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 λογος 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 ('και') 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 ['και']

..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 ['και']

..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

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 .

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 Λογος . That eliminates that option. Earlier, the λογος 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

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

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.”

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

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.

AVMetro,

How is the response to my post coming?

Ron

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:

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 Λογος . That eliminates that option. Earlier, the λογος 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

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.

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

Originally posted by AVmetro

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).

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

Originally posted by 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

Which loonie bin guard fell asleep and let you out?

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.