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 - 8,681 through 8,700 (of 19,165 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #207730
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Keith,
    Augustine is a trinitarian and I am not, nor do I pretend to be (like some on here). He seems to contradict himself which is understandable since he admits that his God is “incomprehensible” to him. He is consistent with claiming that the Son was the 'only begotten' before creation (and doesn't say the 'only unique' son, btw) and was a Son before creation and did not assume that role beginning in Mary. Therefore, he also understands things differently than you two and would add you to the 'dull of understanding' group. So, I don't know why you set yourselves up?

    It is clear that earlier Christians believed the words were 'only begotten' and not 'the one and only.' That is what I am showing you mainly with all these earlier Christians info…

    Can you and Jack admit that the earlier Christians use the term 'only begotten Son'? They define monogenes as 'only begotten.' That is what I am showing that I agree with, not necessarily the non-scriptural ideas of the trinity.

    #207747
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 04 2010,16:07)

    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.


    Kathi

    The word “Monogenes” was not found referring to Jesus until John 1:14, it is not in John 1:1 and follows after the word “ginomai” (genes) the second half of Monogenes which means “came into existence. Jesus came into existence in the flesh and became the “Monogenes” ((1) single of its kind, only which is the first definition of “Monogenes”. A close study of Phil 2:6-8 shows “ginomai” being used by Paul in reference to Jesus coming in the likeness of sinful flesh (coming into existence) and is found in fashion as a man.

    Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:30)
    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.


    And I am trying to get you to realize that the Trinitarian Fathers are miles apart from you and Mike in their differences as opposed to Jack and I.

    You and Mike insist that the Early Church Fathers believed Jesus had a beginning and when asked to show where this is so you give a quote from Augustine which in context is ambiguous especially seeing that Augustine believed in One Divine being consisting of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

    Why have you and Mike ignored Ignatius quote below?…

    There is one Physician
    who is possessed both of flesh and spirit;
    **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**;
    GOD EXISTING IN FLESH;
    true life in death;
    both of Mary and of God;
    first passible and then impassible,
    –Jesus Christ our Lord (Letter to the Ephesians VII).

    **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**   **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**   **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**

    What does “BORN AND UNBORN” mean Kathi?

    Not to mention the Early Church Fathers believed in the “One God” consisting of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Not a “Binity” where there are 2 divine beings, one being who is literally born from the other.

    I think I might create a thread on the Trinity and the Early Church Fathers.

    WJ


    Keith,
    I have answered the question of 'born and unborn' in the 'born and begotten' topic here:

    https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….y254991

    The answer is so simple.

    As far as monogenes goes, it should by now be painfully clear that the early Christians use the term “only begotten” for monogenes and place that act before the ages.  They equate the 'word' in John 1:1 to the only begotten Son, begotten before the ages.  Or do I need to show you that…again?

    #207749
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 05 2010,12:11)
    To Kathi and Mike and all.

    My business has picked up which is good but requires me to spend less time here on HN.

    I have every intent to continue the debate with Mike in the debates thread, and Kathi I have every intent of answering both yours and Mikes claim that the Early Church Fathers supports your and Mike's views more than Jack and myself.

    Briefly I might mention the theology of the Athanasian Creed is firmly rooted in the Augustinian tradition, using exact terminology of “Augustine's On the Trinity” (published 415 AD).

    A close study of Augustine’s writings on the Trinity shows that his theology as well as the other Fathers lines up with Jacks belief and mine and not with the views of Kathi and especially Mike.

    The Fathers view is there is “One God” consisting of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, not one God who brought birth to a separate being who is another God, not to mention their view of the Holy Spirit is totally alien to Kathi's and Mike's views.

    It will sure be interesting to see how they can prove that the Early Church Fathers views line up with theirs and not ours. :)

    WJ


    WJ

    what a question;It will sure be interesting to see how they can prove that the Early Church Fathers views line up with theirs and not ours

    you are out of your mind,you on one side,the early so called fathers on one side and theirs ? how about God side?

    you live in the dark and smoke,how is it that you CAN discuss what you do not comprehend,you are so self centered on your own ideas ,how can you see the truth of GOD??

    Pierre

    #207750
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 05 2010,05:11)
    To Kathi and Mike and all.

    My business has picked up which is good but requires me to spend less time here on HN.

    I have every intent to continue the debate with Mike in the debates thread, and Kathi I have every intent of answering both yours and Mikes claim that the Early Church Fathers supports your and Mike's views more than Jack and myself.

    Briefly I might mention the theology of the Athanasian Creed is firmly rooted in the Augustinian tradition, using exact terminology of “Augustine's On the Trinity” (published 415 AD).

    A close study of Augustine’s writings on the Trinity shows that his theology as well as the other Fathers lines up with Jacks belief and mine and not with the views of Kathi and especially Mike.

    The Fathers view is there is “One God” consisting of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, not one God who brought birth to a separate being who is another God, not to mention their view of the Holy Spirit is totally alien to Kathi's and Mike's views.

    It will sure be interesting to see how they can prove that the Early Church Fathers views line up with theirs and not ours. :)

    WJ


    I can't wait for you to post some of it! I get a lot of my evidence for refuting the trinity from stuff you and Jack post to support it! :D :laugh: :D

    mike

    #207753
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote

    There is one Physician
    who is possessed both of flesh and spirit;
    **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**;
    GOD EXISTING IN FLESH;
    true life in death;
    both of Mary and of God;
    first passible and then impassible,
    –Jesus Christ our Lord (Letter to the Ephesians VII).

    **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**   **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**   **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**[

    What does “BORN AND UNBORN” mean Mikey?

    The Trinity doctrine teaches that God consist of three co-equal, co-eternal persons in One God Mikey? Thats what Jack and I believe according to the scriptures. You can continue with your misrepresentations and false claims all you like but the truth stands Mikey!

    WJ


    Hello there Mr. Worshipping (the man) Jesus (when God specifically said in Deut 4:15-19 not to)  :D

    15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.

    Is Jesus a man?  Have people ever seen his form?  Was God's Messiah “apportioned to all the nations under heaven” by his God?

    If you can answer “yes” to any of these questions……you are worshipping someone or something God specifically told us not to!  :)

    WJ, why DOES Ignatius say “born and unborn”?  I don't get it.  But more importantly, why do you think he said Jesus was “both OF Mary and OF God”?  We know in what sense Jesus was “OF Mary” – he was BORN OF HER.  So the “BOTH of Mary AND of God” should tell you he thought Jesus was also BORN OF GOD.

    And when you add this letter to the mix…..

    But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.

    …..it seems pretty concrete that Ignatius didn't actually believe what you think he did.  And you can give any trinitarian sponsored definition of begotten that you want to.  Go ahead and try to fit your definition in this sentence in all the various forms of “beget”.  My definition of “procreated” works just fine…….does yours?  Try the “single of it's kind” one.  Try it in all three forms of “beget”.

    If begotten doesn't mean “procreated” here, how is the Father the “unbegotten” and “Begettor”?  Ignatius says Jesus was begotten of God before time began, but afterwards was born of Mary as a man?

    Too many holes, brother.  You'd do well to run from Ignatius like you do from Eusebius!   :laugh:

    peace and love,
    mike

    #207755
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Mike,
    Did you see my response to their question here:

    https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….y255000

    See second post from the top.

    #207803
    gollamudi
    Participant

    Quote (t8 @ Aug. 05 2010,03:50)
    Jesus existed in the form of God. Other translations say that he existed with divine nature. Of course this is easily understood in that it says that he emptied himself and was found in the flesh.

    It is written and what is the point in trying to nullify what is written?


    Hi brother T8,
    If Jesus existed as divine being prior to his birth there must have been two Godly beings existing in heaven at least as per your calculations. Is it not polytheism of Christianity if they say Jesus was divine and emptied himself and came as human into this world?

    Peace to you
    Adam

    #207804
    gollamudi
    Participant

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 05 2010,02:13)

    Quote (gollamudi @ Aug. 04 2010,23:10)
    Hi all,
    Pre-existence of Jesus is another mythology which christianity incorporated into its religion from its pagan neighbours. If Jesus was pre-existing as some being prior to his birth as human he could not be a true human at all but an alien who visited our planet from another celestial abode and after his mission he had flown back to his celestial abode. This is nothing but mythology for which there is no historical proof.
    Be realistic in your approach.
    Thanks and peace to you
    Adam


    Adam………Right on brother. Jesus was the (FIRST) of the Human race to become a real son of GOD at the Jordan River , He is of pure (HUMAN) Stock and no from Heavenly STOCK as a Preexistent Morphed Being would be. God was not trying to save a preexisting being who was already perfect , but a (PURE) Human Being He was Perfecting and creating him into his dear son. Scripture plainly say Jesus was son of man, Jesus even said when the  SON OF MAN COMES WILL HE FIND FAITH ON THE EARTH. Notice he did not say the son of GOD come but Son of Man. Jesus was (BEGOTTEN) as a SON BY GOD AT the JORDAN. “this day (I) have (begotten) you” God said not some time in the Past.  And again (I) shall be a Farther unto him and He shall Be a son unto me. ( this also shows (future tense)> not Past tense.

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


    Amen and love to you brother Gene.

    #207832
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Quote (t8 @ Aug. 05 2010,04:02)

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 05 2010,02:13)
    He is of pure (HUMAN) Stock and no from Heavenly STOCK


    That is your testimony Gene.

    But I believe this testimony.

    Philippians 2:6-11 (New International Version)
    6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
         did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
    7 but made himself nothing,
         taking the very nature[b] 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.

    You are against this Gene.

    Notice how the first sentence in particular completely exposes your quoted statement for what it is. I am not sure what you think you might gain from denying his origins.

    Are you that hard-hearted that such words have no impact on you?


    T8……….You are right that is my testimony and martians and Adams and Nicks, and barely and Jodi. But not yours and some others. Your assuming Paul meant Jesus' preexisting state before He came to earth , but Paul was talking about him as a past event of his (EARTHLY) EXPERIENCE not his prior to a earthly existence. If you apply (existing) as the Greek shows, or (existed) as you believe it makes no different Paul was still talking about his earthly existence period. You are forcing the text to meet your preconceived conclusions.

    As far as hardhearted, that has nothing to do with it , i could say the same about you and others who do not understand Jesus did not exist (as a Being) before His berth on earth except in the plan and will of GOD. No where did Jesus say He (PREEXISTED) as a (live) Being before his earthly experience. No where did Jesus say he was a live being before his berth on earth , you and others force the text to that conclusion, but scripture no where say that you even change or add words to force those conclusion when needed.

    If Jesus did preexist then that would make him and God deceivers by portraying of Him as (SON OF MAN) when in fact he was a morphed preexisting being and even worse saying he was (EXACTLY) like us in every way, this would be a lie and GOD nor Jesus are Liars IMO. Jesus was 100% human in whom GOD the Father Dwelt nothing more and nothing less. Your are separating Jesus from our (EXACT) likeness in (EVERY) way by saying he did not come into his existence (IN) the flesh is the Spirit (intellect) of the Antichrist. IMO

    T8……..The Spirit (BOTH) accuses us and defends us. Why Should we believe those who twist scriptures to meet there false teachings?. You have not come all the way out of the apostate teachings yet brother. IMO

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

    #207851

    Kathi

    Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,20:55)
    Keith,
    Augustine is a trinitarian and I am not, nor do I pretend to be (like some on here).


    Nice jab Kathi. I thought you were trying to build bridges? Can you “define” what a Trinitarian is? Because it seems rather strange that on this site an anti-trinitarian knows more about what a Trinitarian is than a Trinitarian. Kathi, are you pretending to be a “true Christian” according to your church’s definition of what a Christian is? Because “if you  do not agree IN EVERYWAY” in your churches doctrine, then by definition you cannot be a Christian, right? Get the point?

    Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,20:55)
    He seems to contradict himself which is understandable since he admits that his God is “incomprehensible” to him.


    What is understandable is you an “anti-trinitarian” thinks he contradicts himself, but the fact is you try to misrepresent his teachings to conform to your belief. You used his quote as if he agrees with you and now you scorn him. Kathi are you so right and high-minded in your beliefs that you can claim that your finite puny little mind can understand every thing about an infinite being and his nature? Why do you scorn this man for saying God is “incomprehensible”?

    Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,20:55)
    He is consistent with claiming that the Son was the 'only begotten' before creation (and doesn't say the 'only unique' son, btw) and was a Son before creation and did not assume that role beginning in Mary.


    :D Now you praise the man because you think you understand what he means when he says Jesus was the only Begotten Son before creation. :D

    But you haven’t proved that is what he meant since you say “he seems to contradict himself”, have you Kathi? And you sure haven’t proved scripturally that Jesus had a beginning before he came in the flesh.

    Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,20:55)
    Therefore, he also understands things differently than you two and would add you to the 'dull of understanding' group.  So, I don't know why you set yourselves up?


    Not at all.

    He says…
    But the first two together are two men, the Latter together is BUT ONE GOD; this is a divine miracle”.

    Is that what you believe Kathi, because that is what we believe?

    Let’s uses some common sense here.

    You believe that a divine being called God who is infinite gave literal birth to a God from his own substance and this God is another being but has the same substance and is equal to this infinite God.

    Can Gods substance be divided and yet be one? If God took a part of himself and procreated a separate being then that would mean that part of God is with another being which would mean that God is no longer fully God but part God, because part of God is another being now called a Son.

    This is why the Forefathers wrote against the Arians…

    that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, NOR DIVIDING THE SUBSTANCE. for there is one person of the father, another of the son, and another of the holy ghost.

    Ah but you will say, in the natural part of the man goes to being his Son but the man is still fully man. True, but now you have 2 Equal Men and not one which means you have double strength, power and ability, right? After all there is power in numbers, right?

    It is your contention that the Father and the Son is equal, right?

    So if God took a part of himself and procreated another being that is equal to himself yet remained fully God then that would mean that God could reproduce himself and become even more powerful. So if that is true then why stop at only one Son of his substance?

    But of course we know that an infinite God does not reproduce an infinite God, don’t we? So that would mean that the Son would have to be less than the Father who is infinite meaning the substance of the Father would have to become less because it is no longer part of the whole. Which means God brings birth to “a god” meaning you have two Gods and not one, one “Infinite” God and one “finite” god, right?

    True reproduction is not even close to what you and Mike propose the Father has done, does it? So how in the world can you guys make the case scripturally that the word “begotten” in relation to Jesus has the same meaning as a “Father literally begetting a son”?

    How can one being bring birth to another being and yet they are the same being?

    Attention Kathi and Mike. The Trinitarian Fathers believed that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “One God”, one being!

    But how can this be if he was “literally born” from the Father?

    Once again Kathi and Mike. The words “begotten” or Monogenes has other meanings than literally being born. Kathi monogenes is used in the scripture speaking of Isaac as the “Only begotten Son” of the promise in Hebrews 11:17, and we know that he was not the “Only Son” nor was he the “firstborn” Son.

    So whenever you guys say you have proof Jesus had a beginning, it is only conjecture based on “Your own private interpretation” of certain words that can be interpreted in other ways, and not based on the facts.

    Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,20:55)
    It is clear that earlier Christians believed the words were 'only begotten' and not 'the one and only.'


    What is the difference Kathi? Isaac was the “One and only” Son of the promise, right? Are you saying that there are or will be other “Only begotten Sons”?

    Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,20:55)
    That is what I am showing you mainly with all these earlier Christians info…


    No Kathi, what you and Mike are doing is taking the words of Trinitarian Fathers (since you can't prove it from scriptures) and misrepresenting them to fit your views when in fact your views contradict them.

    Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,20:55)
    Can you and Jack admit that the earlier Christians use the term 'only begotten Son'?  They define monogenes as 'only begotten.'  That is what I am showing
    that I agree with, not necessarily the non-scriptural ideas of the trinity.


    First of all how do you know they are using the word “monogenes” or “gennaō”? Can you post some proof? Secondly both words can mean “literally born” or begotten as in adoption without procreation. Heb 11:17 – 1 Cor 4:15 – Phm 1:10

    Question…

    Does the words “monogenes” or “gennaō” have different meanings than being literally born or procreated?

    Its a simple yes or no question.

    WJ

    #207868
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Keith,
    Do you believe that the SON always existed before Mary? If not, then you do not agree with the trinity doctrine which states that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal. I don't believe you do. In fact you believe that the the second person of the trinity took on a role as a son in Mary and that is not at all what the trinity doctrine says.

    Btw, the Father did not divide to have a son. Reproduction is multiplication, not division. Surely you have heard “be fruitful and multiply.”

    The words “monogenes” or “gennao” have different meanings and the one that the early Christians use is begotten and only begotten. You must be kidding to say that you question that by now. Are you really suggesting that the Son of God was adopted? If that is so, you are farther from the trinity doctrine than we thought.

    And another thing…you say that Isaac was the one and only son of the promise and I agree. He was also the only begotten son of the promise. Ishmael was not at all a son of the promise, was he. That makes Isaac the only begotten son of the promise. Get it…it is really quite simple.
    Here is a very good question that I would like Augustine to answer:

    Quote
    How can one being bring birth to another being and yet they are the same being?


    Exactly, they can't. One begets, the other is begotten…two beings together in unity. Simple, read Ignatius to help you with that one, he was John's disciple and was martyred for worshipping the begotten God and the unbegotten God, btw.

    Have you ever really wondered how 3 persons are all parts of 1 being. Augustine doesn't know what to say except…”its a miracle.” And we have no scripture that says that the 3 persons are only 1 being. Talk about division. geeesh!

    I am glad that you admit that monogenes and gennao can mean literally born or procreated. That's a step :)

    Augustine, the one that says God is uncomprehensible should have not continued to act like he could comprehend Him and there should have never been a doctrine written explaining God from the beliefs of a man that explained him yet admits He is uncomprehensible. Many Christians today are still wondering today how three persons can be only one being. And the answer…its a miracle? Who on here would just roll over and accept that? Oh yeah, you and Jack believe that.

    Mike and I have scripture to show that the Son existed (obviously) before creating what He created. There are no scripture that says three persons are one being though.

    #207870
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    WorshippingJesus said to Kathi:

    Quote
    Can Gods substance be divided and yet be one?


    Of course not and Kathi knows this. Jesus is the “indistinct representation of His substance” (Heb. 1).

    Jack

    #207871
    Lightenup
    Participant

    And Kathi said to WorshippingJesus:

    Quote
    Btw, the Father did not divide to have a son. Reproduction is multiplication, not division. Surely you have heard “be fruitful and multiply.”

    Jack, what Bible version uses the word “indistinct?”

    I don't see anything that says 'indistinct' in these translations.
    Hebrews 1:3

    NET ©
    The Son is 1 the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, 2 and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 3

    NIV ©
    The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

    NASB ©
    And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

    NLT ©
    The Son reflects God’s own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly. He sustains the universe by the mighty power of his command. After he died to cleanse us from the stain of sin, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God of heaven.

    MSG ©
    This Son perfectly mirrors God, and is stamped with God's nature. He holds everything together by what he says–powerful words! After he finished the sacrifice for sins, the Son took his honored place high in the heavens right alongside God,

    BBE ©
    Who, being the outshining of his glory, the true image of his substance, supporting all things by the word of his power, having given himself as an offering making clean from sins, took his seat at the right hand of God in heaven;

    NRSV ©
    He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

    NKJV ©
    who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

    #207872
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    Kathi said:

    Quote
    Have you ever really wondered how 3 persons are all parts of 1 being.  Augustine doesn't know what to say except…”its a miracle.”  And we have no scripture that says that the 3 persons are only 1 being.


    Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary:

    Being: Essential nature, substance.

    “And God created the Adam in His own image. Male and female He created them.”

    “Behold, “the Adam has become as one of Us to know good and evil.”

    “And the Lord kicked the Adam out of the garden.”

    Sure looks like God counted them as one being to me.

    Let Kathi operate under the common definition of “being” and not super impose her own definition. The being (essential nature or substance) of the man and the woman was one being. God called them “the Adam.”

    the Roo

    #207873
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    Worshippingjesus said:

    Quote
    No Kathi, what you and Mike are doing is taking the words of Trinitarian Fathers (since you can't prove it from scriptures) and misrepresenting them to fit your views when in fact your views contradict them.


    Boom! You hit it square on the head Keith.

    Jack

    #207875
    KangarooJack
    Participant

    Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 06 2010,07:56)
    And Kathi said to WorshippingJesus:

    Quote
    Btw, the Father did not divide to have a son.  Reproduction is multiplication, not division. Surely you have heard “be fruitful and multiply.”

    Jack, what Bible version uses the word “indistinct?”

    I don't see anything that says 'indistinct' in these translations.
    Hebrews 1:3

    NET ©
    The Son is 1  the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, 2  and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 3

    NIV ©
    The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

    NASB ©
    And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

    NLT ©
    The Son reflects God’s own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly. He sustains the universe by the mighty power of his command. After he died to cleanse us from the stain of sin, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God of heaven.

    MSG ©
    This Son perfectly mirrors God, and is stamped with God's nature. He holds everything together by what he says–powerful words! After he finished the sacrifice for sins, the Son took his honored place high in the heavens right alongside God,

    BBE ©
    Who, being the outshining of his glory, the true image of his substance, supporting all things by the word of his power, having given himself as an offering making clean from sins, took his seat at the right hand of God in heaven;

    NRSV ©
    He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

    NKJV ©
    who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,


    See Vine's Expository Dictionary.

    The Greek “Charakter”

    “The Son of God is not merely His image, He is the image or impress of His substance or essence. It is the fact of complete similarity which this word stresses” p. 247.

    The word “charakter” is used in the LXX in Lev. 13:28. Leupold translates Lev. 13:28 using the word “indistinct.”

    The ESV which you did not include translates it as “exact.”

    Funk and Wagnalls on “exact”

    “Perfectly clear and complete in every detail; precise”

    the Roo

    #207880
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Oh thanks Roo,
    So one person can be younger than another and be considered one with the other. So the Father can be one with the Son and they don't have to be the same age, just the same nature. God it!

    So the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same nature. Is that really what the trinitarians claim. I can agree with that. They really don't have to be the same age to be the same nature.

    I thought they meant that the three persons are one God but according to you, the three persons are one nature? Is that correct? Three in one means three persons in one nature?

    As far as two becoming one 'being' in marriage, I thought the term was one flesh, anyway I am wondering if everyone with the same nature is considered one being? All of mankind is one being? Maybe there are other definitions? What do you think? Here is Webster's dictionary's definition:

    be·ing (bē′iŋ)
    noun
    the state or fact of existing or living; existence or life
    fundamental or essential nature
    one who lives or exists, or is assumed to do so: a human being, a divine being
    all the physical and mental qualities that make up a person; personality
    PHILOS.
    fulfillment of possibilities; essential completeness
    that which exists, can exist, or can be logically conceived

    I thought that the intended definition for being in this instance was:
    “one who lives or exists, or is assumed to do so: a human being, a divine being”

    I really do not think that Augustine was implying that being = nature. If he were, then it wouldn't need to be “a miracle” for the two to be one (nature) would it. Man can understand that many can be one nature.

    This is what Augustine said about the two being one:

    Quote
    4. “But,” says he, “the Father commands, that the Son may execute.” Carnal indeed is thy conceit, but without prejudice to the truth, I grant it to you. Lo, the Father commands, the Son obeys; is the Son therefore not of the same Nature, because the One commands, and the Other obeys? Give me two men, father and son; they are two men: he that commands is a man; he that obeys is a man; he that commands and he that obeys have one and the same nature. Does not he that commands, beget a son of his own nature? Does he who obeys, by obeying lose his nature? Now take for the present, as you thus take two men, the Father commanding, the Son obeying, yet God and God. But the first two together are two men, the Latter together is but One God; this is a divine miracle. Meanwhile if you would that with you I acknowledge the obedience, do you first with me acknowledge the Nature. The Father begat That which Himself is. If the Father begat ought else than what Himself is, He did not beget a true Son. The Father saith to the Son, “From the womb before the day-star, I begat Thee.”8 What is, “before the day-star “? By the day-star times are signified. So then before times, before all that is called “before;” before all that is not, or before all that is. For the Gospel does not say, “In the beginning God made the Word;” as it is said, “In the beginning God made the Heaven and the earth;”9 or, “In the beginning was the Word born;” or, “In the beginning God begat the Word.” But what says it? “He was, He was, He was.” You hear, “He was;” believe. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”10 So often do ye hear, “Was:” seek not for thee, for that He always “was.” He then who always was, and was always with the Son, for that God is able to beget without thee; He said to the Son, “From the womb before the day-star I begat Thee.” What is from the womb? Had God a womb? Shall we imagine that God was fashioned with bodily members? God forbid! And why said He, “From the womb,” but that it might be understood that He begat Him of His Own Substance? So then froth the womb came forth That which Himself was who begat. For if He who begat was one thing, and another came forth out of the womb; it were a monster, not a Son.


    from here: http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/b2a.htm

    You see here that Augustine considers a human father and a human son as two men, but God the Father and the Son as one God and a miracle as to how that is. So I don't think he uses your definition of 'same nature, same substance' as one 'being'. That wouldn't take a miracle and wouldn't be different than the human father and human son.

    Roo, you didn't tell me what Bible version that you saw 'indistinct' in?

    #207882
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 05 2010,16:24)

    Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 06 2010,07:56)
    And Kathi said to WorshippingJesus:

    Quote
    Btw, the Father did not divide to have a son.  Reproduction is multiplication, not division. Surely you have heard “be fruitful and multiply.”

    Jack, what Bible version uses the word “indistinct?”

    I don't see anything that says 'indistinct' in these translations.
    Hebrews 1:3

    NET ©
    The Son is 1  the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, 2  and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 3

    NIV ©
    The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

    NASB ©
    And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

    NLT ©
    The Son reflects God’s own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly. He sustains the universe by the mighty power of his command. After he died to cleanse us from the stain of sin, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God of heaven.

    MSG ©
    This Son perfectly mirrors God, and is stamped with God's nature. He holds everything together by what he says–powerful words! After he finished the sacrifice for sins, the Son took his honored place high in the heavens right alongside God,

    BBE ©
    Who, being the outshining of his glory, the true image of his substance, supporting all things by the word of his power, having given himself as an offering making clean from sins, took his seat at the right hand of God in heaven;

    NRSV ©
    He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

    NKJV ©
    who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,


    See Vine's Expository Dictionary.

    The Greek “Charakter”

    “The Son of God is not merely His image, He is the image or impress of His substance or essence. It is the fact of complete similarity which this word stresses” p. 247.

    The word “charakter” is used in the LXX in Lev. 13:28. Leupold translates Lev. 13:28 using the word “indistinct.”

    The ESV which you did not include translates it as “exact.”

    Funk and Wagnalls on “exact”

    “Perfectly clear and complete in every detail; precise”

    the Roo


    So, 'indistinct' isn't found in any Bible version, it is just one of the ways that the Greek word is translated? Oh well, 'exact representation of His being' is a fine translation then, right?
    And one that is begotten from another always is an exact representation of the nature of the one that begat him. But that comes from being actually 'born' and not by appointment. No one can be appointed a nature. A nature comes from a procreation not a declaration.

    #207899
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 06 2010,07:18)
    I am glad that you admit that monogenes and gennao can mean literally born or procreated. That's a step :)


    Hi Kathi,

    They can whoop and holler about “monogenes” and “gennao” all they want.

    But they can't do away with “yalad”. And in Psalm 2:7, Jehovah says He “yalad” a Son. There is no question that yalad means a literal begetting in Psalm 2:7.

    peace and love,
    mike

    #207951

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 04 2010,17:08)
    There is one Physician
    who is possessed both of flesh and spirit;
    **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**;
    GOD EXISTING IN FLESH;
    true life in death;
    both of Mary and of God;
    first passible and then impassible,
    –Jesus Christ our Lord (Letter to the Ephesians VII).[/b]

    **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**   **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**   **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**[

    What does “BORN AND UNBORN” mean Mikey?

    The Trinity doctrine teaches that God consist of three co-equal, co-eternal persons in One God Mikey? That’s what Jack and I believe according to the scriptures. You can continue with your misrepresentations and false claims all you like but the truth stands Mikey!

    WJ


    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)
    Hello there Mr. Worshipping (the man) Jesus (when God specifically said in Deut 4:15-19 not to)


    Yet we see all of creation worshipping him, I wonder why, and the Father even commanding the Angels to worship him?

    Nope, Jesus never said “Do not worship me”, did he Mike?

    Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, “WORSHIPPING (proskyneō) HIM”, and desiring a certain thing of him. Matt 20:20

    And, behold, there came a leper and “worshipped (proskyneō) him”, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. Matt 8:2

    While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and “worshipped (proskyneō) him”, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. Matt 9:18

    Then they that were in the ship came and “worshipped (proskyneō) him”, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. Matt 14:33

    Then came she and “worshipped (proskyneō) him, saying, Lord, help me. Matt 15:25

    The servant therefore fell down, and “worshipped (proskyneō) him”, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Matt 18:26

    And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and “worshipped (proskyneō) him”. Matt 28:9

    And when they saw him, they “worshipped (proskyneō) him”: but some doubted. Matt 28:17

    And they “worshipped (proskyneō) him”, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: Luke 24:52

    And he said, Lord, I believe. And he “worshipped (proskyneō) him”. John 9:38

    The Greek word for “worship” is (proskyneō) which means;

    1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
    2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, “to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of PROFOUND REVERENCE

    It is found 60 times in the NT and in every case is translated “Worship” in the AKJV.

    Interestingly enough our Lord and God used the same word (proskyneō) in reference to the worship of the Father…

    God is a Spirit: and they that “worship (proskyneō)” him must” worship (proskyneō”) him in spirit and in truth. John 4:24

    Why would Jesus do that, knowing the same was practiced on him? Not to mention the fact that in “EVERY CASE” where the Saints in the NT (proskyneō) any other being other than Jesus or the Father it was discouraged by the recipient and they were told to worship (proskyneō) God only, yet Jesus not once discouraged those that worshipped (proskyneō) him or even hinted to not worship (proskyneō) him but only worship (proskyneō) the Father.

    Tell me Mike, when is the last time that you “WORSHIPPED” (proskyneō) Jesus? When was the last time that you fell on your knees as a token of “Profound Reverence” to Jesus by shouting with a loud voice, WORTHY ARE YOU LORD JESUS TO RECEIVE POWER, AND RICHES, AND WISDOM, AND STRENGTH, AND HONOUR, AND GLORY, AND BLESSING?  

    And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; “SAYING WITH A LOUD VOICE, WORTHY IS THE LAMB THAT WAS SLAIN TO RECEIVE POWER, AND RICHES, AND WISDOM, AND STRENGTH, AND HONOUR, AND GLORY, AND BLESSING”. Rev 5:12

    Unless you can show me scripturally where I am not to worship (proskyneō) Jesus, then you might have a point, until then you are just blowing hot air.

    Your scripture quote is about dead idols Mike that are formed by men’s hands and called things.

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)
    Is Jesus a man?


    Yep. But the writers of the scriptures and the Forefathers call him their God too.  How about you Mike? :)

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)
    Have people ever seen his form?


    Yep, and the Angels are worshipping him now. :)  

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)
    Was God's Messiah “apportioned to all the nations under heaven” by his God?


    Misuse of scripture, for the scripture is about “Idols” which are called things.

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)
    If you can answer “yes” to any of these questions……you are worshipping someone or something God specifically told us not to!  :)


    Then YHWH is a Hypocrite for commanding the Angels to worship him, right? :D

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)
    WJ, why DOES Ignatius say “born and unborn”?  I
    don't get it.


    Of course you don’t get it because you don’t want to get it.

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)
    But more importantly, why do you think he said Jesus was “both OF Mary and OF God”?


    Because he is both “God” and “Man”, remember “The Word/God came in the flesh”.  

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)
    We know in what sense Jesus was “OF Mary” – he was BORN OF HER.  So the “BOTH of Mary AND of God” should tell you he thought Jesus was also BORN OF GOD.


    But that is not what Ignatius said is it?

    **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN; GOD EXISTING IN FLESH;**

    God = Unborn – Flesh = Born!

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)
    And when you add this letter to the mix…..

    But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.

    …..it seems pretty concrete that Ignatius didn't actually believe what you think he did.


    No it’s obvious he didn’t believe what you believe about the words “begotten”.

    **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN; GOD EXISTING IN FLESH;**

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)
    And you can give any trinitarian sponsored definition of begotten that you want to.  Go ahead and try to fit your definition in this sentence in all the various forms of “beget”.  My definition of “procreated” works just fine…….does yours?  Try the “single of it's kind” one.  Try it in all three forms of “beget”.


    I already have. Paul’s use of the word fits just fine.

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)
    If begotten doesn't mean “procreated” here, how is the Father the “unbegotten” and “Begettor”?  Ignatius says Jesus was begotten of God before time began, but afterwards was born of Mary as a man?


    Again, before time is “eternity” that’s why your interpretation of Psalms 2:7 falls apart for he said “TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”, and we know that Jesus was there before “today”.

    Notice how I said “Jesus was there before today”, yet we know that Jesus was not given the name until he was born from Mary. Get the point?

    The Father is “unbegotten” because the Son never said “TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”.

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)
    Too many holes, brother.  You'd do well to run from Ignatius like you do from Eusebius!   :laugh:


    No doubt you create many rabbit holes.

    WJ

Viewing 20 posts - 8,681 through 8,700 (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