Did Jesus Christ preexist His birth in Bethlehem?

[Ron Macy]

Help me, somebody!!

I was afraid that double submit might have happened.

Can someone delete the first one? I wasn't done editing, yet.

Thanks,
Ron

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 11:25 AM post located here
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.

Ah, the old copout. Jesus did not specifically say "Come out of him you multi-personal demon." so the passage I posted does not prove multi-personal beings. I guess that is why Mssr. Macy will not make a definite commitment to say what kind of verses he would expect to find which would dissuade him from his presuppositions and assumptions. Cognitive dissonance and plausible deniablility. Kinda like trying to pick up mercury with your hands.

[OldShepherd]

Ron Macy:
What I don’t think you understand is I am <b>bringing nothing</b> 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 person left.

Ron says he brings nothing to the text and then explains, in detail, why he does, in fact, bring “uni-personality” to the text. Because he is a uni-personal being and he knows of no multi-personal beings. Ignoring the fact, that God is NOT a man and is not limited by man’s so-called “laws” of physics, common sense, etc.

”Someone has already made the point these people [multiple personalities] are treated and are considered “cured” when there is only one person left.” And of course medical science is always, 100% of the time, right? For many, many years the medical profession thought ulcers were caused by stress, and treated the symptoms with antacids. In recent years they have found that ulcers are caused by a bacteria, H. Pylori, NOT stress, so now they treat the cause with antibiotics.

[AVmetro]

Ron Macy:

Help me, somebody!!

I was afraid that double submit might have happened.

Can someone delete the first one? I wasn't done editing, yet.

Thanks,
Ron

Fixed.

[AVmetro]

I'm behind! It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that I've slept about 80-90% of the past two weeks away. Please, no quotes from the book of Proverbs on over-sleeping...

Ron-

I printed off your reply yesterday and began to work on it. I should have a reply soon. Thanks for your patience.

God bless--IM

[Ron Macy]

IronMetro,

I'm behind! It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that I've slept about 80-90% of the past two weeks away.

I have only two things to say.

1. I am jealous.

2. You must have needed it.

Thanks, too, for editing out the first of the double post. I really appreciate it.

Ron

[AVmetro]

If the following appears a bit choppy and there are a few spelling errors, please forgive them. I had printed your reply, written in my comments while at work, then basically kept forgetting to type it out (translation: Went to sleep when I should have been doing better things )

Fashionably late, but here she goes..

---------------------------------------------------------

Ron Macy stated:

Hebrew poetry is big on parallelisms. Different phrases are used to describe the same things or to show the antithesis. In this case, I don’t believe there needs to be any nuances which distinguish word, light, and life. If I were to suggest a difference, it would be in the effect of the word on men and not differences of definition. Word could represent the thought processes of God directed toward the salvation of men and ultimately, the Kingdom of God. Light could represent the contrast of God’s thought processes with the thought processes of the world or mankind, light contrasted with dark. Life could point to the ultimate effect of the thought processes of God for mankind, God’s plan means eternal life for us. (Sounds like a sermon in there somewhere.) All three are the same thing, just viewed from a different perspective.

The above helps to an extent. My main reson for aksing being as a result of such examples as your response to my obs4rvation that the Apostle John takes great care not to confuse *the person* of John the Baptist with the 'True Light'. Hence I proposed an explanation that I had derived from your reply to that point. Thanks.

I also want to take this time to point out a slight double standard on your part. You have taken the liberty to label the [greek]logoV[/greek] as being the "plan of God", "laws of God" etc,. when I see neither the *word* 'plan' (i.e. in the Greek) etc,. in the immediate context. Your basis for interpretation appears to be somewhat similar to mine, yet with less substantiation, I would assert.

...8<...

Ron Macy stated:

I am not sure I understand what the genitive dia has to do with God creating the universe by His plan.

So long as you don't argue that it means "on account of", I see not point in arguing over it.

Ron Macy stated:

For what it is worth, I don’t believe Hebrews 1:10-12 is speaking of Jesus. I believe it is speaking of God (uni-personal). I think the conjunction in verse 10 marks a line between what is being said about the Messiah and what is being said about God.

That's rather strange as the conjunction ('[greek]kai[/greek]') is what I strongly believe necessitates that the quote apply to the Son. The theme of the first chapter of Hebrews (vs4) is to demonstrate the superiorityof the Son to the angels. Hence, I cannot find a reason to make mention of the FAthewr, especially given the fclear pattern of the context (note vs13 as a continuation of this pattern after vss10-12). In every instance, the authro of HEbrews makes it a point to state to whom thje following quotation refers e.g. vs5 'angels', vs6 'firstborn', vs7 'angels', vs8 'Son' [.....] vs13 'angels'. Following each of the mentioned, a quotation from the OT is provided to prove a point i.e. to support the author's argument. That being said, we now focus on vs8. Note;

"But to the Son [Christ] He [the Father] says.."

..OT quote (Ps 45:6-7)

AND ['[greek]kai[/greek]']

..OT quote (Ps 102:25-27 LXX)

Again, I see no visible reason why the FAther would be in view here, given the theme of the ocntext as well as the OT quote itself ie.. the eternality of YHWH (a sheer 'given' to the audience of Hebrews). You can see a parallel example in vs5 i.e.;

"For to which of the angels did He ever say.."

..OT quote.. (Ps2:7)

AND ['[greek]kai[/greek]']

..OT quote.. (2Sam 7:14)

I believe that Heb1:10 unequivocably proves the preexistence (and deity) of Jesus Christ.

Ron Macy stated:

I believe you have this backwards. The idea of any person having conscious existence before their birth is not clear in nature. By that I mean by observing the world around us there is no reason to believe anyone or anything has existed as sentient beings before their birth.

What you need to provide is clear, explicit teaching from the scripture that someone has had sentient existence before their birth. I believe you have assumed sentient existence before birth is possible without having explicit scriptures to support the idea. So, it is not I who has to prove Jesus did not preexist. It is you who must prove He did preexist. So far, you haven’t. (At least in my opinion.)

I can't think of this as gbeing anything other than a red herring. See Jezz's post addressing this. The argument only swings both ways. The same applies to God's omni-"x" and eternality of YHWH. That is, I cannot find such in nature ergo it must not be true of YHWH. The reasoning fails. The problem is, there are numerous passages which speak of Christ as preexisting His birth in Bethlehem. It is only the detractors interpretation of these passages sans any scriptural support that states otherwise.

Ron Macy stated:

This is really confusing. I am trying to determine which “God” in what context is a ‘personal name’ which can be eliminated.

More specifcally, the *person* of God as you view Him in the context.

Ron Macy stated:

...8<...

If I were to look at it from what I believe is your perspective, John 1:1 would come out somewhat like this.

1b: the Word was with (one whose name is) God,
1c: and the Word was (one whose name is) God.

Yet I am not arguing from MY perspective. I am arguing from yours. Under my view, the LogoV is preexistant deity who is with God [the Father]. There isn't a need for discernment as theos in 1b, in my view, is simply the Father.

Ron Macy stated:

Yet, you are saying one of these, (one whose name is) God, is eliminated as a condender for the name in verse 12. Is it both? One or the other? Which? If it is one or the other, how can I tell the difference without making some assumptions before I come to this passage?

Remember, I am not arguing for the "name" in vs12 as being 'God'. I am arguing that it is that of Christ i.e. Jesus. Now as to your question, there is no need to 'make assumptions' before hand as we are told which 'God' it is i.e. we know the LogoV is not the *person* of the Father; we know that the LogoV is WITH the Father. Third, John 1b uses 'ho theos' in reference to the Father, whereas the article is lacking in reference to the 'Word'. I cite James White's argument as to why this is:

• This last phrase has come under heavy fire throughout the ages. The correct translation of this passage is here given, and anyone interested in the technical aspects of the argument are referred to Appendix A. Basically, the passage teaches that the Word, as to His essential nature, is God. John does not here call the Word "a divine one," as some polytheistic Greek might say. He did not use the adjective, theios, which would describe a divine nature, or a god-like one. Instead, he used theos, the very word John will use consistently for the Father, the "only true God" (17:3). He uses the term three times of Jesus in the Gospel, here, in 1:18, and in 20:28. It can not be doubted that John would never call a creature theos. His upbringing and Jewish heritage forbad that.
  How then are we to undertand these two phrases? Benjamin B. Warfield said:
  
  "And the Word was with God." The language is pregnant. It is not merely coexistence with God that is asserted, as of two beings standing side by side, united in local relation, or even in a common conception. What is suggested is an active relation of intercourse. The distinct personality of the Word is therefore not obscurely intimated. From all eternity the Word has been with God as a fellow: He who in the very beginning already "was," "was" also in communion with God. Though He was thus in some sense a second along with God, He was nevertheless not a seperate being from God: "And the Word was" --still the eternal "was" --"God." In some sense distinguishable from God, He was in an equally true sense identical with God. There is but one eternal God; this eternal God, the Word is; in whatever sense we may distinguish Him from the God whom He is "with," He is yet not another than this God, but Himself is this God. The predicate "God" occupies the position of emphasis in this great declaration, and is so placed in the sentence as to be thrown up in sharp contrast with the phrase "with God," as if to prevent inadequate inferences as to the nature of the Word being drawn even momentarily from that phrase. John would have us realize that what the Word was in eternity was not merely God's coeternal fellow, but the eternal God's self. (3)
  
  The Beloved Apostle walks a tight line here. By the simple ommission of the article ("the", or in Greek, ho) before the word for God in the last phrase, John avoids teaching Sabellianism, while by placing the word where it is in the clause, he defeats another heresy, Arianism, which denies the true Deity of the Lord Jesus. A person who accepts the inspiration of the Scriptures can not help but be thrilled at this passage.

[Source: http://aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html]

Ron Macy stated:

If we consider logos as an inanimate concept, it is indeed with God (1b). As an inaimate concept of God’s, it does have all the character traits of God (1c). But because logos isn’t a person, God is not eliminated as a contender for name in verse 12. In fact, God is the only person in view.

I would still think so. As I stated prior, (and, ironically to cite the old Unitarian argument ;-), the LogoV is said to be WITH the person of God [the Father], therefore He/It cannot BE the person of the Father, unless one wanted to argue for Sabellianism. Lastly, stating that the LogoV is not a person is assuming one's case in advance.

...8<...

Ron Macy:

In what you quoted from me, “. . .verse 11 and 12 can refer to laws of God. . .,” I specifically did not capitalize ‘laws’ so as to not confuse what I was saying with the Laws of Moses. It didn’t work, did it?

Yet confusing it is nonetheless. The only "laws of God" I know of are those found in the Torah i.e. the Mosaic Law. Whether it is capitalized or not, doesn't give a clear indication that you meant otherwise than what would be obviously taken by "laws of God''. Secondly, could you clarify a little further what is meant by "believing on the name {of these laws}..in order to obtain eternal life? The reference to Christ seems so clear to me as to exclude any other interpretation.

Ron Macy stated:

The logos is the plan of God for the salvation of mankind and it’s culmination in the Kingdom of God. It is the thread of hope which runs from Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:15) to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 15:5-8; 17:5-8; etc.) to Judah (Genesis 49:8-12) to Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15-19) to David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; 2 Chronicles 17:11:14; Psalm 22; 23; 24; 89:3-4, 26-27, 29, 36-37; 110:1-2) to Isaiah (52:13-14; 53, etc) to Jeremiah (23:5-6; 33:14-16) to Daniel (7:13-14) to Micah (5:2) and culminates in Jesus (Matthew 5:17-20 as far as the Laws of Moses is concerned).

I have no disagreement that the above is the "plan of God". What needs to be settled is whether or not this is what 'LogoV' in Jn1 denotes. Granted that it does denote this what is to say that it does not speak of Christ as the "plan of God" as it does in 1Jn1:1-2 and Rev19:13 without the a priori assumption that Christ did not preexist?

Ron Macy:

God gave the Laws to Moses for many reasons. There were health regulations which have separated the Jews from many diseases for centuries. There were sacrifices which in one way or another have pointed to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus. Finally, there is the demand for the righteousness and holiness of the people of Israel. Paul wrote in Romans 7 about the holiness of the Law. Paul wrote in Galatians 3 about how the Law of Moses was to be a teacher to us until we recognize a single piece of information. That single piece of information is no one has obeyed the Law of Moses perfectly, nor can obey the Law of Moses perfectly, and therefore, we can only throw ourselves on the mercy of God for true forgiveness, righteousness, and holiness (It is my contention there have been people from the time of Moses until Jesus who recognized this and had faith in God to make them righteous even as they were as obedient as possible to the Law.). The ultimate purpose of the Laws of Moses were to point us to the grace of God through Jesus. Jesus being the only man who has perfectly obeyed the Laws of Moses (Hebrews 4:15).

Again, there is not to much to disagree with here so far as what the *word* 'LogoV' might denote. However, it can easily apply to Christ in name and allow for His preexistence. Even as an alternate explanation, it doesn't present any new argument against the preex of Christ. Again, See 1Jn1:1-2 and Rev19:13. What does it denote here? What does it denote in Jn1?

Ron Macy stated:

All of this is what the logos is.

I like Isaiah’s words in Isaiah 46:9-10.
"Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';

His words suggest to me what I have been saying. God had this plan in mind before the beginning of time. Just because God knew Jesus would exist, it doesn’t mean Jesus had a conscious existence from before the beginning of time.

See (immediately following vs14) Jn1:15, 27, 30. What does this necessitate? You mentioned the "plan of God". We see in Jn1:23 that John the Baptist came 'first', so to speak, in the plan of God's revelation of the Messiah (See Jn1:31). Furthermore, we see in Luke2:57 that John the Baptist was born prior to Christ as well. With this in mind, we can accurately interpret the implications of said vss. I know the common reply, but rather than assume in advance your response, I'll wait for your reply before commenting further. Thanks.

God bless--IronMetro

[AVmetro]

09-13-2003 @ 09:59 AM post located here
Ron Macy:

IronMetro,



I have only two things to say.

1. I am jealous.

2. You must have needed it.

Thanks, too, for editing out the first of the double post. I really appreciate it.

Ron

No, I certainly don't deserve it . Although I'm a bit young for it, probably just a heart attack making it's way around the corner .

[Ron Macy]

IronMetro

You wrote,

Yet I am not arguing from MY perspective. I am arguing from yours. Under my view, the LogoV is preexistant deity who is with God [the Father]. There isn't a need for discernment as theos in 1b, in my view, is simply the Father.

I must admit, this statement brought me considerable confusion. I was positive this discussion about the name of God was your presentation of your ideas and not your presentation of my inconsistencies. Here is the sequence I found relating to the "name" of God piece of the discussion.

In post#22, you wrote.

John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus.

In post#35, I wrote

Your statement, "John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus," is extremely misleading. You should not let your enthusiasm for the trinity bring you to reading things into the Word of God which aren't there. Since the name of Jesus isn't mentioned until verse 17 and the mention of Jesus' birth isn't until verse 14, I don't believe Jesus should be read 'back' into verse 12. I believe it is more reasonable to consider the name in which people are to believe is the name of God.

In post#57, you wrote,

I simply turned your own argument around. You have insisted that I'm 'assuming' that the 'name' of the Word is "Jesus". Yet you in turn assert that the "name" is that of 'God'. You support your rebuttal of my view by pointing out that the name "Jesus" does not appear in the context under discussion. However, you may also note that there is no warrant for claiming that the "name" is that of 'God'. Where is this in the immediate context? What necessitates your view over mine? That is your 'assumption' I was pointing out.

In post#70, you wrote,

Yet in my reply you have quoted, I explained why two of the three possible antecedents were not valid. I restate; John the Baptist came to witness to the [greek] LogoV [/greek]. That eliminates that option. Earlier, the [greek]logoV[/greek] is said to be with God (Cf..vs18). If we take "God" in this context to denote a 'personal name' then that option is also eliminated.

I think those are the pertinent quotes. It seems to go back to your unfounded (in my opinion) assertion the logos is named, Jesus, in John 1:12.
I pointed out the lack of foundation for the assertion.
You said I had no foundation for believing the name in v. 12 was that of God.
I stated the use of God in the previous verses was foundation for believing the name was that of God.
You seem to be saying taking "God" in this context to denote a 'personal name' eliminates God as an antecedent.
You are not arguing from MY perspective when you eliminate "God" as the antecedent. I see no logical reason to eliminate "God" as the antecedent. The plan can certainly be with God and have the same character as God without being a person.

As far as I am concerned, this discussion about the 'name' has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus had a sentient existence before his birth.


I wrote,

What you need to provide is clear, explicit teaching from the scripture that someone has had sentient existence before their birth. I believe you have assumed sentient existence before birth is possible without having explicit scriptures to support the idea. So, it is not I who has to prove Jesus did not preexist. It is you who must prove He did preexist. So far, you haven't. (At least in my opinion.)

To which you responded,

I can't think of this as gbeing anything other than a red herring. See Jezz's post addressing this. The argument only swings both ways. The same applies to God's omni-"x" and eternality of YHWH. That is, I cannot find such in nature ergo it must not be true of YHWH. The reasoning fails. The problem is, there are numerous passages which speak of Christ as preexisting His birth in Bethlehem. It is only the detractors interpretation of these passages sans any scriptural support that states otherwise.

By calling my request a "red herring" are you attempting to get around not supplying scripture to prove someone has had a sentient existence before his birth? I hope not. When it comes to the "numerous passages which speak of Christ as preexisting His birth in Bethelem," we have, so far, only considered John 1. I have shown it does not have to teach sentient existence before birth.

Now, if you want to consider existence in the mind of God before birth, I believe the Bible supports that.

I wrote Jezz,

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. 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.

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

Jezz responded in
post#81,

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.

I am not sure Jezz understood exactly what he was saying with this piece of logic. If you look closely, you will recognize the argument, "The Bible doesn't teach trinity because the word, trinity, is not in the Bible." You wouldn't accept that if I tried to use it, I don't know why I should accept the same kind of argument from either of you.


Romans 1:18-20 tells us what can be known about God is evident in us and in God's creation. Paul said, "His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." How is the triune nature of God "clearly seen" in us or in creation? Do I believe you or Paul?

You see, in my response to Jezz, I didn't rely on nature only to prove the eternity of God. I do go to the Bible for support of the "omnis." There are clear teachings of God's omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. What I haven't seen and you haven't provided is clear teaching anyone can have a sentient existence before their birth.

I continue to assert, if you don't have clear teaching on the sentient existence before birth or the multi-personal nature of an being, you have no reason to read those ideas into your interpretation of the scripture. You can claim this is a red herring and ignore it, but honest people will know you and Jezz haven't proven your point.


You wrote,

Yet confusing it is nonetheless. The only "laws of God" I know of are those found in the Torah i.e. the Mosaic Law.

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.


You wrote,

What needs to be settled is whether or not this is what 'LogoV' in Jn1 denotes. Granted that it does denote this what is to say that it does not speak of Christ as the "plan of God" as it does in 1Jn1:1-2 and Rev19:13 without the a priori assumption that Christ did not preexist?

I am not sure what you were trying to say with your "Granted..." sentence.

Please, note, I do not have an "a priori assumption that Christ did not preexist."
Neither do I have an "a priori assumption" that Christ did preexist.

So far, the evidence presented that John 1 teaches the preexistence of Jesus is not satisfying. I believe the alternative I have presented is an extremely viable interpretation of the passage without inserting Biblically unsubstantiated ideas.

You wrote,

Even as an alternate explanation, it doesn't present any new argument against the preex of Christ. Again, See 1Jn1:1-2 and Rev19:13. What does it denote here? What does it denote in Jn1?

I don't see anything in 1 John 1:1-2 which proves the pre-birth sentience of Jesus.
Again, simply because Jesus is called "The Word of God" in Revelation does not prove pre-birth sentience.


You wrote,

See (immediately following vs14) Jn1:15, 27, 30. What does this necessitate? You mentioned the "plan of God". We see in Jn1:23 that John the Baptist came 'first', so to speak, in the plan of God's revelation of the Messiah (See Jn1:31). Furthermore, we see in Luke2:57 that John the Baptist was born prior to Christ as well. With this in mind, we can accurately interpret the implications of said vss. I know the common reply, but rather than assume in advance your response, I'll wait for your reply before commenting further.

15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'"

27 "It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."

30 "This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'

John the Baptist said the Messiah is higher in rank than himself. Is that the "common reply?"

Ron

[AVmetro]

Hello Ron and thanks for the reply! I'll read your response, form my comments and get back with you as time permits. Thanks.

God bless you,
IronMetro

[Socrates]

And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was attached indicating who was being killed. Who was it? It
is a grievous thing to tell, but a most fearful thing to refrain from telling. But listen, as you tremble before him on
whose account the earth trembled!

He who hung the earth in place is hanged.
He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place.
He who made all things fast is made fast on a tree.
The Sovereign is insulted.
God is murdered.
The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand.

This is the One who made the heavens and the earth,
and formed mankind in the beginning,
The One proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets,
The One enfleshed in a virgin,
The One hanged on a tree,
The One buried in the earth,
The One raised from the dead
and who went up into the heights of heaven,
The One sitting at the right hand of the Father,
The One having all authority to judge and save,
Through Whom the Father made the things which exist
from the beginning of time.

This One is “the Alpha and the Omega,”
This One is “the beginning and the end”
—the beginning indescribable and the end incomprehensible.
This One is the Christ.
This One is the King.
This One is Jesus.
This One is the Leader.
This One is the Lord.
This One is the One who rose from the dead.
This One is the One sitting on the right hand of the Father.
He bears the Father and is borne by the Father.
“To him be the glory and the power forever.
Amen.”

[AVmetro]

socrates-

That piece is an excellent demonstration of love for our Lord and Savior. I had seen that cited in James White's book, 'The Forgotten Trinity'. Is that where you got it?

God bless--AV

[Socrates]

AV

Good pickup! Indeed, it came from White, but I extracted it from the article I posted at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...334#post229334

Blessings in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
~Soc.

[Ron Macy]

AVMetro,

How is the response to my post coming?

Ron

[AVmetro]

Ron Macy:

AVMetro,

How is the response to my post coming?

Ron

Thanks for the reminder! Let me dig it out and type it up real quick. I've been spending a good deal of time on an e-list and have been neglecting my duties here..
:pile: