Did Yahshua Messiah Pre-Exist?

[Okieshowedem]

NO!
The real Messiah started in the flesh.
He is The Son Of Man.


Okieshoedem

[4Pillars]

YES!!!

He was the TRUE LIGHT that was brought forth in the beginning when God spoke the "Word" and said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT" (Gen. 1:3) -- before the world was.

His Name is YHWH (Heb-Adonai YHWH) in the Old Testament - first listed in Gen 2:4. He is called LORD God by the King James translators. He is the God of the Jews, and the ONLY God ever formed, Physically. If you have seen Him, then you have seen the Father.

God Bless

[Okieshowedem]

$10,000.00 reward for proof that the Real Hebrew Messiah pre-exsited.
Any takers?


Okieshowedem

[KarmaGhost]

$10,000.00 reward for proof that the Real Hebrew Messiah pre-exsited.
Any takers?


Okieshowedem

Absolutely, "Before Abraham, I AM." (John 8:58)

Regarding the "Son of Man" reference:

See Daniel chapter 7, verese 13. Jesus was claiming the Divine Authority of the "second power" of Daniel 7. Pay up.

[Timothy Leary]

$10,000.00 reward for proof that the Real Hebrew Messiah pre-exsited.
Any takers?


Okieshowedem

Jeremiah 1:5

I accept Paypal, Direct Transfers, or cold hard cash. Any other methods will have to be arranged for.

[KarmaGhost]

Jeremiah 1:5

I accept Paypal, Direct Transfers, or cold hard cash. Any other methods will have to be arranged for.

So are we going to fight over it, or do we just split it 50-50?

[Sevivon1913]

NO!
The real Messiah started in the flesh.
He is The Son Of Man.


Okieshoedem


Who's this "Yahshua" guy? :huh:

[KarmaGhost]

Who's this "Yahshua" guy? :huh:

A blatantly poor attempt at transliterating the Hebrew name Yeshua (Joshua) into Roman letters so he wouldn't have to say the simple, universally understood "Jesus." But I'm guessing you know that.

Of course he presupposes that Jesus (Yeshua, Joshua, whatever) was and is the Messiah, so, as a Jew, I don't think this flies for you? Unless you believe the Messiah has to be a man, in which case you can slap him down just like the rest of us...

[Sevivon1913]

Joshua is a hellenization>latinization>anglicised version (in that order) of Yeshua.

But why not call JC, "Joshua"?

From what I can tell, "Jesus" is a hellenization>latinization>anglicised version (in that order) of "YESHU", not "Yeshua", "Yahoshua" or "Yahshua". It seems that AFTER this whole latinisation process, and presumably after over a millenia, Christians have tried to reinvent this storyline so that Jesus is said to come from "Yeshua" instead. I'm puzzled by the reasoning for this; is it something to do with it [supposedly] meaning "the Lord saves" (a name only known to have been used once, by a high priest). But his original REAL name, before all of this deception, was just "Yeshu" which means "May his name be blotted out".

This is my point:

- the name "Jesus", if you go backwards, leads to the name "Yeshu" (May his name be blotted out)
- that there is a deception to cover-up this fact (that Jesus was really Yeshu HaNotzri, a nasty guy who the Talmud tells us about) and to pretend his name is "Yeshua"

Backwards it goes something like this (not too sure about the greek, though): Jesus > Iesus > Iesu > Yeshu


.....I think there's something fishy going on with this, anyway :huh: It certainly warrants further investigation.

[KarmaGhost]

Joshua is a hellenization>latinization>anglicised version (in that order) of Yeshua.

But why not call JC, "Joshua"?

From what I can tell, "Jesus" is a hellenization>latinization>anglicised version (in that order) of "YESHU", not "Yeshua", "Yahoshua" or "Yahshua". It seems that AFTER this whole latinisation process, and presumably after over a millenia, Christians have tried to reinvent this storyline so that Jesus is said to come from "Yeshua" instead. I'm puzzled by the reasoning for this; is it something to do with it [supposedly] meaning "the Lord saves" (a name only known to have been used once, by a high priest). But his original REAL name, before all of this deception, was just "Yeshu" which means "May his name be blotted out".

This is my point:

- the name "Jesus", if you go backwards, leads to the name "Yeshu" (May his name be blotted out)
- that there is a deception to cover-up this fact (that Jesus was really Yeshu HaNotzri, a nasty guy who the Talmud tells us about) and to pretend his name is "Yeshua"

.....I think there's something fishy going on with this, anyway :huh: It certainly warrants further investigation.

From what I understand, Greek scripture indicates his name was the Hebrew Yeshua, so...I think you're history is a bit off. Consider "Jesus" a typo by an early manuscript writer that got accepted into the mainstream, but that's not the point of his post. I was simply answering your question in turn with sarcasm. A textual debate, I believe, wouldn' go in this forum anyway...

[Okieshowedem]

This offer is about the Hebrew Messiah not the Christian Christ!



Okieshowedem

[Timothy Leary]

My reference is still valid. Pay up or get out!

[KarmaGhost]

This offer is about the Hebrew Messiah not the Christian Christ!



Okieshowedem

Christians profess that Christ is the Hebrew Messiah, okie. Beyond that, why bother saying "Yahshua," which implies Yeshua, which implies Jesus? For crying out loud, do you not understand any Christian theology? Christianity=post-Messianic Judaism.

[moose7237]

My reference is still valid. Pay up or get out!

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Umm...I don't know if you read that verse in context or that your main goal is to deceive(I don't mean this to be hurtful) But it seems like if you read Jeremiah 1, the person in the womb that God is talking about is not Jesus but rather Jeremiah. Also in verse 6, if you read it, you will see the person is submitting himself to God. Now from what I understand of Trinitarian theology, Jesus only submitted himself to the father, when he emptied himself and decided to dwell on earth when he was born of the virgin. Unless you are trying to say that Jesus existed physically before the virgin birth and dwelled as a man again, then you would need to prove that as well. Now on a side note, I would like to ask the following to all trinitarians:

To define God, one can look at 4 basic categories:
God is omniscient(all knowing)
God is omnipotent(all powerful)
God is omnipresent(everywhere)
God is immortan(can't die)

Now while Jesus was on earth, from what I know he was fully man and fully God. But this goes beyond all logic if he was fully God because Jesus fails to meet any of the categories I listed above. Let me demonstrate:

God is omniscient correct? Jesus did not know the hour only the father does, thus Jesus is not all knowing.

Mark 13:32
32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

God is omnipotent correct? Yet Jesus admits that he was GIVEN his power, God is not given his power he is the one who has all the power independently without anyone giving it to him. This verse alone should prove that Jesus' miracles were nothing special, neither is his ability to forgive sins.

Matthew 28:18
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

God is omnipresent correct? I don't have much of a verse for this one, but that would Mean that on earth and in space and in heaven Jesus was there, thus for Judas to go out looking for Jesus in the Garden of Getsamene proves that Jesus is not everywhere and that he is only a man.

God is immortal right?

Jesus did die like every other man correct? His resurrection is nothing special since people before him were resurrected and we on the day of judgement will resurrect. The fact that Jesus didn't have a heartbeat for 3 days proves that he was only a man. Some can argue that his soul was still alive in the heart of the earth, I would say all of our souls would continue to live as well, but his heart rate stopped like any other man's heart rate when they die.

So now the common arguement is that Jesus emptied himself to dwell on earth. I would say okay, on earth he was not God because he failed the 4 basic categories to meet as a requirement for God. So now you're left with Jesus' Godly statements that nobody else but him made such as "Before Abraham was I AM" or "I am the Alpha and the Omega" But now one must prove that before Jesus was on earth he did prexist along with the Father and the spirit. But since there is no indication of the son-father-spirit trinity in the OT you really don't have much of a case. The most common verses I have seen to prove the trinity in the OT would be Genesis 1 with the use of the word "elohim" but even that doesn't prove that God is part of a trinity nor does it prove the son-father-spirit trinity. Also in parts of the bible, I have seen God call Angels God, I have seen God say he has made Moses like A god to Pharoah. But for the trinity verses explained please visit:

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=109

I am a Muslim and I would like everybody to deeply think about the trinity. This is what the Quran has to say about the fate of trinitarians:

[005:072] They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with God,- God will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.

[005:073] They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

[005:074] Why turn they not to God, and seek His forgiveness? For God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[Timothy Leary]

Hi Moose,

One could potentially use the reference for support of pre-mortal existence. I'm agnostic, and don't really have an opinion on the matter either way. Do you speak arabic, btw? I was reading a translation of an old karaite text and it made a reference to the Qu'ran and I'd like to verify whether or not something it said was correct, as it's a translation of a translation for the reference to the quran.

[moose7237]

Hi Moose,

One could potentially use the reference for support of pre-mortal existence. I'm agnostic, and don't really have an opinion on the matter either way. Do you speak arabic, btw? I was reading a translation of an old karaite text and it made a reference to the Qu'ran and I'd like to verify whether or not something it said was correct, as it's a translation of a translation for the reference to the quran.


Hello and Peace be to you Yoshiyahu,

I agree that it could be used for pre-mortal existence, but not intended for Jesus. Personally, I believe that our lives or souls should I say existed before earth did. But that's my opinion. Now I do speak arabic, but its not really proper arabic. You can send me the translation and I can find someone to properly translate it for you buddy. So you're an agnostic huh? You're not sure if God exists?

[moose7237]

Hello and Peace be to all,

No one wants to defend the trinity? Can someone please attempt and answer the questions I have posted? It would make for a healthy discussion.

[David_A_Reed]

This offer is about the Hebrew Messiah not the Christian Christ!



Okieshowedem"But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah,
Which art little to be among the thousands of Judah,
Out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler of Israel;
Whose goings forth are from old, from ancient days."
- Micah 5:1, The holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1917, 1955 edition.

David

[KarmaGhost]

Hello and Peace be to all,

No one wants to defend the trinity? Can someone please attempt and answer the questions I have posted? It would make for a healthy discussion.

I'd be happy to defend the Trinity, but this is not the thread in which to do it. Post another thread entitled something to the affect of "Defend Trinitarianism!" and I'm sure far more qualified individuals than myself and I will come flocking to do just that.

[Weboh2]

Absolutely, "Before Abraham, I AM." (John 8:58)

Regarding the "Son of Man" reference:

See Daniel chapter 7, verese 13. Jesus was claiming the Divine Authority of the "second power" of Daniel 7. Pay up.

A famous mistranslation of "...before Abraham became so, I am he."

[KarmaGhost]

"...before Abraham became so, I am he."

A famous mistranslation framed by a worldview foreign to the writers of the text. Not to mention completely ignorant of the context in which it was uttered.

[Weboh2]

A famous mistranslation framed by a worldview foreign to the writers of the text. Not to mention completely ignorant of the context in which it was uttered.
It is you who don't know the context. Abraham was overjoyed to see that Jesus was the light of the world.

[KarmaGhost]

It is you who don't know the context. Abraham was overjoyed to see that Jesus was the light of the world.

Are you serious? Jesus said this to a group of Jews when He was explaining that simply being descended of Abraham does not make one right with God. Read: John 8:50-60. Note verse sixty, wherein the Jews pick up rocks to stone Jesus. They wanted to kill him for committing blasphemy. That's because Jesus was saying "Before Abraham, I Am (God)."

Get real.

[4Pillars]

Are you serious? Jesus said this to a group of Jews when He was explaining that simply being descended of Abraham does not make one right with God. Read: John 8:50-60. Note verse sixty, wherein the Jews pick up rocks to stone Jesus. They wanted to kill him for committing blasphemy. That's because Jesus was saying "Before Abraham, I Am (God)."

Get real.


Of course, He was (God) from the beginning. Just so you've been made aware of -- YHWH is Jesus Christ himself, the Son of the invisible Almighty God, which, no man hath seen at anytime nor his name been revealed to anyone -- at this time.

Jesus or YHWH (the Son) is the only God physically formed for us to see. "For in him dwelleth all of the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (physically).

[KarmaGhost]

Of course, He was (God) from the beginning. Just so you've been made aware of -- YHWH is Jesus Christ himself, the Son of the invisible Almighty God, which, no man hath seen at anytime nor his name been revealed to anyone -- at this time.

Jesus or YHWH (the Son) is the only God physically formed for us to see. "For in him dwelleth all of the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (physically).

Um, I think we're on the same page, though maybe a few paragraphs apart...

In oher words: why reply to my defense of Jesus as God when you could easily have addressed the concerns of those who disagree with us...?

[4Pillars]

Um, I think we're on the same page, though maybe a few paragraphs apart...

In oher words: why reply to my defense of Jesus as God when you could easily have addressed the concerns of those who disagree with us...?

Hmmmm.... Did I not just do that? :teeth:

God Bless

[4Pillars]

Um, I think we're on the same page, though maybe a few paragraphs apart...

In oher words: why reply to my defense of Jesus as God when you could easily have addressed the concerns of those who disagree with us...?

You're absolutely correct. I misread your post. Sorry.

I agree, Jesus existed BEFORE the World was. The World was made on the 2nd Day. Jesus is the Light of the 1st Day.

The LORD' (the Son) name is called YHWH in the Old Testament and Jesus Christ in the New Testament. The LORD is the Only Begotten Son of the Invisible Spirit of God. He is the Image or Physical Incarnation of God. YHWH or Jesus is the Only God you will ever See. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. Col 1:15-17

God Bless

[Weboh2]

If I somuch as insulted God of Israel, that would get me stoned at that time period. I think you boys need to buy a clue. BTW stoning is not necessarily a death sentence.

[KarmaGhost]

If I somuch as insulted God of Israel, that would get me stoned at that time period. I think you boys need to buy a clue. BTW stoning is not necessarily a death sentence.

Actually, no. Judea was a Roman province under imperial control. The Jews were a respected religious group, but the law of the land was the Roman pantheon. Simply commenting on the God of Israel, if the crowd found it insulting, was not merit for stoning...

[Weboh2]

Actually, no. Judea was a Roman province under imperial control. The Jews were a respected religious group, but the law of the land was the Roman pantheon. Simply commenting on the God of Israel, if the crowd found it insulting, was not merit for stoning...
The word blasphemy means insult. Any insult of God wasn't taken lightly. Then you also give the Jews too much credit by implying that the jews were subjugating themselves to Roman rule. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Okieshowedem]

If your savior preexisred you have the wrong savior.


http:www.yahweh.com

O

[KarmaGhost]

The word blasphemy means insult. Any insult of God wasn't taken lightly. Then you also give the Jews too much credit by implying that the jews were subjugating themselves to Roman rule. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The word blasphemy may literally mean insult, but it is a particular sin to blaspheme and a wholly other one to "insult" in some fashion such as "God sucks." The latter is used throughout the Old Testament, and God is questioned, called unjust and outright abusive by His subjects (David's psalms, Job). Yet He answers them. It is not a bad thing to question and insult God. It is a horrible thing to deny that which you know to be true. That is blasphemy. Surely an insult wasn't taken lightly, but it was not merit for stoning.

And I didn't say Judean Jews submitted to Roman rule perfectly. I always think of the arena scene in Life of Brian where Brian is talking to a group of three Jews, the "Popular Judean Libreation Front," who are former members of the "Popular Front for Judean Liberation", and meanwhile there's the one guy they point out who is the "People's Liberation Army of Judea." It's hilarious. There were various insurgencies, unorganized resistance, but on the whole the Jewish institution (that is to say the Sanhedrin and the king, that is, the House of Herod) were happy with Roman rule because it gave them tighter control over the land. Thus, the establishment was quite at ease with Roman paganism around Israel so long as no Jew went wrong.

Okie--

The Son of Man, yes. But this is a reference to Daniel 7:13. Jesus is the second divine power of Heaven. He was claiming this title as His own. Either he's lying, or He's not. Read "son of man" in context of regional religious imagery at http://www.logos.com/. Search for "What's Ugaritic Got to Do with Anything?" (Sorry, no direct link.)

[David_A_Reed]

Hello and Peace be to all,

No one wants to defend the trinity? Can someone please attempt and answer the questions I have posted? It would make for a healthy discussion.Posted where? I don't see them in this thread.

David

[KarmaGhost]

Posted where? I don't see them in this thread.

David

I directed him to repost this for a discussion somewhere else. You can find that thread here: "Can you defend the Trinity? (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=91934)"

It started out interesting, but it has devolved into a "Strawman, we're not tritheists!" vs. "Silly trinitarians making excuses..." shouting match.

[mastralvarado]

Are you serious? Jesus said this to a group of Jews when He was explaining that simply being descended of Abraham does not make one right with God. Read: John 8:50-60. Note verse sixty, wherein the Jews pick up rocks to stone Jesus. They wanted to kill him for committing blasphemy. That's because Jesus was saying "Before Abraham, I Am (God)."

Get real.

Hello Mr KarmaGhost,

I see you have an ill-conceived perception of Jesus (AKA Messiah).

What you fail to understand is the conception that I AM where a comma or semicolon is placed before the actual words is a either a fragment (in this case it is called blasphemy). If Jesus was the word of G-d then why would he blaspheme intentionally against 'Himself' or G-d?

As some poster here has already said, is that this pair of independent clauses have been already mistranslated in some version of the bible where the meaning is added in parenthesis to make it read like he was saying that he is G-d (since I AM is the name for G-d of the HEBREWS).

Some foolish people who don't read their scriptures correctly will sometimes suppose that in order to mean I AM you must add an infinitive particle such as 'too'. That would read and sound correctly but I am sorry to inform you that this is not the case here.

It reads and sounds correct if the meaning is pre-existence. It reads incorrectly and sounds awkward if it means "I tell you the truth" he said "Before Abraham, I Am" with a capital 'A'.

All translations I know of, don't use a captial A for that particular "I am" statement and have been subject to many misinterpretations such as Paul's famous reference to Psalm 2:7 in Acts 13:33 as having relationship with Jesus where Servant of G-d means "Son of G-d" in Hebrew which would imply that Jesus was a Servant of G-d or an annointed one.

Now, getting to the interesting part. Do you realize that, the whole bible has no fragmental sentences nor independent clauses? Especially, the words used by the scribes to write what the LORD OF HOSTS or HIS MESSENGERS said. If you can provide a single sentence where an independent clause or sentence is a fragment or incomplete sentence then it will prove that either:

A) What was uttered was uninspired
B) The conclusion that you seem to think that G-D or JESUS uttered incomplete sentences.

For your benefit, there is the possibility that Jesus actually wanted to use an infinitive verb such as 'too' (in the language he spoke (pressumably Greek) and the scribe who wrote it down forgot that the infinitive is hardly used in Hellenistic Greek :lol: .


$10,000.00 reward for proof that the Real Hebrew Messiah pre-exsited.
Any takers?


Okieshowedem

I will kindly take that 10,000 dollar reward now IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN WHAT JESUS SAID.

Regards,

Mastralvarado

[mastralvarado]

Correction: The words of G-d don't have dependant phrases in them nor fragments.

[OckhamsRazor]

NO!
The real Messiah started in the flesh.
He is The Son Of Man.


Okieshoedem

You are correct that Yeshua didn't exist before about 4 BC. The Son of God has existed eternaly. Yeshua is the God/Man. He began to exist at the conception in Mariam. The Son of God is the second person of the Trinity and has always existed.

[TyRockwell]

$10,000.00 reward for proof that the Real Hebrew Messiah pre-exsited.
Any takers?


Okieshowedem
The Hebrew Messiah, is seen before the foundation of the world, in Rev. 5:6. "Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the sevenfold spirit of God."
1)the time frame: The Revelation of Jesus Christ covers all the revealed Word of God, including the Biblical references to, "before the foundation of the world." Don't confuse 'earth' with 'world.' "Earth" refers to the planet, the land. "World" refers to the age, having to do with people, civilization. John was taken outside of time into heaven, Rev. 4:1-7, and saw the throne and the lamps. This is not after a future rapture or it would be "lampstands."
2) From the mid-point of verse 8 the time shifts into the present tense, Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come." Verses 9-11 are also in the present tense. In 5:6, the Lamb is "standing in the center of the throne." It is God's throne. He had His Word on a scroll in his right hand. 5:1. The fact that the Lamb, looking as if slain, (Hebrew sacrifice) is standing in the center of the throne of God, equates him with God. That he has "seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven fold spirit of God" equates him with the entire spirit of God. Note that the One sitting on the throne, God, has yet to speak. Any speaking on his part would be God's Word, meaning the Son, John 1:1-3, the exact representation of the Father. Heb. 1:3
3) The preceding proves (a) the trinity, the unity and sameness of God, His Spirit, and His Word, the Son, and (b) that Jesus, the Lamb of God, is the Hebrew Messiah, from before the foundation of the world.

[carelinks]

I wrote a couple of studies about the non pre-existence of the Lord Jesus. They begin here: http://www.aletheiacollege.net/bb/7-1.htm

God be in our thinking

[TyRockwell]

I wrote a couple of studies about the non pre-existence of the Lord Jesus. They begin here: http://www.aletheiacollege.net/bb/7-1.htm

God be in our thinking
Please post a synopsis of the studies here.

[carelinks]

OK, here are the main issues:

That the Law of Moses pointed forward to Christ, and the prophets prophesied of him, should be proof enough that Jesus did not exist physically before his birth. The false doctrine of the physical ‘pre-existence’ of Christ before birth makes a nonsense of the repeated promises that he would be the descendant of Eve, Abraham and David. The early preachers emphasized that Jesus was “of David’s posterity” [Gk. Spermatos- Acts 2:29-31; 13:23; Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8]. If he were already existing up in heaven at the time of these promises, God would have been incorrect in promising these people a descendant who would be Messiah. The genealogies of Jesus, recorded in Mt. 1 and Lk. 3, show how Jesus had a pedigree which stretched back to those people to whom God had made the promises.

The promise to David concerning Christ precludes his physical existence at the time the promise was made: “I will set up your descendant [singular] after you, which shall proceed out of your body...I will be his father, and he shall be my son” (2 Sam. 7:12,14). Notice the future tense used here. Seeing that God would be Christ’s Father, it is impossible that the Son of God could have already existed at that point in time when the promise was made. That this seed “shall proceed out of your body” shows that he was to be a literal, physical descendant of David. “The Lord has sworn in truth unto David...Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne” (Ps. 132:11).

Solomon was the primary fulfilment of the promise, but as he was already physically in existence at the time of this promise (2 Sam. 5:14), the main fulfilment of this promise about David having a physical descendant who would be God’s son, must refer to Christ (Lk. 1:31-33). “I will raise unto David a righteous Branch” (Jer. 23:5) - i.e. Messiah.

Similar future tenses are used in other prophecies concerning Christ. “I will raise (Israel) up a Prophet like unto (Moses)” (Dt. 18:18) is quoted in Acts 3:22,23, which defines the “Prophet” as Jesus. “A virgin (Mary) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Is. 7:14). This was clearly fulfilled in Christ’s birth (Mt. 1:23).

from http://www.aletheiacollege.net/bb/7-1.htm

[carelinks]

The record of Christ’s conception and birth does not allow for the idea that he physically existed beforehand. Those who hold the false doctrine of the ‘Trinity’ are driven to the conclusion that at one moment there were three beings in heaven, and one of them then became the child in Mary’s womb, leaving just two in heaven. We are therefore left to conclude from the ‘pre-existence’ belief that Christ somehow came down from heaven and entered into Mary’s womb. All this complex theology is quite outside the teaching of Scripture. The record of Christ’s beginning gives no reason whatsoever to think that he left heaven and entered into Mary. The lack of evidence for this is a big ‘missing link’ in trinitarian teaching.

The angel Gabriel appeared to Mary with the message that “you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest...Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? (i.e. she was a virgin). And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God” (Lk. 1:31-35).

Twice it is emphasized that Jesus would be the Son of God on his birth; evidently the Son of God did not exist before his birth. Again, the many future tenses need to be noted - e.g. “he shall be great”. If Jesus were already physically in existence as the angel spoke those words to Mary, he would already have been great. Jesus was the “offspring” of David (Rev. 22:16), the Greek ‘genos’ implying Jesus was ‘generated from’ David. He was born “of” Mary (Lk. 1:35).
The Conception Of Jesus

Through the Holy Spirit (God’s breath/power) acting upon her, Mary was able to conceive Jesus without having intercourse with a man. Thus Joseph was not the father of Jesus. It must be understood that the Holy Spirit is not a person (see Study 2); Jesus was the Son of God, not the Son of the Holy Spirit. Through God’s use of His spirit upon Mary, “therefore also that holy thing” which was born of her was “called the Son of God” (Lk. 1:35). The use of the word “therefore” implies that without the Holy Spirit acting upon the womb of Mary, Jesus, the Son of God, could not have come into existence.

That Jesus was ‘conceived’ in Mary’s womb (Lk. 1:31) is also proof that he could not have physically existed before this time. If we ‘conceive’ an idea, it begins within us. Likewise Jesus was conceived inside Mary’s womb - he began there as a foetus, just like any other human being. Jn. 3:16, the Bible’s most famous verse, records that Jesus was the “only begotten Son” of God. Millions of people who recite this verse fail to meditate upon what it implies. If Jesus was “begotten”, he ‘began’ (a related word to “begotten”) when he was conceived in Mary’s womb. If Jesus was begotten by God as his Father, this is clear evidence that his Father is older than he - God has no beginning (Ps. 90:2) and therefore Jesus cannot be God Himself (Study 8 expands on this point).

It is significant that Jesus was “begotten” by God rather than being created, as Adam was originally. This explains the closeness of God’s association with Jesus - “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). Christ being begotten by God, rather than just created from dust, also helps explain his natural aptitude for the ways of God his Father.

Is. 49:5,6 contains a prophecy concerning Christ as the light of the world, which he fulfilled (Jn. 8:12). He is described as meditating on “the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant”. Christ was therefore “formed” by God in Mary’s womb, through the power of His Holy Spirit. Mary’s womb was evidently the place of Christ’s physical origin.

We have seen in Study 7.1 that Psalm 22 prophesies Christ’s thoughts on the cross. He reflected that God “took me out of the womb...I was cast upon you from the womb: you art my God from my mother’s belly” (Ps. 22:9,10). In his time of dying, Christ looked back to his origins - in the womb of his mother Mary, formed by the power of God. The very description of Mary in the Gospels as Christ’s “mother” in itself destroys the idea that he existed before his birth of Mary.

Mary was an ordinary human being, with normal human parents. This is proved by the fact that she had a cousin, who gave birth to John the baptist, an ordinary man (Lk. 1:36). The Roman Catholic idea that Mary was not of ordinary human nature would mean that Christ could not truly have been both “Son of man” and “Son of God”. These are his frequent titles throughout the New Testament. He was “Son of man” by reason of having a totally human mother, and “Son of God” because of God’s action on Mary through the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:35), meaning that God was his Father. This beautiful arrangement is nullified if Mary was not an ordinary woman.

“Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one...What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?...how can he be clean that is born of a woman?” (Job 14:4; 15:14; 25:4). This puts paid to any idea of an immaculate conception being possible, either of Mary or Jesus.

Mary being “born of a woman”, with ordinary human parents, must have had our unclean, human nature, which she passed on to Jesus, who was “made of a woman” (Gal. 4:4). The language of his being “made” through Mary’s agency is further evidence that he could not have physically existed without his birth by her. The Diaglott renders Gal. 4:4: “Having been produced from a woman”. The Saviour was to be “the seed of the woman” (Gen. 3:15) - which promise occurs in the context of the record in Genesis of many male-based genealogies.

The Gospel records frequently indicate Mary’s humanity. Christ had to rebuke her at least thrice for a lack of spiritual perception (Lk. 2:49; Jn. 2:4); she failed to understand all his sayings (Lk. 2:50). This is exactly what we would expect of a woman who was of human nature, whose son was the Son of God, and therefore more spiritually perceptive than herself, although he, too, shared human nature. Joseph had intercourse with Mary after Christ’s birth (Mt. 1:25), and there is no reason to think that they did not have a normal marital relationship from then on.

The mention of Christ’s “mother and his brethren” in Mt. 12:46,47 would therefore imply that Mary had other children after Jesus. Jesus was only “her first born”. The Catholic teachings that Mary remained a virgin and then ascended to heaven therefore have absolutely no Biblical support. As a human being of mortal nature, Mary would have grown old and died; apart from this we read in Jn. 3:13, “no man has ascended up to heaven”. The fact that Christ had human nature (see Heb. 2:14-18; Rom. 8:3) means that his mother must have had it too, seeing his Father did not have it. She saw herself as “the handmaid [female servant] of the Lord” (Lk. 1:38 cp. Ps. 86:16) - not ‘the mother of God’.

The whole record of the virgin birth makes a nonsense of the claim that Jesus pre-existed as a person before His birth. This has even been recognized by theologians: “Jesus’ virgin birth stands in an irreconcilable contradiction to the Christology of the incarnation of the preexistent Son of God” (1). James Dunn likewise denies the literal pre-existence of Jesus: “There is no evidence that any NT writer thought of Jesus as actively present in Israel’s past, either as the angel of the Lord, or as “the Lord” himself” (2). A pre-existent Jesus is merely a continuation of the old pagan idea that the gods came to earth and had relations with innocent women (cp. Acts 14:11).

The Genealogies Of Jesus

The genealogies of the Lord Jesus given at the beginnings of Matthew and Luke are surely impossible to square with the idea of His personal pre-existence before birth. How ever could the Gospel writers have seriously believed that, and yet written such genealogies? Are we really to imagine that they intended us to believe in the Lord's pre-existence when they wrote up the genealogies as they did? Marshall Johnson comments on them: "Jesus is Son of God not through the categories of pre-existence or metaphysical relationship between Father and Son, but through the line of OT patriarchs... Conzelmann seems correct when he describes Luke's conception of the title, Son of God, as connected with a subordinationism that reveals in itself a complete lack of the idea of pre-existence" (3)

Notes

(1) W. Pannenberg, Jesus- God And Man (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) p. 143.

(2) J.D.G. Dunn, Christology In The Making (London: SCM, 1980) p. 158.

(3) Marshall Johnson, The Purpose Of The Biblical Genealogies (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002) pp. 237,8.

from http://www.aletheiacollege.net/bb/7-2.htm

[carelinks]

Jewish Influence On The 'Pre-existence' Idea

The false notion that the Lord Jesus literally pre-existed and was then somehow incarnated, or re-incarnated, was a pagan idea that had become popular in Judaism around the time of Christ. The Qumran sect, some of whose followers became the first Christians, believed that the "Teacher of Righteousness" pre-existed as the former prophets and would be an incarnation of them. This explains why they thought Messiah had previously been incarnated as Moses, Elijah and the prophets. In this lies the significance of the account in Mt. 16:14-18. Jesus enquires who the people think He is- and the disciples answer that the popular view is that Jesus of Nazareth is Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets reincarnated. But this was exactly who first century Judaism thought Messiah would be. So the crowd view was indeed that Jesus was Messiah- but "Messiah" as they understood Messiah would be. The significance of the incident lies in Peter's affirmation that Jesus, whom he accepted as Messiah, was not a re-incarnation of a pre-existent prophet but was the begotten Son of God. Note in passing that the false doctrine of pre-existence is connected to the pagan myth of incarnation and re-incarnation. If, for example, Jesus really was existing in Old Testament times, then somehow He would have had to have been re-incarnated in Mary's womb.

Peter's rejection of these ideas and declaration instead that Jesus is the Son of God gave the Lord Jesus great joy; and so too will our faith in Him as the actual Son of God, not a pre-existent being somehow incarnated inside Mary. The Jesus who to this day remembers early childhood with Mary knows full well that He didn't pre-exist before that. We too, you and me, know how frustrating it is to have our origins and essential being misunderstood, and to hear others insisting that their false images of us are in fact true. It may not mean that we break all relationship with them just because of this- but it is surely so that our correct understanding of the nature and essence of Jesus rejoices His heart and draws us closer in our relationship. This is my perspective on the issue of "So how important is it to reject the idea of a pre-existent Jesus?". I cannot speak for His ultimate judgment of men and women, although I do know that many will call Him "Lord, Lord" at the last day and realize they never knew Him and He never knew them (Mt. 7:22,23). All I can say is that correct understanding of our Lord's nature will deeply enrich our relationship with Him- and this is what the daily essence of following Him is all about.

We know from Acts 8 that people from Samaria formed a significant part of the earliest Christian community. Yet all converts are prone to return to their former beliefs in some ways at some times. The Samaritan view of Messiah was likewise that he would be the re-incarnation of a prophet, specifically Moses (Jn. 4:19,25). It therefore seems likely that the idea of a pre-existent Christ / Messiah developed as a result of the early Jewish and Samaritan converts returning to their previous conceptions of Messiah. For these were less taxing to their faith than the radical idea that an illiterate Jewish teenager called Marryam in some dumb Galileean village actually conceived a baby direct from God Almighty. Uninspired documents such as the Preaching Of Peter and the Gospel Of The Hebrews also make the false connection between Jesus and a re-incarnated Moses, Elijah etc. Clearly enough, the idea of a pre-existent, incarnated Jesus had its roots in paganism and apostate Judaism.

From http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/1-4trinity_in_europe.htm (http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/1-4trinity_in_europe.htm)

[OckhamsRazor]

Is this a discussion about the preexistence of Jesus of Nazareth or is it a discussion of the Holy Trinity?

[spitndirt]

NO!
The real Messiah started in the flesh.
He is The Son Of Man.


Okieshoedem

Correct.

Jesus was foreknown...He was prefigured...His coming in the fulness of time was foretold.....but He was 'not' literally until He 'was' in the flesh. Flesh connotes 'Sonship'. The only 'other' called 'Son' that was not in the flesh was '...Day Star, Son of Dawn...'. This Son was the prefigurement of the One to come in the flesh who would be patterned after Adam. The key term in all this is 'begotten'. Jesus was/is the only 'begotten' Son of God. This means He was born of woman via male seed (Word of God in Jesus' case).

My thoughts.....

[JaggedEdge]

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

the Aramaic Peshitta says.

IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word himself was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself. This was in the beginning with Aloha.

In Aramaic, ALOHA JESHU MESHICHA is used many times interpretted as Lord Jesus Christ.
Aloha is the same as Elohim which is a plural noun for divinity.. Many more times than greek text. I believe the Peshitta was the original NT writings.



Now some Hebrew text for those who hold on to Judaism.

1 Chron. 16:23 Sing unto the LORD, all the earth; proclaim His *salvation* from day to day.
The word in your Torah for salvation is Yeshua.

Proclaim His YESHUA from day to day.

[Crow]

The word blasphemy means insult. Any insult of God wasn't taken lightly. Then you also give the Jews too much credit by implying that the jews were subjugating themselves to Roman rule. Nothing could be further from the truth.


They were subjugating themselves to Roman rule. This is why they brought charges before Pilate and didn't just do the deed themselves.

Roman rule was not to be trifled with.

[TyRockwell]

The New Testament was written in Greek.

[spitndirt]

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

the Aramaic Peshitta says.

IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word himself was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself. This was in the beginning with Aloha.

In Aramaic, ALOHA JESHU MESHICHA is used many times interpretted as Lord Jesus Christ.
Aloha is the same as Elohim which is a plural noun for divinity.. Many more times than greek text. I believe the Peshitta was the original NT writings.

Now some Hebrew text for those who hold on to Judaism.

1 Chron. 16:23 Sing unto the LORD, all the earth; proclaim His *salvation* from day to day.
The word in your Torah for salvation is Yeshua.

Proclaim His YESHUA from day to day.

WAS = became.

Though 'the Word' was in the beginning 'Jesus, Son of God' was not until He was in the flesh. Jesus IS the Word made flesh. No flesh....no Jesus. In the beginning was/became 'the Word'....and the Word was/became God, not 'Son of God'

The faithful of Israel looked 'forward' to the time of Messiah....a 'past' event to us. Jesus was/became in the fulness of time

peace

[carelinks]

What I wrote at http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/1-3In_The_Beginning_Was_The_Word.htm

“In the beginning was the word”
“The word”

Just look at the many times this phrase occurs in the Gospel records. It doesn’t mean ‘the whole Bible’. It means clearly enough and without any dispute ‘the Gospel message’ (e.g. Mk. 2:2; 4:33; 16:20; Lk. 3:2; Jn. 12:48; 14:24; Acts 4:4; 11:19). The Gospel was preached to Abraham in that it comprises the promises to Him and their fulfilment in Jesus (Gal. 3:8). That word of promise was “made flesh” in Jesus; “the word of the oath” of the new covenant, of the promises made to Abraham, “maketh the son” (Heb. 7:28). This is just another way of saying that the word– of the promises, of the Gospel- was made flesh in Jesus. Note how in Rom. 9:6,9 “the word” is called “the word of promise”- those made to Abraham. The same Greek words translated 'Word' and 'made' occur together in 1 Cor. 15:54- where we read of the word [AV " saying" ] of the Old Testament prophets being 'made' true by being fulfilled [AV " be brought to pass" ]. The word of the promises was made flesh, it was fulfilled, in Jesus. The 'word was made flesh', in one sense, in that the Lord Jesus was " made...of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3)- i.e. God's word of promise to David was fulfilled in the fleshly person of Jesus. The Greek words for " made" and " flesh" only occur together in these two places- as if Rom. 1:3 is interpreting Jn. 1:14 for us. But note the admission of a leading theologian: “Neither the fourth Gospel nor Hebrews ever speaks of the eternal Word…in terms which compel us to regard it as a person”(1).
" In the beginning was the word"

John’s Gospel tends to repeat the ideas of the other gospel records but in more spiritual terms. Matthew and Luke begin their accounts of the message by giving the genealogies of Jesus, explaining that His birth was the fulfilment, the ‘making flesh’, of the promises to Abraham and David. And Mark begins by defining his “beginning of the gospel” as the fact that Jesus was the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophets. John is really doing the same, in essence. But he is using more spiritual language. In the beginning was the word- the word of promise, the word of prophecy, all through the Old Testament. And that word was “made flesh” in Jesus, and on account of that word, all things in the new creation had and would come into being. Whilst John is written in Greek, clearly enough Hebrew thought is behind the words. "The Hebrew term debarim [words] can also mean 'history'" (2). The whole salvation history of God, from the promise in Eden onwards, was about the Lord Jesus and was made flesh in His life and death.

Luke’s prologue states that he was an “eyewitness and minister of the word…from the beginning”; he refers to the word of the Gospel that later became flesh in Jesus. John’s prologue is so similar: “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld…the word of life” (1 Jn. 1:1 RV). Jn. 1:14 matched this with: “The word was made flesh, and we beheld his glory”. John 6 shows how John seeks to present Jesus Himself as the words which give eternal life if eaten / digested (Jn. 6:63). And some commented: “This is a hard saying, who can hear him?” (Jn. 6:60 RVmg.), as if to present Jesus the person as the embodiment of His sayings / words.

Jesus was the word of God shown in a real, live person. All the principles which Old Testament history had taught, the symbology of the law, the outworking of the types of history, all this was now living and speaking in a person. Luke’s Gospel makes the same point as John’s but in a different way. Over 90% of Luke’s Greek is taken from the Septuagint. All the time he is consciously and unconsciously alluding to the Old Testament as having its fulfilment in the things of Jesus. As an example of unconscious allusion, consider Lk. 1:27: “A virgin betrothed to a man”. This is right out of Dt. 22:23 LXX “If there be a virgin betrothed to a man…”. The context is quite different, but the wording is the same. And in many other cases, Luke picks up phraseology from the LXX apparently without attention to the context. He saw the whole of the OT as having its fulfilment in the story of Jesus. He introduces his Gospel record as an account “of those matters which have been fulfilled” (Lk. 1:1 RV). And “those matters” he defines in Lk. 1:2 as the things of “the word”. The RV especially shows his stress on the theme of fulfilment (Lk. 1:20, 23, 37, 45, 54, 55, 57, 70). In essence he is introducing his Gospel just as John does.

In passing, it is interesting to reflect upon the Lord’s comment that where two or three are gathered together in His Name, He is in their midst. For this evidently alludes to a Rabbinic saying preserved in the Mishnah (Aboth 3.2) that “If two sit together and study Torah [the first five books of Moses], the divine presence rests between them”. The Lord was likening Himself (His ‘Name’) to the Torah, the Old Testament word of God; and His presence would be felt if that Law was studied as it ought to be.

In confirmation of all this, it has been observed that " The numerical use of logos in the Johannine writings overwhelmingly favours " message" (some 25 times), not a personified word; and elsewhere in the NT the use of " word" with genitival complement also support the message motif: " word of God" ..." word of the Kingdom" ..." word of the cross" " (3). So our equation of " the word" with the essence of the Gospel message rather than Jesus personally is in harmony with other occurrences of logos. That said, there evidently is a personification of sorts going on. Personifications of the word of God weren't uncommon in the literature of the time. Thus Wisdom of Solomon 18:15 speaks of how "Thine all powerful word leaped from heaven down from the royal throne". Because "for the Hebrew the word once spoken has a kind of substantive existence of its own" (4) , e.g. a blessing or curse had a kind of life of their own, it's not surprising that logos is personified.

One way of understanding the prologue in Jn. 1 is to consider how it is interpreted in the prologue we find in John's first epistle. It appears that John's Gospel was the standard text for a group of converts that grew up around him; John then wrote his epistles in order to correct wrong interpretations of his Gospel record that were being introduced by itinerant false teachers into the house churches which he had founded. For example, " God so loved the world..." (Jn. 3:16) seems to have been misunderstood by the false prophets against whom John was contending, to mean that a believer can be of the world. Hence 1 Jn. 2:16 warns the brethren that they cannot 'love the world' in the sense of having worldly behaviour and desires. On the other hand, John saw the faithful ecclesias to whom he was writing as those who had been faithful to the Gospel he had preached to them, as outlined in the Gospel of John. He had recorded there the promise that " You will know the truth" (Jn. 8:32), and he writes in his letters to a community " who have come to know the truth" (2 Jn. 1), i.e. who had fulfilled and obeyed the Gospel of Jesus which he had preached to them initially. This thesis is explained at length in Raymond Brown(5) .

Notes

(1) G.B. Caird, Christ For Us Today (London: SCM, 1968) p. 79.

(2) Oscar Cullmann, The Christology Of The New Testament (London: SCM, 1971) p. 261.

(3) Raymond Brown, The Epistles of John (Garden City: Doubleday, 1982) p. 164.

(4) C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation Of The Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: C.U.P., 1960) p. 264.

(5) The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist, 1979) and in his The Epistles of John (Garden City: Doubleday, 1982).

[spitndirt]

What I wrote at http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/1-3In_The_Beginning_Was_The_Word.htm

“In the beginning was the word”
“The word”

Just look at the many times this phrase occurs in the Gospel records. It doesn’t mean ‘the whole Bible’. It means clearly enough and without any dispute ‘the Gospel message’ (e.g. Mk. 2:2; 4:33; 16:20; Lk. 3:2; Jn. 12:48; 14:24; Acts 4:4; 11:19). The Gospel was preached to Abraham in that it comprises the promises to Him and their fulfilment in Jesus (Gal. 3:8). That word of promise was “made flesh” in Jesus; “the word of the oath” of the new covenant, of the promises made to Abraham, “maketh the son” (Heb. 7:28). This is just another way of saying that the word– of the promises, of the Gospel- was made flesh in Jesus. Note how in Rom. 9:6,9 “the word” is called “the word of promise”- those made to Abraham. The same Greek words translated 'Word' and 'made' occur together in 1 Cor. 15:54- where we read of the word [AV " saying" ] of the Old Testament prophets being 'made' true by being fulfilled [AV " be brought to pass" ]. The word of the promises was made flesh, it was fulfilled, in Jesus. The 'word was made flesh', in one sense, in that the Lord Jesus was " made...of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3)- i.e. God's word of promise to David was fulfilled in the fleshly person of Jesus. The Greek words for " made" and " flesh" only occur together in these two places- as if Rom. 1:3 is interpreting Jn. 1:14 for us. But note the admission of a leading theologian: “Neither the fourth Gospel nor Hebrews ever speaks of the eternal Word…in terms which compel us to regard it as a person”(1).
" In the beginning was the word"

John’s Gospel tends to repeat the ideas of the other gospel records but in more spiritual terms. Matthew and Luke begin their accounts of the message by giving the genealogies of Jesus, explaining that His birth was the fulfilment, the ‘making flesh’, of the promises to Abraham and David. And Mark begins by defining his “beginning of the gospel” as the fact that Jesus was the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophets. John is really doing the same, in essence. But he is using more spiritual language. In the beginning was the word- the word of promise, the word of prophecy, all through the Old Testament. And that word was “made flesh” in Jesus, and on account of that word, all things in the new creation had and would come into being. Whilst John is written in Greek, clearly enough Hebrew thought is behind the words. "The Hebrew term debarim [words] can also mean 'history'" (2). The whole salvation history of God, from the promise in Eden onwards, was about the Lord Jesus and was made flesh in His life and death.

Luke’s prologue states that he was an “eyewitness and minister of the word…from the beginning”; he refers to the word of the Gospel that later became flesh in Jesus. John’s prologue is so similar: “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld…the word of life” (1 Jn. 1:1 RV). Jn. 1:14 matched this with: “The word was made flesh, and we beheld his glory”. John 6 shows how John seeks to present Jesus Himself as the words which give eternal life if eaten / digested (Jn. 6:63). And some commented: “This is a hard saying, who can hear him?” (Jn. 6:60 RVmg.), as if to present Jesus the person as the embodiment of His sayings / words.

Jesus was the word of God shown in a real, live person. All the principles which Old Testament history had taught, the symbology of the law, the outworking of the types of history, all this was now living and speaking in a person. Luke’s Gospel makes the same point as John’s but in a different way. Over 90% of Luke’s Greek is taken from the Septuagint. All the time he is consciously and unconsciously alluding to the Old Testament as having its fulfilment in the things of Jesus. As an example of unconscious allusion, consider Lk. 1:27: “A virgin betrothed to a man”. This is right out of Dt. 22:23 LXX “If there be a virgin betrothed to a man…”. The context is quite different, but the wording is the same. And in many other cases, Luke picks up phraseology from the LXX apparently without attention to the context. He saw the whole of the OT as having its fulfilment in the story of Jesus. He introduces his Gospel record as an account “of those matters which have been fulfilled” (Lk. 1:1 RV). And “those matters” he defines in Lk. 1:2 as the things of “the word”. The RV especially shows his stress on the theme of fulfilment (Lk. 1:20, 23, 37, 45, 54, 55, 57, 70). In essence he is introducing his Gospel just as John does.

In passing, it is interesting to reflect upon the Lord’s comment that where two or three are gathered together in His Name, He is in their midst. For this evidently alludes to a Rabbinic saying preserved in the Mishnah (Aboth 3.2) that “If two sit together and study Torah [the first five books of Moses], the divine presence rests between them”. The Lord was likening Himself (His ‘Name’) to the Torah, the Old Testament word of God; and His presence would be felt if that Law was studied as it ought to be.

In confirmation of all this, it has been observed that " The numerical use of logos in the Johannine writings overwhelmingly favours " message" (some 25 times), not a personified word; and elsewhere in the NT the use of " word" with genitival complement also support the message motif: " word of God" ..." word of the Kingdom" ..." word of the cross" " (3). So our equation of " the word" with the essence of the Gospel message rather than Jesus personally is in harmony with other occurrences of logos. That said, there evidently is a personification of sorts going on. Personifications of the word of God weren't uncommon in the literature of the time. Thus Wisdom of Solomon 18:15 speaks of how "Thine all powerful word leaped from heaven down from the royal throne". Because "for the Hebrew the word once spoken has a kind of substantive existence of its own" (4) , e.g. a blessing or curse had a kind of life of their own, it's not surprising that logos is personified.

One way of understanding the prologue in Jn. 1 is to consider how it is interpreted in the prologue we find in John's first epistle. It appears that John's Gospel was the standard text for a group of converts that grew up around him; John then wrote his epistles in order to correct wrong interpretations of his Gospel record that were being introduced by itinerant false teachers into the house churches which he had founded. For example, " God so loved the world..." (Jn. 3:16) seems to have been misunderstood by the false prophets against whom John was contending, to mean that a believer can be of the world. Hence 1 Jn. 2:16 warns the brethren that they cannot 'love the world' in the sense of having worldly behaviour and desires. On the other hand, John saw the faithful ecclesias to whom he was writing as those who had been faithful to the Gospel he had preached to them, as outlined in the Gospel of John. He had recorded there the promise that " You will know the truth" (Jn. 8:32), and he writes in his letters to a community " who have come to know the truth" (2 Jn. 1), i.e. who had fulfilled and obeyed the Gospel of Jesus which he had preached to them initially. This thesis is explained at length in Raymond Brown(5) .

Notes

(1) G.B. Caird, Christ For Us Today (London: SCM, 1968) p. 79.

(2) Oscar Cullmann, The Christology Of The New Testament (London: SCM, 1971) p. 261.

(3) Raymond Brown, The Epistles of John (Garden City: Doubleday, 1982) p. 164.

(4) C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation Of The Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: C.U.P., 1960) p. 264.

(5) The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist, 1979) and in his The Epistles of John (Garden City: Doubleday, 1982).

Interesting read.

I have viewed 'the Word' (logos) as the personification of 'true God' (the Father of our Lord). I reason that prior to creation , i.e. before 'persons', true God was impersonal. Further, there is no need for 'Word / Logos' apart from a creation context. The Word was brought forth for creation and creation for the Word. Prior to the beginning the phenomenon of 'not God' did not exist and so a 'mediating agent' between that which 'is God' and that which 'is not' was unnecessary. The Logos in my mind = God in a state of revelation since He would bring forth 'persons' who would necessarily need to Know God.

In light of this I would naturally view 'the Word / Logos made flesh' this way: the man Jesus as 'Son' / the Logos in Jesus as 'Deity' (Father / Spirit of Truth). In other words, the man Jesus is not God....rather, God is God in the man Jesus.

my thoughts....

[carelinks]

Hi, not sure I follow you, but sounds interesting. Do you mean there was a time when there was 'no God'? I presume not. Sorry to be dense... can you put it another way for me to get a handle on?
Thanks and God bless

Duncan

[Bishadi]

NO!
The real Messiah started in the flesh.
He is The Son Of Man.
Life of choice is man in the flesh. All of conscious are men/women.

The messiah as a term is simply the same as the Kalki in Hindu, or the Adi Buddha or the Great White Brother of the Hopi or Quetzalcoatl of the Aztec……. What the West has a tendency to do is isolate their interpretation but fail to allow their brothers interpretation to be acknowledged.

Funny isn’t it?

So before one sect can ‘know’ the messiah, peace and humility must be known within themselves for the compassion to see what he is bringing to the whole of men.

It is only of the one sect that consideres 2 entities; one of ‘good’ (messiah) and one of ‘evil’ the devil so to speak….. when the majority know that each man by his choice is of these 2 within.

That each person can be of compassion and choose ‘good’ in their doing (works) or be of a
self preserving choices; bad. That the idea of 2 ‘beings’ is not what is ‘coming’ but that only one is to be born for the truth to begin existence.

What many do not recognize is God is all of it. All mass, all energy and all time; the total. Always of and a part of; everything. This is how the entanglement of mass and energy exist as that singularity; God.

We of choice are the only mass that exists to comprehend it’s alive.

In choice we either do good or bad. No magic or devil/angels are or ever were involved.

To understand the truth in fact, then each can know how and why each choice is in fact of their own doings and by each choice they either live in their works or die in their selfish choices.

What are the rules? Well simply look at what each sect or religion has been teaching and then bring them together with our greatest gift; compassion.

To simplify: … then follow the oldest one in the book ….’light it life’ ….. and what is light? … well in reality it is electric and magnetic fields at perpendicular planes; the cross.

What does it mean? It means that with true comprehension of what light is and that we must follow it and the rules, then in a physical comprehension we can know exactly how and why we are alive and then how we can make the proper choice to live forever.

Rules from ‘light’ …….

Life: purposed to continue

Good: supports life

Bad: loss to the common

I call them ‘stupid easy’ and when the old, go on about killing themselves in the war (within 2 years) the kids will have the tools to live and learn in truth, and then they can ‘begin to teach the old.’

It’s all written about, just take the magic junk out of your hope filled thoughts of faith and learn in reality.

If you want to live a long time try these;

Plant a tree, in good soil, with knowledge and the love to make sure it continues …. From that tree, you will have left after your death a life, that will support other life and by your choice, that existence lives.

Give a portion of your DNA and light, upon and egg/sperm to couple with another gift, which a child, a new shade by the combining of 2, will be born and your life will in fact continue if that contribution is good.

Teach another; allow your humility to be the focus as you learn, make the commitment to truth rather than belief or complacency. Learn as your fathers learned and share the truth even if it hurts and give to another in knowing it is good, that it will live as Jesus lives in his teaching; a choice to support life.

Live in these but not in procuring false hopes based on selfishness and secularizations of men.

Who is the messiah …. One who bring light in the knowledge that each can understanding what good and bad are in the truth that binds all the sciences and religions in one comprehension as promised in every religion since the beginning of time.

[Weboh2]

They were subjugating themselves to Roman rule. This is why they brought charges before Pilate and didn't just do the deed themselves.

Roman rule was not to be trifled with.
But it was trifled with as the New Testament and Josephus indicate. Just because they shouldn't have messed with the Romans, that doesn't mean that they didn't mess with the Romans.

[spitndirt]

Hi, not sure I follow you, but sounds interesting. Do you mean there was a time when there was 'no God'? I presume not. Sorry to be dense... can you put it another way for me to get a handle on?
Thanks and God bless

Duncan


Hey Duncan,

Thanks for your response. I do not mean that there was a time when there was 'no God'. Just that when 'time' was not God is God......period. Prior to 'the beginning' and apart from creation it cannot be required that God be anything other than God. God's revealed characteristics exist from the beginning on....but not before. As soon as we 'require' God to be this way or that way when creation did not exist (in eternity past) we make God dependent upon being whatever is ascribed to God where only God is. For instance, we know that God is 'love'. But is God love where there is only God and no 'other'? It is impossible to place that requirement upon God without the 'other' also being eternally present apart from the beginning and creation. Do you see what I mean? The scriptures that declare that no one has seen God at any time - nor can anyone see God - apply to God 'as God is' apart from a creation context.

Trinitarians reason by 'love' (and other revealed characteristics of God) that there has always existed 'two' others - the Son and the Holy Spirit. I say that this is impossible. Three persons in one Deity - each a Deity in and of themselves cannot 'be' without 'displacement' taking place. There can be only ONE eternal being since the default phenomenon of 'space' cannot be divided without including an element of 'finiteness' among those things that are thought to be eternal and infinite. Where there are 'distinctions' there is finiteness. Sorry.....but to assert the eternal existence of three 'distinct' infinite 'finite' beings is a contradiction no matter how it is sliced.

In my mind Gen. 1:1-5 is arranged chronologically so that it can be understood in what order things came to be. For instance....

The first event that is depicted is God vacating space within the infinite space God had previously occupied. The words that describe this occurence are '...and the earth was (became) void and empty...'. God is the fulness of full and so 'void and empty' prove that God was not in the earth at the start. This was the beginning of creation. Time began here as well as the phenomenon of 'finiteness'. That is....one infinite space containing God suddenly became 'two'. God remained on the infinite side of things and there appeared on the other side those things that began and are finite in nature - i.e., '...darkness covering the deep, and the waters...' - with the Spirit of God left hovering over them.

Note that 'the first day' deals with light and darkness. It is written that God is light. I will suggest that God was (became) light at the appearing of darkness. God simultaneously appeared as 'light' by contrast. Prior to the beginning, then, God was simply God. Where darkness 'is not' God will not appear as light. I am not saying here that light is not eternal in nature....just that this eternal nature could not have been seen as light until darkness was made to exist in contrast. Get it....sort of?

Note also God's first 'Words' (i.e., the Word of God). God said '...let there be light...'. Think in terms of 'placement' here....and not in terms of 'creating'. Light was NOT created on the first day. Rather, light eternal was being sent into the darkness that was just made to appear. The creation of the first day depicts just this. In other words, God was saying '...let there in the darkness be light...' - '...and there in the darkness was (became) light...' - '...and God saw that the light was good...' - and distinguished the two calling them 'Day and Night' and He made the 'two' to be 'ONE' Day....the first Day. Note here that all of creation is built upon a 'two become one' foundation. This is also establishing the phenomenon of '...light shining in darkness...' as mentioned several times throughout scripture, esp. John 1:5. In fact John 1:1-5 can be woven together with Gen. 1:1-5 to create an even clearer picture of origins.

Comments: Proof that 'first day' light is light of '...light eternal (true God)...' sent into manifested darkness and NOT created light ------ created light appeared on the fourth day when the sun, moon, and stars were made '...to give light upon the earth...'. This is 'material (created)' light.

Next, I will also suggest that the creation of the first day is the very establishment of the 'Christ' of creation ---- which was (became) in the beginning 'the Word' of God (Logos). The first day is also, IMO, the prefiguring of 'Jesus' whom God would 'beget' in the fulness of time. And that the light of the first day represents the very nature of God that Jesus would be imbued with. Now, some might ask how this could be since it is written '...all things were made by Him; and without Him not any thing was made that was made...'. I mean, if the first day was created wouldn't '...He...' necessarily have existed prior to it? Well...yes - if the first day was to be comprehended in '...all things that were made...'. Let me explain: note the words '...things...' and '...made...'. These are referring to 'material' things. Here's the deal.....all matter came from 'the waters' which were not touched until the second day of creation. This fact opens up the possibility that the first day is indeed speaking about the establishment of 'the Word' - which is the prefiguring of Jesus, Son of the living God who would come in the fulness of time. Make sense...? Consider also if '...darkness, the deep, and the waters...' are not manifested elements as opposed to formed and made 'things'. In other words, were the rudementary elements of creation themselves formed / made things....or were the things of creation formed / made out of them?

I will further suggest that when God said '...let there be light...' He right then made manifest the Logos (a revelation of Himself). These were the first words God had ever spoken. To prove this I will offer the scripture '...and the earth was (became) void and empty and darkness covered the face of the deep and the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters...'. This was a manifested condition that 'was so' before God spoke. This tells me that God now had something 'other than Himself' toward which to direct His 'Word'. Had God spoken prior to this condition He would have been speaking for His own benefit.......and remember, this would render God dependent in some way. If the Word of God existed 'pre-beginning' then God cannot be 'perpetually' God. The Word (Logos) is the creating, sustaining, and mitigating agent between God and all that would come to be 'not God', i.e, creation itself and the things thereof. Consequently, take away creation and the Word of God loses it's foreordained purpose.

Well...that should be plenty for you to digest. So I will stop rambling for now. Thanks again for you reply.

Peace......

[carelinks]

ok thanks so much. My take would be that God's not just revealing Himself in a certain way for this 6000 years or whatever, and then will turn around at the day of judgment and say, like, "Nah well actually I'm like this..." . I think the wonder of the Biblical revelation is that we're seeing aspects of the unchangeable God [in terms of His character]... and this is who He really is.

>Trinitarians reason by 'love' (and other revealed characteristics of God) that there has always existed 'two' others - the Son and the Holy Spirit. I say that this is impossible. Three persons in one Deity - each a Deity in and of themselves cannot 'be' without 'displacement' taking place.

Amen. The Bible defines the "one God" as "the Father" (1 Cor. 8:4-6, Isaiah etc.). So, if the Father = the one God, then no room for Son or Holy Spirit to also be God if God is one and there's no other.

>The first event that is depicted is God vacating space within the infinite space God had previously occupied.

Wow. Never thought of it like that. I'd rather thought that by entering relationship with mortals He allowed Himself to be limited- hence the language of limitation used about God in Scripture. Like, "Surely they will reverence My Son"- and they didn't. More of my take on that at http://www.aletheiacollege.net/pb/2-13Covenant_Relationship_With_God.htm

But now you've suggested quite the opposite... thanks so much for the homework!

>Next, I will also suggest that the creation of the first day is the very establishment of the 'Christ' of creation

Yes I get your drift in those next 2 paragraphs. I've put it another way- that the days of creation were days of Divine fiat. My view's at http://www.aletheiacollege.net/mm/7-8-1Six_Literal_Days.htm

Anyway, thanks sincerely so much for the ideas!

Duncan

[bigsplit]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Umm...I don't know if you read that verse in context or that your main goal is to deceive(I don't mean this to be hurtful) But it seems like if you read Jeremiah 1, the person in the womb that God is talking about is not Jesus but rather Jeremiah. Also in verse 6, if you read it, you will see the person is submitting himself to God. Now from what I understand of Trinitarian theology, Jesus only submitted himself to the father, when he emptied himself and decided to dwell on earth when he was born of the virgin. Unless you are trying to say that Jesus existed physically before the virgin birth and dwelled as a man again, then you would need to prove that as well. Now on a side note, I would like to ask the following to all trinitarians:

To define God, one can look at 4 basic categories:
God is omniscient(all knowing)
God is omnipotent(all powerful)
God is omnipresent(everywhere)
God is immortan(can't die)

Now while Jesus was on earth, from what I know he was fully man and fully God. But this goes beyond all logic if he was fully God because Jesus fails to meet any of the categories I listed above. Let me demonstrate:

God is omniscient correct? Jesus did not know the hour only the father does, thus Jesus is not all knowing.

Mark 13:32
32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

God is omnipotent correct? Yet Jesus admits that he was GIVEN his power, God is not given his power he is the one who has all the power independently without anyone giving it to him. This verse alone should prove that Jesus' miracles were nothing special, neither is his ability to forgive sins.

Matthew 28:18
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

God is omnipresent correct? I don't have much of a verse for this one, but that would Mean that on earth and in space and in heaven Jesus was there, thus for Judas to go out looking for Jesus in the Garden of Getsamene proves that Jesus is not everywhere and that he is only a man.

God is immortal right?

Jesus did die like every other man correct? His resurrection is nothing special since people before him were resurrected and we on the day of judgement will resurrect. The fact that Jesus didn't have a heartbeat for 3 days proves that he was only a man. Some can argue that his soul was still alive in the heart of the earth, I would say all of our souls would continue to live as well, but his heart rate stopped like any other man's heart rate when they die.

So now the common arguement is that Jesus emptied himself to dwell on earth. I would say okay, on earth he was not God because he failed the 4 basic categories to meet as a requirement for God. So now you're left with Jesus' Godly statements that nobody else but him made such as "Before Abraham was I AM" or "I am the Alpha and the Omega" But now one must prove that before Jesus was on earth he did prexist along with the Father and the spirit. But since there is no indication of the son-father-spirit trinity in the OT you really don't have much of a case. The most common verses I have seen to prove the trinity in the OT would be Genesis 1 with the use of the word "elohim" but even that doesn't prove that God is part of a trinity nor does it prove the son-father-spirit trinity. Also in parts of the bible, I have seen God call Angels God, I have seen God say he has made Moses like A god to Pharoah. But for the trinity verses explained please visit:

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=109

I am a Muslim and I would like everybody to deeply think about the trinity. This is what the Quran has to say about the fate of trinitarians:

[005:072] They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with God,- God will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.

[005:073] They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

[005:074] Why turn they not to God, and seek His forgiveness? For God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.


I think so many people misunderstand the trinity, perhaps even its most ardent defenders.

I will try to explain it as I have come to understand it, and no it does not necessarily contradict what Mohammad wrote.

You are right, Jesus is not the Father, nor is he God. In order to understand what Christ meant when he said I and the Father are One, is the very essense of existance itself. We in the modern era are so accustume to separating science and religion, we lose understanding of the essense of God and his system of laws that govern our universe.

It is written in John that Jesus was the light and that everything was made through him that was made. What did God do, he divided the light from the darkness. The spirit of the Son is that light and through that light all things were made. We know that everything that exists is made up of energy and the light is the Son.

There is a relationship between the Father and the Son, a relationship of pure love. We know that the nature of Christ was giving, loving, forgiving and sacrifice. God sent the spirit of the Son to dwell on Earth as flesh which was Jesus Christ. The relationship between Jesus in the Flesh and the Father was still there and filled the Universe. Jesus the Son was the light, if humanity were to follow that light, (his commands of love, giving, forgiving and sacrifice) then through that light they could find the way to that relationship and spirit that exists between the Father and the Son and find God, that spirit between them is the Holy Spirit. This is the only way to God. So when I think of God, I think of that system as a whole. I know Jesus is not the Father and that he recieved all his glory from the father and I know that the relationship between Father and Son creates the Holy Spirit. I do clearly understand the difference between all three and know that the Father is the ultimate and above all others. I also understand that if one does not live through love, charity, forgivness and sacrifice, they can never have the light to lead the holy spirit to them and find the Father. If you find and live by the way the Son has shown, you will find the Father.

The trinity is a system we have called (perhaps not wisely) God. I clearly know the differences and know who the ultimate is, but I also know that this is not always how it is understood by trinitarians.

[spitndirt]

ok thanks so much. My take would be that God's not just revealing Himself in a certain way for this 6000 years or whatever, and then will turn around at the day of judgment and say, like, "Nah well actually I'm like this..." . I think the wonder of the Biblical revelation is that we're seeing aspects of the unchangeable God [in terms of His character]... and this is who He really is.

I agree.....God in the end will prove to be the God who has always been - the very God revealed in His one and only Son.

Wow. Never thought of it like that. I'd rather thought that by entering relationship with mortals He allowed Himself to be limited- hence the language of limitation used about God in Scripture. Like, "Surely they will reverence My Son"- and they didn't. More of my take on that at http://www.aletheiacollege.net/pb/2-13Covenant_Relationship_With_God.htm

But now you've suggested quite the opposite... thanks so much for the homework!

Hmmm....in reading through some of your material I don't really see a conflict. You would have to explain how you see our views as opposing. I would also say that God has chosen to limit Himself on a myriad of levels within the context of creation. In fact, by my view I can comprehend the 'how' of it all. The picture I have in my mind at the conclusion of 'the first day' is like this (in the abstract): take a blank piece of 'white' printer paper imagining that the edges extend outward infinitely. This would represent eternal God 'pre' creation. Now draw a circle on the paper. The line of the circle represents the 'darkness' of Gen. 1:2 which appeared when God made room for it. The 'white' portion of paper within the line of the circle represents the 'light' that God sent to shine in the darkness on the first day. Light of God was sent from 'without' the circle to occupy a place 'within' the circle. Consequently the light within the circle is the very same light that remains outside the circle. The light of eternal God is the light of eternal God both apart from the first day and within the first day. Only now there are 'two' ----- Eternal God and 'the One' who is spiritually represented in the first day itself. The very One described in Proverbs 8:22 as being 'brought forth' as the first of God's works. One can even divide Proverbs 8:22-31 in such a way that it matches the very 'days' of creation.

Anyway, the fact that 'eternal light' since the first day has occupied a place in 'darkness' so as to be found shining in it implies the very 'God chosen' limitations you speak of in your writings. God has chosen of His own accord to be represented within the limitations of creation including our common human experience. Perhaps it would help reconcile our views if I describe my 'three phase' theory a little bit. God in eternity past would be phase 1...... the first day (along with the rest of Gen. 1 days) would be phase 2 ..... and the actual 'playing out' of God's working creation (Gen. 2) would be phase 3. Phase 2 - the literal 7 day accound, Gen. 1 - in my mind is the establishment of a necessary realm of mediation. If there is a mediator between 'unseen' God and His creation (us in particular) it only stands to reason that a realm would also be established for Him. Phase 3 - which is 'our' realm would be where what is established by God via a mediator is actually made manifest. It's kind of the same sort of thing that I was reading in your other writing. Materially speaking you made a distinction between Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 as they relate to the creation account. Though I haven't thought deeply about the material aspects - other than 'the seed of the woman' as it relates physically to Jesus - I suspect that God began with 'seed' in phase 2 (Gen. 1) and in phase 3 (Gen. 2) things grew according to the information that was previously established in the 'seed'. Spiritually speaking I see the eternal light placed within the first day as the very 'seed' of God that would eventually 'beget (spiritually)' a human redeemer (Jesus) via 'the physical seed of the woman (Eve)'. It is as if God first joined Himself to the rudementary elements in order to fill and form them....and then out of the filled and formed elements He made 'man'. Then in the fulness of time He joined himself to a 'man' - Jesus, Messiah of God - and through Him became joined (reconciled) to 'us'.

There seems to be this 'three' step process playing out in creation. From light (image)...to darkness (likeness)...to light in darkness (spiritual / image and likeness); from God.... to Adam#1...to Jesus, Adam#2 (physical image and likeness).......the 'two' sides becoming 'one' (according to the pattern established and revealed in the first day). Even the 'big picture' is chronologically divided according to this three step pattern. From God....to a transitional temporal created order..... to a final eternal created order (eventually).

Ok....I'm rambling again. There's so much I have been able to discern via 'Christ in me' that it's hard to capture the whole picture in just a few words. There are manifold realities running parallel to eachother simultaneously and it seems impossible (for me) to adaquately articulate 'the whole' without writing a whole book (wish I had time).

Yes I get your drift in those next 2 paragraphs. I've put it another way- that the days of creation were days of Divine fiat. My view's at http://www.aletheiacollege.net/mm/7-8-1Six_Literal_Days.htm

Very interesting material....I spoke briefly to some of this above. I have heard of 'Christadelphians (sp?)' but I am not at all familiar with this group. It seems I might have quite a bit in common with you on many subjects (a very rare occurence). I'll have to do some investigating for sure. As it stands I am not so welcome in any of the local churches around here....and so I quit going to them altogether. I can't tell you how many times I've been condemned to hell by mainline clergymen around my area. If they only knew that their view of hell is also an abomination they would feel pretty silly for condemning me to such a mythical place. What's funny about being condemned by the mainline crowd is.......though my own heart is not yet entirely right before God they ignore this and condemn me based upon petty deduced theological stances. Go figure.......

Anyway, thanks sincerely so much for the ideas! Duncan

Thank you for your interest...and for the link to your website. I'll be reading through some of your material for the next while. I doubt there are any groups like yours around my area.....so I'll keep on keeping on without fellowship I guess (aaarg!). Even so....my Lord has seen me through to this point and I have no doubt that He will see me through to the end - though I am admittedly a hard case.

Peace in the Lord Duncan.......

[carelinks]

Thanks. Yes I do think we're basically in agreement. Sorry to be brief!

Duncan

[JaggedEdge]

How does WAS = Become?

Colossians 1:12
Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Read and understand this
Christ it the image of God. the firstborn of all creatures. Who was before all things, and by him all things consist.
he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead;
For by him(Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible... all things were created by him, and for him:

WAS = PAST but he is present and future also
It's clear all throughout the Tanakh that Yeshua is God.


Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

Who is this ARM of the Lord? It not future tense but this ARM of the Lord Exist to those now,.
The rest of Isaiah 53 prefectly describes what Christ(ARM of the Lord) would go through.

In the beginning was the word, is in genisis.
That Word is Christ who became flesh.
This word is God

Why do you not want to believe it?

[spitndirt]

How does WAS = Become?


13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Yes

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

...His blood? Since when is blood a thing that has not 'become'?

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

...firstborn? Since when has 'first' and 'born' been things that connote eternal existence?

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Notice that it says '...all things created that are in heaven and earth...'. This does NOT extend backwards into 'the first day'. All created things come from 'the waters' which were not touched until the 'second' day of creation. The first day is the very establishment of 'Him' who created all things. The first day = '...Day (or, Morning) Star, Son of Dawn (as opposed to Son of God)...'

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Yes.....the first day is before the next six days. All 'things' were created on days 2-5 via 'the waters'. Peter makes reference to this fact 2Peter 3:5

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

So....before the body 'a head' existed in eternity past? Know this: The head was brought forth for the body and the body for the head. The One was brought forth for the other and the other for the One. Take away one and the other loses it's place and purpose. Did 'a bride' exist in eternity past? - then neither did a husband. The Word was brought forth for creation and creation for the Word...take away creation and the Word loses it's place and purpose. God did not speak prior to the beginning. His first words (the Word) was / became '...let there be light...'.

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

....In whom? In 'the man' Jesus, Christ of God. He is God's one and only Son and there is no other. God has made this Jesus 'proxy' until such a time that He hands the kingdom back to His Father and ours.

20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

First, peace is between 'two' through a mediator. One of the two is without beginning ...the other is not. Prior to the beginning, then, a mediator was unecessary. A mediator was established because 'we' were to be established. Where 'we' are not there is no need for a mediator.

Since when has 'blood' and a 'cross' existed in eternity past?

...by whom? The man Jesus, Christ of God. He is God's one and only Son and there is no other.

Read and understand this
Christ it the image of God. the firstborn of all creatures. Who was before all things, and by him all things consist.
he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead;
For by him(Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible... all things were created by him, and for him:

I have read...and I do understand.

WAS = PAST but he is present and future also
It's clear all throughout the Tanakh that Yeshua is God.

Who said? Know this: the man Jesus is 'Son of God'. He is not God.....God is God 'in Him'.


Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

Who is this ARM of the Lord? It not future tense but this ARM of the Lord Exist to those now,.
The rest of Isaiah 53 prefectly describes what Christ(ARM of the Lord) would go through.

Try properly dividing the 'tenses' revealed in these verses. The Word (the Logos / God in creation) was / became in the beginning.....the man who would be the Son was still 'future' at the time of Isaiah. And if the Son was 'future' He was not yet.....only the Diety that would dwell in the Him bodily

In the beginning was the word, is in genisis.
That Word is Christ who became flesh.
This word is God

Why do you not want to believe it?

I don't believe it because it is false...and I know it is false by the truth that dwells in me. I haven't 'chosen' not to believe it.....the truth in me has made the lie apparent.

Was = became. Everything about the present reality 'became' at a point in time. The term 'is' connotes without beginning.

Note that 'the Word' was (became) God....not Son of God. Note also that this is necessarily so since creation itself 'became'. The Word cannot be God of creation prior to the point of creation's beginning. Creation became and the Word became God of it....simultaneously. The Word is God of creation. The man Jesus is His Son. Flesh connotes sonship....no flesh, no son. This makes perfect sense out of the scripture that says Jesus was (became) '...a man in whom the Diety (the Word) dwelt bodily. True God is 'Father'...His Word was the very seed that begat the Son - the man Jesus - in the fulness of time

[carelinks]

Did Jesus create the Earth?
Colossians 1:15-18: By Jesus Were All Things Created
“The firstborn of every creature: for by (Jesus) were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead...” (Col. 1:15-18). This is typical of those passages which can give the impression that Jesus actually created the earth.

1. If this were true, then so many other passages are contradicted which teach that Jesus did not exist before his birth. The record in Genesis clearly teaches that God was the creator. Either Jesus or God were the creator; if we say that Jesus was the creator while Genesis says that God was, we are saying that Jesus was directly equal to God. In this case it is impossible to explain the many verses which show the differences between God and Jesus (see Bible Basics Study 8.2 for examples of these).
2. Jesus was the “firstborn”, which implies a beginning. There is no proof that Jesus was God’s “firstborn” before the creation of the literal earth. Passages like 2 Sam.7:14 and Ps. 89:27 predicted that a literal descendant of David would become God’s firstborn. He was clearly not in existence at the time those passages were written, and therefore not at the time of the Genesis creation either. Jesus became “the Son of God with power” by his resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1:4). God “has raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, You are My Son, this day have I begotten you” (Acts 13:32,33). Thus Jesus became God’s firstborn by his resurrection. Note too that a son standing at his father’s right hand is associated with being the firstborn (Gen. 48:13-16), and Christ was exalted to God’s right hand after his resurrection (Acts 2:32 R.V.mg.; Heb. 1:3).
3. It is in this sense that Jesus is described as the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18), a phrase which is parallel to “the firstborn of every creature” or creation (Col. 1:15 R.V.). He therefore speaks of himself as “the first begotten of the dead...the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 1:5; 3:14). Jesus was the first of a new creation of immortal men and women, whose resurrection and full birth as the immortal sons of God has been made possible by the death and resurrection of Jesus (Eph. 2:10; 4:23,24; 2 Cor. 5:17). “In Christ shall all (true believers) be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming” (1 Cor. 15:22,23). This is just the same idea as in Col. 1. Jesus was the first person to rise from the dead and be given immortality, he was the first of the new creation, and the true believers will follow his pattern at his return.
4. The creation spoken about in Col. 1 therefore refers to the new creation, rather than that of Genesis. Through the work of Jesus “were all things created...thrones...dominions” etc. Paul does not say that Jesus created all things and then give examples of rivers, mountains, birds etc. The elements of this new creation refer to those rewards which we will have in God’s Kingdom. “Thrones...dominions” etc. refer to how the raised believers will be “kings and priests, and we shall reign on the earth” (Rev. 5:10). These things were made possible by the work of Jesus. “In him were all things created in the heavens” (Col. 1:16 R.V.). In Eph. 2:6 we read of the believers who are in Christ as sitting in “heavenly places”. If any man is in Christ by baptism, he is a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). By being in Christ we are saved by His death (Col. 1:22). The literal planet could not be created by being in Christ. Thus these verses are teaching that the exalted spiritual position which we can now have, as well as what we will experience in the future, has all been made possible by Christ. The “heavens and earth” contain “all things that needed reconciliation by the blood of (Christ’s) cross” (Col. 1:16,20), showing that the “all things...in heaven” refer to the believers who now sit in “heavenly places...in Christ Jesus”, rather than to all physical things around us.
5. If Jesus were the creator, it is strange how He should say: “…from the beginning of the creation God made them…” (Mk. 10:6). This surely sounds as if He understood God to be the creator, not He Himself. And if He literally created everything in Heaven, this would include God.

6. That "by him" is a poor translation is readily testified by reliable scholars. Take J.H. Moulton: "for because of him [Jesus]..." (1); or the Expositor's Greek Commentary: "en auto: This does not mean "by Him"" (2).

It should be noted, as a general point, that God the Father alone, exclusively, is described as the creator in many passages (e.g. Is. 44:24; Is. 45:12; Is. 48:13; Is. 66:2). These passages simply leave no room for the Son to have also created the literal planet.

James Dunn comments on Col. 1:20: “Christ is being identified here not with a pre-existent being but with the creative power and action of God…There is no indication that Jesus thought or spoke of himself as having pre-existed with God prior to his birth". Christology In The Making p.254.

Notes

(1) J.H. Moulton, Grammar Of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963) Vol. 3 p. 253.

(2) W.R. Nicoll, ed., Expositor's Greek Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967) p. 504.

[spitndirt]

Hello Duncan,

Well, here I am twebbing at the expense of the work I had planned to do this afternoon. :blush: Good thing it was nothing pressing.


I have understood '...by Him...' to mean '...by way of Him...' (and for Him). Yes....this would indeed place a '...Him...' before all things. And yet it is absolutely true that the man Jesus did not exist until He was born in the flesh in the fulness of time. I have pondered (according to a vision) this seeming contradiction for a very long time. Here is where I am at with it:

There is 'one' and only one 'son' that is mentioned in all of scripture who is without 'flesh'. But he is not called 'Son of God'. He is called 'Son of Dawn'.....also called 'Day, or Morning Star' (Lucifer in Latin). Since the man Jesus is the one and only Son and Messiah of God who was 'begotten' (born of woman via the seed of God which is His Word) in the fulness of time how could He be present there in the beginning. Interestingly the resurrected Jesus is called 'the bright and morning star'. He is also there called 'the alpha and the omega....the first and the last....the beginning and the end'. Included in this same set of scriptures (Rev. 22:12-16) are the words '...I Jesus...'. Now we know that this Jesus is so 'now' and is also the 'end' of the matter....but could He have also been the beginning of the matter? I have no problem saying 'yes' to this question. God did say in Genesis '...Let us...' - and the man Jesus did ask the Father saying '...restore us to the glory we shared in the beginning...'. But I stop short of placing this One at a point prior to the beginning as trinitarians do.

Let me explain my method of reconciling this seeming dilemma....if we will consider for a moment that '...the fulness of time...' is where 'the reality' of Jesus was brought to bear on the world then it can be comprehended that both the beginning and the end are to be explained from there. The man Jesus becomes the very template by which one can discern what was, what is, and what is to come. With this in mind try viewing the beginning through the man Jesus who was not there literally. Can we find in the beginning 'one' who was a type and a figure (spiritually speaking) of 'the one to come' in the fulness of time? Yes....and this is where 'Day Star, Son of Dawn' comes into play. I keep going on about 'the first day' of creation. That's because there is where Jesus is prefigured. This 'first day' lies between invisible immaterial God and visible material creation. I repeat, all 'visible' and 'material' things came from the waters beginning on the second day....the waters being the only materially substantive rudimentary element of creation. Darkness and the deep are not substantive things. The Spirit of God is spiritually substantive but not materially substantive. So in final analysis Gen. 1:2 depicts two elements that are substantive on different levels - Spirit and waters - and two elements that are not - darkness and the deep. Notice that the two substantive elements are placed together - the Spirit of God hovered over the waters - as are the two nonsubstantive elements - darkness covered the surface of the deep. Ok...now let's build 'a Son' out of these - Son of Dawn...a spiritual representation of the true Son who would come. Speaking figuratively.....

Darkness represents 'heart' and is where Light of God entered in when He said '...let there in the darkness be light...'. The deep represents 'mind' and became the medium whereby light would come to comprehend both the darkness and the waters. This is implied when God distinguished the light from the darkness. Notice that God had not yet made use of the Spirit and the waters at this point (this will occur from the second day on). So....if Light of God entered into the darkness and was literally distinguished from it so that darkness was made to remain then the Light of God must have reseeded into the deep....or the element that was directly connected to darkness. Now it would occupy a place from which it could come to comprehend the remaining rudimentary elements. This concludes 'the first day' of creation. On the second day God turns His focus towards 'the waters' which will represent 'body' since all things of a physical nature came out of this material element....the only one of its kind. The very first thing that God does with the waters is divide them. There became waters above and waters below with an expanse set in the midst. How do you suppose God did this? Well, we've made use of darkness and the deep...now we have moved on to the waters and the.....and the.....Spirit of God, right? So the Spirit of God entered into the midst of the waters and divided them (as if to form His Spirit within His creation. Note here that the expanse is called 'heaven'. Next God causes land to appear from the waters below. Note that the land is called 'earth'. So here on the second day we find the creation of 'heaven and earth' and in the days to come we will find created 'the fulness thereof'. I say this to further illustrate my point the 'the first day' is set apart and is placed between God and His literal creation. And so the 'first day' ( Light of God shining in darkness) is a figurative depiction of Jesus who was to come in the fulness of time. Even so...the Spirit and the Wisdom that Jesus was imbued with is present in the beginning and in personified form.

Anyway, I have here given an explanation that includes every aspect of personhood. I will suggest that this became the pattern after which Adam#1 was constructed (image and likeness)....who himself became the pattern or figure of 'the One to come' in the fulness of time - even Jesus our Lord. I will also suggest the 'the first day' = 'Day Star, Son of Dawn'. This is the 'other' whom God was speaking to when He said '...let us make man...' To further prove this I would have to use other scriptures that speak figuratively of 'our adversary'. This evil one 'came out' of the first day causing a breach in it. What God had made 'one' became 'as two'. Consequently the whole day 'fell' and all the other days fell with it. Jesus - the man / Messiah - became the very repairer of this breach.

Now, so as not to leave anyone confused. Though I have used creation scriptures to illustrate my view I have not been speaking of 'outward' things. Rather, testifying to inward things by way of the outward. All these things are present 'within us' from first to last. The outward and inward parallel. One is a copy of the other. It was out of the 'formed and filled' primary elements that we were taken....and so the established pattern and makeup of these elements exist within us. When a breach in the primary elements occurred the inward heart of man simultaneously became corrupted. Eve's heart became divided and the voice of her flesh was awakened when the darkness set itself against the Light of God shining within it (the first day).

This, in part, is what I have come to see....and by a vision I have come to see it. See, then, how the Son of God - the man Jesus - did not exist until He existed? Though it is true He was prefigured from eternity. The man Jesus IS the reality.....all else are types and shadows....and this Jesus is to be the template for discerning what is, what was, and what is to come. In this 'the fulness of time' becomes the very place from which we are to view all things both backwards and forwards. Make sense....sort of?

I am still working on a better way to articulate what I see so that others might understand it. But this is the best I can do at present.

Peace in the Lord

[JaggedEdge]

Yes

Did 'a bride' exist in eternity past?. So you argument is against the trinitarian beliefs? How does Christ sit on the right hand of the Father?


Eph 3:9 And to make all men see, what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Explain this: in the beginning was God(Elohiym - plural)

[spitndirt]

So you argument is against the trinitarian beliefs?

Yes.....no such bird.

How does Christ sit on the right hand of the Father?

You tell me.......

Eph 3:9 And to make all men see, what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Try viewing the beginning through 'the reality' - the man Jesus who was born in the fulness of time. This reality was God's primary aim all along. All things were made according to....and for....the 'begotten' (human) Son. All that came before the man Jesus were 'shadows' of the reality.....hidden in God and revealed in these last times.

Think again of the term 'firstborn' as it is applied to our Lord. Consider that Adam and Eve were the very first humans to exist... and they were 'made'. No one was 'born' until AFTER them. Also, it is written that Adam was (became) '...a figure of the one to come...' - speaking of the man Jesus, the one and only begotten of the Father. This would seem to render my suggestion a pluasible one......that God had 'the reality' - the man Jesus - in mind throughout the creation account. Jesus (the man) did say '...they are they which testify of Me...' - speaking of the scriptures.

Explain this: in the beginning was God(Elohiym - plural)


Elohim is a phenomenon existing on this side of the beginning. Prior to this (in eternity past) true God is.......and there is no other. When God said '...let us...' in the creation account He was speaking to Day Star, Son of Dawn. This was a shadow of the coming Jesus....but not the reality. Day Star was established in a state of innocence / perfection.....paralleling our Lord when He walked the earth. Then Day Star fell from heaven due to 'the serpent's' rebellion, Gen. 3 , Isaiah 14 (Lucifer = Day Star) ......paralleling the death of Jesus at the hand of another. Then God raised this Jesus - the reality - from the dead and Day Star was restored.....and look where Day Star was placed - 2Peter 1:19 - which indicates 'the new creation', or, 'Christ in us' the hope of glory. Check it out.

I sort of break this all down in my post to Duncun.....at least in part.

Peace

[JaggedEdge]

Yes.....no such bird.



You tell me.......
I thought you had this non-trinitarian idea all worked out?

You have no idea how Christ can sit on the right hand of the Father?

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Shalom

[spitndirt]

I thought you had this non-trinitarian idea all worked out?

No.....I only see as through a glass darkly (the best any of us can see). I have got plenty worked out though......and my take on the scriptures is SOOOOOO much more plausible than your incomprehensible trinitarian blarney. At least 'reality' can be comprehended via my view.....which is, yes, an ongoing work.

You have no idea how Christ can sit on the right hand of the Father?

Yes...I do. Just wanted to hear your thoughts first. I doubted you had a plausible or detailed explanation of the 'how' of this truth. Besides, you have not answered even ONE of my arguments with different ideas....nor have you expounded on the scriptures that you yourself have offered. Don't fret it though......this is typical trinitarian behavior. You all dictate to the world.....and look intently for any reason whatsoever to condemn it. This doesn't harm me in the least my friend ......only makes yourself 'feel' better I guess.

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Yes.....but this hardly qualifies as an adaquate answer to your own question. If you REALLY wanted me to know and understand something it would please you to share with me what you have discovered and how you 'know' it to be true. I can only assume, then, that all you are seeking is blind affirmation of what YOU assert. ........you must assimilate.....resistance is futile....:lol:

Shalom

Shalom..... right back at'ya

[JaggedEdge]

No.....I only see as through a glass darkly (the best any of us can see). I have got plenty worked out though......and my take on the scriptures is SOOOOOO much more plausible than your incomprehensible trinitarian blarney. At least 'reality' can be comprehended via my view.....which is, yes, an ongoing work.
Well I must admit I'm a bit flustered at your idea of debate.
I threw a few scriptures up there and allowed you to give your rebuttles. I am not a diehard trinitarian believer but was merely playing the advocate. I am actually just searching through the questions and answers in a search for truth on the subject. It is not something I have really debated and don't think my opinion either way will keep from heavens gates. For I simply trust Christ as my saviour. Are you really arguing for the sake of helping people see the truth or is it more like a pat on the back, I've got all the answers gameshow?

Here is a truth I stumbled on here, You have an enormous ego,..
Have you ever tripped over that thing?


Yes...I do. Just wanted to hear your thoughts first. I doubted you had a plausible or detailed explanation of the 'how' of this truth. Besides, you have not answered even ONE of my arguments with different ideas....nor have you expounded on the scriptures that you yourself have offered. Don't fret it though......this is typical trinitarian behavior. You all dictate to the world.....and look intently for any reason whatsoever to condemn it. This doesn't harm me in the least my friend ......only makes yourself 'feel' better I guess. Again you throw me in the trinitarian boat. I was ojectively trying to find any truth to what you are saying without the expectation of you breaking your arm by patting yourself on the back. I asked one question which you didn't answer but gave me 6 lines on my trinitarian behaviour.
Do you realize that much of your argument is based on how much more knowlegable you are?
That my friend is pride. I will study this matter with a brother who is not so full of himself.


Shalom

[IncRus]

YES!!!

He was the TRUE LIGHT that was brought forth in the beginning when God spoke the "Word" and said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT" (Gen. 1:3) -- before the world was.

His Name is YHWH (Heb-Adonai YHWH) in the Old Testament - first listed in Gen 2:4. He is called LORD God by the King James translators. He is the God of the Jews, and the ONLY God ever formed, Physically. If you have seen Him, then you have seen the Father.

God Bless

I DON'T see the name Jesus in Gen. 1:3 and Gen. 2:4. That must be a product of your imagination!

[IncRus]

NO!
The real Messiah started in the flesh.
He is The Son Of Man.


Okieshoedem
Correct.

Jesus was foreknown...He was prefigured...His coming in the fulness of time was foretold.....but He was 'not' literally until He 'was' in the flesh. Flesh connotes 'Sonship'. The only 'other' called 'Son' that was not in the flesh was '...Day Star, Son of Dawn...'. This Son was the prefigurement of the One to come in the flesh who would be patterned after Adam. The key term in all this is 'begotten'. Jesus was/is the only 'begotten' Son of God. This means He was born of woman via male seed (Word of God in Jesus' case).

My thoughts.....

Well done and I agree!

Jesus was "foreordained before the foundation of the world..." (1 Peter 1:20). Jesus was in God's PLAN before the world was and was FORETOLD in Gen. 17:7; Deut. 18:18; Isaiah 7:14 and Jer. 1:5. That's what John meant when he wrote: "The WORD ws in the beginning WITH God and WAS God" (John 1:1).

[spitndirt]

Well I must admit I'm a bit flustered at your idea of debate.
I threw a few scriptures up there and allowed you to give your rebuttles. I am not a diehard trinitarian believer but was merely playing the advocate. I am actually just searching through the questions and answers in a search for truth on the subject.

Then I was really confused by your posts. Had you said up front that you were 'undecided' and was merely playing advocate I wouldn't have mistaken you for a trinitarian.

It is not something I have really debated and don't think my opinion either way will keep from heavens gates. For I simply trust Christ as my saviour.

You are right.....it is not our trinitarian / nontrinitarian theology that saves us. Niether view is essential for salvation. It is trusting in Jesus.....which translates into these words of Paul - '...all that counts is faith expressing itself in love...'. But try telling a trinitarian that his false deduction is nonessential for salvation. You think I'm an ass.......

Are you really arguing for the sake of helping people see the truth or is it more like a pat on the back, I've got all the answers gameshow?

No...not trying to help people. Just speaking of things I have come to know for others to consider. The Lord is my helper.....and I assume that he is the helper of all who put their trust in Him. If this is true no one needs my help. At least not with a knowledge of the truth. If any are hungry, thirsty, or naked.....then I can do something for them.

Here is a truth I stumbled on here, You have an enormous ego,..
Have you ever tripped over that thing?

I have read back through your posts looking for a hint that you were 'on the fence' concerning this issue. Forgive me....but nothing I read gives me a clue that you were not trinitarian. Even so I'll take your word for it. And for the record.....'ego' has nothing to do with anything.

Again you throw me in the trinitarian boat. I was ojectively trying to find any truth to what you are saying without the expectation of you breaking your arm by patting yourself on the back.

Yes....I threw you into the trinitarian boat. For this I do apologize. And no....I do not pat myself on the back at any time. What you are mistaking for 'ego' is the same 'frustration' that you apparently are experiencing. A 'heads up' about what your true intentions were would have been nice.

I asked one question which you didn't answer but gave me 6 lines on my trinitarian behaviour.

I gave you the very reason that I chose not to answer. Nor did you answer when I said '...you tell me...'. Assuming you to be trinitarian I was convinced that you would not give me an honest response. Just as I had guessed you used my failure to respond first as a reason to discount everything I have said. Now, I don't know how much experience you have with trinitarians.....but this is a classic tacic on their part so as to avoid honest discourse.

Do you realize that much of your argument is based on how much more knowlegable you are? That my friend is pride.

Again, a misjudgment on your part......due to my misunderstanding where you were coming from to begin with. What you are calling 'pride' is only my refusal to take any more crap from trinitarians. So...thinking you were trinitarian I was prepared to not put up with any crap.

Question: is it possible for one to freely express what one knows for the consideration of others without someone calling him prideful??? I am merely trying to put into clear unflowery words what I am seeing....thats' it! I have no idea how it is men wish to hear things and I do not have the time or the energy to try and figure it out. Besides...if I have knowledge glory to God....not to me. Without the power of God I would know nothing. Should I present myself ignorant so as not to offend the sensitivities of the over-sensitive? Sorry....but I don't have a clue how to play that game.

I will study this matter with a brother who is not so full of himself.


Shalom

You are certainly free to do that.

Peace

[JaggedEdge]

What saddens me more than anything is the fact that we christians argue like the secular world. Not an ouch of difference really. Showing outsiders that we are different should be a priority but we're not really different. The church has split over every minute issue and because of this we appear as a church full of spots and wrinkles. Without love we are not worthy of carrying the gospel to the world. Why would any outsider want to be apart of us when we can't do anything but fight amongst oursleves?
How often do we christians prove that we can't understand the simpliest of scriptures and apply them?

Joh 15:17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.

GAl 6:10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

1 cor 13:3 And if all I have I make to feed the poor, and I deliver my body to burn, and love be not in me, I profit nothing.

[spitndirt]

What saddens me more than anything is the fact that we christians argue like the secular world. Not an ouch of difference really. Showing outsiders that we are different should be a priority but we're not really different. The church has split over every minute issue and because of this we appear as a church full of spots and wrinkles. Without love we are not worthy of carrying the gospel to the world. Why would any outsider want to be apart of us when we can't do anything but fight amongst oursleves?
How often do we christians prove that we can't understand the simpliest of scriptures and apply them?

Joh 15:17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.

GAl 6:10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

1 cor 13:3 And if all I have I make to feed the poor, and I deliver my body to burn, and love be not in me, I profit nothing.

I agree with you JE. Only I have moved beyond the 'saddened' state concerning the apparent divisions in the Church and into the 'what can I do about it' state. I have concluded that false teachings are what is dividing the church. We are commanded in another place to contend for the one true faith once and for all handed down to 'us'. This is why I am so 'anti- trinitarian'.....and unashamedly so. These divide God...and everything else they put their hands to. How? They set up false standards - i.e., calling their theological deductions essential for salvation - and judge the whole world unto condemnation according to them. But as we seem to have agreed....all that counts is faith expressing itself in love. This is why I have sought God long and hard concerning this issue (and others) - so that I might be enabled to answer the false brethren according to their own words. I do not expect that my words will change them or even slow them down....but if by chance someone who is skeptical of trinitarian theology - and how it is being wrongly used to condemn - happens to consider my words and is persuaded against doing as trinitarians do then my work is not in vain. Though I will admit that my straight forward approach may be a turn off to some I do not at present know any other way except to be straight forward. Even so I do what I do because I love the truth...the very truth that sets men free. All I desire is that men be set free from the condemnation of the world and all of its false standards....that's it. I have no personal agenda nor am I calling anyone to blindly assent to my understanding. I know that our Lord reveals Himself to all who diligently and earnestly seek Him. And so it is my sincere hope that men might be persuaded to turn from their reliance upon deduced theologies and simply obey the teachings of Christ...all of which points in only one direction - the direction of love. To love God is to obey His commands....and His commands are that we should love one another.....that's it! Nothing else matters. If the Church were all about this 'unity' would be the norm. But unity is far from us these days.....because of false teachers and their meaningless nonsense. So I will actively stand in opposition to these for no other reason than my love of the truth......the truth that '...all that counts is faith expressing itself in love...'. Do you understand?

Peace in the Lord......

[MrManNo1]

In regards to the whole "I AM" statement, you only have to go back to the Septaugint and the Greek NT.

Exodus 3:14 in the Septaugint:
και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην εγω ειμι ο ων και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας

John 8:58 in the Greek NT:
ειπεν αυτοις ο ιησους αμην αμην λεγω υμιν πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι

Notice that they both contain the phrase "εγω ειμι", which is translated as "I am". Jesus was directly referring to the Exodus passage in the language that the Roman Jews would be most familiar with: Greek.

[spitndirt]

In regards to the whole "I AM" statement, you only have to go back to the Septaugint and the Greek NT.

Exodus 3:14 in the Septaugint:
και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην εγω ειμι ο ων και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας

John 8:58 in the Greek NT:
ειπεν αυτοις ο ιησους αμην αμην λεγω υμιν πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι

Notice that they both contain the phrase "εγω ειμι", which is translated as "I am". Jesus was directly referring to the Exodus passage in the language that the Roman Jews would be most familiar with: Greek.

Absolutely correct. But the writer of Hebrews states '...in these last times God has spoken to us by His Son...'. Jesus confirms this saying '...I speak nothing on my own but only what the Father has taught me...'. These verses provide the context wherein Jesus spoke the words '...before Abraham was , I Am...'. The God of Abraham was speaking by the man Jesus, His only begotten Son.

peace

[MrManNo1]

Absolutely correct. But the writer of Hebrews states '...in these last times God has spoken to us by His Son...'. Jesus confirms this saying '...I speak nothing on my own but only what the Father has taught me...'. These verses provide the context wherein Jesus spoke the words '...before Abraham was , I Am...'. The God of Abraham was speaking by the man Jesus, His only begotten Son.

peace

So then, you agree that the second person (who was lower in "rank" than God the Father) of God pre-existed the incarnate Jesus?

[spitndirt]

So then, you agree that the second person (who was lower in "rank" than God the Father) of God pre-existed the incarnate Jesus?

No.....I do not agree. The man Jesus did not exist prior to His physical birth. The only 'phenomenon' that pre-existed the true Son was the plan of God to beget Him (via a fallen woman) in the fulness of time. The man Jesus is the fulfilment of what God had prefigured before the world began. Jesus is the reality.......all else prior were shadows and types. God created all things by (by way of / according to) and for the literal Jesus, His one and only begotten Son. All of creation is based upon the One born in the fulness of time. We are to view all things forward and backward from there. The literal Son - the man Jesus - is the reality and there is no other.

peace

[MrManNo1]

No.....I do not agree. The man Jesus did not exist prior to His physical birth. The only 'phenomenon' that pre-existed the true Son was the plan of God to beget Him (via a fallen woman) in the fulness of time. The man Jesus is the fulfilment of what God had prefigured before the world began. Jesus is the reality.......all else prior were shadows and types. God created all things by (by way of / according to) and for the literal Jesus, His one and only begotten Son. All of creation is based upon the One born in the fulness of time. We are to view all things forward and backward from there. The literal Son - the man Jesus - is the reality and there is no other.

So, then, you believe Jesus to be the Word of God?

[spitndirt]

So, then, you believe Jesus to be the Word of God?

Jesus is '...the Word made flesh...'. No flesh....no Son. It is written '...and the Word was God...'. Had it said '...and the Word was Son of God...' a case for a literally pre-existing Son could be made. But it doesn't.....so no legitimate case can be made to that effect.

There is one called '...Day (or Morning) Star, Son of Dawn...'. This was a pattern for 'Adam'. This pattern was used to 'make' Adam#1 who was himself '...a figure of the One to come...', Rom. 5:14 . The One to come was the man Jesus - Adam#2 - the only 'begotten' Son of the Father. The Father is Himself '... true God...', John 17:3 and 1John 5:20 .

peace

[MrManNo1]

Jesus is '...the Word made flesh...'. No flesh....no Son. It is written '...and the Word was God...'. Had it said '...and the Word was Son of God...' a case for a literally pre-existing Son could be made. But it doesn't.....so no legitimate case can be made to that effect.

There is one called '...Day (or Morning) Star, Son of Dawn...'. This was a pattern for 'Adam'. This pattern was used to 'make' Adam#1 who was himself '...a figure of the One to come...', Rom. 5:14 . The One to come was the man Jesus - Adam#2 - the only 'begotten' Son of the Father. The Father is Himself '... true God...', John 17:3 and 1John 5:20 .

peace

Um...I'm not sure what you mean, but your arguments seem to directly contradict your conclusion...

[spitndirt]

Um...I'm not sure what you mean, but your arguments seem to directly contradict your conclusion...

No contradiction.

If - in the beginning - there existed a pattern for a 'begotten' Son.....then a figure (Adam) of this begotten Son was made along with a woman (Eve) who would provide the 'seed' through which God would 'beget' this prefigured Son......then the only logical and non-contradictory conclusion one can come to is that Jesus, the reality brought to bear, did not exist until He existed in the fulness of time. And because the man Jesus is the reality the pre-existing pattern and the figure are not. The pattern and the figure, then, are shown to be 'shadows' of the coming reality.

If this is contradictory please explain how. Peace......

[MrManNo1]

No contradiction.

If - in the beginning - there existed a pattern for a 'begotten' Son.....then a figure (Adam) of this begotten Son was made along with a woman (Eve) who would provide the 'seed' through which God would 'beget' this prefigured Son......then the only logical and non-contradictory conclusion one can come to is that Jesus, the reality brought to bear, did not exist until He existed in the fulness of time. And because the man Jesus is the reality the pre-existing pattern and the figure are not. The pattern and the figure, then, are shown to be 'shadows' of the coming reality.

If this is contradictory please explain how. Peace......

It isn't contradictory, it just wasn't as clear in the first post you made. Anyway, my point about the "I AM" was that, if Jesus called Himself "I AM", then He was claiming God's title for Himself. The only way that one should claim God's titles is if that person is God.

[spitndirt]

It isn't contradictory, it just wasn't as clear in the first post you made. Anyway, my point about the "I AM" was that, if Jesus called Himself "I AM", then He was claiming God's title for Himself. The only way that one should claim God's titles is if that person is God.

But remember....Jesus was speaking '...only what the Father had taught Him...'. As I have previously stated it was God speaking by His Son and not the Son speaking on His own. If Jesus had to be 'taught' what to say and how to say it then He is not 'omniscient' God. He is as the scriptures say '...a man in whom the fulness of God dwelt bodily...'. In other words, the man Jesus is not God.....rather, God is God in the man Jesus.

Let me add this: God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ. At present He is 'God by proxy'....until such a time when He hands the kingdom back to the Father who is Himself true God. I say this so as not to diminish the glory of the One whom God has exalted above all things.

Peace

[MrManNo1]

Let me add this: God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ. At present He is 'God by proxy'....until such a time when He hands the kingdom back to the Father who is Himself true God.

Your entire first paragraph was simply restating what Trinitarians believe (that God's spirit worked through the body of Jesus). Trinitarians don't believe that the actual body of Jesus is God, only that the spirit is God. However, this statement was quite peculiar. Do you have any scriptural evidence of this statement? (That is, that Jesus is 'God by proxy' until He 'hands the kingdom back to the Father'.)

[spitndirt]

Your entire first paragraph was simply restating what Trinitarians believe (that God's spirit worked through the body of Jesus). Trinitarians don't believe that the actual body of Jesus is God, only that the spirit is God. However, this statement was quite peculiar. Do you have any scriptural evidence of this statement? (That is, that Jesus is 'God by proxy' until He 'hands the kingdom back to the Father'.)

Well.....I have been condemned by many a trinitarian. If I am in agreement with them then their condemnations don't make sense.

Here is how I make the clean cut: True God dwelt in Jesus by His Spirit - Jesus was 'a man' and this man was the Son. He who dwells bodily in this man is the Father....or, true God. True God is the only One who pre-existed in eternity past. Trinitarians believe that the Son (and the Holy Spirit) also pre-existed in eternity past - three distinct persons, one God. They also believe that Jesus is the incarnation of this eternally existing Son. The problem with this is 'an eternally existing Son' did not dwell bodily in the man Jesus....the Father did. The man Jesus is himself the one and only Son of God

God by proxy: This is the best way I can think of to describe the present office of Jesus. The scriptures that point to this fact are '...all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me (Jesus)...' and '...He will hand over the kingdom to God....who will be all and in all...(in the end)'. I can't remember right off hand where these scriptures are located....one is in the Gospels, the other in Corinthians (1 or 2) somewhere I think ??? I'm sure you've read them before....

peace

[MrManNo1]

Here is how I make the clean cut: True God dwelt in Jesus by His Spirit - Jesus was 'a man' and this man was the Son. He who dwells bodily in this man is the Father....or, true God. True God is the only One who pre-existed in eternity past. Trinitarians believe that the Son (and the Holy Spirit) also pre-existed in eternity past - three distinct persons, one God. They also believe that Jesus is the incarnation of this eternally existing Son. The problem with this is 'an eternally existing Son' did not dwell bodily in the man Jesus....the Father did. The man Jesus is himself the one and only Son of God

The problem with this is, if God the Father dwelled in the body of Jesus, then who was running the universe, and who said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"?

God by proxy: This is the best way I can think of to describe the present office of Jesus. The scriptures that point to this fact are '...all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me (Jesus)...' and '...He will hand over the kingdom to God....who will be all and in all...(in the end)'. I can't remember right off hand where these scriptures are located....one is in the Gospels, the other in Corinthians (1 or 2) somewhere I think ??? I'm sure you've read them before....

I can guarantee you that if I read a verse in the Bible that stated that Jesus isn't really God, He's just standing in for God until some point in the future, then I wouldn't have accepted Trinitarianism as quickly as I did. If there is some verse that claims God by proxy for Jesus, then I want to see it.

[spitndirt]

The problem with this is, if God the Father dwelled in the body of Jesus, then who was running the universe, and who said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"?

Ummm....the Father was doing all these things. Jesus said '...I am in My Father and My Father is in Me....I and my Father are one...' (somewhere in the Gospel of John).

I can guarantee you that if I read a verse in the Bible that stated that Jesus isn't really God, He's just standing in for God until some point in the future, then I wouldn't have accepted Trinitarianism as quickly as I did. If there is some verse that claims God by proxy for Jesus, then I want to see it.

Now: Daniel 7:13-14 , Matthew 28:18 , Luke 10:22 , Heb. 1:8-9

The future: 1Cor. 15:24-28

Sounds like a 'proxy' to me.....

[MrManNo1]

Ummm....the Father was doing all these things. Jesus said '...I am in My Father and My Father is in Me....I and my Father are one...' (somewhere in the Gospel of John).

That makes no sense, however. Colossians 2:9 states that, "...in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form". How can all the fullness of the Father live in Him, but the Father also be fully in heaven? He cannot fully be in both places, unless He is two persons, each with the fullness of God.

Daniel 7:13-14

Verse 14 states that His dominion is everlasting. How can it be both everlasting and end in the future?

Matthew 28:18

That explains nothing in itself.

Luke 10:22

Again, this explains nothing. It says that Jesus had a specific role to play, but it doesn't say that Jesus was given "God by proxy". No Trinitarian disagrees with this verse. We simply believe the Son's "rank" is lower than the Father's "rank".

Heb. 1:8-9

This verse actually contradicts what you said (that Jesus is God by proxy). It says that the Son's kingdom will last "for ever and ever". In addition, why does the verse specify the "Son"? This insinuates that the Son is separate from the Father.

1 Cor. 15:24-28

That, to me, simply means that Jesus is taking the role of the warrior for God, and once that role is no longer needed, the Father will rule.

Sounds like a 'proxy' to me.....

Not to me, and it still doesn't explain the verses where it says the Son's kingdom is eternal...

[carelinks]

To go back a few posts, it was stated
>if Jesus called Himself "I AM", then He was claiming God's title for Himself. The only way that one should claim God's titles is if that person is God.

I don't see that follows. Angels and men can carry the titles of God- doesn't make them God Himself in person. We are to be baptized into the Name- we carry that Name- does that make us God or Jesus in person? Not at all.

We need to appreciate the extent to which the first century Middle East understood a messenger as being the very person of the one who sent him. R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder in The Encyclopedia Of The Jewish Religion speak of "the Jewish Law of Agencies" or 'Schaliach', as: "The main point of the Jewish law of agency expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself". Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." G.R.B. Murray comments that: "One sent is as he who sent him... The messenger [the Shaliach] is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent him. This is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the messenger was commonly a slave" (2). Bearing this background in mind, it isn't surprising that language specific to God is used about His Son and messenger.

The idea is sometimes expressed that calling Jesus "Son of God" somehow makes Him God. Apart from the illogicality of this [a son isn't the same being as his father], the language of "Son of God" is used in the Old Testament of men. Even the term "God" is used of men (Ps. 45:6; 82:6; Ex. 21:6; 22:8). The first century mind was quite used to men being called 'god' or Divine. The Jews were strongly monotheistic, paranoid of any implication that Yahweh was not the only God; and yet they were happy to use the word "god" about men. Philo [a Jewish writer] spoke of Moses as "appointed by God as god" and "no longer man but God" (3). And of course the Greek and Roman rulers, both local and otherwise, were described with 'Divine' language- e.g. Antiochus Epiphanes means 'God made manifest'. There was no understanding that these 'divine' titles therefore made these men to be God Himself in person. Apollonius explains that "every man who is considered good is honoured with the title of "god"" (Apollonius Of Tyana 8.4). Indeed any hero, leader of King was addressed as 'God' (4). We can see from Acts 14:11-13 and Acts 28:6 how easily first century folk were inclined to call a man "God" if he did miracles. I remember clearly in my early days of missionary work in Africa being called "Wazungu" or "Mazungu" by fascinated children who'd scarcely seen a white man before. And I recall my shock on discovering that this term means both "white man" and "God" (and is frequently used as such in translations of the Bible into Central and East African languages). But this is actually what was going on in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. And so when Divine language was applied to Jesus, there is no reason to think that the first century mind would've concluded that therefore Jesus was God Himself in person, just as those fascinated kids calling out "Wazungu! Wazungu!" as I walked by were hardly understanding me as God Himself in person. Here we have one of the most glaring examples of problems arising from not reading God's word with an appreciation of the context in which it was spoken and written. In European culture, it would be unheard of, or blasphemous and at best inappropriate, to call any man "God" or "Son of God". But this wasn't the case in the first century world. In that world- and it was against the background of that world that the New Testament was written- the use of Divine language about a person, or about Jesus the Son of God, didn't make them God Himself in person.

Again and again we have to emphasize that we read the Biblical documents at a great distance from the culture in which they were first written. It was quite understandable for a person to carry the name of their superior, without being that superior in person. And so it was and is with the Lord Jesus. To give just one of many possible confirmations of this: "[In 2 Esdras 5:43-46]... God's spokesman, the angel Uriel, is questioned by Ezra as though he were both Creator and Judge [which God alone is]. Ezra uses the same style of address to Uriel ("My lord, my master") as he uses in direct petition to God. This practice of treating the agent as though he were the principal is of the greatest importance for New Testament Christology [i.e. the study of who Christ is]" (5). The acclamation of Thomas "My Lord and my God!" must be understood within the context of first century usage, where as Paul says, many people were called Lord and "god" (1 Cor. 8:4-6). If we're invited by our manager "Come and meet the president", we don't expect to meet the President of the USA. We expect to meet the president of the company. The word "president" can have more than one application, and it would be foolish to assume that in every case it referred to the President of the USA. And it's the same with the words "Lord" and "God" in their first century usage. Hence a Jewish non-trinitarian like Philo could call Moses "God and king of the whole nation" (Life Of Moses 1.158)- and nobody accused him of not being monotheistic! Significantly, there is in the New Testament the Greek word latreuo which specifically refers to the worship of God- and this is always [21 times] applied to God and not Jesus. The worship of Jesus that is recorded is always to God's glory, and is recorded with the same words [especially proskuneo] used about the worship of believers (Rev. 3:9, Daniel (Dan. 2:46 LX), kings of Israel etc. (1 Chron. 29:20 LXX).

Notes


(2) George R. Beasley Murray, Gospel of Life: Theology In The Fourth Gospel (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), p.18.

(3) Citations in James Dunn, Christology In The Making (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980) p. 17.

(4) For documentation, see D. Cuss, Imperial Cult And Honorary Terms In The New Testament (Fribourg: Fribourg University Press, 1974) pp. 134-140.

(5) G.B. Caird, The Language And Imagery Of The Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980) p. 181.

More thinking on this at http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/1-6.htm

[spitndirt]

That makes no sense, however. Colossians 2:9 states that, "...in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form". How can all the fullness of the Father live in Him, but the Father also be fully in heaven? He cannot fully be in both places, unless He is two persons, each with the fullness of God.

Yes....and the Deity refers to true God. True God dwelt bodily in the man Jesus. Jesus is a man who is 'the Son' of the Deity which makes the Deity 'the Father'.

According to your own interpretation no voice could have been heard apart from Jesus either. If 'all the fullness of the Deity' is referring to a trinity then the whole trinity must have been dwelling in the man Jesus (and counting the man Jesus Himself = 4 :wink: ). So.....how could the Father speak from heaven according to trinitarian thought? If the Father remained outside the man then 'all the fullness' of your trinity could not have dwelt in Jesus bodily

The answer to your question is a simple one. Jesus said '...I am in My Father and My Father is in Me...'. This statement places the Father both inside and out. To illustrate this phenomenon go back to Genesis and consider the account through the '...God is light...' template. We see that God (who is light) brought forth the rudimentary elements of creation, Gen. 1:2 . Included among these elements was darkness. Then God said '...let there be light...', and there was light, Gen. 1:3 . Question: ...let where be light??? Answer: ....in the darkness of Gen. 1:2 . Proof: ...and God saw the light, that it was good: and God distinguished the light from the darkness, Gen. 1:4 . God sent '...light of Himself ...' to shine in the darkness on the first day. So we have now light of God remaining outside of darkness and light of God shining in darkness. Now make this connection: God alone is good.....God is light.....light is good. Conclusion: ...the light of the first day is the fullness of God shining in darkness. Allegorically depicted here are the Father and the Son. To say '...the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father...' is to say '...Light is in the first day and the first day is in Light...'.

Ezekiel 28:12 also depicts this same phenomenon. It is said of the king of Tyrus (Tyre) that he '...sealest up the sum, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty...'. It speaks of this king as if the 'the fullness of God' dwelt in him bodily. God is the sum of light and He alone is good....and the only wise God who is Himself perfect. Interestingly, this also allegorically refers back to the first day of creation. A cherub is represented there.

Also, factor in this scripture concerning true God and His chosen One: ...Ps. 139:7-18. Jesus said of the scriptures that '...they are they that testify of Me...'. Note particularly this verse - '...your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be...'. Jesus, Son of God, did not pre-exist Himeself. True God, His Father, foreknew Him nonetheless....and made all things with Him in mind. Why? Cuz through Him God would reconcile the world to Himself. So God had us in mind as well...whom He also foreknew in His One and only Son. Does this mean that 'we' also existed in eternity past? The scriptures sometimes speak as though we have pre-existed ourselves.....but we have not.

Verse 14 states that His dominion is everlasting. How can it be both everlasting and end in the future?

Yes...an everlasting kingdom. The kingdom will never end....only headship over it.

That explains nothing in itself.

Ummm.....ok. So it means nothing that all of Jesus' authority was given to Him? One would thing that a pre-existing Deity would possess all authority by default. Hmmmm..... (scratching my head).

Again, this explains nothing. It says that Jesus had a specific role to play, but it doesn't say that Jesus was given "God by proxy". No Trinitarian disagrees with this verse. We simply believe the Son's "rank" is lower than the Father's "rank".

No....the explanation just doen't satisfy you. Not to further rock your world....but at present the Son out ranks the Father is a very real sense. Jesus has 'all authority' over heaven and earth. So...rank has nothing to do with it. It's all about who is true and who is proxy. The proxy is the One whom God has made to be His proxy. Jesus is this One.

This verse actually contradicts what you said (that Jesus is God by proxy). It says that the Son's kingdom will last "for ever and ever". In addition, why does the verse specify the "Son"? This insinuates that the Son is separate from the Father.

No....it is actually in perfect harmony with what I have said. Where do you think I get the 'God' part of 'God by proxy'? At present - and for all intents and purposes - Jesus is in God's stead. Again, until such a time when He hands the the kingdom over to the Father (who is at present the only One not subject to Jesus authority).

And...when trinitarians apply 'distinct' personhood to the members of their figment are they not also implying a separation?

That, to me, simply means that Jesus is taking the role of the warrior for God, and once that role is no longer needed, the Father will rule.

...this is what is true '...to you...'. Thanks for sharing......but who told you these things?

Not to me, and it still doesn't explain the verses where it says the Son's kingdom is eternal...

Hopefully I have clarified the 'eternal kingdom' thing above. And for the record.....God by proxy is my way of explaining it.......sort of like your 'trinity' term (which is nowhere found in scripture).

I will end with a simple question: Am I a condemned unbeliever for rejecting your doctrine?

peace

[watsup]

Christians profess that Christ is the Hebrew Messiah, okie. Beyond that, why bother saying "Yahshua," which implies Yeshua, which implies Jesus? For crying out loud, do you not understand any Christian theology? Christianity=post-Messianic Judaism.

1. The disciples who were first called "Christians" were those in Antioch (Acts 11:26).

Who were those disciple? The co-followers with Peter? Or the co-followers with Paul? Check Acts 11:30.

Any uniqueness in the Gospel God had Jesus to reveal through Paul - in contrast to what God had Jesus to reveal through Jesus Himself "of Nazareth" and His Peter and Peter's other 11 co-disciples? Check Luke 1:68-70, Acts 3:21 - and Romans 16:25, Ephesians 1:4-11, 3:5-9. Any distinctiveness? Any contrast?

2. "Did Yahshua Messiah pre-exist?"

Yes, Yahshua Messiah did pre-exist.

John 1

1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2: The same was in the beginning with God.
3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

14: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15: John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16: And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17: For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

29: The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30: This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
31: And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32: And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33: And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34: And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
35: Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
36: And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
37: And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

[spitndirt]

1. The disciples who were first called "Christians" were those in Antioch (Acts 11:26).

Who were those disciple? The co-followers with Peter? Or the co-followers with Paul? Check Acts 11:30.

Any uniqueness in the Gospel God had Jesus to reveal through Paul - in contrast to what God had Jesus to reveal through Jesus Himself "of Nazareth" and His Peter and Peter's other 11 co-disciples? Check Luke 1:68-70, Acts 3:21 - and Romans 16:25, Ephesians 1:4-11, 3:5-9. Any distinctiveness? Any contrast?

2. "Did Yahshua Messiah pre-exist?"

Yes, Yahshua Messiah did pre-exist.

John 1

1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2: The same was in the beginning with God.
3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

14: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15: John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16: And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17: For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

29: The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30: This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
31: And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32: And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33: And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34: And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
35: Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
36: And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
37: And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

Ok....let's rephrase the question.

Did the man Jesus, Son of the Living God 1) pre-exist? 2) exist in eternity past?

It is clear that the Word pre-existed the time of Christ. But note the words of John: ....and the Word was God...., as opposed to ....was Son of God....

Will anyone acknowledge this simple truth? If so, we can begin to paint a more accurate picture of the reality than the one trinitarians have painted......if not, then never-mind.

Peace

[carelinks]

> Will anyone acknowledge this simple truth?

I do for one. Totally agree with you!

Duncan

[spitndirt]

> Will anyone acknowledge this simple truth?

I do for one. Totally agree with you!

Duncan

Hi Duncan.....what's up? Hope all is well with you and yours.

I figured you would agree seeing that you're one of the few 'intellectually honest' people around here. Thanks for your input. It's good to maintain the 'two or three witness' thing in discussions like these.

Later Bro......

[IncRus]

Anyway, my point about the "I AM" was that, if Jesus called Himself "I AM", then He was claiming God's title for Himself. The only way that one should claim God's titles is if that person is God.

You are FALSELY assuming that Jesus CLAIMED God's title for himself. Jesus did NOT claim God's title for himself.

If you read John 8:58 "in context" you will see that the reason the Jews asked if Jesus had seen Abraham is because Jesus told them "Abrahm rejoiced to SEE my day." Hence, Jesus reply to the Jews in John 8:58 is RELATED to his statement that Abraham rejoiced to "see" his day.

What "day" of Jesus did Abraham "see" that made Abraham glad? Was it Jesus "birthday" that Abraham "saw?" Definitely NOT!

In Gen. 17:7, God promised Abraham that he will be the father of many nations. His descendants will be God's people and God will be their God. Apostle Paul wrote that God was referring to Christ when God said this (Gal. 3:16).

And Abraham was AWARE of this and BELIEVED. Thus, when Jesus said, "Abraham rejoiced to SEE my day," he was referring to Abraham's GLADNESS in waiting for the PROMISED coming "day of Jesus" or the "day of the Lord" (Matt. 24:30; 2 Peter 3:10) which is judgment day (2 Peter 3:7) because it will bring FULFILLMENT of God's promises to him and his descendants.

[spitndirt]

You are FALSELY assuming that Jesus CLAIMED God's title for himself. Jesus did NOT claim God's title for himself.

If you read John 8:58 "in context" you will see that the reason the Jews asked if Jesus had seen Abraham is because Jesus told them "Abrahm rejoiced to SEE my day." Hence, Jesus reply to the Jews in John 8:58 is RELATED to his statement that Abraham rejoiced to "see" his day.

What "day" of Jesus did Abraham "see" that made Abraham glad? Was it Jesus "birthday" that Abraham "saw?" Definitely NOT!

In Gen. 17:7, God promised Abraham that he will be the father of many nations. His descendants will be God's people and God will be their God. Apostle Paul wrote that God was referring to Christ when God said this (Gal. 3:16).

And Abraham was AWARE of this and BELIEVED. Thus, when Jesus said, "Abraham rejoiced to SEE my day," he was referring to Abraham's GLADNESS in waiting for the PROMISED coming "day of Jesus" or the "day of the Lord" (Matt. 24:30; 2 Peter 3:10) which is judgment day (2 Peter 3:7) because it will bring FULFILLMENT of God's promises to him and his descendants.

....and here is a third witness. Good post IncRus.

[carelinks]

Mr Man... you wrote that
>the only way that one should claim God's titles is if that person is God.

I don't get your reasoning, you appear to be driven to make a huge assumption... presumably because you run too hard to defend the trinitarian assumption you have. Of course a being can carry God's titles without being God. The Angels did- Israel were told that YHWH's Name would be carried by one of them. And therefore we read that Moses saw YHWH and spoke with Him... when Moses spoke only to this Angel, seeing that nobody can see YHWH Himself and live. And there are plenty of men and women in the Biblical records who have the Divine Name or titles incorporated into their names. Joshua, for one. And then there's Jesus... who could carry the titles of His Father without this meaning He was God Himself in person. Just as in many languages today, a son can carry his father's name and titles within his own patronymic... without of course him becoming his father in person.

Spitndirt / IncRus, good to see you around!

[JaggedEdge]

Ok....let's rephrase the question.

Did the man Jesus, Son of the Living God 1) pre-exist? 2) exist in eternity past?

It is clear that the Word pre-existed the time of Christ. But note the words of John: ....and the Word was God...., as opposed to ....was Son of God....

Will anyone acknowledge this simple truth? If so, we can begin to paint a more accurate picture of the reality than the one trinitarians have painted......if not, then never-mind.

Peace Hebrew 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

[spitndirt]

Hebrew 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things,

Exactly.....in these last times. God did not speak to men by Jesus before the fullness of time.

....by whom also he made the worlds;

God created all things with Jesus in mind. Jesus was prefigured before creation and all the components that became Him were established before a thing was made. Therefore, in the beginning is found to be the place where we should pursue compromise. I will say that the Son of God was prefigured there before all things if you will say that this same Son was not present in eternity past.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Peace greetings ALL,

I wish that I could prove that Yahshua pre-existed his birth! I surely could use $10,000.00!

The fact is, it can not be proven and I simply do not believe that he did!

[shunyadragon]

Jeremiah 1:5

I accept Paypal, Direct Transfers, or cold hard cash. Any other methods will have to be arranged for.

These are of course claims and not proof.

[Weboh2]

The word blasphemy may literally mean insult, but it is a particular sin to blaspheme and a wholly other one to "insult" in some fashion such as "God sucks." The latter is used throughout the Old Testament, and God is questioned, called unjust and outright abusive by His subjects (David's psalms, Job). Yet He answers them. It is not a bad thing to question and insult God. It is a horrible thing to deny that which you know to be true. That is blasphemy. Surely an insult wasn't taken lightly, but it was not merit for stoning. Actually stoning isn't the same as performing an execution, and the Israelite were to stone people who lead them away from God. Did you think lack of power at being exposed was the reason for stoning? Trinitarians are so dense about the unrighteousness of Judah during the first century. Do you think they were rebelling against Rome because they were accepting God's punishment for their rebellion against his just Torah?

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Anyway, my point about the "I AM" was that, if Jesus called Himself "I AM", then He was claiming God's title for Himself. The only way that one should claim God's titles is if that person is God.

I do not believe that Yahshua called himself "I AM" and was claiming "Gods" title for himself. I believe that Yahshua said "I am" in reference to himself just as anyone else says "I am" in reference to themselves.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

> Will anyone acknowledge this simple truth?

I do for one. Totally agree with you!

Duncan

I also acknowledge this simple truth! I totally agree with you also! :wink:

Thank you carelinks for the studies you have made available by way of links on this thread. I have added them as 'FEATURE LINKS' on my web page "By" And "Through" (http://frank4yahweh.tripod.com/ByAndThrough.html).

[technomage]

I do not believe that Yahshua called himself "I AM" and was claiming "Gods" title for himself. I believe that Yahshua said "I am" in reference to himself just as anyone else says "I am" in reference to themselves.

First and foremost, you are posting in a very old thread.

Secondly, while I (and others here) respect your right to believe as you wish, but the text disagrees with you. Jesus was not just saying "I am going to the store for a soda and chips," he was saying "Before Abraham was, I AM."

Thirdly, welcome to TWEB.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

First and foremost, you are posting in a very old thread.

Secondly, while I (and others here) respect your right to believe as you wish, but the text disagrees with you. Jesus was not just saying "I am going to the store for a soda and chips," he was saying "Before Abraham was, I AM."

Thirdly, welcome to TWEB.

Is posting in very old threads forbidden here? :eek:

The text does not disagree with me!

It is you that is in disagreement with me!

I never said that he was just saying "I am going to the store for a soda and chips."

Actually, I do not even believe Yahshua ever said "I Am" since this is simply an English translation of what he supposedly said.

It was translated into the English language that Yahshua said "I am" and I see no other alternative to believe otherwise. When one says "I am" they are giving reference to themselves and not someone else.

My belief still stands until I have seen reproof and correction on this matter. By the way, you are definately not the one who I choose to get my reproof and correction from so, I suggest that you do not attempt a try. :wink:

"Before Abraham Was, I Am."? (http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/YAHWEHFrank/IAm.html)

[technomage]

Is posting in very old threads forbidden here? :eek:

Forbidden? Certainly not--but many of the participants have moved on to other conversations, and some are no longer active on TWEB at all.

My belief still stands until I have seen reproof and correction on this matter. By the way, you are not the one who gives me reproof and correction so, I suggest that you do not attempt a try.

That does seem to be one tendency of the Sacred Name folks--they require no evidence to support their views, and are supremely skilled at turning a blind eye to the evidence that actually exists. Enjoy your error, Frank--God forbid I should try to help you amend it.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Forbidden? Certainly not--but many of the participants have moved on to other conversations, and some are no longer active on TWEB at all.



That does seem to be one tendency of the Sacred Name folks--they require no evidence to support their views, and are supremely skilled at turning a blind eye to the evidence that actually exists. Enjoy your error, Frank--God forbid I should try to help you amend it.

I take it then that you are not the moderator of this forum so, why even mention that this is a very old thread? The fact is, it was not too long ago that I had responded to this thread and I noted that it has has had some responces since then. What is very old to you may not necessarily be old to others. That is why I have not chosen you as one to get my reproof and correction from. I would suggest that you move on to other conversations and remain inactive in this thread.

I do require evidence for reproof and correction from Scripture and you have not given me no evidence Scripturally in this matter. Another great reason why I have not chosen you as one to get my reproof and correction from.

By the way, I am not one of your so called "Sacred Name folks".

I beg you, please do not continue responding with your foolishness! :stop:

[Lili]

The only one here being foolish is you, Frank.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

The only one here being foolish is you, Frank.

If you can not deal with the topic at hand, I suggest that you simply not respond at all with your insults.

"We Debate Theology ... Seriously!"

I beg you also, please do not continue responding with your foolishness! :stop:

You can't fool me! :lol:

[technomage]

I take it then that you are not the moderator of this forum so, why even mention that this is a very old thread?

As a friendly offer of information. Nothing more nor less. Being responded to with a brusque and insulting manner as you did is guaranteed to not start things off on the right foot, but it does give me a valuable insight into your personality--and into the worth of continued conversations with you.

Fare well.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

As a friendly offer of information. Nothing more nor less. Being responded to with a brusque and insulting manner as you did is guaranteed to not start things off on the right foot, but it does give me a valuable insight into your personality--and into the worth of continued conversations with you.

Fare well.

I did not initally respond to you in a brusque and insulting manner. In fact, I never addressed you personally in my inital post. What goes around comes around!

This is a brusque and insulting manner:

"That does seem to be one tendency of the Sacred Name folks--they require no evidence to support their views, and are supremely skilled at turning a blind eye to the evidence that actually exists. Enjoy your error, Frank--God forbid I should try to help you amend it."

It is you that started things off on the wrong foot!