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 - 1,921 through 1,940 (of 19,165 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #68825
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    t8…..> lets take a look at 1 CO 10:4-5 where you and the trinitarians say its speaking of Jesus as the (ROCK).

    And when i am done i want you to tell who the Rock really is.
    2Sam 22:2-3 .> The Lord is my (rock) and my fortress and my deliverer, 3.> the God of my strength in whom I will trust; My shield and the horn of my Salvation, My stronghold and my refuge; MY Savior, you save me from violence.

    Psa 18:2.> The Lord is my (rock) and my fortress and my delieverer; MY God, my strenght, in whom I will trust; My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

    Psa 18:31.> For who is God except the Lord?, and who is a (rock) except our God.

    Psa 78:35.> Then they remembered that God was their (rock) and the Most High God their Redeemer.

    Psa 89:26.> He shall cry to Me, You are My Father, My God, and the rock of My Salvation. 27.> Also I (will) make Him (Jesus) My Firstborn, the highest of the Kings of the earth.

    The above (WILL) implies it hadn't happened yet, at the time it was spoken.

    Anyway there is around more then 20 places that show who is the true (ROCK) and they all point to God the Father.

    Here is some more if you want to look them up.
    Deu 32:4, Deu 32:15 & 18, 2Sam 22:32 & 47. Psa 18:46,Psa 28:1, Psa 42:9, Psa 62:2, Psa 62:6 & 7, Psa 95:1.

    All of these show there is only one Rock and theat is God The Father.

    peace………..gene

    #68826
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    T8…> what do you do with Psa 89:26…> God plainly say's I (WILL) make Him my first born. So if God say's (will make Him) doesn't that mean He hasn”t yet made Him His first born at the time of that statement.

    Whats your take on that T8……….gene

    #68829
    PatBiglane
    Participant

    t8 – In response to your reply to Kejonn in regards to Matt 22:41 – 45, may I offer you something to consider???

    In Matthew 22 where Jesus poses this question about whose son is the Messiah, I think the context of this confrontational scene should be noted.

    During his ministry, Jesus was constantly being challanged by groups & gatherings of those with political & religious interests – the Sadduces and Pharisees being the most prominent. Due to envy, the aim of their interrogations of Jesus was to discredit and defame him with some thematic approach to scripture.

    The Sadduces had just attempted to bring reproach upon him concerning the theme of the resurrection, that is, giving him an opportunity to say something foolish and inconsistent with orthodox Judaism. No doubt, their motive was to defame him in the eyes of the Sanhedrin, the ruling religious body in Israel comprisied of both Pharisees and Sadducees (remember, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection). The Saduccees were the wealthiest among the religious leaders boasting the strongest allegiance and ties with the Roman government. For them, politics was at stake.

    With the Pharisees, who were the reputed watchdogs of the Mosiac Law, their approach was more along the lines religious doctrine, which is why they hired a lawyer (one who had a masterful understanding of the Torah) to trip up Jesus. Religious authority is at stake here of which the Pharisees were ever diligent to establish and maintain the upper hand in the public eye.

    Jesus' question succinctly challanges both of these groups in view of their respective political and religous interests. The only proper perspective these men could have in view of their interests would be in understanding God's order and arrangement in placing His King, The Messiah, upon Israel's throne. Take a look at Ps 89: II Samuel 7: The terms “Messiah” (translated “anointed” in vv. 20 & 38 of Ps 89), “Father” (the son being subordinate) “Son of God” (that is, this concept seen in the usage of “Father”) and “firstborn” are every bit as much – if not more so in many cases – political titles rather than merely religious. The word “Lord” is also very frequently understood as a political title. The over-arching emphasis here in these verses in Matthew 22 is not on Jesus' origin; but rather, on the legacy of his throne. His rule would be primary over that of David's and the rest of his descendants.

    In consideration of what Jesus is asserting in Matthew 22, that is, his being David's Lord, is in view of the primacy of his throne. He is the “Firstborn (begotten) form the dead” ,and the Firstborn among many brethren. Notice it says in Ps 89:27: “also I will make him 'My Firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth”

    If you want to talk about pre-existence, I would agree to this concept in regards to his throne (although I think “preeminent” is a better adjective) Historically, his throne (in the heavens) is both new in time and in quality. But it [that is, his heavenly rule] was not inaugarated until the time that he ascended ” to My Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” – John 17:17.

    And when he returns to the earth to set up his Kingdom, he will be primary agent, assigning rulership to those of his brethren (like David) who were faithful to His Father during their lifetimes.

    Once again, notice Ps 89:27: “…also, I will MAKE him my firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” To make someone for this position infers that there's a time element involved “in the making.” The Scriptures say the same thing:

    Galatians 4:1-4: “Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he is lord of all [political position of his household] but is under tutors and govenors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law….”

    #68830
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 19 2007,19:03)
    .

    John 8:58
    “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

    John 17:5
    And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

    I don't see a contradiction.


    T8…> i dont see any counterdiction in them either, what i see is a counterdiction in your interpitation of them.

    for instance your are aserting that Jesus meant He (existed) but He did not say that did He, that's your's and the trinitirians take on it. Don't you think Jesus was smart enough to have said I was a live before Abraham, if that what he meant, so why did He phrase it that way, obvisouly it's because He meant He was in the plan and purpose of God Before Abraham was born.

    You say you go by the scriptures but it dosn't say specificly that He existed in any life form does it.

    Also with regards to Jesus saying to the Father to glorify Him with the Glory He had with Him before the world was, could be taken as a predestined Glory Just as easly as a past Glory that you and the trinitarians espouse.

    If Jesus wanted us to understand the glory was something He had when He existed with the Father He would have said it that way, don't you think.

    So far you have not proven He preexisted despite your complete ignorance of Plain Scriptures that show the opposite , which me and Kejonn and Kenrch and others have shown you. So how really open minded about this are you T8.
    Your position seem to be more closed minded then open minded, on this subject. No offence intended brother…..gene

    #68841

    Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,12:39)

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2007,19:17)

    Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 19 2007,11:58)
    It is not scriptural, it is pagan. Is the Tanach scripture? Paul said so. No pre-existence in the Tanach.


    Is there a saviour and apostles who form the foundation of the Church in the Tanach.


    No, and frankly, that is beginning to bother me.

    Quote
    I am not rejecting the Tanach, just putting it into perspective given that we live in the 21st century and many things have happened since then.


    But the Bible you read was not written in the 21st century.

    Quote
    God's dealings with men do not stay still.

    There is a plan and we are further into that plan than the days of the Tanach.


    Perhaps.

    Quote
    Why are so many scared to move with God? Why do they seek the old and not the new?


    Its not a matter of that. Its a matter of Christians neglecting the old and turning it into something that contradicts the old. God has never abolished any covenants. He improves them, and adds to them, but He does not contradict them. Man does that. Even Yeshua said he did not come to abolish but to fulfill. So how can he fulfill something that was not written?

    Quote
    Were not the Pharisees like that. They were of the old, the letter, but they failed in the new, the spirit.


    No, the old was not the problem. It was the way that the Pharisees interpreted it.

    Quote
    The point of the old was to bring in the new.


    The point to the old was to be a base for the new. The new doues not replace but improve.

    Hi all. I am out of town in Jacksonville FL.. Will be back Monday in full force.

    Just thought I would comment on a few things before I write my new book to kejonn.

    :D

    kejonn

    You say…

    Quote

    Its not a matter of that. Its a matter of Christians neglecting the old and turning it into something that contradicts the old. God has never abolished any covenants. He improves them, and adds to them, but He does not contradict them. Man does that. Even Yeshua said he did not come to abolish but to fulfill. So how can he fulfill something that was not written?

    As I had mentioned before, the words “Abiolish” and “Destroy” do not mean the same thing as you are implying Jesus said.
    Jesus used the word “Destroy” not “Abolish”.

    Matt 5:17
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    Destroy Greek katalyō
    1) to dissolve, disunite
    a) (what has been joined together), to destroy, demolish
    b) metaph. to overthrow i.e. render vain, deprive of success, bring to naught
    English Definition: for Destroy…
    1: to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of ; also : to ruin as if by tearing to shreds 2 a: to put out of existence

    2 Cor 3:13
    And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

    Eph 2:15
    Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

    Abolish, Greek katargeō
    1) to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative
    a) to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency
    b) to deprive of force, influence, power
    2) to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish
    English definition for Abolish
    1 : to end the observance or effect of : annul

    The New covenant has many “New things” contained therein that the Old did not as the word “New Covenanat” implys. The Mystery of Jesus coming in the flesh was hidden for generations until the appointed time. However there are hints of his coming in the flesh as Zech Ch 12 and 14 shows.

    Gal 4:30
    Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

    :)

    #68842
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 20 2007,03:21)
    T8……> My point which i made clear was in the word (OF) It's meaning means , The preposition denotes (ORIGN) the (POINT) where motion or action proceeds and if you choose to use the word (FROM) it still has the same meaning. My point is thats where Jesus the man originated from. Not originating as some super being in the past as you and trinitarians are proclaiming.


    Hi Gene.

    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. “

    Deuteronomy 18:15
    The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.

    Quote
    The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midist (of) thee (OF) thy brethern, like Me; unto Him shall you Hearken.

    Now the word origin in Micah 5:2 is mowtsa'ah which means

  • origin
  • places of going out to or from

    So there you have it. If you argue for origin in Deuteronomy 18:15 then why not argue for it with the same passion in Micah 5:2.

    In fact here is the ironic part. The word origin of the first word “of” in Deuteronomy 18:15 is:

  • “ach” which means “brother
  • and the second is “qereb” and that means “among”.

    So scripture actually teaches that his origins are from ancient times and not as a man.

    Sure I can appreciate that his origins as a man were in the womb of Mary, I think everyone could probably agree to that. But his origins are actually from ancient times according to scripture.

#68844
Proclaimer
Participant

To Gene.

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 20 2007,05:08)
for instance your are aserting that Jesus meant He (existed) but He did not say that did He, that's your's and the trinitirians take on it. Don't you think Jesus was smart enough to have said I was a live before Abraham, if that what he meant, so why did He phrase it that way, obvisouly it's because He meant He was in the plan and purpose of God Before Abraham was born.


That is your spin, but they took his words to mean that he was older than Abraham and I don't see Jesus defending himself against a their interpretation of what he said.

John 8:50-58
50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.
51 I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.”

52 At this the Jews exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death.
53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

So lets recap. They say to Jesus “and you have seen Abraham!” and Jesus replied “I am”.

I am means the following:

  • I (ego) = I, me, my
  • am (eimi) = to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

    But you say that Jesus would have been smart enough to just say it. But he did just say it, if you read the text. He expressed himself clearly and he said it because he wasn't a liar.

    Gene, if you threw away your own understanding and presumption, and looked at what the texts are saying, then you would see it. Why not just let scripture teach, rebuke, and exhort, instead of twisting it to justify a predefined belief.

    After all, is this not what Trinitarians, Oneness, and other groups do? Have you thought about the possibility that you belong to a group that do this too? A group no better than the others who also proclaim to have the truth.

  • #68846
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    Quote
    Quote
    He was with the Father and the Father created all through him and for him. He came to his own, and they received him not. He was crucified and rose from the dead, and is now back with his Father in glory at his right hand side.

    Only if you want to condradict the Tanach. Most Christians don't care about the Tanach anyway because its dusty old covenant material to them anyway.

    So you believe the Tanach over the Bible? Why am I not surprised?

    Steven

    #68853
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 20 2007,11:05)
    John 8:50-58
    50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.
    51 I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.”

    52 At this the Jews exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death.
    53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

    54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
    55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word.
    56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

    57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

    58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

    So lets recap. They say to Jesus “and you have seen Abraham!” and Jesus replied “I am”.

    I am means the following:

  • I (ego) = I, me, my
  • am (eimi) = to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

    But you say that Jesus would have been smart enough to just say it. But he did just say it, if you read the text. He expressed himself clearly and he said it because he wasn't a liar.

    Gene, if you threw away your own understanding and presumption, and looked at what the texts are saying, then you would see it. Why not just let scripture teach, rebuke, and exhort, instead of twisting it to justify a predefined belief.

    After all, is this not what Trinitarians, Oneness, and other groups do? Have you thought about the possibility that you belong to a group that do this too? A group no better than the others who also proclaim to have the truth.


  • T8…> I beg to differ with you the context of John 8:52-58 had to do with Jesus telling them ” If anyone Keeps my word he shall never (taste death) the whole argument they were having was about Jesus aserting himself above Abraham and the Prophets and it apeared to them like Jesus was saying He was better then they were. None of this had anything to do with Jesus' age, until He said “Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my Day, and He saw it and was Glad”. The Jews misunderstood what he meant and responded “You are not yet 50 years old and you have seen Abraham.

    58..> Jesus responded , “Most assuredly, I say to you.”Before Abraham was, I Am. Notice he didn't say before Abraham was I was born, you are adding that because it does seem logical, but it would also seem logical to assume if Jesus meant that he was a live being before Abraham He would Have Just said ( I was alive before Abraham) but He didn't say that, so it Just as logical He could have meant He was aready in the plan and destiny of God the Father, before Abraham was born.

    Seem's to me you are forcing the text to come out to your way of thinking. Anyway this is not a legimate text to use because it lends itself to different interpitations.

    peace to you and yours……gene

    #68855
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Quote (david @ Oct. 19 2007,14:56)

    Quote
    A primary preposition denoting (ORIGN) (the point whence motion or action proceeds) from , or out from.


    It's interesting that your source says the “of” means “from” or “out from”
    Often, if we read modern english such as the one I quoted from that has the “from” as the suggested meaning, the reading is more understandable.


    David…..> I have looked these scrptiures up in all these translations ,KJAV,KJV-1611, KJV, JPS, DRB, DARDY, BISHOPS,
    and the ASV.
    All the above render it as From the Midst (OF) thee, (OF) Thy brethern. and the prepersition in the context it is used here means to originate from.

    The Lord thy God [will] (future tense) raise up unto thee a Prophet from the Midest [of'] (Origin) thee, [OF] (Origin) thy brethern.

    If God was going to raise up a prophet who came from another source why would He use the prepersition (OF)

    And if He was going to incarnate Him why would He say (of )
    thy brethern.

    If God were to say I make a table (OF) wood from the midest of thee (OF) thy wood. Would you think He was going some where else to get the wood.

    David I dont't know where you and T8 got your translations from but I found none of the many I Have that translate the way you guys did, I am not calling you liers< I just saying I couldn't find it translated that way…….Peace to you brothers……gene

    #68861

    Quote (PatBiglane @ Oct. 18 2007,05:01)
    Kejonn-  I really appreciate your posts and have gained some very interesing insights in reading and meditating upon them.  Thanks brother!

    May I offer you something to consider about some of the harsh – and what I believe to be unfounded – criticism you've been getting???   For years, I've endeavored to do just what you are doing with those who embrace the Trinity and Pre-existence.  I've done so by appealing to the logic of the scriptures – as you have masterfully done –  and to the importance
    of understanding the Hebrew mindset in the scriptures (as opposed to the pagan).  Unfortunately, I can say I've had little success in convincing these people to question:  what they believe; and why they believe what they do.

     In retrospect,  I think there's something very instructive in the words of Jesus when he told Peter:  “Blessed art thou, Simon Bajonna, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto you; but my Father who is in heaven.”  [Matthew 16:17] All the disciples believed Jesus to be The Son of God prior to this (they never addressed him as “God, The Son”); but Peter was given an understanding of who the Son of God was (in terms of origin) that surpassed his peers.  God gave this to him by revelation.

     I believe the Pre-existence/Trinity thing causes blindness that can only be overcome by an individual being enlightened by God.  And, similar to salvation, it comes only at a time when the individual is willing to put his pride to death, and seek the truth with humility of mind (as Peter did).

    As I'm sure you are aware, God will, in the future, undo the blindness of Israel by the revelation of His Son. But the blindness that remains today is oh so pervasive among their community and nation.  In regards to who The Messiah is, I think the Church is also blind.  Perhaps it will take the (literal) revelation of the Anti-christ to bring some to repentance, (no doubt, the spiritual wonders strenghtening the deception will be strong.  Have you ever wondered: “How could it ever be said that The Anti-christ, a man who will proclaim to be God in the Flesh, will challange the beliefs of God's very elect???”  Could it be that these (challanged) elect have been fed an unhealthy diet of the Trinity?  But as is true with the history of man, some will believe and discard the lies, and others will tragically hold on to their deceptive pride.  

    Don't get me wrong, I think this blogging business is cool way of exhanging ideas and insights with others. But I also believe we should prayerfully excercise practical limits in our reasons and motives in answering the critics.

    I also know this:  There are plelnty of people outside our computer rooms who are dying because they need to understand and believe who the Messiah is.  Let's get out and preach this stuff…It's where it's at!!!  Have a great day Brother.


    patbiglane

    You say…

    Quote

    I believe the Pre-existence/Trinity thing causes blindness that can only be overcome by an individual being enlightened by God.  And, similar to salvation, it comes only at a time when the individual is willing to put his pride to death, and seek the truth with humility of mind (as Peter did).

    Everyone on this sight could make this claim.

    Your statement is ludicrous. What makes you think that because we dont let go of our faith that we are any more “Proud”  than you for not letting go of yours.

    And as far as being blind…

    Matt 7:
    1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
    2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
    4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
    5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

    It might shock you to hear that you dont have all truth, neither do yo have a corner on it!

    :p

    #68862
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Mr. Steve @ Oct. 19 2007,18:26)

    Quote
    Quote
    He was with the Father and the Father created all through him and for him. He came to his own, and they received him not. He was crucified and rose from the dead, and is now back with his Father in glory at his right hand side.

    Only if you want to condradict the Tanach. Most Christians don't care about the Tanach anyway because its dusty old covenant material to them anyway.

    So you believe the Tanach over the Bible? Why am I not surprised?

    Steven


    What an uninformed response. What do you think the Tanach IS Steven? What you call the Old Testament. Thank you for insulting the inspired words of God given to the children of Israel. You know, the same one that Yeshua said testified of him?

    You better try some skim milk yourself…

    #68863
    kejonn
    Participant

    To all,

    Micah 5:2 has NOTHING to do with Yeshua's birthplace, but it does have everything yo do with the origin of the Messiah

    Mic 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.

    1Sa 17:12 Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons. In the days of Saul the man was already old and advanced in years.

    #68868
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 20 2007,12:28)
    Seem's to me you are forcing the text to come out to your way of thinking. Anyway this is not a legimate text to use because it lends itself to different interpitations.


    Hi Gene.

    No I am not forcing the text.

    I am saying the following:

  • “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
  • “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

    It looks obvious to me. But then again, I don't have an axe to grind. I have no preference as to when Yeshua existed. What matters to me is the truth.

    I see that the Jews said “You have seen Abraham?”
    And Jesus said “I existed before Abraham”.

    Sorry but that is what the text says. I am not forcing a predefined belief, rather I am reading the text.

  • #68869
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 20 2007,17:15)
    To all,

    Micah 5:2 has NOTHING to do with Yeshua's birthplace, but it does have everything yo do with the origin of the Messiah

    Mic 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.

    1Sa 17:12 Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons. In the days of Saul the man was already old and advanced in years.


    In other words kejonn, his origins are NOT from ancient times, is what you are saying. You esteem the Old Testament perhaps even above the New, yet you cannot respect what is written here in the Old Testament.

    Now lets imagine for a second that it said “his origins will be as a man in the womb of a woman?

    I am guessing that you would treat that as a literal proof text, but because it says “ancient times”, you give it different treatment.

    I can appreciate that sometimes this is necessary because scripture should be weighed against scripture so as to eliminate contradiction. But this verse read the way it is written agrees with many other verses.

    So again, I do not see a contradiction and therefore I just accept what it says.

    #68871
    IM4Truth
    Participant

    1 Thes. 5:21 ” Prove all things….”
    Gen, t8 has proven to you over and over again that Jesus preexisted before Abraham was and before the world was. So when are you going to except it and believe it?
    You have done a good Job, t8 and anybody should understand with these and other clear scriptures, I just do not understand why that it gives them that much troubles.

    Peace and Love Mrs.

    #68884
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 20 2007,05:37)

    Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 20 2007,17:15)
    To all,

    Micah 5:2 has NOTHING to do with Yeshua's birthplace, but it does have everything yo do with the origin of the Messiah

    Mic 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.

    1Sa 17:12 Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons. In the days of Saul the man was already old and advanced in years.


    In other words kejonn, his origins are NOT from ancient times, is what you are saying. You esteem the Old Testament perhaps even above the New, yet you cannot respect what is written here in the Old Testament.


    What line is the Messiah to come from? The tribe of Judah, and specifically through King David and his son Solomon. When was King David around? Around 1000 BC. A thousand years wouldn't be ancient to you?

    A little history lesson, because the origins of the Messiah coming from Ephrathah go back even further than that.

    Rth 1:2 The name of the man was Elimelech and the name of his wife Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. They went into the country of Moab and remained there.

    Rth 1:4 These took Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. They lived there about ten years,

    Rth 4:11 Then all the people who were at the gate and the elders said, “We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman, who is coming into your house, like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you act worthily in Ephrathah and be renowned in Bethlehem,
    Rth 4:12 and may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring that the LORD will give you by this young woman.”
    Rth 4:13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.

    Rth 4:17 And the women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” They named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David.

    Quote
    Now lets imagine for a second that it said “his origins will be as a man in the womb of a woman?

    I am guessing that you would treat that as a literal proof text, but because it says “ancient times”, you give it different treatment.

    I can appreciate that sometimes this is necessary because scripture should be weighed against scripture so as to eliminate contradiction. But this verse read the way it is written agrees with many other verses.

    So again, I do not see a contradiction and therefore I just accept what it says.


    Finally, the word use for “origins”, “goings forth”, “coming forth”, etc. is “mowtsa'ah”, which means “family descent”. Micah 5:2 is saying that the Messiah will come from the lineage of one who is from Ephrathah of Bethlehem. I have shown the evidence behind this. Since King David was alive around 1000 BC, and was the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, there were even more years to add.

    What would you consider ancient?

    Jos 24:2 Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'From ancient times your fathers lived beyond the River, namely, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods.

    1Sa 27:8 Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites and the Girzites and the Amalekites; for they were the inhabitants of the land from ancient times, as you come to Shur even as far as the land of Egypt.

    Job 22:15 “Will you keep to the ancient path Which wicked men have trod,

    Isa 44:7 'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; Yes, let him recount it to Me in order, From the time that I established the ancient nation. And let them declare to them the things that are coming And the events that are going to take place.

    All of these instances of “ancient” use the same word found in Mic 5:2, “olam”. Do any of these indicate something that was in place before the foundation of the world? No, they just mean a period of many, many years. Here are some definitions for “ancient” from answers.com

    • Belonging to, existing, or occurring in times long past
    • Of great age; very old

    Now, if you were to apply that to Yeshua, over 1000 years would not be ancient?

    I don't know why Christians struggle so against the OT.

    #68889
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    To all;

    Where does the soul come from? How about the spirit of a person? Does man have anything to do with the soul and spirit of the birth of a child? No, its a miracle. Why? Because God lights every man that comes into the world. When Jesus came into the world, he said sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not but a “body” thou hast prepared for me. (Hebrews 10) When he bringeth his first-born into the world, where did the soul and spirit come from for Christ? According to Jesus he came down from heaven, not of his own will, but was sent. He had to exist in heaven to be sent down from heaven. So in Mary, the conception that took place was that of the body of Christ. A woman does not conceive a soul or a spirit, they come from God. Now we know that the “body” of Christ did not pre-exist, it was conceived. So what is left? His soul and spirit, sent down from above.

    A person can only have one origin. When the people said we know his mother and father, how can he say he came down from heaven? This was the truth they need to see to understand.

    Steven

    #68894
    david
    Participant

    Quote
    Since he himself said that the Tanach (Old Testament) testified of him, I thought I could find some proof of pre-existence in the Tanach.

    –Kejonn, another thread.

    I think that this is the premise for Ken's beliefs on pre-existence, and I think that perhaps this premise is based on false reasoning.

    The reason we have the Greek Christian scriptures, is because more needed to be said. Not all the teachings in the Greek scriptures are necessarily found in the Hebrew scriptures. Yes, many things are, BUT not all. And that is my point.

    I personally think there is reason to believe that the Hebrew scriptures do mention Jesus pre-existence.

    And God went on to say: “Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness,….” (Gen 1:26; see Gen 11:7)

    “then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time,. . .and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men.” (Prov 8:30)

    Since he himself said that the Tanach (Old Testament) testified of him, I thought I could find some proof of pre-existence in the Tanach.
    We know that the Hebrew scriptures did speak of him many times, explaining great details about his life–as a sign that he would be who he claimed to be: The Son of God.

    #68896
    david
    Participant

    Quote
    Jesus responded , “Most assuredly, I say to you.”Before Abraham was, I Am. Notice he didn't say before Abraham was I was born, you are adding that because it does seem logical, but it would also seem logical to assume if Jesus meant that he was a live being before Abraham He would Have Just said ( I was alive before Abraham) but He didn't say that, so it Just as logical He could have meant He was aready in the plan and destiny of God the Father, before Abraham was born.

    –Gene.

    Johnny: “I'm older than you.”
    Ricky: “No you're not. I existed before you in the plans of my parents who planned on having a child named ricky. Therefore, I am older than you.”

    This is somewhat silly.

    Quote
    Notice he didn't say before Abraham was I was born, you are adding that because it does seem logical

    So, yes, you admit that it is “logical” to think that it means the most basic thing that it says.

    Quote
    it would also seem logical to assume if Jesus meant that he was a live being before Abraham He would Have Just said ( I was alive before Abraham) but He didn't say that

    He was responding to a rather simple question of age.
    You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

    His response was utterly and astoundingly simple and clear:

    “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

    As T8 points out:

    I (ego) = I, me, my
    am (eimi) = to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

    He was saying in “modern” english that he existed before Abraham.

    If someone simply says: “I am” what does that mean. It means they are alive, they exist.
    “I think, therefore I am” What does this mean to EVERYONE?

    the same thing!

    I think, therefore I EXIST!

    Yes, a bit of trinitarian bias may have crept into countless Bibles as the trinitarian translators translated those words to “I am” to try to match something in the Hebrew scriptures.

    But modern normal english would be: I existed before Abraham.

    I think, therefore I am, means, I think, therefore I exist. Everyone understands this, do we not?

    Google: “Therefore I am.”

    Here's what you get:

    I dream, therefore I am MEANING (I exist)
    I chat, therefore I am MEANING(I exist.)
    I doubt, therefore I am MEANING (I exist.)

    The most basic normal understanding of Jesus words (especially taking the context and the statement before into consideration) is that Jesus “existed” before Abraham.

    True, he didn't say he existed as a spirit person.
    He also didn't say he existed as a plan, or a plant or a mathematical equation.

    If I say I existed before something, it would just be understood that I existed as myself (unless clearly stated otherwise.)

    Viewing 20 posts - 1,921 through 1,940 (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