Did Jesus Christ preexist His birth in Bethlehem?

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Given Trinitarians don't believe "Jesus IS God!" = "Jesus is the Father!", which is unsupported by scripture, no one can given a scriptural response to what you rightly call a foolish, false, deceptive, and demonic doctrine.

I noticed on your blog that you couldn't bring yourself to admit that Jesus is the Son of God. An admission scripture gives as a pre-requisite to obtaining eternal life! And an admission that Trinitarian doctrine therefore demands and emphasises!


Read Hebrews 1:1-3 which explicitly says that through the Son, God made the worlds (some translations render ages). Col 1:13-17 tells us the same thing, as does John 1:1-3 (albeit the Son in the guise of the Logos). Interestingly, the ancient Aramaic Targums that were/are read in every synagogue to explain the reading of the Hebrew scriptures (which few since the time of Ezra have understood from the Hebrew), refers to the "memra of YHWH" (the Word/Logos of God) whenever the KJVs rendering "angel of the LORD" is encountered. Anyone with any world perception would realise the world existed before the Son's incarnation, he born of Mary and was called Jesus in the Greek language. So, if God made the worlds/ages through the Son as scripture explicitly states, then the Son pre-exists the worlds/ages.

Nowhere on my blog will you ever find me denying that Yahshua is the son of Yahweh. If you would have read enough into my blog post you would know full well that we do believe that Yahshua is the son of Yahweh.

As to the false pre-existence doctrine, many base their believe that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being on a few Greek words translated as "by" and "through" when there are some 107 Scripture passages that clearly make known that Father Yahweh "ALONE", "BY HIMSELF" and with "NO ONE BESIDE HIM" created the heavens and the earth and ALL THINGS IN THEM. It is quite clear from these Scriptures that Father Yahweh did not create "through" or "by" his son as a pre-existent being.

Hebrews 1:2 has been translated properly in the Diaglott as follows:

Yahweh "... in the last of these days spoke to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, ON ACCOUNT OF whom also he constituted the ages; ..."

Another acceptable translation would be, "... a Son, FOR whom he created the world."

Many times the King James Version as well as more modern versions translate dia as "for," "because of," "therefore" (meaning "for this reason"). Following are the diverse ways the Greek word di' or dia has been translated in the KJV:

by - 243 times
through - 100 times
for - 106 times
because - 24 times
because of - 29 times
for the sake of - 32 times
etc.

Many times the King James Version as well as more modern versions translate dia as "for," "because of," "therefore" (meaning "for this reason"). For a more detailed layout of the word di' (dia), see my blog entry: "Hebrews 1:2 - Berry."

[apostoli]

Nowhere on my blog will you ever find me denying that Yahshua is the son of Yahweh. If you would have read enough into my blog post you would know full well that we do believe that Yahshua is the son of Yahweh.

I couldn't find anywhere in your blogs where you advocated the sonship - in fact I noticed you edited A.John's testimony to what appears to be an avoidance of declaring Jesus being Son of God. I'd give your statement about believing Jesus to be Son of God credibility if you had quoted A.John's testimony in full "but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31).

The only other thing I found on your blog is where you post "YAHSHUA: SON OF ELOHIM By Voy Wilks" which concentrates on Jesus not being elohim. So, I need you to explain in what way Jesus is the son of the living God. Do you mean metaphorically, physically, functionally and/or metaphysically? Do you mean he is son by adoption, by appointment or true son? Do you mean he is son conditionally or intrinsically.

As to the false pre-existence doctrine, many base their believe that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being on a few Greek words...

Which is a shame given the wealth of material available in the NT that testifies to the Son's pre-existence - especially Jesus' own testimony...For instance, when Jesus' disciples were shaken by Jesus saying "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you", Jesus shortly after declared "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" (John 6:53-62).

An interesting scripture is 1 John 4:1-2 = "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God". It is obvious that as son of man Jesus "came in the flesh", so in your opinion how is A.John's test relevent? An answer might be found at John 3:31.

As to the false pre-existence doctrine, many base their believe that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being on a few Greek words translated as "by" and "through" when there are some 107 Scripture passages that clearly make known that Father Yahweh "ALONE", "BY HIMSELF" and with "NO ONE BESIDE HIM" created the heavens and the earth and ALL THINGS IN THEM. It is quite clear from these Scriptures that Father Yahweh did not create "through" or "by" his son as a pre-existent being.

It would do you well to read those 107 scriptural passages and note the context in which they are said. Rabinical (and even Messianic) literature is replete with postulations that YHWH was not alone in the creation process - albeit his co-workers are estimated to have been angels. Genesis 1:26 makes it obvious that God was not alone in the creation process, albeit he is the direct source and cause of all that was created.

An interesting fact is that in the OT the Israelites had no conception of God as Father (at least in the NT sense), so your ascertian that "107 Scripture passages that clearly make known that Father Yahweh "ALONE", "BY HIMSELF" and with "NO ONE BESIDE HIM" created the heavens and the earth and ALL THINGS IN THEM" is erroneous. These things in the OT are said of YHWH.

John 8:40 comes to mind. Moses identified the man that Abraham fed and spoke with was YHWH (Genesis 18). The Rabbi explain that all visitations were that of the Memra of YHWH (the Word of God/the angel of the LORD). and there is & was Rabbinic discussion as to whether the Memra of YHWH was in fact the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, and therefore the God of Moses = the YHWH coming to earth being the manifestation of the YHWH in heaven - Philo (a pre-christianity Jew) comes immediately to mind.

Hebrews 1:2 has been translated properly in the Diaglott...

Only "properly" in your own mind. The bulk of authoritive grammarians and lexicographers I've come across (even non-trinitarians who deny the pre-existence of Christ) agree on the standard understanding of the Greek syntax at Heb 1:2 (through, by, by means of). It is the context of dia that controls the translation (not dogmatics) δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας. The word that governs the translation here is "καὶ". The referent of καὶ is the subject of οὗ which is the υἱῷ.

Hebrews 1:2 has been translated properly in the Diaglott as follows:

Yahweh "... in the last of these days spoke to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, ON ACCOUNT OF whom also he constituted the ages; ..."
Another acceptable translation would be, "... a Son, FOR whom he created the world."

Interestingly, both renderings would require the pre-existence of the "a son" in the understanding of the typical Jew (especially a first century Jew).

Many times the King James Version as well as more modern versions translate dia as "for," "because of," "therefore" (meaning "for this reason"). Following are the diverse ways the Greek word di' or dia has been translated in the KJV:

by - 243 times
through - 100 times
for - 106 times
because - 24 times
because of - 29 times
for the sake of - 32 times
etc.

Many times the King James Version as well as more modern versions translate dia as "for," "because of," "therefore" (meaning "for this reason"). For a more detailed layout of the word di' (dia), see my blog entry: "Hebrews 1:2 - Berry."

I'll direct you to the non-trinitarian lexicographer Thayer so you can understand the contextual meaning of dia at Hebrews 1:2...
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=G1223&t=ESV

Instruction: Scroll down to the section headed "Thayer's Lexicon", then click on the line that reads "Click Here for the Rest of the Entry" to get the full text. Have an enlightening read...

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Well, you certainly have missed what it is that I believe and confess because I most certainly have made it quite clear on all on my web pages and blogs that I do confess and believe that Yahshua is the son of Father Yahweh. What I do not confess and believe is "Jesus IS God!", since nowhere in Scripture am I ever asked to believe such foolishness and nowhere does it teach such foolishness. It seems you twist my words just as you twist the inspired prophetic word of Father Yahweh.

You need not respond, since I will no longer be participating in this forum discussion or any other discussion on theologyweb. I certainly do not appreciate being called a damned liar when I have never lied.

[eudyptes]

Well, you certainly have missed what it is that I believe and confess because I most certainly have made it quite clear on all on my web pages and blogs that I do confess and believe that Yahshua is the son of Father Yahweh. What I do not confess and believe is "Jesus IS God!", since nowhere in Scripture am I ever asked to believe such foolishness and nowhere does it teach such foolishness. It seems you twist my words just as you twist the inspired prophetic word of Father Yahweh.

You need not respond, since I will no longer be participating in this forum discussion or any other discussion on theologyweb. I certainly do not appreciate being called a damned liar when I have never lied.

emphasis mine

....no...not so much

that is one of the hardest websites to navigate I've seen since the mid 90s.......

[apostoli]

emphasis mine

....no...not so much

that is one of the hardest websites to navigate I've seen since the mid 90s.......

Ain't it so! The trouble is he has multiple websites, or so I accidently discovered when I clicked on one of his links. It seems the only way to navigate is to do a google. So this morning I searched on "son of God Frank4YAHWEH" and came up with another of his pages wherein he links to another website which does explain his ideas concerning the sonship.
http://frank4yahweh.xanga.com/730577...-or-is-he-not/
http://www.seekwhatistruth.com/studi...e-not/part-iii

It appears he believes Mary was impregnated with YHWH's sperm. The author of the website (David Smith) asks [i]"Can you tell me what you think happened for Mary to have been “found with child of the Holy Spirit?”(Mt 1:18) 1] Did Yahweh’s sperm unite with Mary’s egg or 2] Did Yahweh form his own embryo and place it in Mary’s womb? It has to be #1 because “That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 1:20)".

[Sparko]

[ttruscott]

Here is something I posted on another thread here, that I think is applicable. [greek]egeneto[/greek] in John 1:14, incorrectly translated "was made" in the KJV, is in the Second Aorist, Middle Deponent, Indicative mood. Which means that the subject was the doer or performer of the action. And who is the subject of John 1:14? The [greek]logoV[/greek].

• Jhn 1:14 And the Word [greek]logoV[/greek] was made [became] [greek]egeneto[/greek] flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

When Jesus prayed in John 17:5, "glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." People who deny Jesus' preexsistence say this was sorta, kinda like the gleam in God's eye. Forgetting for the moment that, "glory" is NOT "gleam," had that been Jesus meaning, would He not have said that?

Also it is ridiculous to assume that Jesus was asking to return to a pre-life state, i.e. gleam in God's eye, when He prayed in the garden that the cup of death be taken from Him. John 1:14 clearly refutes this grabbing at straws. This assumption also forces the question, "Was Jesus no longer a gleam in God's eye after His incarnation?"

Note that in John 1:14 Jesus is the doer or performer of His becoming. The only way this could be was if Jesus did exist before His incarnation as much more than the thought, idea, plan, or simply the spoken word of God, or the incredibly weak "gleam in God's eye."

Do you apply this reasoning to
Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

...I do.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

Christ's pre-existence = our pre-existence...

JOHN'S BEGINNING

For another take on John's understanding of pre-existance...

This category has to do with the apostle John's use of the word "beginning" in his first letter:

1 John 1:1 - That which was from the beginning… the Word of life.

This introduction is very similar to the one John used in his gospel, which begins with: “In the beginning was the Word.” I believe that both refer to the same time, and that this time is synonymous with the time in Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning. Thus these three references refer to the time before (or at the front of) the six days of the (re?)creation of the world.

1 John 2:7 - I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

I can not help but think that John was alluding to Isaiah 40:21 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded?. If he is not alluding to Isaiah, he certainly is referring to the same truth in my opinion.

1 John 2:14 - I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him that is from the beginning.

It probably is not necessary, but for the last time, “that is” is not in the Greek text. Therefore, in Greek, it reads, “known Him from the beginning.”

1 John 2:24 - Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

It should be noted that in the Bible, “the beginning” usually refers to all the time and events that happened before Genesis 1:2, viz., the time when the angels were created and the rebellion in Paradise took place.

1 John 3:8 - for the devil sinneth from the beginning.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's commentary(#27) says: “sinneth from the beginning - from the time that sin began; from the time that he became what he is, the devil.” This must be around the same time as ‘In the beginning’ of Genesis 1:1. At least, it can not be much after.

1 John 3:11 - For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

I believe that John is referring to the loving purpose GOD has for each of us. 1 John 3:23 - And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment.
According to 2:7, we heard this commandment “from the beginning.”

Conclusion for John's Beginning.

When the word “beginning” has to do with Jesus or the devil, it means around the same time as Genesis 1:1 , that is, before or at the beginning of the six day creation (depending how one translates the “was - became” in Genesis 1:2).

Are we really warranted in redefining it whenever it refers to us? I know that it has been redefined to fit in with the traditional presuppositions regarding the creation of our spirit, but does this not constitute a twisting or taking Scripture out of context?

According to preconception theology, each of these references, by the same author, in the same letter, has the same meaning.

To my mind, this is much superior to two definitions of the same word, in the same letter, by the same author.

Why did John not use two different words if he meant two different times? I do not think that John was mixed up. In fact, I think he knew very well exactly what he was saying. He seems to be very good at saying it over, and over, and over, and over…

Peace, Ted

[barley]

God certainly foreknew Jesus Christ

I Peter 1:20

" who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake,"

even as He foreknew us

Romans 8:29

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."

God calls those things which be not as though they were

Romans 4:17

" (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were."

God foreknew us, but that does not make us nor qualifies us to be God.

Likewise, God foreknew the logos, the scriptures, ie, your Bible and the logos, Jesus Christ, His son. That God foreknew these does not qualify them or make them God either. God being the primary logos, message, he communicates His himself, His message in sundry times and in divers manners including scripture, the prophets and by His son Jesus Christ. Hebrews 1:1-3

Most certainly, the son of God, (because of his decision and follow through to be fully and perfectly and lovingly obedient to his Father, God), is the best communication of God by being God's message in the flesh. However, it is the word that God magnified above His name. Psalm 138:2

Jesus Christ as the son of God humbled himself before God by believing and adhering to the words of God no matter the cost to himself.

barley