Did Jesus Christ preexist His birth in Bethlehem?

[AVmetro]

Hi, Ron-

(*forgive any spelling errors)

Ron Macy stated:

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.

I'm not sure what you mean. I do not see how presenting both would be confusing. I present my rgument, you supply a rebuttal whereas I in turn critique it. Isn't that standard procedure?

I'll provide comments to each of the below quotations of myself (and you) as I may have not been all too clear:

In post#22, you wrote.

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

You argued that the Logos was simly the "plan" of God. I pointed out the fact that the Logos had a 'name' prior to vs14 which would entail a personal nature in most cases. The fact that this name is employed in the salvic process tells me the case is not a figurative one.

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.

Here you argue that the name is not that of Jesus on the interesting basis that the name is not found within the immediate context. I replied that the name of God is ''YHWH'' and is not found in the immediate context. Therefore in order to demonstrate the double standard I had seen in your argument, I stated the following as you quoted me:

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 the above I pointed out that God's name "YHWH is not found in the prologue. As memory serves, you argued that "God" in the prologue is a "personal name" and that THIS is the antecedent of vs12. In reply to your argument I stated the following:

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.

>

Ron Macy stated:

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.

The salvic efficiency of believing on the "name" (Cf. Jn20:30) is substantiation in itself. IMHO, "name" by this one reason itself, denotes Jesus.

Ron Macy stated:

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.

Not exactly. Either way I believe it is excluded. I argued that the Logos being WITH the "God" of John 1:1a (the Father) excluded Him from being the antecedent in vs12.

Ron Macy stated:

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.

Yet I have to assume this possibility for it to work. And this is the only way it *could* work as I see it. Otherwise, "God" in Jn1:1a is excluded as an antecedent.

Ron Macy stated:
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.

I don't need to prove that someone has preexisted. Just one, Christ. In my view, Christ is entirely unique in these regards. There are plenty of verses to support this, Jn6:62 being another example. I haven't assumed anything. I have simply read scripture as it is written.

Ron Macy stated:

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

As to the above, I believe so as well. See, for example, Jer1:5. However, as I made the point before, there are instances in scripture where the interpretation of "existence in the mind of God", merely, will patently fail. I had cited Heb1:10-12 as one such example. All argument aside, IF Heb1:10-12 applies to Christ, would you concede that such a reference could not simply speak of "mental thought" and therefore must necessarily entail that Christ preexisted?

...8<...

Ron Macy stated:

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.

If it's a new commandment under the Messianic age, then it is not relevant to Jn1:12 (proceeding it's declaration in Jn13:34).

...8<...

Ron Macy stated:

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.

What it does is identify Christ as the 'Logos' of Jn1-12. It yields further weight to the "name" being that of Christ. In any case, it shifts the burden your way to demonstrate that the Logos in the Apostle John's gospel is a different denotation than in the same Apostle John's epistle and apocalypse.

Ron Macy stated:

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?"

Yes. You have overlooked the reason "why" Christ is of a 'higher rank' than John the Baptist. The Baptist states this reason explicitly. See my first reply in these regards. Christ is of a higher rank than John the Baptist BECAUSE He {as you translation puts it} "..existed before me."

God bless you--AVmetro

[Frank4YAHWEH]

No, Yahshua did not pre-exist his birth in Bethlehem.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Frogwarrior

Please do not advertise your website (or another) in your post. Your signature line is convenient for this purpose.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[carelinks]

Hi AvMetro
I noticed your appeal to Jn. 6:62. Here's my take:

The Lord's language of coming down from Heaven can be understood from a very powerful devotional aspect. He reasons that because He had come down from Heaven, therefore, whoever comes to Him, He would never reject (Jn. 6:37,38). The connection is in the word "come". We 'come' to Jesus not by physically travelling towards Him, but in our mental attitudes. He likewise 'comes' to us, not by moving trillions of kilometers from Heaven to earth, but in His 'coming' down into our lives and experiences. If He has come so very far to meet us, and we come to Him... then surely we will meet and He will not turn away from us, exactly because He has 'come' so far to meet us. This theme continues throughout John's Gospel. "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn. 6:62) is therefore not a reference to Him physically travelling off anywhere- He is saying that if people would not 'come' to Him in meeting, then He would withdraw the opportunity from them. He wouldn't stand waiting for them indefinitely. This explains the urgency behind His appeals to 'come' to Him. He had 'come down', and was waiting for people to 'come' to Him. He's come a huge distance, from the heavenly heights of His own spirituality, to meet with whores and gamblers, hobby level religionists, self-absorbed little people... and if we truly come to Him, if we want to meet with Him, then of course He will never turn us away. For it was to meet with us that He 'came down'. This approach shows the fallacy of interpreting His 'coming down' to us and our 'coming' to Him in a literal sense.

And yet this Lord of all grace also sought to confirm men and women in the path they chose. He admitted that His comment about Himself being the manna which descended from Heaven was a "hard saying". And yet He goes straight on to say [perhaps with a slight smile playing at the corner of His lips] something even more enigmatic: "What and if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn. 6:62). Surely He is here chosing to give them yet another, even harder "saying"; and goes on to stress that His sayings, His words, are the way to life eternal (Jn. 6:63). For those who didn't want His words, He was confirming them in their darkness. And He did this by the mechanism of using an evidently "hard saying". Therefore to simplistically interpret the saying as meaning that the Lord had literally descended from Heaven through the sky just as literally as He would ascend there through the clouds... is in fact to quite miss the point- that this is a "hard saying". It's not intended to have a simplistic, literalistic interpretation.

Best wishes

Ducnan

[IncRus]

Many believe He did (e.g. Trinitarians, JWs, Mormons et al). Some do not (e.g. Christadelphians, et al).

I hold the view that He did. In this thread I would like to discuss, in particular, the prologue of John {1:1-18}, the first chapter of Hebrews {1:1-13) in addition to a few others as I believe these emphatically demonstrate that Christ preexisted His entrance into the world of humanity.

I have argued my postion on Jn1:1 here if one needs something to work with.

God bless

To those who believe that Jesus pre-existed his birth in Bethlehem, the question that begs Biblical answer is - what was he before his birth in Bethlehem?

Was he God? Definitely not!

John 1:1 does not refer specifically to Jesus. John, being a Jew, would have gone AGAINST his belief that there is only one God if he had Jesus in mind when he wrote, "the word was WITH God and WAS God. Therefore, it is absurd to suppose that John was referring to Jesus.

I agree with the Christadelphians that John could have been referring to God's SPOKEN word concerning His PLAN to send Jesus into the world.

Was he Michael the archangel? Definityely not! There is NOTHING in the Bible that says he was!

The ONLY way Jesus could have pre-existed before his birth in Bethlem was by his having been "FOREORDAINED before the foundation of the world, but was manifested in these last time for you" (1 Peter 1:20).

[Okieshowedem]

The only pre'existing false savior this deceived worlds knows is Jesus The Christ of the Christian religion.
This very name of this false savior is an abomimanation to all the Hebrew prophets and the apostles of the Real Messiah.
This name " Jesus Christ" is a figment of the Christian religion's teaching that started with the first Pope.
Should you truly want to know the truth about what the Hebrew Messiah's Name is, start with the Sabbath.
Since most Christians go to Church on Sunday they already have the mark of the beast on them.
How very sad that so many say they want to know the truth but are to lazy to study their own Bibles.
There is a secret given in IsaYAH 2:2 and MicahYAH 4:1 that will help all who have eyes to see, understand how Satan has dceceived the whole world with the Christian religion. Rev.12:9.


Now to Him to Whom honor belongs both now and forever
be praise from His children.

Hallelu-YAHWEH!

Okieshowedem

[Bill the Cat]

The only pre'existing false savior this deceived worlds knows is Jesus The Christ of the Christian religion.
This very name of this false savior is an abomimanation to all the Hebrew prophets and the apostles of the Real Messiah.
This name " Jesus Christ" is a figment of the Christian religion's teaching that started with the first Pope.
Should you truly want to know the truth about what the Hebrew Messiah's Name is, start with the Sabbath.
Since most Christians go to Church on Sunday they already have the mark of the beast on them.
How very sad that so many say they want to know the truth but are to lazy to study their own Bibles.
There is a secret given in IsaYAH 2:2 and MicahYAH 4:1 that will help all who have eyes to see, understand how Satan has dceceived the whole world with the Christian religion. Rev.12:9.


Now to Him to Whom honor belongs both now and forever
be praise from His children.

Hallelu-YAHWEH!

Okieshowedem

Which loonie bin guard fell asleep and let you out?

[Ormly]

There are two words that must, of necessity, be interjected and distinctions carefully made betwen them.

1, Reality, as being the domain of the Father.

2. Actuality, those things spoken into existence from the reality of God. Things given to man to touch that explain Him; His "Reality"

Now, In this we can see Jesus. The "Word" became flesh. . . . . .Reality became Actuality.

[Okieshowedem]

John 1:1-5 Translated from the Greek LOGOS-meaning something said including the thoughts; by implication: a topic or subject of set discourse; also reasoning with the mental faculties, and motive. Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Page 380-382.
This Greek word LOGOS shows to be itself the Greek translation of the original Hebrew word DABAR, which means: Yahweh's revealed will, His WHOLE PLAN and purpose for mankind.
The Interperter's Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 4, Page 870-871.
Some of the most blatant MISUNDERSTANDING and DECEIT has arisen because of John 1:1-5
These five verses of the Scriptures are used to justify the PAGAN concept of the Trinity that still exist in the religions of today; trying to justify the doctrine that Yahshua Messiah "pre-existed" that it Yahshua Who was being referred to as the WORD, that Yahshua was a god (el) previously, and now, Yahshua Messiah is the god (el) of the "new testament". All this is due to the translators' lack of Spiritual Understanding, Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity by Samuel Sharpe, page 13-14, The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Bablyonias by A.H. Sayce Pages 229-230, A Statement of Reason for Not Believing the Doctrine of Trinttrans by Andrews Norton, page 94.

Sad thing is most Christian I know are to lazy to study for themselves as they are instructed to do, they allow their Church doctrine to deceived them into believing the great lie.


Okieshowedem

[Ormly]

There are two words that must, of necessity, be interjected and distinctions carefully made betwen them.

1, Reality, as being the domain of the Father.

2. Actuality, those things spoken into existence from the reality of God. Things given to man to touch that explain Him; His "Reality"

Now, In this we can see Jesus. The "Word" became flesh. . . . . .Reality became Actuality.

" And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6 (NASB) He will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Him whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. (Zechariah 12:10 (NASB) Emphasis added

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46 (KJV)

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." John 20:17 (KJV)

"The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." John 20:25-27 (KJV)

[Bill the Cat]

John 1:1-5 Translated from the Greek LOGOS-meaning something said including the thoughts; by implication: a topic or subject of set discourse; also reasoning with the mental faculties, and motive. Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Page 380-382.
This Greek word LOGOS shows to be itself the Greek translation of the original Hebrew word DABAR, which means: Yahweh's revealed will, His WHOLE PLAN and purpose for mankind.
The Interperter's Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 4, Page 870-871.
Some of the most blatant MISUNDERSTANDING and DECEIT has arisen because of John 1:1-5
These five verses of the Scriptures are used to justify the PAGAN concept of the Trinity that still exist in the religions of today; trying to justify the doctrine that Yahshua Messiah "pre-existed" that it Yahshua Who was being referred to as the WORD, that Yahshua was a god (el) previously, and now, Yahshua Messiah is the god (el) of the "new testament". All this is due to the translators' lack of Spiritual Understanding, Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity by Samuel Sharpe, page 13-14, The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Bablyonias by A.H. Sayce Pages 229-230, A Statement of Reason for Not Believing the Doctrine of Trinttrans by Andrews Norton, page 94.

Sad thing is most Christian I know are to lazy to study for themselves as they are instructed to do, they allow their Church doctrine to deceived them into believing the great lie.


Okieshowedem

So how'd that 1/3 of the world dying turn out for you, oh false prophet??

[mudcake]

Jewish thought about the Memra of God in the targums and wisdom doctrine have nothing to do with the erroneous idea of God’s wisdom or Logos subsisting from eternity as a distinct self conscious 'person' along God Almighty, neither the idea that within God exists three distinct persons that form one divine being as conjectured in Trinitarian theology.

The Word of God did not subsisted as a distinct person alongside God Almighty according to the OT biblical history as some Trinitarians conjecture. I am very familiar with Memra (Aramaic) and/or Davar (Hebrew) theology as exemplified in the speculative and conjectural ancient rabbinical thought. It appears however you don’t understand these concepts and their usage within the Targums. THe Memra (Aramaic) and/or Davar (Hebrew) of God did not subsist as a distinct self conscious person alongside God Almighty.

In the Targums, the word of God, memra, is often substituted where the text of the bible speaks of God anthropomorphically. The Jews erroneously interpreted these anthropomorphic examples of God as resembling his creation, which is the first mistake they made. In erroneously comparing the anthropomorphic action of God to the similtudes of his creation, they conjectured a personified abstraction/concept of the divine presence and power of God to keep God from seeming to come too close with man and creation. It was a conjectural framework aimed to preserve God's transcendence. Do your reaserch Sparko, the Memra/Debar was not conceived as a distinct 'hypostasis' or 'person' that subsisted alongside God Almighty, according to ancient rabbinical thought.

A Trinitarian proclaims:

Before He incarnated down to this world, Christ was -and still IS, the pre-incarnate WORD (or Logos) of God, through which God created all things.

Trinitarians like Old Shepherd advance forth forth with a erroneous presumption that God's Word actually subsisted as a self conscious, self aware 'person' that conversed with God Almighty from eternity. OT biblical history knew nothing of the existence of God's Word that emanated from Himself that existed as a distinct divine 'person' identified as a 'Son of God'. An adherence to belief that God's Word subsisted as a divine 'person' alongside God almighty sharing the same essence of divinity is polytheism in the highest degee.

The idea that God's Word/Memra/Debar subisted from eternity as a distinct self conscious 'PERSON' alongsie God Almighty is an erroneous innovation conjectured by a sect of misguided Jews who professed to be so-called followers of Christ that marked the distinct mutation away from biblical monotheism. Before Jesus appeared on earth, Wisdom/Logos was personified, when Jesus appeared on earth, the Wisdom/Logos was now erroneously literally interpreted in Jesus as pre-existing and subsisting from eternity as a distinct 'PERSON' alongside God Almighty. This is a manifestation of polytheism, not clarified biblical monotheism.

The Christian Christological experience and interpretation of Jesus as the actual pre-existing Word of God as a distinct 'PERSON' traces the Genesis of the erronesous transition and innovation of the Wisdom/Logos philosophical/conjectural mode of thought from personification of the Word to the interpretation of the Word as an actual distinct self conscious 'Person!' subsisting from eternity.

Jesus was not The Word of God, neither was the 'word of God' subsisting as a 'son of God' in OT biblical history..... Jesus was created by The Word of God.

"Behold! The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "BE". And he was. " (Qur’an 3:59).

What was personified in Greek/Jewish Wisdom/Logos/Memra philosophical modes of thought in OT biblical history - God's wisdom/Logos - was now erroneously interpreted literally as a distinct divine 'person' that subsisted from eternity, which consequently prepared the articulation and foundations for the dubious idea that 'one God' subsists as three distinct 'persons' that form one divine being.

A trinitarian claimed:

God and His Word are ONE and can never be separated from eternity,
So, when God's eternal Word came down to this world, it left God and descended to the Earth but at the same time without leaving Him.

Yes, but the fundamental flaw in his theological conjecture is that God's Word never subsisted as a self conscious 'person' that existed and conversed with God Almighty from eternity. OT biblical history knows nothing of the myth that trinitarians erroneously propogate here. The false idea was begotten when misguided Jews who professed to believe in Jesus miscontrued the identity of Jesus as 'divine' by believing he pre-existed as God's word in NT times.

A trinitarian said:

It is the same as when I speak, my word proceeded from and left me, thats why people can hear them, AND YET AT THE VERY SAME TIME, my word still remains in me and with me and can never be separated from me.

No It's not the same LOL... his dubious analogy is as flawed as his bogus argumentation.

Does our word exist as a self conscious and self aware 'person' or 'figure' that speaks/converses with us? LOl.... NO!

Erroneously, postulating that God's Word existed as a personal 'Son of God' that shared the same essence of divnity with God Almighty translates as the worship of at least two eternal and distinct personal Gods, not the 'one God'.


The Gospel of John is a bogus Gospel that mostly reflects the personal spiritual self perception of what the author(s) believed about Jesus, not what Jesus believed about himself.

The Author(s) were merely conveying and interpreting their experience and traditions of Jesus through their distorted perceptions and preconceptions that reflects their Jewish Wisdom/Logos mode of thought and expressions.

The Personified Wisdom literature/narratives were applied (midrash) as a contextual and exegetical framework to interpret the person of Jesus as the perfect ‘image’ or emissary that represented or exemplified the will of God’s creative thought or word as typified in the Old Testament.

The fact that the fundamental objective of applying the Jewish wisdom modes of thought was to conceptualize how Jesus exemplified, represented, typified, illustrated, demonstrated, personifed the will or thought of God embodied in God’s Word (Logos) explains one reason why ‘Logos’ and not ‘wisdom’ is employed as the appropriate literary term/device, since the primary focus is God Almighty’s Word, that embodies the expression of His Wisdom, his will and power, and the outgoing of the divine energy, life, love and light manifested toward his creation.

The infusion of ancient personified Jewish wisdom thought and Hellenic Logos ideas formulated very speculative and powerful influential ways of interpreting God’s relationship to his creation, which transparently shaped the very perception and articulation of the Logos theology of Philo. The same set of influences that shaped Philo’s conception of the personified Logos as a ‘ son of God’ can also be evidently seen in the articulation of the Logos Christology and Sonship derived from the Gospel of John.

Whether the similarities in concept and expression seen in the Gospel of John was the directly result or influence by the conjectural theology of Philo - is debatable, but not easily dismissed see why - http://www.socinian.org/philo.html

However, what is transparently clear is that both authors utilized/adapted the same speculative theological modes of thought and articulation that originated prior to Jesus birth and prevailed during their respective times, which reflects the significant similitude in their thought patterns and mode of expressions.

As a Trinitarian old shepherd, you advance with the bogus assumption that ‘the WORD of God’ becoming flesh implies the attribute of God – His Word - was actually an eternal self conscious personal ‘figure’ that pre-existed with God Almighty as a ‘Son of God’ that descended from heaven to incarnate or dwell in human flesh.

The questions that need to be raised on the outset are - Was the ‘Logos’ or ‘Word of God’ according to Jewish thought or biblical history ever presented as a actual self-conscious distinct personal figure or 'person' that subsisted from eternity with God Almighty that shared the same essence of divinity?

Philo describes the LOGOS (word) of God as a personified/allegorical/metaphorical first-begotten ‘son’ of God, not as an actual distinct self conscious personal figure or 'person' as erroneously conjectured by later Trinitarian thought. Keep this critical point in mind


Philo's Jewish monotheistic instinct was too strong to postulate that a distinct personal self conscious figure subsisted with God that possessed it’s own self awareness sharing the same ontological equality with God.

From a Jewish perspective, as long as God’s Logos or Wisdom was postulated as a personification and not literally as a self conscious ‘person, then theologically, these personified/allegorical conceptualizations generally fell within the borders of Jewish/biblical monotheism.


From a Jewish perspective, the most extreme instances in which Ancient Judaism assigned ‘personhood’ to an attribute or aspect of God is through the poetical mode of personification.

WHAT IS PERSONIFICATION ?

Personification, which the American Heritage Dictionary defines as

“A figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities or are represented as possessing human form.”

Personification of God’s attributes – His Word and Wisdom - represents a POETIC literary tool that is NOT intended to be taken literally. Literal interpretations would convey an altogether different, erroneous, and absurd meaning, but that is exactly what is commonly done with the ‘Word’ and ‘Wisdom’ of God by polytheistic Trinitarians.

The fact that the Word or Wisdom of God, in the bible, is presented AS IF a 'person' - figure of speech - through the mode of personification, does not change the literal fact that God’s word is only an attribute that does not possess its own self awareness.

Jewish thought had its own hypothetical/postulated intermediary figure going back centuries, certainly as old as Plato. For the Jews, in comparison to the Hellenic thought, God never became quite so inaccessible, but among the scribes of the period following the Exile, God was presented, THROUGH HUMAN CONJECTURE AND SPECULATION, as making himself known and working in the world through a part of himself they called LADY “Wisdom”.

From a Jewish perspective however, Personified Wisdom was presented as coming to earth, although there was never any Jewish thought of wisdom being ACTUALLY perceived as a real self conscious person, neither the being of God or his personified wisdom as being physically or literally incarnated in creation or actually in human flesh. This critical fact you must understand.

Here is what the Old Testament Book of Proverbs has to say about personified wisdom identified as ‘lady wisdom’ (wisdom linguistically is a feminine noun. Grammatically it would be incorrect to use feminine nouns as masculine, hence why wisdom is poetically personified as a ‘she’, not a ‘he’)

“By the gate, Wisdom calls aloud: ‘Men, it is to you I call . . . I am Wisdom, I bestow shrewdness, and show the way to knowledge and prudence . . . The Lord possessed me from the beginning of his works . . . when he set the heavens in their place I was there . . . I was at the Lord’s side each day . . . Happy is the man who keeps to my ways.” (From 8:1-36)


Two important aspects of Wisdom are featured here.

First, personified Wisdom is “pre-existent,” that is, wisdom, WHICH IN REALITY IS MERELY AN ATTRIBUTE OF GOD that has been symbolized/personified as a metaphorical person, was with God in heaven subsisting before the creation of the world. And wisdom is associated with God in that work. In reality, what this really means without the poetic mode of personification is God possesses divine wisdom from eternity and used his wisdom to create the heavens and earth.

An earlier verse, 3:19, makes it clear that Wisdom serves as an instrument in the process of creation:


“In wisdom the Lord founded the earth and by understanding he set the heavens in their place.”


The book of Baruch 3:37 (written centuries before Jesus birth) gives us a line which, even though Wisdom was originally intended as a reference to the ‘word of God’ –The Torah - may have had a profound influence on the future:


“Thereupon wisdom appeared on earth and dwelled among men.”


Was this one of the footsteps on the path to bringing a different “aspect” of God—the Son—down to earth? Has the author of John 1:1-14 adapted personified Jewish wisdom or Logos motifs (the infusion of both thoughts as did Philo) as an exegetical framework to present the incarnation of the Logos?: “So the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us.” (1:14) ?????

Yes he did!!!

On the other hand, the writer of one of the documents, which went into the composite 1 Enoch, end product of some first century Jewish apocalyptic sect, took a more pessimistic view of personified Wisdom’s residence on earth (42:1-2):

“Then wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the people, but she found no dwelling-place. So wisdom returned to her place and she settled permanently among the angels.”

Did Greek philosophy influence the early evolution of the Jewish Wisdom figure? It’s difficult to tell. But by the time we get to the Wisdom of Solomon composed PRIOR TO THE BIRTH OF JESUS influenced by Hellenic thought PRIOR TO THE BIRTH OF JESUS we can see a clear and exotic blending of Wisdom motifs used to represent the Logos of God. Wisdom is now the divine power active in the world, the spirit that pervades and governs all things. She is the Logos, but without the name. She is God’s “throne-partner,” a step away from the similitude of Christ sitting at the right hand of God as recorded in the New Testament. She, too, is pre-existent, an agent of creation.

And consider this passage from 7:22-30:


“. . . she rises from the power of God, a pure effluence of the glory of the Almighty . . . She is the brightness that streams from everlasting light, the flawless mirror of the active power of God and the image of his goodness . . . She spans the world in power from end to end, and orders all things benignly.”


Such thinking is clearly reflected in those opening verses of the Epistle to the Hebrew in the New Testament, defining the nature of the Son as “the effulgence of God’s splendor,” the image of God and the sustainer of the universe.

According to Trinitarian translation/interpretation, Colossians 1:15-20is also stamped with the same kind of wisdom imagery as well: the Son as the pre-existent image of God, a force, which created the universe and now holds it together.


DO YOU SEE HOW THESE PERVERTED INFLUENCES CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS FORMULATING THE ERRONEOUS TRINITARIAN CHRISTOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF JESUS YOU IGNORANTLY BELIEVE...


The Wisdom of Solomon or ‘the book of wisdom’ that was heavy infused with Greek Hellenic thought, prior to the birth of Jesus, also shows us that the time was ripe for the Logos and Wisdom to make a journey into the world. After the Exile, among both Jews and Greeks, the need for a transcendent God to interact in the affairs of his people was poetically expressed through their desire for God to send his representative, his revealer or mediator was being acutely felt. So much of the world was devastated. Wars, strife and evil spirits seemed to be winning. Humanity desperately looked for aid, direction and outright salvation. The need is reflected in poetic modes of expression like these, although this writer’s comments is one of optimism (Wisdom of Solomon, 9:10):


“Send her forth from the holy heavens, and from thy glorious throne bid her come down, so that she may labor at my side and I may learn what pleases thee.”


Were the Jews actually supplicating to God’s attribute that was actually a distinct self conscious ‘person’ identified as lady wisdom to come from the clouds? Where they supplicating to an actual personal being or deity besides God Almighty to descend from heaven to help them? Absolutely not!!!!



REMEMBER THE CRITICAL POINT ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF PERSONIFICATION:


The fact that the Word or Wisdom of God, in the bible, is presented as if a person - figure of speech - through the mode of personification, does not change the literal fact that God’s word is only or actually an attribute that does not possess its own self awareness.

Personification is a merely a perverted human conjecture that speculates or imagines through poetic modes of expression and human imagery how God Almighty might interact with his creation.

In some Jewish circles, personified Wisdom was seen as doing just that. She was thought of as sending “envoys,” entrusting them with teachings which revealed God, his wishes and his workings. In reality, (without personification) what this really means is that God was sending his revelations through angels or scriptures to mankind to guide them in the ways of their Lord.


It is important to examine Jewish post-canonical writings that outline the two theological developments that are derived from the personified Wisdom literature:


(1)The personification of Wisdom that is represented figuratively/metaphorically allegorically as IF a ‘person’ subsisting as a heavenly figure dwelling in heaven with God Almighty; and

(2) explicit identification of wisdom with the "Word," Torah, or Proverbs as special revelation.


Both of these developments find most explicit expression in literature written after the close of the Old Testament canon, but prior to the birth of Jesus, in certain apocryphal books.


In spite of their literary, apocryphal context, those developments retain great importance, both for illuminating the bridge to and background for the New Testament Christological interpretation of Jesus.


The authors of the New Testament are erroneously speaking of Jesus in exactly the same language or personified imagery as we find in the broader philosophical world, both Greek and Jewish.


Their idea of the spiritual Son has absorbed both the features and roles of the Logos - http://www.socinian.org/philo.html and personified Wisdom that originated centuries prior to the birth of Jesus.http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...34/ai_n8689929 (refer to Larry Hurtado book "One Lord..."


In reading the New Testament and imagining the New Testament writers as being inspired to a view of ‘God’s Son’, these authors are merely erroneously drawing on the prominent ideas of speculative ancient Jewish wisdom theology and the deeper ancient heritage infused with Hellenic though, which lay behind their distorted perception and interpretation of Jesus.


Irrespective to which of the diverse/contradictory/Christological interpretations of Jesus Christians believe in, the fundamental factor that connects all these diverse Christologies is that they all are significantly influenced and derived from the same personified Jewish/Greek speculative philosophies and conjectures that were used as templates/conceptualizations to erroneously interpret/express the identity of Jesus and his relationship to God Almighty.

These perverted Christologies derived from the NT reflect more what the alledged/professed follower believed about Jesus, not what Jesus perceived about his own self perception.

From an Islamic perspective, If you remove these erroneous human innovations, speculative philosophical conceptualizations that were erroneously applied to interpret the identity of Jesus, you will indeed recognize the true historical Jesus as Mighty Prophet and messenger of God Almighty and true Gospel of Jesus as proclaimed in the Quran:

"O People of the Book (Jews and Christians)! do not exaggerate in your religion: Nor say of God except the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His messengers. Say not "Three" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one : Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs."

"Christ does not distain to serve and worship God, nor do the angels, those nearest (to God): those who disdain His worship and are arrogant,-He will gather them all together unto Himself."

But to those who believe (have faith) AND do deeds of righteousness, He will give their rewards,- and more, out of His bounty: BUT THOSE WHO ARE DISDAINFUL AND ARROGANT, HE WILL PUNISH WITH A GRIEVIOUS PENALTY; NOR WILL THEY FIND, BESIDES GOD ANY TO PROTECT OR HELP THEM."

"Then those who believe in God, and hold fast to Him,- soon will He admit them to mercy and grace from Himself, and guide them to Himself by a straight way." (Quran - Sura 4:171-5)

In summary:

Christianity mutated away from the allegorical and symbolic personified expressions of God’s attributes by literalizing the interpretations of these concepts and personifications of the Logos of God as an actual pre-existing distinct person that dwelled in the human flesh of the man Jesus. As a result, God's attribute - His Word - transformed from personification to person that totally breeched Jewish/Biblical monotheism.

The attributes of God – including his His Word – was never conceptualized by the Children of Israel, the Prophets of God or in the OT to imply they were actual distinct ‘persons’ that co –existed with God Almighty from eternity that comprise the 'oneness' of his being. God’s attribute – His Word - carried certain cultural connotations beyond New Testament times, but there is no context outside of developing Christian doctrines in which God’s attribute – His Word - was regarded as an actual person that subsisted with God Almighty, Hence, the absence of any references in the Old Testament where God’s Attributes were conceptualized as actual distinct 'persons' that possessed their own self-awareness or individuality before they supposedly descended from heaven to incarnate in human flesh.

The Trinitarian articulation of the nature of God’s Word as a person incarnated in human flesh is purely a perverted revolutional innovation.

For a refutation of the doctrine of the trinity and the bogus 'Jewish wisdom' arguments commonly advocated by JP please refer to the following thread and offer counter rebuttals here-

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=114577 enjoy !

The trinitarians i was debating have vanished into thin air !! LOL...

mud....

[Ormly]

The idea that God's Word/Memra/Debar subisted from eternity as a distinct self conscious 'PERSON' alongsie God Almighty is an erroneous innovation conjectured by a sect of misguided Jews

However, He was never alongside God. He was the expression of God in form that gave out a certain sound that explained the Heart of God for creation to ever have happened. He spoke it into existence with His mouth, The Word of Himself. This is no different than one who speaks what his heart tells him to. Both must be in union/agreement for that to happen. Being humanly 'deaf and dumb' should have a fresh significance to us if we can see this as a tremendous limitation to one's very 'creative' ability.

Read carefully these three passage because they speak of a Reality that has become an Actuality

" I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, . . . . . ." Isaiah 42:8

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." John 17:5 (KJV)

"And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; . . . ..." John 17:22-23 (KJV)

[mudcake]

However, He was never alongside God. He was the expression of God in form that gave out a certain sound that explained the Heart of God for creation to ever have happened. He spoke it into existence with His mouth, The Word of Himself. This is no different than one who speaks what his heart tells him to. Both must be in union/agreement for that to happen. Being humanly 'deaf and dumb' should have a fresh significance to us if we can see this as a tremendous limitation to one's very 'creative' ability.

Read carefully these three passage because they speak of a Reality that has become an Actuality

" I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, . . . . . ." Isaiah 42:8

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." John 17:5 (KJV)

"And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; . . . ..." John 17:22-23 (KJV)

thank-you for sharing your thoughts Ormly..

[Okieshowedem]

To have a savior that pre-exist simples means you do not believe the Scriptures. Luke 24:25


Okieshowedem

[Bill the Cat]

To make a false prophecy means you are not from God.