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 - 10,201 through 10,220 (of 19,165 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #227714
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2010,07:55)
    Hi Mike,

    Can we count on you to tell us when God's Word is “literal physical” and
    when its “Metaphorical Spiritual” too; how about when there are aspects of both?


    Hi Ed,

    Yes you can. In fact, when in doubt, ask either me, Pierre, Irene, t8 or Georg.

    We'll help you out in your time of crisis, okay? :)

    mike

    #227720
    Ed J
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 06 2010,08:57)

    Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2010,07:55)
    Hi Mike,

    Can we count on you to tell us when God's Word is “literal physical” and
    when its “Metaphorical Spiritual” too; how about when there are aspects of both?


    Hi Ed,

    Yes you can.  In fact, when in doubt, ask either me, Pierre, Irene, t8 or Georg.

    We'll help you out in your time of crisis, okay?  :)

    mike


    Hi Mike,

    OK; tell me if Luke 12:52 is “literal physical” or “Metaphorical Spiritual” or both?…
    Luke 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five
    in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

    How about this one…
    John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing…

    And how about this one…
    Rev.2:17 …To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone,
    and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

    Please explain this one too…
    Zech.3:9 For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes:
    behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts,
    and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.

    Looking forward to your answers; Mike!

    God bless
    Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
    http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

    #227728
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Hi Ed,

    I was making a joke. I was being facetious with you. :) I have no time to argue trivial things with you. I've been there already, and it has been a waste of time. I mean, what if I say one is literal and you say it's not? Who wins? :) But just this once…………

    1. Literal.

    2. Literal

    3. Could be either, but I will accept heaven like a child. And a child would take this literally, so then will I.

    4. Same answer as above.

    peace and love,
    mike

    #227740
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 06 2010,03:43)

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 06 2010,03:22)
    That is because you distort John 1:1 to mean the WORD was JESUS Not GOD.


    Well, we KNOW that Jesus was “the Word” in Revelation, right?  We KNOW that a word cannot become flesh, right?  And we KNOW that God didn't become flesh and dwell among us with the glory of His own Son, right?

    Now, stop diverting things and answer the points we've been discussing.  

    Answer the “nature” thing Gene.  Answer about how John 1:14 doesn't contain the word “IN”.

    Answer those points first Gene.  If you can't answer them, then what use is it for me to follow you down the rabbit hole, as WJ would say.

    mike


    Mike……In Revelations it says He is “Called” the word of GOD , now does that mean he (IS) the words of GOD himself as you claim. NO, God ONLY IS HIS WORD, Jesus He is called the word of GOD because He speaks GOD'S word to us. Prophets also Speak GOD'S Words to Us. So they also could have been called the of Word of GOD too the right? The word of GOD did not (BECOME) FLESH it came to be (IN) the Flesh Person JESUS. Why would Jesus say the WORDS Were NOT HIS if He was those Words himself. You are giving Jesus the Glory for what is not His, something He never did, by saying the words were (NOT) His. Anyone who speaks GOD'S words are expressing GOD to others, But that does make them the WORDS they are expressing.

    As far as the Nature thing goes look up the word in (ANY) Concordance or Greek Translation and it will say Nature is what is can be implied. But your separatist doctrines keep trying to separate Jesus from our likeness as trinitarians do. The reason you fail to address the other parts of my Post Mike is because they deal with Your rabbit holes you lead people down, and refuse therefore to address them.

    I notice all you do is cut a sentence or a small piece of a post and zero in on that without considering the rest of the logic behind that post and that is how you force you opinions off on others without addressing the compete post as presented.

    So I will slow this down then, and ask ONE Question of you . DO YOU BELIEVE THE FATHER WAS (ACTUALLY) (IN) JESUS OR NOT?. Answer that and it should sum it all up.

    WAS GOD THE FATHER (TRULY) (IN) JESUS, AND IF SO HOW >

    If you can't answer that then you have no idea what you are saying IMO>

    peace and love………………………….gene

    #227741
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Quote (JustAskin @ Dec. 06 2010,04:44)
    Wow Mike,
    You sure are a God when dealing with Edj and Gene.

    Why are you not then able to do the same with others.

    But then again Gene is so wrong that even a child could argue against him in this thread.

    Perhaps this is your level…you found your level at last.

    Just remember how hard it is to make others see what are obvious truths and see how they twist and writhe, and when you debate/discuss with me, remember not to do as they do.
    Be honest, you will learn quicker that way, and in an honest, godly way.


    JA…………He is not God to me or EDJ, Maybe he is to you but is definitely is not to us. Your statement is demeaning to me and EDJ , Mike is only draw to just certain Words and does not even begin to understand what the context of what scripture is saying. I even wounder about you at times to be honest with you.

    peace and love…………………………………..gene

    #227746
    Ed J
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 06 2010,11:05)
    Hi Ed,

    I was making a joke.  I was being facetious with you. :)  I have no time to argue trivial things with you.  I've been there already, and it has been a waste of time.  I mean, what if I say one is literal and you say it's not?  Who wins? :)  But just this once…………

    1.  Literal.

    2.  Literal

    3.  Could be either, but I will accept heaven like a child.  And a child would take this literally, so then will I.

    4.  Same answer as above.

    peace and love,
    mike


    Hi Mike,

    Thank you for helping prove my point!
    We really can't be certain when the deeper
    “Metaphorical Spiritual” is the primary meaning.

    God bless
    Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
    http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

    #227832
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Gene:

    Quote
    Mike……In Revelations it says He is “Called” the word of GOD , now does that mean he (IS) the words of GOD  himself as you claim.


    I don't claim that Jesus is the “words of God Himself” Gene. :D  That would be silly.

    Gene:

    Quote
    Jesus is called the word of GOD because He speaks GOD'S word to us.


    Yes Gene, that is correct.  He is God's Spokesman, and therefore is called the “Word of God”, much like the spokesman for the King of Abyssinia has the title “the word of the king”.

    Gene:

    Quote
    Prophets also Speak GOD'S Words to Us. So they also could have been called the of Word of GOD  too the right?  


    Yes Gene.  And they also counseled many people, so they could also have been called “Wonderful Counselor” too.  But they aren't.  Only Jesus is called “Wonderful Counselor” and “The Word of God”.  Probably because he is the most special of all of God's counselors and spokesmen.

    Gene:

    Quote
    The word of GOD did not (BECOME) FLESH it came to be (IN) the Flesh Person JESUS.


    Gene, you're still not actually addressing the point in question.  The scripture does NOT say the word “IN”.  It says “the Word became flesh”.  It does NOT say “the Word came to be IN flesh”.  The words of Gene Balthrop do NOT override the words of God in the scriptures.  You can't just add the word “IN” to make the scripture fit around your understanding Gene.  You must form your understanding around the scripture – which DOESN'T contain the word “IN”.

    Gene:

    Quote
    Why would Jesus say the WORDS Were NOT HIS if He was those Words himself.


    Jesus spoke the words of his God to us Gene.  They were not his words, but those of his God.  He was God's Spokesman to us at that time, so he spoke God's words to us.  What is so confusing about that? ???

    Gene:

    Quote
    Anyone who speaks GOD'S words are expressing GOD to others, But that does make them the WORDS they are expressing.


    Maybe in Bizarro World Gene. :)  I have never been a “word” in my life Gene.  I'm a person, a human being……..not a “word”.

    Gene:

    Quote
    As far as the Nature thing goes look up the word in (ANY) Concordance or Greek Translation and it will say Nature is what is can be implied.


    The only problem you and I both seem to have with “nature” is that Jesus never emptied himself of the “nature of God”, right?  So how then could it be “nature” if Pauls says he “emptied himself” of it?

    Gene:

    Quote
    WAS GOD THE FATHER (TRULY) (IN) JESUS, AND IF SO HOW


    Yes Gene.  The Father and Jesus are one in purpose and desire.  The Father was “in” Jesus in the same way that love is “in” you.  The being of God was not, however, contained inside the flesh body of Jesus, Gene.  Jesus taught us how to pray to the Father IN HEAVEN.  Jesus many times looked UP TO HEAVEN and gave thanks and asked blessings.

    Listen Gene, I won't discuss the abstract way the Father was “in Jesus” or how they were “one” or how if you saw him you also “saw the Father” until you admit that the word “IN” is not in John 1:14 and that you can't take it upon yourself to insert it by your own FREE WILL.

    The word is NOT there Gene.  You can't just completely change the meaning of a scripture by adding words.  Do you understand this?

    peace and love,
    mike

    #227833
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Gene:

    Quote
    Your statement is demeaning to me and EDJ ,


    It was also demeaning to me Gene.  And bordering on blasphemy IMO.

    Gene:

    Quote
    Mike is only draw to just certain Words and does not even begin to understand what the context of what scripture is saying.


    Yes Gene.  You have to take all the words as they are written to get the full meaning of the scripture.  Take your addition of the word “IN” in John 1:14 for example.  Adding one simple little two letter word like “IN” changes the whole meaning of the text.  The meaning of many scriptures hindge on one simple little word like that Gene.  Of course I'm going to do whatever I can to make sure I understand each single little word.

    I just can't bring myself to add them in and take them out as it suits me like you do.  :)

    peace and love,
    mike

    #227834
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2010,12:30)
    We really can't be certain when the deeper
    “Metaphorical Spiritual” is the primary meaning.


    Fair enough Ed. And if it says, “he spoke the word of God”, it's pretty clear that he spoke God's words.

    But if it says, “he is called the Word of God”, then it's pretty clear that has a different meaning altogether, right?

    mike

    #227836
    Ed J
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 07 2010,13:54)
    Gene:

    Quote
    Your statement is demeaning to me and EDJ ,


    It was also demeaning to me Gene.  And bordering on blasphemy IMO.

    Gene:

    Quote
    Mike is only draw to just certain Words and does not even begin to understand what the context of what scripture is saying.


    Yes Gene.  You have to take all the words as they are written to get the full meaning of the scripture.  Take your addition of the word “IN” in John 1:14 for example.  Adding one simple little two letter word like “IN” changes the whole meaning of the text.  The meaning of many scriptures hindge on one simple little word like that Gene.  Of course I'm going to do whatever I can to make sure I understand each single little word.

    I just can't bring myself to add them in and take them out as it suits me like you do.  :)

    peace and love,
    mike


    Hi Mike,

    Is this not true you want to add the indefinite article a
    to John 1:1 so it will fit your preconceived ideas of truth?

    God bless
    Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
    http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

    #227837
    Ed J
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 07 2010,13:57)

    Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2010,12:30)
    We really can't be certain when the deeper
    “Metaphorical Spiritual” is the primary meaning.


    Fair enough Ed.  And if it says, “he spoke the word of God”, it's pretty clear that he spoke God's words.

    But if it says, “he is called the Word of God”, then it's pretty clear that has a different meaning altogether, right?

    mike


    Hi Mike,

    The “HolySpirit” is indeed called “The Word” of God! (Click Here)

    God bless
    Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
    http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

    #227872
    kerwin
    Participant

    Mike Boll,

    We have already covered John 1 and I pointed out how that chapter can be understood in such a way that it does support the Word being the Holy Spirit. As far as I know everyone believes that the Holy Spirit is with God and is God.

    I will try to remember to post a thread on John 1 next Sunday pointing out how is can be understood to be speaking of the Holy Spirit.

    Thank you for the suggestion but I still feel I need additional information about being made the light of the world by God.

    #227885
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Kerwin…………..You have it right the Word of GOD is GOD , GOD and His word are one and the same , Just as we and our Word are one and the Same thing. If there were a scripture that said ” In the beginning the word was with Gene and the Word Was Gene, no one would have a problem understanding that, But because they (trinitarians and Preexistences) have separated GOD from His WORDS , they change the meaning of the text completely, Even though Mike full well knows that the WORD “JESUS” is not even in the text of John 1:1, and then he criticizes other who add a word like (IN) to the meaning even though the word could (NOT) become flesh, so it has to mean GOD who is His WORD was (IN) Jesus. Just as Jesus said He was> IMO

    PS…> Kerwin hope you kidney is functioning OK Brother.

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

    #227912

    Hi Mike

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 05 2010,06:51)
    The problem you have is this is one of those Trinitarian scriptures that cannot be refuted.


    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)
    Whoa!  Slow your roll there Mr. Keith!  :D


    Why Mike? Am I going a little too fast for you? :D I tell you what, I will slow it down a little, now listen closely Mike!!!  :)

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)
    There is much evidence that supports “Christ” in 1 Cor 10:9, but at least as much evidence that supports “God” and “Lord” in that scripture.


    True Mike, but if it was “Lord” or “God” then it would make an even stronger case for the “Deity” of Christ, because it is clear that “Christ’ is the “Spiritual Rock” that followed them in the wilderness and the one that was being tempted.

    And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of “that spiritual Rock that followed them: and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST”. 1 Cor 10:4

    There is no variations in the manuscripts in verse 4, is there Mike?

    Your statement that there is “as much evidence” is not exactly true either as the NET shows us, (highlights are mine)…

    6TC ΧΡΙΣΤΌΝ (CRISTON, “CHRIST”) IS ATTESTED IN THE MAJORITY OF MSS, INCLUDING MANY IMPORTANT WITNESSES OF THE ALEXANDRIAN (Ì46 1739 1881) AND WESTERN (D F G) TEXTTYPES, AND OTHER MSS AND VERSIONS (Ψ LATT SY CO).” On the other hand, some of the important Alexandrian witnesses have κύριον (kurion, “Lord”; א B C P 33 104 1175 al). A few mss (A 81 pc) have θεόν (qeon, “God”). The nomina sacra for these readings are quite similar (cMn, kMn, and qMn respectively), so one might be able to account for the different readings by way of confusion. On closer examination, the variants appear to be intentional changes. Alexandrian scribes replaced the highly specific term “Christ” with the less specific terms “Lord” and “God” because in the context it seems to be anachronistic to speak of the exodus generation putting Christ to the test. If the original had been “Lord,” it seems unlikely that a scribe would have willingly created a difficulty by substituting the more specific “Christ.” Moreover, even if not motivated by a tendency to overcorrect, a scribe might be likely to assimilate the word “Christ” to “Lord” in conformity with Deut 6:16 or other passages. The evidence from the early church regarding the reading of this verse is rather compelling in favor of “Christ.” Marcion, a second-century, anti-Jewish heretic, would naturally have opposed any reference to Christ in historical involvement with Israel, because he thought of the Creator God of the OT as inherently evil. In spite of this strong prejudice, though, {Marcion} read a text with “Christ.” Other early church writers attest to the presence of the word “Christ,” including {Clement of Alexandria} and Origen. What is more, the synod of Antioch in a.d. 268 used the reading “Christ” as evidence of the preexistence of Christ when it condemned Paul of Samosata. (See G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 126-27; TCGNT 494; C. D. Osburn, “The Text of 1 Corinthians 10:9,” New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, 201-11; contra A. Robertson and A. Plummer, First Corinthians [ICC], 205-6.) Since “Christ” is the more difficult reading on all accounts, it is almost certainly original. In addition, “Christ” is consistent with Paul’s style in this passage (cf. 10:4, a text in which {Marcion} also reads “Christ”). This text is also christologically significant, since the reading “Christ” makes an explicit claim to the preexistence of Christ. (The textual critic faces a similar dilemma in Jude 5. In a similar exodus context, some of the more important Alexandrian mss [A B 33 81 pc] and the Vulgate read “Jesus” in place of “Lord.” Two of those mss [A 81] are the same mss that have “Christ” instead of “God” in 1 Cor 10:9. See the tc notes on Jude 5 for more information.) In sum, “Christ” has all the earmarks of authenticity here and should be considered the original reading.[/b] NET

    If anything it would have been Arians tampering with the Text.

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)
    But to say that Jesus was the “angel of Jehovah” in whom Jehovah had put His name is not to say Jesus IS Jehovah.  An “angel OF Jehovah” is not Jehovah Himself Keith.


    Really?  So an “angel of Jehovah” was the “Spiritual Rock” that followed them? Can you give us one OT scripture where an “angel of Jehovah” is ever called “The Rock”? In fact only Jehovah is called “The Rock”. Only Jehovah was the source of the literal and spiritual water that they drank.

    Was it an “angel of Jehovah” that they tempted?

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)
    Christ” in 10:9 would definitely attest to pre-existence, but not to deity.


    So you say Mike! But Christ is called the “Spiritual Rock” and it was Christ that they tempted and it was Christ who over threw them, therefore “Christ” is YHVH.  

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)
    And it's interesting that two of the mss that have “Christ” in 1 Cor 10:9  are also the ones that have “Jesus” in Jude 1:5.[/b]


    HaHa Mike. Jude 1:4 and 5 is another proof text that anybody with an open mind can see that in context Jude is speaking of Jesus as YHVH. Paul and Jude agree that it was the Lord Jehovah that overthrew them in the wilderness, and Paul referred to him as “Christ” and Jude referred to him as the Lord Jesus.

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)
    Sounds like a “trinity conspiracy theory” to me. :)  Seems like someone is “doctoring the books” hey?


    Of course that is what you cry about when the “books” don’t agree with you. It sounds like to me a desperate attempt of an “Arian” to deny the truth. :)

    WJ

    #227913

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 04 2010,21:07)
    Jesus was an anointed Person he was not (THE ANOINTING) but (THE ANOINTED)  of GOD, WJ.


    Thank you Gene, that is what I have been saying. But you have been saying that the “Spiritual Rock” that followed them who is Christ, was the anointing.

    Again, “Christ” does not equal “anointing” but as you say (THE ANOINTED), therefore Jesus is the Rock that that followed them in the wilderness. Get it?

    WJ

    #227914
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 08 2010,16:06)

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 04 2010,21:07)
    Jesus was an anointed Person he was not (THE ANOINTING) but (THE ANOINTED)  of GOD, WJ.


    Thank you Gene, that is what I have been saying. But you have been saying that the “Spiritual Rock” that followed them who is Christ, was the anointing.

    Again, “Christ” does not equal “anointing” but as you say (THE ANOINTED), therefore Jesus is the Rock that that followed them in the wilderness. Get it?

    WJ


    WJ

    i am tempted to agree with you,because God does not come to men he would kill us all,

    and after all ;Jn 1:11 He(Jesus) came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him,

    Pierre

    #227915

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 04 2010,21:18)
    WJ………..By the way Messiah does not mean SON of GOD, it Means THE ANOINTED of GOD. While that anointing can cause you to be considered a Son of GOD that is the same with Us also. “Bretheren (NOW) we are the Sons of GOD”, it says, But you trinitarians and Preexistences alway try to make Jesus Different from us and move his identity away from our identity, you are indeed Separatist and that Wj is the Spirit (intellect) of Antichrist John was talking about.  Your trinitarian roots are clouding you understanding brother.  IMO

    peace and love…………………………………..gene


    Gene

    There is only One “Messiah”.

    There is only One “Christ”.

    Can you give us a scripture anywhere that refers to a believer or someone who is anointed as being called “Christ”?

    I didn't think so. All 569 times Christ is mentioned in the NT it is speaking of Jesus Christ or “false christ”. HMMM, are you inferring that you are a “Christ”, an anointed one just like Jesus?  :)

    BTW, you keep throwing around the word seperatist, but do you even know what the word means?

    WJ

    #227916

    Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 07 2010,17:18)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 08 2010,16:06)

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 04 2010,21:07)
    Jesus was an anointed Person he was not (THE ANOINTING) but (THE ANOINTED)  of GOD, WJ.


    Thank you Gene, that is what I have been saying. But you have been saying that the “Spiritual Rock” that followed them who is Christ, was the anointing.

    Again, “Christ” does not equal “anointing” but as you say (THE ANOINTED), therefore Jesus is the Rock that that followed them in the wilderness. Get it?

    WJ


    WJ

    i am tempted to agree with you,because God does not come to men he would kill us all,

    and after all ;Jn 1:11 He(Jesus) came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him,

    Pierre


    True Pierre!

    Thanks!

    WJ

    #227925
    Baker
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 08 2010,08:54)
    Hi Mike

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 05 2010,06:51)
    The problem you have is this is one of those Trinitarian scriptures that cannot be refuted.


    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)
    Whoa!  Slow your roll there Mr. Keith!  :D


    Why Mike? Am I going a little too fast for you? :D I tell you what, I will slow it down a little, now listen closely Mike!!!  :)

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)
    There is much evidence that supports “Christ” in 1 Cor 10:9, but at least as much evidence that supports “God” and “Lord” in that scripture.


    True Mike, but if it was “Lord” or “God” then it would make an even stronger case for the “Deity” of Christ, because it is clear that “Christ’ is the “Spiritual Rock” that followed them in the wilderness and the one that was being tempted.

    And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of “that spiritual Rock that followed them: and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST”. 1 Cor 10:4

    There is no variations in the manuscripts in verse 4, is there Mike?

    Your statement that there is “as much evidence” is not exactly true either as the NET shows us, (highlights are mine)…

    6TC ΧΡΙΣΤΌΝ (CRISTON, “CHRIST”) IS ATTESTED IN THE MAJORITY OF MSS, INCLUDING MANY IMPORTANT WITNESSES OF THE ALEXANDRIAN (Ì46 1739 1881) AND WESTERN (D F G) TEXTTYPES, AND OTHER MSS AND VERSIONS (Ψ LATT SY CO).” On the other hand, some of the important Alexandrian witnesses have κύριον (kurion, “Lord”; א B C P 33 104 1175 al). A few mss (A 81 pc) have θεόν (qeon, “God”). The nomina sacra for these readings are quite similar (cMn, kMn, and qMn respectively), so one might be able to account for the different readings by way of confusion. On closer examination, the variants appear to be intentional changes. Alexandrian scribes replaced the highly specific term “Christ” with the less specific terms “Lord” and “God” because in the context it seems to be anachronistic to speak of the exodus generation putting Christ to the test. If the original had been “Lord,” it seems unlikely that a scribe would have willingly created a difficulty by substituting the more specific “Christ.” Moreover, even if not motivated by a tendency to overcorrect, a scribe might be likely to assimilate the word “Christ” to “Lord” in conformity with Deut 6:16 or other passages. The evidence from the early church regarding the reading of this verse is rather compelling in favor of “Christ.” Marcion, a second-century, anti-Jewish heretic, would naturally have opposed any reference to Christ in historical involvement with Israel, because he thought of the Creator God of the OT as inherently evil. In spite of this strong prejudice, though, {Marcion} read a text with “Christ.” Other early church writers attest to the presence of the word “Christ,” including {Clement of Alexandria} and Origen. What is more, the synod of Antioch in a.d. 268 used the reading “Christ” as evidence of the preexistence of Christ when it condemned Paul of Samosata. (See G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 126-27; TCGNT 494; C. D. Osburn, “The Text of 1 Corinthians 10:9,” New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, 201-11; contra A. Robertson and A. Plummer, First Corinthians [ICC], 205-6.) Since “Christ” is the more difficult reading on all accounts, it is almost certainly original. In addition, “Christ” is consistent with Paul’s style in this passage (cf. 10:4, a text in which {Marcion} also reads “Christ”). This text is also christologically significant, since the reading “Christ” makes an explicit claim to the preexistence of Christ. (The textual critic faces a similar dilemma in Jude 5. In a similar exodus context, some of the more important Alexandrian mss [A B 33 81 pc] and the Vulgate read “Jesus” in place of “Lord.” Two of those mss [A 81] are the same mss that have “Christ” instead of “God” in 1 Cor 10:9. See the tc notes on Jude 5 for more information.) In sum, “Christ” has all the earmarks of authenticity here and should be considered the original reading.[/b] NET

    If anything it would have been Arians tampering with the Text.

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)
    But to say that Jesus was the “angel of Jehovah” in whom Jehovah had put His name is not to say Jesus IS Jehovah.  An “angel OF Jehovah” is not Jehovah Himself Keith.


    Really?  So an “angel of Jehovah” was the “Spiritual Rock” that followed them? Can you give us one OT scripture where an “angel of Jehovah” is ever called “The Rock”? In fact only Jehovah is called “The Rock”. Only Jehovah was the source of the literal and spiritual water that they drank.

    Was it an “angel of Jehovah” that they tempted?

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)
    Christ” in 10:9 would definitely attest to pre-existence, but not to deity.


    So you say Mike! But Christ is called the “Spiritual Rock” and it was Christ that they tempted and it was Christ who over threw them, therefore “Christ” is YHVH.  

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)
    And it's interesting that two of the mss that have “Christ” in 1 Cor 10:9  are also the ones that have “Jesus” in Jude 1:5.[/b]


    HaHa Mike. Jude 1:4 and 5 is another proof text that anybody with an open mind can see that in context Jude is speaking of Jesus as YHVH. Paul and Jude agree that it was the Lord Jehovah that overthrew them in the wilderness, and Paul referred to him as “Christ” and Jude referred to him as the Lord Jesus.

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,20:21)
    Sounds like a “trinity conspiracy theory” to me. :)  Seems like someone is “doctoring the books” hey?


    Of course that is what you cry about when the “books” don’t agree with you. It sounds like to me a desperate attempt of an “Arian” to deny the truth. :)

    WJ


    WJ It says and the Lord Jesus Christ….in

    Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only LORD God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Jud 1:5 ¶ I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the LORD, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

    Peace Irene

    #227950
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    WJ……………Jesus was a Man Anointed with the Spirit of GOD, and that anointing Spirit was (the Christos) that was the ROCK on all of GOD chosen leaders it was (the) Christos.. By the way i do know what a Separatist is, it those who separate Jesus from our (exact) identity like you trinitarians and Preexistences do, and do you now deny it say let this mind be (IN) you that was (IN) the anointed (Christos) Jesus. WJ, what was that MIND?, it was the MIND of GOD and HOW was that MIND (IN) Jesus the MAN, by the Anointing He recieved at the Jordan river.

    We also recieve the SAME MIND or Anointing in Us or how could that same mind be in us then? WE as Jesus and Moses and 70 elders and Joshuah are anointed ones , anointed with the same Spirit of GOD his HOLY SPIRIT, or how do you think Jesus can be (IN) us and (in) the Father , and the Father be (IN) Jesus and (IN) us also if not by the anointing of His Spirit, that my friend is the Christos that was (IN) Jesus, that GOD may be all and (IN) you ALL> That is accomplished by the CHRISTOS or Anointing Spirit from GOD.

    Quoting you trinitarian witness like Alexanders and other trinitarians is useless because their minds were already indoctrinated to that way of thinking as you well know. Try looking up some Aramaic texts which far supersede those much later Greek influences texts and see all the mis translated words, there are hundreds if not thousands of them. You are right in say there is ONLY ONE ROCK and BUT THAT IS NOT THE MAN JESUS . If Jesus was GOD the Text would say Jesus (the) GOD , NOT Jesus the (Anointed), in fact the word Anointed would not even be us at all if Jesus were truly GOD, now would it? Why encumber the text by saying Jesus (the) Christ , why not just say Jesus the God or the GOD JESUS. Why add the additional word at all.

    WJ you are way off base on this as i have told you many times before. IMO

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

Viewing 20 posts - 10,201 through 10,220 (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