Did Jesus Christ preexist His birth in Bethlehem?

[AVmetro]

For some reason I didn't recieve an email notification when you (or Jezz for that matter) posted and I didn't bother to check the board itself. Sorry. I'll get back with you in a few days.

I haven’t taken the time to learn how to use the smilies.

When you click the 'reply' button and are in the area where you post, there will be a "smilies bar" to the left of the box where you type the text. You can simply click on any smilie in the list and it will automatically appear in the text box. If I click on ---> , the word 'smile' will appear in the box between ":"s. You can also type this text directly into the box once you learn what text will produce what smilie.

Also, if you want to quote someone, use the [quote ][/quote ] tags, sans the spaces, around the portion of text you want to appear like so..

Quoted text here....

That's just in case you don't want to use the "><>" quoting method (which is fine with me or anyone else. Just depends on what you prefer).

God bless

[phantaz sunlyk]

say hey AV Iron-Man
any obnoxious ario-maniacs running around the neighborhood and making a nuisance of themselves? nyuk nyuk nyuk.

[Bill the Cat]

Phantaz... Welcome back. We've missed your input!!!

[AVmetro]

Hey, Phantaz! How have things been? :rockon:

[Ron Macy]

IronMetro

[quote ][/quote ] tags

Well, isn't that something. That makes me very happy!

Thanks,
Ron

[Jezz]

Ron Macy:
I haven’t taken the time to learn how to use the smilies. I mentioned once before I clicked on an ‘ignore’ button and got this wonderful message questioning the appropriateness of ignoring myself. I may take the time to learn how to use them eventually.

Hah! I tried that "ignore" trick - very funny. The guys who maintain this board have a great sense of humour.

Understand, I haven’t made the stretch “God cannot be a multi-personal being” based solely on nature.

No, but you are using nature to bring your presupposition to the text, and interpret the text in that framework. This is not a good methodology. You should be letting the text speak for itself. A text is like a mirror for presuppositions. When we approach a text with presuppositions, we invariably read the very same presuppositions back out again.

Your mention of omnipotence and omniscience as not revealed in nature is unsupported. You (or I) may not have the logic thought out, but I believe it is there. If it isn’t, then Romans 1 can’t be trusted as truth.

I could say the same of the preexistence or deity of Christ. So this argument really doesn't get you anywhere.

As an example, I believed for years God had in some way revealed Himself to whatever back corner, tribal people you might mention. I had no idea how until I read Eternity in Their Hearts by Don Richardson.

I haven't read that book, but I agree that God reveals himself to everyone. Exactly how I think this works is actually inseparable from how I understand the deity and prexistence of Jesus.

The follow-up portion is more important, though. The Bible does describe God as being omnipotent and omniscient.

Actually, it doesn't. Neither of these words appear in either the NIV. And only "omnipotent" appears in the KJV - and even then, only once. And this fact will actually allow me to demonstrate the flaw in your methodology.

(Disclaimer: the following is not a true representation of my beliefs.)
===============
I examine nature. Nothing in nature is omnipotent or omniscient. In fact, I believe that nature demonstrates that God is neither. Because if God is good, he would stop all the suffering in the world if he could. Because I believe God is good, I nature therefore leads me to believe that God is not omnipotent.

As I said above: A text is like a mirror to presuppositions. When we approach a text with presuppositions, we invariably read the very same presuppositions back out again.

The Bible never says that God is omnipotent. There is only one verse in the KJV that contains the word omnipotent:

Scripture Verse:

Revelation 9:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

This verse is clearly a hyperbole or a mistranslation, because God is not really omnipotent. In fact, the NIV translates omnipotent as "Almighty" - a common title for God in the OT. Being a title, this word does not in itself convey God's omnipotence.

There are a few other verses in the Bible that seem to indicate that God is all-powerful. However, it would seem that these are most likely just more cases of hyperbole. God is powerful, sure, but not omnipotent.

Thus we see that there is no evidence in either the Bible or in scripture that proves God is omnipotent. Clearly, therefore, He is not.
===============

Welcome back to the real world. Is God omnipotent? Of course He is. My conclusion was not as the result of reasoning, but the result of my presupposition. My presupposition based on the observations of nature caused me to try and find alternative explanations for the plain meaning of the phrases that spoke of God's omnipotence. Just as your presuppositions about the non-pre-existence of Christ have caused you to impose alternative explanations on Bible passages that speak plainly of Jesus' preexistence and deity.

I agree that God is revealled in nature. But I disagree that God can be compared to anything in nature:

Scripture Verse:

Isaiah 40:25 "To whom will you compare me?
Or who is my equal?" says the Holy One.

Scripture Verse:

Isaiah 46:5 "To whom will you compare me or count me equal?
To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?

Scripture Verse:

Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.

Not only that, but if God was adequately described to us in nature alone, wouldn't that make the Bible completely redundant? As I see it, nature points the way, but is vague - nature teaches us that God exists, and he seems pretty powerful and fairly nice guy. The Bible is where we get the specifics - God is not merely "pretty powerful", but all-powerful (omnipotent). He's not merely "a fairly nice guy", but all-good (omnibenevolant), etc. It is a false start to base your theology on such an vague and equivocal revelation as nature. Fortunately, God gave us the Bible so that we wouldn't have to.

I am asking for the same kind of explicit statements we have on these doctrines in the Bible for the multi-personal doctrine you teach.

The idea of a multi-personal being is more complicated than either omnipotence or omniscience. It is made up of several explicit statements. See more on this below, when I discuss the doctrine of the "omniomni" God.

Correct me if I am wrong, but your original question, “What would you expect to see written in the Bible, if God did become Jesus???” wasn’t really thread releated either, was it?

Well, you asked me to correct you if you were wrong, so I will. That was not actually my original question. I returned to this thread in response to your challenge to IronMetro:

God's name is not Jesus. If you have a scripture in mind which clearly states God's name to be Jesus, I would be glad to consider it.

In response, I wrote:

But how about if I could show you a verse that didn't actually say that God's name was Jesus, but rather said that God was Jesus, or that God is become Jesus? Would that be a satisfactory verse for you?

You balked at that suggestion, so I asked what you would accept. And that led us to where we are now.

God becoming Jesus is not the same as Jesus being pre-existent.

Well, that depends on when God became Jesus, doesn't it?

I thought you had introduced the wider topic of the trinity by your question.

As I pointed out, I was specifically trying to respond to your request.

First, “demand” is too harsh a word for what I asked. I gave you at least 2 levels of degree away from admiting God is not a trinity. “May” and “just possibly” are those 2 levels. I never asked you to acquiesce to God being uni-personal, just that it is a possibility.

Well, I didn't intend "demand" to be read in a harsh tone. Read it as "request" then.

I couldn't exactly admit to the possibility that Jesus was not God, because there are other passages that I believe demonstrate that Jesus was God. However, if I was completely new to the Bible, and had no preconceived biases about the deity or non-deity of Christ, then I could certainly admit to the possibility that Jesus may not have been God.

Consider it from my point of view: what if I had said the following: If you can't find a passage that says "God is not my Jesus", then will you perhaps admit that there is the slightest chance that maybe Jesus is God? I wouldn't expect you to admit that, because it's an "argument from silence" and you've presumably got more evidence for your position elsewhere that you consider proves Jesus was not God. Moreover, even if you did admit it, you haven't really admitted much, have you?

Compare this to what I've done: I've laid my faith on the line. I have gone on the record as saying that if you find an explicit passage that says "God is not my Jesus", then I will join a unitarian denomination. I'm willing to stake my belief in the deity of Christ on the complete non-existence of such a passage. There is no wiggle room for me here - my continued belief is completely dependent on your inability to find such a passage. Are you willing to stake your belief in the non-pre-existence (and hence non-deity) of Christ in this manner? Do you have that much conviction? From your later comments, it would seem not... :brow:

Second, without explicit passages, we are simply back to your wiggle room versus mine. There are passages which explicitly speak of God being omniscient. There are passages which explicitly speak of God being omnipotent.

Interesting. You believe that God is omnipotent and that God is omniscient because there are explicit passages. Yet you admitted below that even if I could present you with a passage that said God was Jesus, you wouldn't believe it. Isn't that a tad inconsistent?

But anyway, I can't see how you can complain about me leaving myself wiggle room. As I explained above, I've left myself no wiggle room.

Why is it to much to request explicit passages which describe the multi-personal nature of God?

Why should such a passage be necessary, when all the component parts of the multi-personal nature of God are made explicitly?

For example, suppose I invent a new term to describe God's nature, as revealed to us in the Bible. I'll call it "omniomni". To say that God is "omniomni" is simply shorthand for claiming the following:

1. God is omnipotent.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God is omnipresent.
4. God is omnibenevolant (all-good).
5. God is omnitemporal (which is a word I just made up as a synonym for "eternal" ).

Now, there is no specific passage in scripture which says that "God is omniomni". And there is certainly nothing in nature which is omniomni. However, there are explicit passages in the Bible that make all of points 1-5. These passages are not always grouped together, but are spread throughout the Bible. Therefore, even though there is no explicit passage that says "God is omniomni", it is still a biblical teaching. Wouldn't you agree that, by this definition of "omniomni", God is in fact "omniomni"?

The same is true of the Trinity. To claim that God is triune is actually shorthand for claiming the following:

1. The Father is God.
2. The Son (Jesus) is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. The Father is separate from the Son and from the Holy Spirit.
5. The Son is separate from the Holy Spirit.
6. There is only one God.

If I can find explicit passages to prove each of these points, then I have proved the Trinity - in the same way that I can prove that God is "omniomni". To deny the Trinity because there is no explicit passage saying that God is triune is to deny that God is "omniomni".

But this is again getting off topic. The purpose of this thread is to establish the preexistence of Jesus. I was attempting to do that by showing point 2 - ie, that God is Jesus.

No.

Interesting. I guess you don't have as much faith in your position as I have in mine... :brow:

Forgive me for being stringent, but I have been down this road before.

Well, I suggest that you keep going down that road and not turn back this time. It is the road that leads to the Truth.

I don’t believe those bullet points reach to the heart of the doctrine.

You're right - they don't reach into the heart of the doctrine of the Trinity. They weren't intended to! They were intended to reach to the heart of the doctrine of the deity of Jesus. I explained this last time.

Verses are interpreted based on the idea of the existence of multi-personal beings.

Putting all presuppositions aside, what else could a verse saying "God is my Jesus" possibly mean, if not "God is my Jesus"??? The only way to get it to mean anything else is by imposing your presupposition on the text.

You asked for an explicit scripture. And now that I'm threatening to give you one, you are retreating. You bluffed, and I've called your bluff. And I've demonstrated my point - if a passage as plain as "God is my Jesus" doesn't convince you that God was Jesus, then you aren't really interested in learning the Truth. It simply doesn't get any plainer than that. If you don't accept that, then it's because your mind is already made up that Jesus was not preexistent, and you are going to interpret any passage you find within that framework - no matter how much damage it does to the plain reading of the text.

At least, that's how it seems to me. I'm sincerely hoping that you'll prove me wrong by accepting my challenge. Who knows? Maybe I am bluffing too - maybe I don't have examples of the scripture verses that I set forth. But you're not going to find out until you call me on it though... Here it is again:

If I can produce a scripture passage that says any of the following:

• God is my Jesus.
• YHWH is my Jesus.
• God has become my Jesus.
• YHWH has become my Jesus.

...will you admit that God is Jesus? I've already staked my faith on the converse claim. If you really have faith in your position that God is not Jesus, then I expect you to do the same.

I want proof, Biblical proof, such beings can and do exist. My theory is, if there is no explicit Biblical foundation for multi-personal beings, then there is no reason to make the assumption of their existence when interpreting passages of the scripture. It is then necessary to consider alternative interpretations, of which unitarianism is one.

Your methodology is correct, in as far as you need Biblical proof that multi-personal beings exist before you believe it. But where your methodology is incorrect is that you are exploring alternative interpretations instead of trinitarianism. You should approach the text assuming no particular interpretation, and evaluate all of the alternative interpretations side-by-side. This includes trinitarianism. Otherwise, if trintarianism is true, you are excluding yourself from the truth a-priori.

God bless,
-Jezz

[Ron Macy]

Jezz

You wrote,

Your methodology is correct, in as far as you need Biblical proof that multi-personal beings exist before you believe it. But where your methodology is incorrect is that you are exploring alternative interpretations instead of trinitarianism. You should approach the text assuming no particular interpretation, and evaluate all of the alternative interpretations side-by-side. This includes trinitarianism. Otherwise, if trintarianism is true, you are excluding yourself from the truth a-priori.

You have passages of scripture you interpret as indicating a multi-personality. Yet, you are bring the presupposition of multi-personality to those texts. I am insisting on explicit texts which define the existence of multi-personality before assuming other texts indicate multi-personality. Without explicit definitions of multi-personality, there is no reason to read multi-personality into any passage. Doing so is definitely bad methodology.


Ron

[OldShepherd]

07-23-2003 @ 12:28 PM post located here
Socrates:

This is from Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum's audio tape, The life of Christ from a Jewish Perspective, transcribed at http://icgod.com/Main.htm#1.%20The%20‘LOGOS’. Dr F is a Hebrew Christian or Messianic Jew and founder of Ariel Ministries www.ariel.org/.

1. The LOGOS John Chapter 1.

The Gospel of John is often accused of being the most Gentile of the four Gospels. But a more careful study of his Gospel shows that it is just as Jewish if not more so than some of the others. John begins his Gospel with the famous sentence in verse 1 of chapter 1, &amp;#8220;In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.&amp;#8221; Now most of you probably know that the term John used here is the Greek word Logos which in English would mean &amp;#8220;Word&amp;#8221;. But because he used the Greek term logos many commentaries on John at this point go into a rather lengthy deviation to explain what exactly logos meant in terms of Greek philosophy. They may take a few pages to do it or they may take many pages to do it depending on the size of the commentary, but in the end they all say basically the same thing.

And what they say is this; That the logos in Greek philosophy had two concepts. These were the concept of reason and the concept of speech. After telling us that in Greek philosophy the logos had these two concepts of reason and speech they then try to point out that what John is doing in these first 18 verses of his gospel, is to show how Jesus comes to fulfil the goals of Greek philosophy.

In that by reason he was the very idea of God and that by speech he was the very expression of God. That’s all well and good to know but what these commentators forget is that by profession John was not a Greek philosopher, but he was a Jewish fisherman. What he really has in mind is not Greek philosophy, but the Jewish theology of that day. In the Rabbinic literature of that day there was a concept that they had developed called the Memra. It is an Aramaic term that means &amp;#8220;word&amp;#8221;. And since John was writing his gospel in Greek, he of course needed a Greek term to translate the Jewish word Memra. The only Greek term he could use adequately was logos but when he says logos, he does not mean the logos of Greek philosophy, but rather, the Memra of Jewish theology, and we will see this very quickly.

Now if you read through the Rabbinic literature of that day you will discover that the Rabbis taught six things about the Memra. Six things were true about the Memra, and all six things come out one way or the other in these 18 verses.

• • •

I will not repeat all of Socrates' post , it is above if anyone wants to reread it. But if you want to verify what Socrates said you can do so in The Jewish Encyclopedia, published in 1910, by the Jewish KTAV publishing company, for Jews. Here is a link to the encyclopedia and a short quote from the article on Memra. When John said, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was toward God, and the Word was God.," he was not saying anything new.

• MEMRA
  By: Kaufmann Kohler
  
  -In the Targum:
  
  In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.
  
  Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).
  
  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=399&letter=M

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 08:37 AM post located here
Ron Macy:

Jezz

You wrote,

You have passages of scripture you interpret as indicating a multi-personality. Yet, you are bring the presupposition of multi-personality to those texts. I am insisting on explicit texts which define the existence of multi-personality before assuming other texts indicate multi-personality. Without explicit definitions of multi-personality, there is no reason to read multi-personality into any passage. Doing so is definitely bad methodology.

Ron

Every so often another anti-Trinitarian will come up with what he/she thinks is the consummate argument against the Trinity. This, “no scriptural evidence for a multi-personal being” is one such argument. Read this exchange between Jesus and the Gadarene demoniac. Note, particularly that Jesus addresses the demon with a singular pronoun and the demon initially responds with a singular pronoun. Whatcha wanna bet that Mssr. Macy will now change his argument to, “I meant in the Old Testament”?

• Mark 5:6 But when he [sing.] saw Jesus afar off, he [sing.] ran and worshipped him,
  7 And cried with a loud voice, [sing.] and said, What have I [sing.] to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I [sing.] adjure thee by God, that thou torment me [sing.] not.
  8 For he said unto him [sing.], Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit. [sing.]
  9 And he asked him [sing.], What is thy name? [sing.] And he [sing.] answered, saying, My name [sing.] is Legion: for we [pl.] are many.
  10 And he [sing.] besought him much that he would not send them [pl.] away out of the country.
  11 Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
  12 And all the devils [pl.] besought him, saying, Send us [pl.] into the swine, that we [pl.] may enter into them.

[cue video]Band playing "Give my regards to Broadway." Tapdancer enters stage right.[/end video]

[mickiel]

But the mind of man is ANOTHER scripture, and it is intensely belived by its followers. There are two ways to understand God, neither of which can be contexted outside of John 3:27. 3:22, is a direct quote from the living word, we do not know God. We have an inate desire to want to know. That desire is under the direct seal of God himself. Paul, the greatest spiritual human mind , in my view, admitted he sees through a dim shadowed view of God, just not very clear on things. His view was under Gods control. Produce the man on earth who sees greater than Paul, and i say his view can be trusted.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 11:15 AM post located here
mickiel:

Nowhere in scripture is the Holy Spirit called God.

You are off topic and you are a false prophet. Acts 5:3-4, one lie!

• Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
  4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

[mickiel]

Today @ 06:55 AM post located here
OldShepherd:



You are off topic and you are a false prophet. Acts 5:3-4, one lie!

• Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
  4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

but you might distinguish the differance in 1 Thess. 4:8, to reject God is to reject his vessel, Christ included, but not the same. The principle is explained in Luke 10:16, Christ is relating how it is possible to be actually given a distinction that gives one a voice compared to his own, but not actually be his own. In this example, a human is given equal pertinance to his own voice. The human is not Christ speaking, but heaven records it as such. This is the case in Acts 5:4, but also a case of the power and rule of God. All things are tied to him. Notice 1 Thess. 4:8, consider the rejection shown here as a rejection of God, who gives his Spirit to man. A clear distinction of one thing giving a seperate thing to another, but the thing given is given representation of the giver. If you reject me, you then reject my messenger. You are inncorrect in labeling me a false prophet, i am no prophet. I am no different than you, a human being seeking God. I believe you seek him, you just do not honor the effort of my own. I understand this. There is no power in you to label a man as incompetent of God. You just take that unto yourself. You sound spiritual, but lack the power to be established by heaven.

[Jezz]

Hey Ron,

Ron Macy:
You have passages of scripture you interpret as indicating a multi-personality. Yet, you are bring the presupposition of multi-personality to those texts. I am insisting on explicit texts which define the existence of multi-personality before assuming other texts indicate multi-personality. Without explicit definitions of multi-personality, there is no reason to read multi-personality into any passage. Doing so is definitely bad methodology.

Notwithstanding the fact that OldShepherd has already given you Biblical proof of a multi-personal demon, thereby rendering your entire line of argument moot, I will answer your post as if he hadn't. Because your approach is still methodologically unsound.

This is the same objection that you raised in your previous response to me. Hence, I already answered this objection in my last post. I will summarise it here: it seems that you are ruling out trinitarianism and assuming unitarianism before reading the Bible. This is back-to-front. You need to rule out nothing a-priori - before you start, assume that God could be unitarian, binitarian, trinitarian, n-itarian (where n is an arbitrary integer), or maybe even polytheistic. Decide up front what sort of verses you would expect to see for each hypothesis in turn. And once you've done that, then you examine the scriptures for verses that fit each of these hypotheses. From that, you should be able to see which hypothesis the scriptures fit best. In short, let the scriptures themselves tell you the nature of God(s). Don't presume to know anything about God's nature before you've read His autobiography.

Having put that aside, I'm going to get off the topic of multi-personality, and back onto the pre-existence of Christ.

Suppose hypothetically that there was a verse in the Bible that said "God is Jesus". The plain meaning of this text is that God is Jesus. But according to your belief, Jesus did not pre-exist his birth, which implies that God was not Jesus. Therefore, if this verse was to appear in the scripture, how would you explain it?

[Ron Macy]

Ron - I'm simply using the 'edit" tags to retain this post in the event that you left something out of the latter duplicate that was present in the first. - IronMetro

• Edited by a Moderator •

[Ron Macy]

Jezz

You wrote,

Notwithstanding the fact that OldShepherd has already given you Biblical proof of a multi-personal demon, thereby rendering your entire line of argument moot,

Why don’t you take a few moments and help me understand how OldShepherd has proven the existence of a multi-personal demon.


You wrote,

This is back-to-front.

I have been trying to figure out from what part of the British Commonwealth (Is it still called that?) you come. I have heard someone from England use this phrase. Could it come from anywhere else, too?

You wrote,

You need to rule out nothing /ia-priori - before you start, assume that God could be unitarian, binitarian, trinitarian, n-itarian (where n is an arbitrary integer), or maybe even polytheistic.

I very much agree with you on this point. I may have sounded to you like I ruled things out, but it might be more appropriate to say I have not ruled things in.


You wrote,

Decide up front what sort of verses you would expect to see for each hypothesis in turn.

This is where I believe you have things back-to-front.

I do not believe it is proper to form a hypothesis of a teaching, decide what I would expect the Bible to say to support that hypothesis, and then search the scriptures to see what I find. My method is to read the scripture, determine what it says, and base doctrines on what I believe it says. In this way, I can base my doctrines on what the Bible clearly says, and not on what is not negated.

Let me illustrate what I mean.

IronMetro wrote,

What in scripture teaches that Christ did not preexist.

I do not intend to criticize IM by using him as an illustration. I have seen it done by many, many people.

It appears he has followed your example, hypothesized Jesus existed before His birth, and then has decided nothing in the scripture says Jesus didn’t exist before His birth. He, and you, apparently, believe you are safe in taking this approach to the scripture. I don’t think you are.

Understand, there may be a million false teachings in the world. They may all contradict each other. They are all wrong. Just because they contradict each other does not make one right and another wrong. They can all be wrong. There is only one right teaching. I believe it is based on what the Bible says. Each one of the million wrong teaching can hypothesize what they would expect the Bible to say to support their teaching; they may even find some passages which appear to support their hypothesis. In the end, almost every one of them can say, “The Bible doesn’t contradict my hypothesis.” The teachings are still wrong.

I believe your methodology leaves you open to choosing the wrong teachings.

You wrote,

In short, let the scriptures themselves tell you the nature of God(s). Don't presume to know anything about God's nature before you've read His autobiography.

I can agree completely with these two sentences. I believe that is what I do.


You wrote,

This is the same objection that you raised in your previous response to me. Hence, I already answered this objection in my last post.

What I don’t think you understand is I am bringing nothing to the text. I am not bringing any ideas of God’s multi-personal or uni-personal nature to the text. I know I am a uni-personal being. From my experience, I know of no multi-personal beings. Yes, I have heard of people with what is called multiple personality disorder. I see the key to the phrase is “disorder.” Someone has already made the point these people are treated and are considered “cured” when there is only one personality left.

With this in mind, I go to the scriptures. I have no reason to even make the hypotheses of multi-personality. I find no texts which explicitly describe multi-personal beings. I find no text which explicitly describes God as multi-personal. Therefore, I have no reason to believe God is a multi-personal being. I am going strictly on what the Bible does teaches and not on what it doesn’t teach against. I believe that is a better methodology.


You wrote,

Having put that aside, I'm going to get off the topic of multi-personality, and back onto the pre-existence of Christ.

Your hypothetical question does not go back to the purpose of the thread. IronMetro recognized the difference between the Jehovah’s Witness teaching about Jesus and mine. He recognized one can believe in the pre-existence of Jesus without believing Jesus is God. He is trying to establish the validity of the sentient existence of Jesus before His birth. He intends to build the deity of Jesus onto the idea of this sentient existence. He is working on pre-existence, first. Your hypothetical is going the other direction. Would it be OK with you to stick with IM’s original direction? At least for now?

Thanks,
Ron