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 - 8,641 through 8,660 (of 19,165 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #207238
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Hi Jack,

    Do you even read what you write?  First, why wasn't it mentioned that the holy spirit was a third of God in the original Nicene Creed?  In other words, why do you think it took 55 years to give props to your God #3?  It's a direct question, I'll await a direct answer.

    Second, you said:

    Quote
    ATTN MIKE: Whether the ancient peoples were right or wrong is not the point. Many ancient peoples had a concept of God as a triune being.

    Yes Jack.  These are the people God had the land “vomit up” because of their disgustion practices.  And now you claim that the trinitarians are in “good company”?   ???   WOW!

    mike

    #207289
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (martian @ Aug. 02 2010,02:19)
    This is the sense of John 6:62 as well. Yahshua was, at one time, in heaven. He existed in the loins of His Father Yahweh (in the sense of future lineage) until the appointed time of his earthly birth.


    Hi Martian,

    So Jesus was looking forward to ascending back to where he could be a “sperm” inside his Father's “loins” again?  This is the fantastic “glory” Jesus was talking about?  He was hoping to go back to a “sperm” that couldn't walk, talk, think or do anything else?

    Not likely.

    mike

    #207295
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 31 2010,15:24)

    Quote (t8 @ July 30 2010,23:03)
    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.


    I don't necessarily disagree with your (and apparently Origen's) understanding.  Origen even claims the same reason for coming to his understanding as you do…….fear of people thinking “two gods”.  He says people's fear of this drives them to false doctrines.

    I completely understand this fear.  But should we make it out to be “god” instead of “a god” out of fear of what others would make of it?

    Where else in all of scripture is “god” used as a qualifier without any article or as a substitute for “divine”?

    mike


    Hey t8,

    I thought of something else.  John 1:18 NWT says,

    18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

    The Greek manuscripts vary.  Some have “only begotten son” while others have “only begotten god”.  NETBible says only one letter differentiated between the words.  They also say that “theos” is the more likely candidate, since it is less likely a scribe rendered “son” as “god” than it is the other way around.  They list more info than I can understand:
    http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Joh&chapter=1&verse=18

    I'll look into it a little closer sometime, but “the only begotten god” makes a good case for John thinking Jesus was “a god”, but not “THE God”.  And that fits well with my understanding of John 1:1.  And also shreds the first evidence I personally would call “solid” about why neither John nor Jesus said anything to Thomas when he said, “My Lord and my god”.  If it was common word usage to call a mighty one “god”, then I'm sure that's what Thomas was implying when he saw the once dead, now living Jesus in front of him. For a dead person to be alive again must have seemed like a very “mighty” thing to accomplish in Thomas' eyes.

    peace and love,
    mike

    Food for thought,
    mike

    #207380
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Mike………….Jesus became a begotten Son at the Jordan River. Jesus Plainly said ” FOR THOU ART THE ONLY TRUE GOD” Can we not agree on that at least brother.

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

    #207387
    terraricca
    Participant

    hi

    the pharisees believed in the resurrection,how come?
    the sadducees did not why ?
    the zealots believe that it was trough a men from David offspring that Israel will trow the enemy out of the land .why?

    why did Jesus not joint any of them?was it because there was no truth in them? like in most of today Christians,

    how better the lip service how bigger is the pay back and deceit,
    we are after all in the advance world today,
    there is so knowledge that we forgot to practice what we should.

    no time to obey to the word,only talk about.

    Pierre

    #207399

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 31 2010,15:24)

    Quote (t8 @ July 30 2010,23:03)
    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.


    I don't necessarily disagree with your (and apparently Origen's) understanding.  Origen even claims the same reason for coming to his understanding as you do…….fear of people thinking “two gods”.  He says people's fear of this drives them to false doctrines.

    I completely understand this fear.  But should we make it out to be “god” instead of “a god” out of fear of what others would make of it?

    Where else in all of scripture is “god” used as a qualifier without any article or as a substitute for “divine”?

    mike


    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 01 2010,21:21)
    Hey t8,

    I thought of something else.  John 1:18 NWT says,

    18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

    The Greek manuscripts vary.  Some have “only begotten son” while others have “only begotten god”.  NETBible says only one letter differentiated between the words.  They also say that “theos” is the more likely candidate, since it is less likely a scribe rendered “son” as “god” than it is the other way around.  They list more info than I can understand:
    http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Joh&chapter=1&verse=18


    I love it when you guys use Trinitarian quotes to support your conclusions even though the conclusions of the Trinitarian Scholars disagree with yours. For instance this part of the NET's commentary…

    Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). “Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.“” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 01 2010,21:21)
    I'll look into it a little closer sometime, but “the only begotten god” makes a good case for John thinking Jesus was “a god”, but not “THE God”.


    But that is not the conclusion of the Scholars at all is it Mike. So you think you know more than they?

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 01 2010,21:21)
    And that fits well with my understanding of John 1:1.  And also shreds the first evidence I personally would call “solid” about why neither John nor Jesus said anything to Thomas when he said, “My Lord and my god”.  If it was common word usage to call a mighty one “god”, then I'm sure that's what Thomas was implying when he saw the once dead, now living Jesus in front of him.  For a dead person to be alive again must have seemed like a very “mighty” thing to accomplish in Thomas' eyes.


    Please!!! Where in the NT is it “common usage to call one god”?  ???

    Thomas didn't call Jesus “his mighty one” did he? There are Greek and Aramaic words for that.

    But once again you disagree with Thomas testimony for you say Jesus is not your God (Theos), while Thomas calls Jesus his “Lord and God (Theos)”.

    WJ

    #207424
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Keith,
    I think that we use trinitarian's comments because we are trying to help you see some things that they saw and you argue against over and over, like the meaning of 'monogenes' in John, for example.

    I don't think that earlier trinitarians have as much of a difference with me as you, Jack and I do.  I'm trying to get you to realize that so that we can get a bridge built instead of keep building a wall and digging the moat larger and larger.  Do you want to build bridges or build walls and dig moats?

    The earlier trinitarians are different than today's trinitarians, imo.

    #207425

    Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:30)
    Keith,
    I think that we use trinitarian's comments because we are trying to help you see some things that they saw and you argue against over and over, like the meaning of 'monogenes' in John, for example.

    I don't think that earlier trinitarians have as much of a difference with me as you, Jack and I do.  I'm trying to get you to realize that so that we can get a bridge built instead of keep building a wall and digging the moat larger and larger.  Do you want to build bridges or build walls and dig moats?

    The earlier trinitarians are different than today's trinitarians, imo.


    kathi

    There is no bridge or gap to a Jesus that was created or “literrally born” before time.

    The Forefathers didn't believe that and especially the Trinitarian Forefathers.

    They believed in the co-eternal, co-equal nature of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit.

    You are trying to twist their words to fit your doctrine. Your recent claim concerning Calvin is proff of this for Calvins own words are…

    …WHEN IT IS EVIDENT THAT THREE PERSONS HAVE SUBSISTED IN ONE GOD FROM ETERNITY…

    And that isn't even close to what you believe about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is it Kathi?

    WJ

    #207446
    JustAskin
    Participant

    Hey Brother Terra, where ya' been, man?

    #207457
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 03 2010,19:02)
    Hey Brother Terra, where ya' been, man?


    hi JA

    it all is repetition over and over again,it is like building a house then destroyed it and start over again never built a town only same things over ,many do not read the past topics,they do not supply truth but their views disregard what is written in scriptures,
    as long that it make sense to them it s ok.

    Pierre

    #207459
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 02 2010,15:42)

    Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:30)
    Keith,
    I think that we use trinitarian's comments because we are trying to help you see some things that they saw and you argue against over and over, like the meaning of 'monogenes' in John, for example.

    I don't think that earlier trinitarians have as much of a difference with me as you, Jack and I do.  I'm trying to get you to realize that so that we can get a bridge built instead of keep building a wall and digging the moat larger and larger.  Do you want to build bridges or build walls and dig moats?

    The earlier trinitarians are different than today's trinitarians, imo.


    kathi

    There is no bridge or gap to a Jesus that was created or “literrally born” before time.

    The Forefathers didn't believe that and especially the Trinitarian Forefathers.

    They believed in the co-eternal, co-equal nature of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit.

    You are trying to twist their words to fit your doctrine. Your recent claim concerning Calvin is proff of this for Calvins own words are…

    …WHEN IT IS EVIDENT THAT THREE PERSONS HAVE SUBSISTED IN ONE GOD FROM ETERNITY…

    And that isn't even close to what you believe about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is it Kathi?

    WJ


    Actually, Keith, the early Christians did believe in a literal begetting of a Son from the Father before the ages. That which was co-eternal, co-equal was the NATURE. That is what their point is. The nature which they both share always existed, the Son does not contain a new and different nature from the Father but a nature that ALWAYS EXISTED from the Father. The separate person of the Son did not always exist, but his nature did always exist within the Father. That is what these early Christians are saying.

    Your nature, common to man, existed since God created man and did not always exist before that. The Son's nature, common to God, existed always. The nature common to God did not have a beginning and thus, the nature of God and the Son of God is co-eternal and co-equal. Perfect came FROM Perfect. Less than perfect DID NOT come from Perfect. The Son's nature is not less than the Father's. That is the message.

    The Christians who think that the Son is not a literal offspring of the Father before the ages are not in agreement with the early Christians!

    The perfect nature always existed and was not made within time or just before time.

    #207463
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    [quote=WorshippingJesus,Aug. 03 2010,05:12][/quote]
    Hi WJ,

    You quoted:

    Quote
    means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.“”

    I can live with that second one…….so what's your point?

    You said:

    Quote
    But that is not the conclusion of the Scholars at all is it Mike.

    What are you talking about?  The Greek says “the only begotten god”.  Well, actually it says:

    God no one has seen at any time; only-beggotten god the [one] being into the bosom of the Father, that [one] explained.

    How did I misspeak?

    You said:

    Quote
    Please!!! Where in the NT is it “common usage to call one god”?  ???


    First, I didn't say NT.  And I referred to “Biblical times” in general.  And there were many called “god” in the Bible.  One of them was Jesus.  Another was Satan.  Some were angels and some were men.  The word simply meant “mighty one” in those days.

    You said:

    Quote
    Thomas didn't call Jesus “his mighty one” did he? There are Greek and Aramaic words for that.


    Well, if he called him “god”, then he was calling him a “mighty one”.  The question is, do you think Thomas was really saying Jesus was “THE ALMIGHTY ONE”, and no one said anything about it?

    mike

    #207464
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 03 2010,07:42)
    There is no bridge or gap to a Jesus that was created or “literrally born” before time.

    The Forefathers didn't believe that and especially the Trinitarian Forefathers.

    They believed in the co-eternal, co-equal nature of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit.


    Hey WJ,

    Why don't you try to show that from the Nicene Creed?  Not the anathema, but the Creed itself.  Or maybe from Eusebius or Ignatius.

    Kathi is right, the “trinitarians” of old seemed to teach nothing of what you and Jack claim they believed.

    And I asked Jack, so now I'll ask you:
    Why do you think it took 55 years from the Nicene Creed for your God #3 to be established as a member of the trinity?

    1.  The Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. was actually scriptural.
    2.  The anathema added to it spoke about more of a “binity”.
    3.  God wasn't a “trinity” until 381 A.D.

    Why do you think that is?

    mike

    #207467
    Arnold
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 03 2010,13:36)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 03 2010,07:42)
    There is no bridge or gap to a Jesus that was created or “literrally born” before time.

    The Forefathers didn't believe that and especially the Trinitarian Forefathers.

    They believed in the co-eternal, co-equal nature of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit.


    Hey WJ,

    Why don't you try to show that from the Nicene Creed?  Not the anathema, but the Creed itself.  Or maybe from Eusebius or Ignatius.

    Kathi is right, the “trinitarians” of old seemed to teach nothing of what you and Jack claim they believed.

    And I asked Jack, so now I'll ask you:
    Why do you think it took 55 years from the Nicene Creed for your God #3 to be established as a member of the trinity?

    1.  The Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. was actually scriptural.
    2.  The anathema added to it spoke about more of a “binity”.
    3.  God wasn't a “trinity” until 381 A.D.

    Why do you think that is?

    mike

    mike


    Mike! My Husband knows much about Ancient History. In His Book He writes that it was Constantine in 313A.D. when that after a brutasl and bloody three Centuries He issued an edit granting all Christians full freedom to practice their religion…. was it not about he same time when Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullian came up with the trinity??? It is said that the trinity is His best achievement to Christianity…
    He was born to Pagan Parents in A.D. 155. To 381 He would have to been 126 years old….That sounds rather old….Do you have any prove of that???? Also it was the Roman Universal Church at that time, which became the Roman Catholic Church….And all other Churches came out of Her….
    Rather interesting….Irene

    #207479
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (Arnold @ Aug. 03 2010,13:51)
    Mike!   My Husband knows much about Ancient History.  In His Book He writes that it was Constantine in 313A.D. when that after a brutasl and bloody three Centuries He issued an edit granting all Christians full freedom to practice their religion…. was it not about he same time when Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullian came up with the trinity???  It is said that the trinity is His best achievement to Christianity…
    He was born to Pagan Parents in A.D. 155.  To 381 He would have to been 126 years old….That sounds rather old….Do you have any prove of that???? Also it was the Roman Universal Church at that time, which became the Roman Catholic Church….And all other Churches came out of Her….
    Rather interesting….Irene


    Hi Irene,

    This is some of what I know about it:
    I don’t think anyone can say for sure when some people started to consider Jesus Christ as Almighty God.  There is no evidence of this kind of thinking for almost 300 years after Jesus died.  Then, in the year 321 A.D., a bible scholar from Alexandria, named Arius, differed with his bishop, Athanasius on the question of whether Christ was a finite or an eternal being.  Arius believed that Jesus, even as the Logos (Word), was a created being.  Jesus, he argued, had a beginning, while God was without beginning.  Athanasius asserted that the Son was eternal, uncreated, and of the same essence with God.  To settle the dispute, Athanasius had Arius deposed, which only caused the controversy to spread all over.  

    Roman Emperor Constantine, an early champion of the Catholic Church, wanted peace among his subjects, many of whom were Christians.  After trying (and failing) to mediate a resolution, he called a council of the whole church to settle the issue once and for all.  In the year 325 A.D., delegate bishops were invited, and 300 of those (about 18% of those invited) met at Nicaea and, under pressure from the Emperor, adopted the Nicene Creed.  This famous creed states that the Son is, “…God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of the same substance with the Father…”.  This creed was bitterly denounced by many, and actually revoked by later councils, which changed it to state that the Son is, “…of like substance” with the Father, and “we call the Son like  the Father, as the Holy Scriptures call him and teach.”

    But the decision of these councils did not stand.  The church later went back to the Nicene Creed.  Even then it took many generations before it became sacrosanct and infallible in the eyes of the church.  

    This is from research I have done, but it doesn't tell us how Athenasius came to believe like he did.  So maybe it did all start with Tertullian.  I have no reason to doubt Georg's research.

    But the Nicene Creed was penned in 325, and the Constantinopolitan Creed was penned in 381.  You can study it and see both creeds side by side on this site:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki…._of_381

    peace and love,
    mike

    #207502
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Mike,
    The more that I read of earlier Christians, the more I think the difference between the Arians and the others was the question, “Was the Son made of the same substance as the Father or was He made out of nothing and thus a foreign substance-but one that is very much like the substance of the Father.”

    #207503
    Lightenup
    Participant

    This attachment put on the first Nicene Creed goes along with what I just posted above.

    [But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

    found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki…._of_381

    #207558

    Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,21:02)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 02 2010,15:42)

    Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:30)
    Keith,
    I think that we use trinitarian's comments because we are trying to help you see some things that they saw and you argue against over and over, like the meaning of 'monogenes' in John, for example.

    I don't think that earlier trinitarians have as much of a difference with me as you, Jack and I do.  I'm trying to get you to realize that so that we can get a bridge built instead of keep building a wall and digging the moat larger and larger.  Do you want to build bridges or build walls and dig moats?

    The earlier trinitarians are different than today's trinitarians, imo.


    kathi

    There is no bridge or gap to a Jesus that was created or “literrally born” before time.

    The Forefathers didn't believe that and especially the Trinitarian Forefathers.

    They believed in the co-eternal, co-equal nature of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit.

    You are trying to twist their words to fit your doctrine. Your recent claim concerning Calvin is proff of this for Calvins own words are…

    …WHEN IT IS EVIDENT THAT THREE PERSONS HAVE SUBSISTED IN ONE GOD FROM ETERNITY…

    And that isn't even close to what you believe about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is it Kathi?

    WJ


    Actually, Keith, the early Christians did believe in a literal begetting of a Son from the Father before the ages.  That which was co-eternal, co-equal was the NATURE.  That is what their point is.  The nature which they both share always existed, the Son does not contain a new and different nature from the Father but a nature that ALWAYS EXISTED from the Father.  The separate person of the Son did not always exist, but his nature did always exist within the Father.  That is what these early Christians are saying.

    Your nature, common to man, existed since God created man and did not always exist before that.  The Son's nature, common to God, existed always.  The nature common to God did not have a beginning and thus, the nature of God and the Son of God is co-eternal and co-equal.  Perfect came FROM Perfect.  Less than perfect DID NOT come from Perfect.  The Son's nature is not less than the Father's.  That is the message.

    The Christians who think that the Son is not a literal offspring of the Father before the ages are not in agreement with the early Christians!

    The perfect nature always existed and was not made within time or just before time.


    Kathi

    Its real simple. The words “begotten” and “firstborn” have different meanings in scripture.

    So lets go at it in a different way. Show me where the Forefathers like “Ignatius” specifically states Jesus was “literrally born” from the Father or where they state “he had a beginning before time”. Because since the words  “begotten” and “firstborn” according to the scrtiptures can mean something different, then it is merely “conjecture” to say he had a beginnig especially since he was the in the beginning with the Father before time which is “Eternity”. Why don't you addres that point?

    WJ

    #207562
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    WJ………..So you believe like the Gnostic's Did right, they believed that Jesus shot out from the Pelora as a GOD and came into this earth to straighten out everything. This teaching was exactly what John was fighting when He wrote that if a man believes not that Jesus came in the flesh he is a Antichrist. The words CAME there means (CAME INTO EXISTENCE). All who believe Jesus was a Preexistence Being are Antichrists. This is the (SPIRIT) (intellect) of the Antichrists.

    God was not trying to perfect preexisting Beings , but mankind and Jesus was the (FIRST) to achieve that goal of perfection among the creation of Man. This shows us what GOD can DO (IN) and Ordinary Man. IMO

    peace and love………………………gene

    #207577
    Arnold
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 04 2010,01:07)

    Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,21:02)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 02 2010,15:42)

    Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:30)
    Keith,
    I think that we use trinitarian's comments because we are trying to help you see some things that they saw and you argue against over and over, like the meaning of 'monogenes' in John, for example.

    I don't think that earlier trinitarians have as much of a difference with me as you, Jack and I do.  I'm trying to get you to realize that so that we can get a bridge built instead of keep building a wall and digging the moat larger and larger.  Do you want to build bridges or build walls and dig moats?

    The earlier trinitarians are different than today's trinitarians, imo.


    kathi

    There is no bridge or gap to a Jesus that was created or “literrally born” before time.

    The Forefathers didn't believe that and especially the Trinitarian Forefathers.

    They believed in the co-eternal, co-equal nature of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit.

    You are trying to twist their words to fit your doctrine. Your recent claim concerning Calvin is proff of this for Calvins own words are…

    …WHEN IT IS EVIDENT THAT THREE PERSONS HAVE SUBSISTED IN ONE GOD FROM ETERNITY…

    And that isn't even close to what you believe about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is it Kathi?

    WJ


    Actually, Keith, the early Christians did believe in a literal begetting of a Son from the Father before the ages.  That which was co-eternal, co-equal was the NATURE.  That is what their point is.  The nature which they both share always existed, the Son does not contain a new and different nature from the Father but a nature that ALWAYS EXISTED from the Father.  The separate person of the Son did not always exist, but his nature did always exist within the Father.  That is what these early Christians are saying.

    Your nature, common to man, existed since God created man and did not always exist before that.  The Son's nature, common to God, existed always.  The nature common to God did not have a beginning and thus, the nature of God and the Son of God is co-eternal and co-equal.  Perfect came FROM Perfect.  Less than perfect DID NOT come from Perfect.  The Son's nature is not less than the Father's.  That is the message.

    The Christians who think that the Son is not a literal offspring of the Father before the ages are not in agreement with the early Christians!

    The perfect nature always existed and was not made within time or just before time.


    Kathi

    Its real simple. The words “begotten” and “firstborn” have different meanings in scripture.

    So lets go at it in a different way. Show me where the Forefathers like “Ignatius” specifically states Jesus was “literrally born” from the Father or where they state “he had a beginning before time”. Because since the words  “begotten” and “firstborn” according to the scrtiptures can mean something different, then it is merely “conjecture” to say he had a beginnig especially since he was the in the beginning with the Father before time which is “Eternity”. Why don't you addres that point?

    WJ


    W.J. Not only Col. 1:15-17 and Rev. 3:14 talks about the firstborn of all creation. also in Hebrew 1:6 He says that He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says………..so we have three Scriptures that states firstborn. Again and in Proverbs 8:22-30 also explains it how God brought forth His Son,and He was called the master craftsman. Wisdom is an essence of God and it simple does not make sense that God would bring forth Wisdom, when He was wise from eternity….I never heard wisdom called a master craftsman either. This only can means that it was Jesus or The Word of God at that time…..verse 30 Also I do not go by any of the Forefathers….. Some are Catholic and they are worship in vain. Math. 15:9 We did for a long time…..From birth to when my Husband was 46 and I was 45. We both were born into that Church….
    Peace and Love Irene
    Peace and Love Irene

Viewing 20 posts - 8,641 through 8,660 (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