worship only the ALMIGHTY ONE.

    And where the trinitarians get confused is, although Jesus is the Almighty God's Son and servant, and calls the only Almighty God “my God”, they still somehow think he is the same exact being as this Almighty God who is his Father that begot him.  ???

    mike


    hi mike

    i have no problem with that , But only Jehovah is called the God of gods.because i know there is but only one true GOD.

    (my mother was a JW)

    Pierre


    Hey, there is nothing wrong with the J.W. in fact some time ago my Husband let some of them in to our Home and we had several debates, and it was one of them that told us about Jesus preexisting. At first we told them no way. But in time God did open our minds to it…Peace Irene

    #206778
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (Arnold @ July 30 2010,13:26)
    Mike! That is also how I have always thought Jesus was in John 1:1 and Hebrew 1:8. Also in Ancient times many were called Gods. So I find it either way, as long as we understand that The Word of God in Rev. 19 is Jesus. Because that I cannot see any other way. He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. That makes no trinity, because of God's Holy Spirit is not a person. The trinitarian will want to use it for their believes that is why I say that. Oh sprechen Sie deutch????:):)that comes directly out of the Catholic Church……….One more thing, in the Old Test. LORD is always in capital letters, while Jesus is Lord of Lords. and LORD is Jehovah God…..Peace Irene


    Hi Irene,

    And Jesus being a god, or “mighty one” in no way infers he is THE Almighty One or even a part of Him anymore than the Philistine “mighty one” Dagon being called “god” would infer he was part of THE God or equal to Him.

    And any time you read LORD in the OT, it is how the English translators render the Hebrew YHVH. So when you read LORD, the original Hebrew text actually used God's divine name YHVH, there. In other words, when you read LORD in most English translations, the Hebrew text actually said “Jehovah”, but the English translators changed it to LORD.

    peace and love,
    mike

    #206786
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2010,12:43)
    I can live with the first statement above.  Divine could be what John intended.  But IMO, he more likely meant that the Word was with THE MIGHTY ONE, and the Word was himself “a mighty one”.


    Yup.

    Like you could also read that as and the Word himself “was mighty”.

    Then that way you eliminate the confusion of mixing up the identifies of other mighty ones because you are describing something rather than identifying it.

    This is where Trinitarians think they have a strong-hold, and the truth is that they are merely playing with words and over time, what was meant as a description has become an association.

    When you read the early writings after the bible and before Nicea, you don't see the Word as God himself. But you see this transition over time.

    Let's for argument sake say that translations decided to use the indefinite article instead of assuming that God was being identified and hence the God or capital (G) God as we see today with most translations simply said, “a god”.

    That could easily bring rise to a doctrine that Jesus is the Devil for example. If Jesus is a god and Satan is a god, then an association would most likely be made by some and if that association happened to be by an important translator, then his bias could cause a huge false doctrine to occur. Scriptures that referred to the Devil tempting Jesus could be parablized into an internal conflict within the same being, something that happens to all of us.  

    But this hypothetical error could easily be avoided by saying that the Word was like God or had divine nature. This way, you could never make the association that Jesus and the Devil were the same being from John 1:1c.

    A description or qualifying something is not meant to be understood that you are identifying someone, and adding an article whether it is definite or indefinite then runs that risk of making a false association with an identity, when really it is just a description. So in this case, when you identify a being when there is no indefinite article, you run the risk of drawing a conclusion that is not necessarily the intended conclusion.

    In simple terms, a person cannot dispute that the Word was divine which is what the text is saying, but a person can dispute that the Word was a particular god if you indeed say that John 1:1c is identifying the Word by saying “a god”. In actual fact it is not really until John says “And the Word became flesh”, that we have him identifying the Word.

    Also, it is a true statement that God is a god. So then you are giving credence to the possibility that Jesus is God, by saying that the Word was a god. Because if he is a god, the next logical assumption is to say, which God, and the Most High God would make that list along with other gods.

    Like I said, John is not asking us to identify the Word when he says, “and theos was the Logos”, or the Logos was theos”.

    #206789
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (t8 @ July 30 2010,14:32)
    Also, it is a true statement that God is a god. So then you are giving credence to the possibility that Jesus is God, by saying that the Word was a god. Because if he is a god, the next logical assumption is to say, which God, and the Most High God would make that list along with other gods.


    I don't think any more credence would be given than is given by reading about Satan being “the god of this world/age”.

    Anybody that would take “a god” in John 1:1 the way you say would also be the type of person to think by Paul's statement that Jehovah is only God in heaven, but Satan is God on earth.

    I truly believe he meant “a mighty one”. But who knows for sure? Someday we will.

    And every last one of us will eventually know for a fact that he definitely didn't mean God Almighty was with Himself and was the Word and Son of Himself and sat at His own right hand as His own servant. :D

    peace,
    mike

    #206800
    kerwin
    Participant

    Mike,

    I simply broke it up the second clause of the scripture into segments to show you that the subject of the clause was Jesus’ glory and that it existed in God’s presence before the world began.  That is merely a way of putting that Jesus was predestined to be the mediator of the New Covenant and nothing else.

    Either from ignorance or corruption as Peter declares you have chosen to put more into the words than is there and that is sad.   I assume ignorance as we are but students.  I did point out that it is Jesus’ glory, and not Jesus, that was in God’s presence which is literally what that scripture states.

    Your argument is that it implies that Jesus was also there and I say that it does not imply such a thing as one does not have to be present to be glorified.  For example a metal can be given post humorously.  That is why I asked if you had trouble with the idea that Jesus was predestined to become King of everything in heaven and on earth.

    You also seem to misunderstand what I believe about the first clause wherein Jesus is asking God to give him glory.   The glory Jesus asking for is the glory that God has had waiting for him since the beginning of the world.  God did just what Jesus asked when he made Jesus Lord of heaven and earth and Jesus ascended to become the mediator of the New Covenant.

    Out of curiosity, how would you phrase it if you were speaking of glory God reserved for you before the beginning of the world even though you did not exist yet?  To me the words “I had” seem appropriate as it is something attributed to the speaker in the past.

    Your fellow student,

    Kerwin

    #206814
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,19:15)

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2010,15:57)

    Quote (terraricca @ July 28 2010,22:51)

    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


    terraricca,
    This has really helped me differentiate between how man came about and how the Son came about.

    Man-created
    The Son of God-procreated

    You see, when one is procreated/begotten they are like the one that beget them.  Since the Heavenly Father is self-sufficient, He had no need for a counterpart to have a literal offspring.

    When something is created, then they are not like the one that created them.

    It has really helped me understand the difference and see the Son as God also.  God begets God…an unbegotten God and a begotten God.


    hi LU

    it is understood that God, i mean the true and only God,can make god out of any one he feel to use as is will needed,just like he did with Moses,it is this way that it make sense to understand how Jesus ,the WORD,the Christ became god according to the will of GOD his father,(Christ did not become got of his father ,he is nominate by his father,big difference)
    now it could be understand that Jesus always said ;i do my father s will,;I speak my fathers words;and also;i have been send ,and i go back to where i come from ;heaven;
    we also now understand his birth,by the intervention of God organization.

    we also understand the words Jesus said before he died,ALL IS DONE.

    the reason for Christ to come is first to accomplish the promise the scriptures made to the faithful people of old.

    and secondly to save, not the ones who know or think they know how to be saved,but to save the ones who depend totally on him and his father to have live,and so follow the only way to salvation.

    Pierre


    terraricca,
    So you equate the only begotten Son of God to be a designated god? Is that what you are saying? You don't know that the Son has the same nature as His Father? Moses did not have the same nature as deity, the Son does. There is a big difference between a person designated to act as god and a person being born one.

    #206815
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2010,20:21)

    Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2010,11:15)
    it is understood that God, i mean the true and only God,can make god out of any one he feel to use as is will needed,just like he did with Moses,it is this way that it make sense to understand how Jesus ,the WORD,the Christ became god according to the will of GOD his father,(Christ did not become got of his father ,he is nominate by his father,big difference)


    Hi Pierre and All,

    The word “god” simply indicated a “mighty one” in both Hebrew and Greek culture.  But only Jehovah is called the God of gods.  In other words, He alone is the “mightiest of the mighty ones”.  That is why He alone is called “Almighty God”.  That is also why, although Jesus is a god, he still calls Jehovah “my God”.

    It is no problem whatsoever that Jesus is “a god”, or “mighty one”.  He is the second most powerful being in existence – of course he is a “mighty one”.  

    What Kathi fails to remember is, although there are many “mighty ones”, we are commanded to worship only the ALMIGHTY ONE.

    And where the trinitarians get confused is, although Jesus is the Almighty God's Son and servant, and calls the only Almighty God “my God”, they still somehow think he is the same exact being as this Almighty God who is his Father that begot him.  ???

    mike


    Mike, Mike, Mike…

    Kathi doesn't fail to remember…Kathi just believes that worshiping Jesus is part of the process of worshiping the Father and it pleases the Father.

    #206822
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,15:06)

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 28 2010,14:54)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,14:16)

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 28 2010,14:08)
    It is one thing for the Son of God to be equal in nature to God, His Father…another thing to be the God OF God where one is the source/unbegotten and the other is from the source/begotten (before the ages).

    Kathi, there is no scripture that says the Father is the source of Jesus. They are One.

    Your theory is flawed because you insist that “begotten” always means to be “Born”. It doesn't and there are no scriptures that prove Jesus had a beginning, but it is only conjecture for those who reject Jesus as the “The One True God”.

    WJ


    Keith,
    I do not say what you say I do.  Maybe you don't mean to misrepresent my words, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

    I have agreed that begotten doesn't ALWAYS mean born yet you say that I think that it always means born.

    It is obvious to the early christians that the Father is the source.

    Calvin says this (for example);
    “He says, then, that we subsist in the Father, and that it is by the Son, because the Father is indeed the foundation of all existence; but, as it is by the Son that we are united to him, so he communicates to us through him the reality of existence.”
    found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39.xv.i.html

    I have also shown recently of the many who say that it was the Father who begat and the Son was the begotten.  It is obvious to MANY that the Father is the source, not the Son although He brings things into being by the son.

    I'll be gone for a while…


    Kathi

    But none of what you are posting implys Jesus had a beginning and again there is no scripture that says the Father is the source of Jesus.

    Why do you use the commentary of “Trinitarians” who obviously believe Jesus is “One God” with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who always existed?    ???

    I believe you are misrepresenting their views when you do this.

    WJ


    Keith,
    I am only quoting the words, not revising them. Perhaps and very likely, I can understand them in a different light than you. For instance, if I read someone say that the Son has been around as long as the Father, I can see that they may mean that before the Son was begotten, the Father was not a Father yet. The Father became a Father when He begat a Son and thus, they have existed as long as each other. My husband was not a father before he beget a son either, yet he existed before he was a father. My husband has been a father for about 24 years, since when I conceived our firstborn and my son has existed for about 24 years but they are not the same age. You might read the same thing and make the assumption that the Son has always existed as long as God has. See what I mean?

    It has been very enlightening to me to read the famous Christians' comments on verses that we disagree on here at HN over and over. I am finding that they believe monogenes means 'only begotten' and not merely an 'only one of its kind' like you insist. I am trying to help you see this. You never admit this and I think you are blind to it. Put aside the possible implications of this, just see that they say 'only begotten' and place that before the ages…please admit this.

    Also, many of the Christians that I am quoting say 'true God of true God' but you don't seem to have the reasoning to accept that a true God could come from the true God. You make it into a big God little God debate or true God/false god debate and you miss the message, imo. I don't think that you believe God is able to have an offspring that is truly like Him because you continually respond with calling the offspring 'lesser,' or 'little.'

    We need to know here that these earlier Christians did use the words 'only begotten' before the ages and true God of true God. From what I can tell, there is a common belief of the beginning of the Son as a separate person whose substance from which He is from always existed. That, to me sounds like a 'seed' so to speak, the 'seed' of the Son within the Father. I can agree with this.

    #206862
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2010,14:48)

    Quote (t8 @ July 30 2010,14:32)
    Also, it is a true statement that God is a god. So then you are giving credence to the possibility that Jesus is God, by saying that the Word was a god. Because if he is a god, the next logical assumption is to say, which God, and the Most High God would make that list along with other gods.


    I don't think any more credence would be given than is given by reading about Satan being “the god of this world/age”.

    Anybody that would take “a god” in John 1:1 the way you say would also be the type of person to think by Paul's statement that Jehovah is only God in heaven, but Satan is God on earth.

    I truly believe he meant “a mighty one”.  But who knows for sure?  Someday we will.  

    And every last one of us will eventually know for a fact that he definitely didn't mean God Almighty was with Himself and was the Word and Son of Himself and sat at His own right hand as His own servant.   :D

    peace,
    mike


    Some good points here and the last one is humorous and true at the same time.

    According to Origen and other early Christian writers and defenders, as well as some modern day scholars, even including Trinity believing ones, there is the understanding that had the definite article been used, which is the same as capitalizing theos as Theos or God, then the Word would be God to the exclusion of the Father. That is how the language works.

    So if the indefinite article is being used, then surely “a god” wouldn't bring that confusion. When you say mighty one, you are qualifying anyway, but when you say “a mighty one”, then you are identifying someone who is mighty, of which God is mighty and so he is a possible candidate.

    I guess the difference isn't much except to say, that adding the indefinite article introduces alternative possible meanings, whereas no indefinite article leaves the reader no choice but to see that the Word is being described as divine or of God's nature or essence.

    Another possible meaning that you can derive from saying that the Word was a god, is that there is more than one legitimate God, with differing levels of power and one who is at the top. But the truth is that there is one God who is the Divine and he of course has divine nature and he shares that nature, so that even we can partake in it. In other words there is one who is the source of all, and those that are called theos are either false or receive from Theos his nature, essence, authority, etc.

    I guess you could say, that one introduces the idea of another god besides YHWH, while the other says that the Word and others who are described as theos (except for false gods) as being God-like, possessing divine nature, made of the same essence as God, and/or being under God's authority.

    #206863
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    To mike.

    Origen said this in the early 200s.
    (He was said to be a man who knew the languages of his time.)

    Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos (gods), and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is autotheos (God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know You the only true God; “but that all beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply “the” theos but rather theos.

    #206870
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2010,23:08)

    Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,19:15)

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2010,15:57)

    Quote (terraricca @ July 28 2010,22:51)

    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


    terraricca,
    This has really helped me differentiate between how man came about and how the Son came about.

    Man-created
    The Son of God-procreated

    You see, when one is procreated/begotten they are like the one that beget them.  Since the Heavenly Father is self-sufficient, He had no need for a counterpart to have a literal offspring.

    When something is created, then they are not like the one that created them.

    It has really helped me understand the difference and see the Son as God also.  God begets God…an unbegotten God and a begotten God.


    hi LU

    it is understood that God, i mean the true and only God,can make god out of any one he feel to use as is will needed,just like he did with Moses,it is this way that it make sense to understand how Jesus ,the WORD,the Christ became god according to the will of GOD his father,(Christ did not become got of his father ,he is nominate by his father,big difference)
    now it could be understand that Jesus always said ;i do my father s will,;I speak my fathers words;and also;i have been send ,and i go back to where i come from ;heaven;
    we also now understand his birth,by the intervention of God organization.

    we also understand the words Jesus said before he died,ALL IS DONE.

    the reason for Christ to come is first to accomplish the promise the scriptures made to the faithful people of old.

    and secondly to save, not the ones who know or think they know how to be saved,but to save the ones who depend totally on him and his father to have live,and so follow the only way to salvation.

    Pierre


    terraricca,
    So you equate the only begotten Son of God to be a designated god?  Is that what you are saying?  You don't know that the Son has the same nature as His Father?  Moses did not have the same nature as deity, the Son does.  There is a big difference between a person designated to act as god and a person being born one.


    LU

    no i do not equate Christ to his father,and this is not a thesis for a Dr or master degree,

    God word is to be understood by the spirit of truth,not by some grammar wording and definition in the hands of the scholars.

    the reason for Christ to come is first to accomplish the promise the scriptures made to the faithful people of old.

    and secondly to save, not the ones who know or think they know how to be saved,but to save the ones who depend totally on him and his father to have live,and so follow the only way to salvation.

    if you add to Christ words this would place you above Jesus ,and if you worship Christ then you should be worship as well,and this would be evil.

    Christ is just what he says he is.and what scriptures says about him.

    Pierre

    #206872
    Arnold
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2010,14:01)

    Quote (Arnold @ July 30 2010,13:26)
    Mike!  That is also how I have always thought Jesus was in John 1:1 and Hebrew 1:8.  Also in Ancient times many were called Gods.  So I find it either way, as long as we understand that The Word of God in Rev. 19 is Jesus.  Because that I cannot see any other way.  He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  That makes no trinity, because of God's Holy Spirit is not a person.  The trinitarian will want to use it for their believes that is why I say that.  Oh sprechen Sie deutch????:):)that comes directly out of the Catholic Church……….One more thing, in the Old Test. LORD is always in capital letters, while Jesus is Lord of Lords.  and LORD is Jehovah God…..Peace Irene


    Hi Irene,

    And Jesus being a god, or “mighty one” in no way infers he is THE Almighty One or even a part of Him anymore than the Philistine “mighty one” Dagon being called “god” would infer he was part of THE God or equal to Him.

    And any time you read LORD in the OT, it is how the English translators render the Hebrew YHVH.  So when you read LORD, the original Hebrew text actually used God's divine name YHVH, there.  In other words, when you read LORD in most English translations, the Hebrew text actually said “Jehovah”, but the English translators changed it to LORD.

    peace and love,
    mike


    Mike! I don't know were Georg read but as far as LORD is concerned the Translators were afraid to take His name in vain, and therefore started using LORD instead….I find it rather interesting that even our German Bibles is saying “Das Word Gottes” Meaning The Word of God….the only Bible that differs is the Moffatt translation of King James. In it it says Logos instead of Word…in both John 1:1 and Rev. 19:13, but then in verse 16 it says KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS…all in capital letters, just like the rest of our Bibles..
    Even in the Rye study Bible of King James it says The Word of God……we do have a Hebrew and Greek Translation, however I have no idea what it says. And I am not going to learn another language, two is enough….
    Peace to you, Irene

    #206890
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2010,08:25)

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2010,23:08)

    Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,19:15)

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2010,15:57)

    Quote (terraricca @ July 28 2010,22:51)

    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


    terraricca,
    This has really helped me differentiate between how man came about and how the Son came about.

    Man-created
    The Son of God-procreated

    You see, when one is procreated/begotten they are like the one that beget them.  Since the Heavenly Father is self-sufficient, He had no need for a counterpart to have a literal offspring.

    When something is created, then they are not like the one that created them.

    It has really helped me understand the difference and see the Son as God also.  God begets God…an unbegotten God and a begotten God.


    hi LU

    it is understood that God, i mean the true and only God,can make god out of any one he feel to use as is will needed,just like he did with Moses,it is this way that it make sense to understand how Jesus ,the WORD,the Christ became god according to the will of GOD his father,(Christ did not become got of his father ,he is nominate by his father,big difference)
    now it could be understand that Jesus always said ;i do my father s will,;I speak my fathers words;and also;i have been send ,and i go back to where i come from ;heaven;
    we also now understand his birth,by the intervention of God organization.

    we also understand the words Jesus said before he died,ALL IS DONE.

    the reason for Christ to come is first to accomplish the promise the scriptures made to the faithful people of old.

    and secondly to save, not the ones who know or think they know how to be saved,but to save the ones who depend totally on him and his father to have live,and so follow the only way to salvation.

    Pierre


    terraricca,
    So you equate the only begotten Son of God to be a designated god?  Is that what you are saying?  You don't know that the Son has the same nature as His Father?  Moses did not have the same nature as deity, the Son does.  There is a big difference between a person designated to act as god and a person being born one.


    LU

    no i do not equate Christ to his father,and this is not a thesis for a Dr or master degree,

    God word is to be understood by the spirit of truth,not by some grammar wording and definition in the hands of the scholars.

    the reason for Christ to come is first to accomplish the promise the scriptures made to the faithful people of old.

    and secondly to save, not the ones who know or think they know how to be saved,but to save the ones who depend totally on him and his father to have live,and so follow the only way to salvation.

    if you add to Christ words this would place you above Jesus ,and if you worship Christ then you should be worship as well,and this would be evil.

    Christ is just what he says he is.and what scriptures says about him.

    Pierre


    terraricca,
    My question was whether you were equating the only begotten Son of God with others that are 'designated' as God like Moses.

    Do you think that the Spirit can enlighten the written scriptures to us and change our previous supposed understanding? Do you think that it is possible that the Spirit wants to reveal truth in what is written? Do you think that the Spirit wants to make what seems unclear…clear? If the Spirit enlightens us towards a clear understanding towards unclear scripture is that adding to the words or bringing life to the words?

    #206898
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 31 2010,11:32)

    Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2010,08:25)

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2010,23:08)

    Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,19:15)

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2010,15:57)

    Quote (terraricca @ July 28 2010,22:51)

    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


    terraricca,
    This has really helped me differentiate between how man came about and how the Son came about.

    Man-created
    The Son of God-procreated

    You see, when one is procreated/begotten they are like the one that beget them.  Since the Heavenly Father is self-sufficient, He had no need for a counterpart to have a literal offspring.

    When something is created, then they are not like the one that created them.

    It has really helped me understand the difference and see the Son as God also.  God begets God…an unbegotten God and a begotten God.


    hi LU

    it is understood that God, i mean the true and only God,can make god out of any one he feel to use as is will needed,just like he did with Moses,it is this way that it make sense to understand how Jesus ,the WORD,the Christ became god according to the will of GOD his father,(Christ did not become got of his father ,he is nominate by his father,big difference)
    now it could be understand that Jesus always said ;i do my father s will,;I speak my fathers words;and also;i have been send ,and i go back to where i come from ;heaven;
    we also now understand his birth,by the intervention of God organization.

    we also understand the words Jesus said before he died,ALL IS DONE.

    the reason for Christ to come is first to accomplish the promise the scriptures made to the faithful people of old.

    and secondly to save, not the ones who know or think they know how to be saved,but to save the ones who depend totally on him and his father to have live,and so follow the only way to salvation.

    Pierre


    terraricca,
    So you equate the only begotten Son of God to be a designated god?  Is that what you are saying?  You don't know that the Son has the same nature as His Father?  Moses did not have the same nature as deity, the Son does.  There is a big difference between a person designated to act as god and a person being born one.


    LU

    no i do not equate Christ to his father,and this is not a thesis for a Dr or master degree,

    God word is to be understood by the spirit of truth,not by some grammar wording and definition in the hands of the scholars.

    the reason for Christ to come is first to accomplish the promise the scriptures made to the faithful people of old.

    and secondly to save, not the ones who know or think they know how to be saved,but to save the ones who depend totally on him and his father to have live,and so follow the only way to salvation.

    if you add to Christ words this would place you above Jesus ,and if you worship Christ then you should be worship as well,and this would be evil.

    Christ is just what he says he is.and what scriptures says about him.

    Pierre


    terraricca,
    My question was whether you were equating the only begotten Son of God with others that are 'designated' as God like Moses.

    Do you think that the Spirit can enlighten the written scriptures to us and change our previous supposed understanding?  Do you think that it is possible that the Spirit wants to reveal truth in what is written?  Do you think that the Spirit wants to make what seems unclear…clear?  If the Spirit enlightens us towards a clear understanding towards unclear scripture is that adding to the words or bringing life to the words?


    LU

    first, those are good questions.

    1)My question was whether you were equating the only begotten Son of God with others that are 'designated' as God like Moses
    ans;no ,any one who s God make god ,is in is own environment according to Gods will and needs.

    2)Do you think that the Spirit can enlighten the written scriptures to us and change our previous supposed understanding?

    ans;no,all as been said ,the only remains to be accomplish is what as already been said.anything different will be from the devil.apostate.

    3) Do you think that it is possible that the Spirit wants to reveal truth in what is written?

    ans;this is true ,but how can you be sure that it is the spirit of truth and not the spirit of deceit??

    4)
    Do you think that the Spirit wants to make what seems unclear…clear?
    yes,but this is accomplish on the inside of a believer from the heart,Paul talk about it,but it is always related to the truth of God will,and there is no deceit in it .

    5) If the Spirit enlightens us towards a clear understanding towards unclear scripture is that adding to the words or bringing life to the words?

    ans;your enlightenment is from God trough his spirit ,and can not for that reason be nothing else than what as been said already but to you it will be more understandable more real,so that your faith become very strong.

    6)You don't know that the Son has the same nature as His Father?
    ans;he as some of the nature of his father ,but the % of it i do not know.thus anyone know?

    7)There is a big difference between a person designated to act as god and a person being born one.

    ans;what were the circumstances for Moses to be nominated god?who did Moses represent?i mea
    n in the future ,and the 144k would they not become like gods as well judging the nations?and anyone who acting in Gods name is he not a god,is it not for that reason that it is written you are all gods,but there is only one God.
    In scripture when it says that at the end of it all even Christ will submit all things to his father ,WHO IS GOD NOW??and remain so forever.

    Pierre

    #206914
    Lightenup
    Participant

    terraricca,
    thanks for your answers. Why do you say that the Son has some percent of the Father's nature. Do you just have some percent of your earthly father's nature or are you 100% man?

    #206916
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 31 2010,20:28)
    terraricca,
    thanks for your answers.  Why do you say that the Son has some percent of the Father's nature.  Do you just have some percent of your earthly father's nature or are you 100% man?


    LU

    if you would have known my father ,and then known me you could swear that i was not is son.

    you see even we both are humans we are a world apart,
    flesh does count for nothing.

    in the case of Jesus Christ the WORD the first born of all creation sure he as the qualities of his father,but he is not his father,so he can not be the same,

    he as by is birth become the god to all creation ,just like Moses became god to Israel and the egyptians,

    to make it even simpler Jesus his the only connection to GOD his father we have,you see there is no one else.

    until the time come to past that we all become gods in our own right ,Jesus Christ is the only way to the true GOD.

    Pierre

    #206923
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (kerwin @ July 30 2010,15:33)
    Out of curiosity, how would you phrase it if you were speaking of glory God reserved for you before the beginning of the world even though you did not exist yet?  To me the words “I had” seem appropriate as it is something attributed to the speaker in the past.


    Hi Kerwin,

    You answer the riddle in your own post.  It was something attributed to the speaker in the past, while he was in God's presence in the past.  Who is the speaker?

    You try to make it sound as if it makes sense for Jesus to be saying, “Can I, the person, now have that glory you've had set aside in your presence waiting for me since before the world was created?”

    That's crazy talk, Kerwin.  But more to the point, THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID.  He said, “Glorify ME…..with the glory I HAD….”  How could the man Jesus, who is clearly the one speaking, have HAD glory IN GOD'S PRESENCE before if he never was in God's presence before?  He doesn't say for God to glorify him with the glory YOU HAVE HAD waiting for me since before the world was created.

    Do you deny the words “ME” and “I HAD”?  How can you think personal pronouns are in referrence to a non-person thing like glory?

    You asked how I would word it……”And now God, could you bestow upon me the glory that you have held beside yourself in anticipation of this occasion?”, or something like that I guess.  I wouldn't ever say “the glory I HAD IN YOUR PRESENCE”.

    The person Jesus couldn't say I HAD that glory before if he didn't exist before.

    mike

    #206924
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2010,16:11)
    Mike, Mike, Mike…

    Kathi doesn't fail to remember…Kathi just believes that worshiping Jesus is part of the process of worshiping the Father and it pleases the Father.


    Sadly, AGAINST what God Almighty commands. ???

Viewing 20 posts - 8,581 through 8,600 (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