Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

The pre existence of Jesus

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The pre existence of Jesus

    Christians understand from the Bible that Jesus was the Word prior to becoming flesh by being born of Mary and that his pre-existence was that of a spirit person as fully conscious and cognizant as he was while here on earth.

    However, I've learned that Christadelphians don't believe in Jesus' pre-existence except as a personification of God's plan and purpose.

    That just doesn't ring true to me because of what Jesus himself says. For instance, would a person or a personification, say he had come down from heaven?

    Would a personification remember the glory he had with the Father before anything was created?

    Of which of those could it be said that all things came into being through him?

    Could a personification say, “What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?”



    Holly
    Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

  • #2
    Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
    Christians understand from the Bible that Jesus was the Word prior to becoming flesh by being born of Mary and that his pre-existence was that of a spirit person as fully conscious and cognizant as he was while here on earth.

    However, I've learned that Christadelphians don't believe in Jesus' pre-existence except as a personification of God's plan and purpose.

    That just doesn't ring true to me because of what Jesus himself says. For instance, would a person or a personification, say he had come down from heaven?

    Would a personification remember the glory he had with the Father before anything was created?

    Of which of those could it be said that all things came into being through him?

    Could a personification say, “What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?”



    Holly
    Hi Holly,

    The context of Jesus saying he came down from heaven is where he is likening himself to the manna (John 6:25-58). The manna also came down from heaven (Exodus 16:4), but when we examine the details of how the manna appeared on the earth, it is formed when the dew dissipated. The manna had no existence prior to that point. I did not exist as manna in heaven, it didn't exist as rain, it didn't exist as dew. It began its existence when the dew dissipated. So Yes, he came down from heaven like the manna. Which has nothing to do with pre-existence but everything to do with his source.

    The context of the glory I had with the father is in John 17:5. Note, just two verses prior Jesus explains that his father is the only true God. Regarding the statement, about Jesus having glory he had with his Father before the world existed,
    • Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8). He died in roughly AD30.
    • God has chosen us in Jesus before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), and I didn't exist until just recently in the grand scheme of the creation, just like everybody else alive and on the earth today. Nobody believes Ephesians 1:4 is a declaration of the pre-existence of Christians (except maybe Mormons?).
    Regarding John 1:3, "all things came into being through him", I think you are applying the Him to the wrong person. Him is God. And the statement is absolutely true.

    Regarding John 6:62, the son of man ascending to where he was before. Read that sentence again. How would Jesus be the "son of man" if he existed before Adam? He didn't become a man (according to trinitarian, Mormon, JW, etc... thought) until about AD 0, which means he wouldn't have been the son of man if the passage was read like you want to read it. This passage is also a continuation of the manna discussion, which is littered with metaphorical language and to pick one out and take it as literal and turn it into a doctrine would strike me as tenuous at best. Note that nobody present at the discussion thinks that this is hard saying. They think the hard saying is the fact that they were to consume him.


    I'm sure Trevor will chime in with some additions.


    Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by StephenC View Post

      Hi Holly,

      The context of Jesus saying he came down from heaven is where he is likening himself to the manna (John 6:25-58). The manna also came down from heaven (Exodus 16:4), but when we examine the details of how the manna appeared on the earth, it is formed when the dew dissipated. The manna had no existence prior to that point. I did not exist as manna in heaven, it didn't exist as rain, it didn't exist as dew. It began its existence when the dew dissipated. So Yes, he came down from heaven like the manna. Which has nothing to do with pre-existence but everything to do with his source.

      The context of the glory I had with the father is in John 17:5. Note, just two verses prior Jesus explains that his father is the only true God. Regarding the statement, about Jesus having glory he had with his Father before the world existed,
      • Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8). He died in roughly AD30.
      • God has chosen us in Jesus before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), and I didn't exist until just recently in the grand scheme of the creation, just like everybody else alive and on the earth today. Nobody believes Ephesians 1:4 is a declaration of the pre-existence of Christians (except maybe Mormons?).
      Regarding John 1:3, "all things came into being through him", I think you are applying the Him to the wrong person. Him is God. And the statement is absolutely true.

      Regarding John 6:62, the son of man ascending to where he was before. Read that sentence again. How would Jesus be the "son of man" if he existed before Adam? He didn't become a man (according to trinitarian, Mormon, JW, etc... thought) until about AD 0, which means he wouldn't have been the son of man if the passage was read like you want to read it. This passage is also a continuation of the manna discussion, which is littered with metaphorical language and to pick one out and take it as literal and turn it into a doctrine would strike me as tenuous at best. Note that nobody present at the discussion thinks that this is hard saying. They think the hard saying is the fact that they were to consume him.


      I'm sure Trevor will chime in with some additions.

      The problem is that there is the foundation of the world at the time of creation of the heaven and earth, when God used His Word(Arm, Hand, Voice) Jesus, the Light of the world as He said "LET THERE BE LIGHT" Jesus is that Light, to create all things in heaven and in earth. The sun and moon were not created until the fourth day.

      John 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
      KJV


      Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
      KJV

      Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

      17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

      18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

      19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
      KJV



      Just as in the Next New World to come that we await will not need the sun or moon, because the Father and the Son will be the Light they walk in, they did not need the sun and moon until later on.

      Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
      KJV


      There was the Old World of Gen.1:1& Gen.2:4 where Adam was created by the LORD God before the fall (but not Gen.1:2)that was destroyed by the flood, and, the world that we are in now that is in Gen1:2 where He is only known as God, no longer did men call Him LORD!

      2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
      KJV

      Some scriptures are talking about the foundation of the FIRST World that God created when He created the Heaven and Earth, and some scriptures such as us being chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, is talking about those who are being separated/chosen NOW, to be kings and priest before the foundation of the NEW world to come. God created the earth by His Word, through His Word and with His Word and if there were books written with all the works that Jesus, the Light, the Hand, the Word of God were written down, the entire earth could not contain them... NOW that is unfathomable. No, one could claim such a thing unless he was God being there from the foundation of the world!
      John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
      KJV




      Matt 25:34

      34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
      KJV


      John 17:24

      24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
      KJV

      Eph 1:4

      4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
      KJV

      Rev 17:8

      8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
      KJV


      1 Peter 1:19-20

      19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

      20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
      KJV


      You can clearly see that this is talking about the Beast of the last days we are living in being in the body of Christ chosen out of the world and raised up before the foundation of the world to come so that they are ready to rule and reign with Christ for the 1,000yrs.Millennial Rest on the 7th day(6 days=6,000yrs) we work, 1 day(1,000yrs.) the earth rests to replenish her soils.
      Rev 13:7-8

      7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

      8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
      KJV
      Last edited by afaithfulone4u; 11-27-18, 10:23 PM.
      The purpose of my posts are not to cause bicker or division, but to show truth from the scripture for edifying of the soul. It does not matter what we think, it is what God's Word says that matters.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by afaithfulone4u View Post
        The problem is that there is the foundation of the world at the time of creation of the heaven and earth, when God used His Word(Arm, Hand, Voice) Jesus, the Light of the world as He said "LET THERE BE LIGHT" Jesus is that Light, to create all things in heaven and in earth. The sun and moon were not created until the fourth day.
        .
        .
        In the natural creation, the light did not create all things in heaven and on earth. The thing that created the light also divided the waters, brought forth the land, etc..... God is still the creator, and the light is a creation.

        The identification of Jesus with the light in John 1 indicates that he a creation and is the beginning of the new creation, the light of the world, the first creation of God (Rev 3:14). The other gospel writers confirm this (Mark, Luke, John, and Acts) by the use the word "beginning" to introduce the ministry of Jesus. John goes even further and says it his other writings (see 1 John 1:1-5, 2:7, 2:24, 3:11).

        (Note: at the baptism of Jesus, i.e. "the beginning" of his ministry, notice the spirit is seen hovering above the waters, and God speaks, in an exact parallel to Genesis 1:2)

        Originally posted by afaithfulone4u View Post
        Just as in the Next New World to come that we await will not need the sun or moon, because the Father and the Son will be the Light they walk in, they did not need the sun and moon until later on.

        Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
        KJV
        As Revelation is a symbolic prophecy, we will likely understand this differently. Heavenly bodies are created to rule (Gen 1), and rulers will not be needed because the son and his servants will be there to rule.

        Originally posted by afaithfulone4u View Post
        There was the Old World of Gen.1:1& Gen.2:4 where Adam was created by the LORD God before the fall (but not Gen.1:2)that was destroyed by the flood, and, the world that we are in now that is in Gen1:2 where He is only known as God, no longer did men call Him LORD!

        2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
        KJV


        Some scriptures are talking about the foundation of the FIRST World that God created when He created the Heaven and Earth, and some scriptures such as us being chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, is talking about those who are being separated/chosen NOW, to be kings and priest before the foundation of the NEW world to come. God created the earth by His Word, through His Word and with His Word and if there were books written with all the works that Jesus, the Light, the Hand, the Word of God were written down, the entire earth could not contain them... NOW that is unfathomable. No, one could claim such a thing unless he was God being there from the foundation of the world!

        John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
        KJV
        Your conclusion doesn't follow the facts you set forth. John begins his record of with the wedding of Cana, and records what Jesus did for 3.5 years, and he makes it clear that that is what he is testifying about in the previous verse (John 21:24). There is no need for Jesus to be God to have lived a full life for that 3.5 years. The point of John's writings is not to convince anybody that Jesus is God, but "that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31).

        I do agree that the bible speaks of multiple "worlds", i.e. the world before the flood, the world until the temple, and the world to come (Heb 2:5, i.e. the 3rd heaven and earth).

        Originally posted by afaithfulone4u View Post
        You can clearly see that this is talking about the Beast of the last days we are living in being in the body of Christ chosen out of the world and raised up before the foundation of the world to come so that they are ready to rule and reign with Christ for the 1,000yrs.Millennial Rest on the 7th day(6 days=6,000yrs) we work, 1 day(1,000yrs.) the earth rests to replenish her soils.
        While I agree with alot of this, I will offer a few tweaks. We aren't living in the "last days". The apostles lived in the "these last days" (Heb 1:2) and John reports to be living in "the last hour" (1 John 2:18). The "last days" in their writings refers to the last days of temple worship. Which is why the words "last days" do not appear in Revelation as it was written after the "last days". In contrast, we are living in the "latter days" which is a different time period with different prophecies associated with it.

        In addition, Christadelphians typically have a historicist understanding of revelation, and therefore the beasts are related to empires (as they are in Daniel) that have come and gone in most cases. We don't typically hold to the futurist interpretation (if I guess your understanding correctly). The futurist understanding arose in the counter reformation and we typically reject it. Therefore speaking of "the Beast of the last days" is meaningless to us, as we will have to guess what beast you are speaking of (i.e. the beast of the sea, the beast of the land, the dragon, etc...). You will be speaking in futurist terms looking forward to a beast, and we will be thinking in historicist terms and looking back to the Holy Roman Empire or something similar.
        Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by StephenC View Post

          Hi Holly,
          Hi Stephen,

          Originally posted by StephenC View Post
          The context of Jesus saying he came down from heaven is where he is likening himself to the manna (John 6:25-58). The manna also came down from heaven (Exodus 16:4), but when we examine the details of how the manna appeared on the earth, it is formed when the dew dissipated. The manna had no existence prior to that point. It did not exist as manna in heaven, it didn't exist as rain, it didn't exist as dew. It began its existence when the dew dissipated. So Yes, he came down from heaven like the manna. Which has nothing to do with pre-existence but everything to do with his source.
          When Jesus said, "I have come down from heaven", do you believe he was saying he came down from the sky the same way manna did? That does appear to be what you're saying here, that Jesus was likening himself to manna in every aspect of manna's characteristics.

          I take the view that Jesus was using a comparison that as manna came down from the sky and fed the Israelites physically, so he, himself, came down from heaven to feed believers spiritually as the true bread of life. The scripture that comes to mind is in Deuteronomy 8:3 He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.

          The entire passage there in John 6:25-58 is Jesus showing them where he had come from -- heaven -- which is where his existence had been prior to being born of Mary on earth. As we discuss the other passages I've referred to, this will hopefully become clearer to you.

          Originally posted by StephenC View Post
          The context of the glory I had with the father is in John 17:5. Note, just two verses prior Jesus explains that his father is the only true God.
          Note also that Jesus did not say the Father was the only one who was the only true God. We can discuss this perhaps in another thread, but for now John 17:5 is Jesus referring to what he had before anything was created, the glory he had with the Father -- certainly giving the impression that this glory was something he remembered, which could not be if he had been an impersonal plan and purpose prior to becoming flesh and dwelling among us.

          Originally posted by StephenC View Post
          Regarding the statement, about Jesus having glory he had with his Father before the world existed,[*]Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8). He died in roughly AD30.[*]God has chosen us in Jesus before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), and I didn't exist until just recently in the grand scheme of the creation, just like everybody else alive and on the earth today. Nobody believes Ephesians 1:4 is a declaration of the pre-existence of Christians (except maybe Mormons?).
          Revelation 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

          It is the Lamb's Book of Life that is from the foundation of the world, not the death of Jesus.

          I sincerely hope you see a profound difference between YOU having a pre-existence, and JESUS having a pre-existence. More on this later.

          Originally posted by StephenC View Post
          Regarding John 1:3, "all things came into being through him", I think you are applying the Him to the wrong person. Him is God. And the statement is absolutely true.
          John 1:3 is, of course, referring to Jesus as the Word in John 1:1c, and the Word was God.

          Colossians 1:15-17 supports my view: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

          Originally posted by StephenC View Post
          Regarding John 6:62, the son of man ascending to where he was before. Read that sentence again. How would Jesus be the "son of man" if he existed before Adam? He didn't become a man (according to trinitarian, Mormon, JW, etc... thought) until about AD 0, which means he wouldn't have been the son of man if the passage was read like you want to read it.
          I can see that you are focusing on Jesus referring to his identity as Son of Man, a reference to his being the Messiah, instead of focusing your attention on his words, "where He was before." Can you answer the question Jesus asks there in John 6:62What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” Where was Jesus before? I'm hoping you aren't going to say he wasn't anywhere.....and not up in the sky either.

          Originally posted by StephenC View Post
          This passage is also a continuation of the manna discussion, which is littered with metaphorical language and to pick one out and take it as literal and turn it into a doctrine would strike me as tenuous at best.
          Not tenuous at all, not turning it into a doctrine without an abundance of other scriptural support, and not unusual. I hope you agree that though Jesus was speaking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, though he didn't mean that literally, he did mean it to be of a literal event, eating and drinking the bread and wine of our communion services.

          Originally posted by StephenC View Post
          Note that nobody present at the discussion thinks that this is hard saying. They think the hard saying is the fact that they were to consume him.
          Notice how Jesus begins his reply John 6:62, that you wanted read again, "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?"

          He knows some of them find the reference to his body and blood difficult, so he adds something that would also be as difficult for them as that, maybe even more so.



          Holly
          Last edited by HollyWood; 11-28-18, 07:19 PM.
          Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

          Comment


          • #6

            Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
            When Jesus said, "I have come down from heaven", do you believe he was saying he came down from the sky the same way manna did? That does appear to be what you're saying here, that Jesus was likening himself to manna in every aspect of manna's characteristics.

            I take the view that Jesus was using a comparison that as manna came down from the sky and fed the Israelites physically, so he, himself, came down from heaven to feed believers spiritually as the true bread of life. The scripture that comes to mind is in Deuteronomy 8:3 He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.
            The manna didn't come from the sky. The manna simply appeared on the earth, in the same way Jesus did. Jesus is claiming to fulfill the type of the manna, and there is no requirement for the manna to have pre-existed before its appearance, and likewise there is no requirement for Jesus to have pre-existed. And likewise, you appeared on the earth, and that does not require you to have had pre-existence.

            Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
            The entire passage there in John 6:25-58 is Jesus showing them where he had come from -- heaven -- which is where his existence had been prior to being born of Mary on earth. As we discuss the other passages I've referred to, this will hopefully become clearer to you.
            Likewise, the manna came from heaven, but nobody thinks it pre-existed its appearance on the ground.

            Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
            Note also that Jesus did not say the Father was the only one who was the only true God. We can discuss this perhaps in another thread, but for now John 17:5 is Jesus referring to what he had before anything was created, the glory he had with the Father -- certainly giving the impression that this glory was something he remembered, which could not be if he had been an impersonal plan and purpose prior to becoming flesh and dwelling among us.

            Revelation 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

            It is the Lamb's Book of Life that is from the foundation of the world, not the death of Jesus.
            It appears the translations are evely split on what happened at the foundation of the world (thanks for pointing that out), as such it is a poor text to go to. So we will deal with Ephesians 1:4.

            Regading John 17:3, Jesus identifies somebody else as the only true God, and himself as somebody who the only true God sent.
            3 Now this is eternal life – that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.
            It would be a convoluted reading for Jesus to have included himself in the "only true God" category, and his failure to mention it is telling. The complete absence of equally forceful declaration by Jesus or anybody else in the bible that Jesus, or the holy spirit, is the only true God is conspicuous.

            Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
            I sincerely hope you see a profound difference between YOU having a pre-existence, and JESUS having a pre-existence. More on this later.
            No, why would I? Just because others hold a belief, doesn't mean I should hold it or even be the slightest bit influenced by it. Some believe the world to be resting on turtles, it is of no concern or influence to me. Jesus was a man, just as I am. Now he is a man that participates in the divine nature, just as I hope to.

            Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
            John 1:3 is, of course, referring to Jesus as the Word in John 1:1c, and the Word was God.
            Please explain to me what you mean by John 1:1. I can't wrap my head around your understanding of being something, and being with that something. What do you interpret John 1:1 to mean so I can at least understand what you are saying?

            -In the beginning was the word and the word was with the Trinity, and the word was the Trinity
            -In the beginning was the word and the word was with the Father, and the word was the Father
            -In the beginning was the word and the word was with the Son, and the word was the Son
            -In the beginning was the word and the word was with the Holy Spirit, and the word was the Holy Spirit.
            -Other

            Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
            Colossians 1:15-17 supports my view: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
            Firstly, Jesus is the image of the invisible God. That is a lot more words than saying Jesus is God. Paul is a smart fellow, and if he wanted to say Jesus is God, he would have said it. Instead he says something completely different and separates Jesus from God by saying Jesus is the image of the invisible God, a belief I hold dear.

            In addition, you will notice that thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities were not present at the Genesis 1 creation but present in the creation in Colossians 1. Furthermore, the seas are conspicuously absent from the creation in Colossians 1, but the seas occupy 1/3 of the creative time in Genesis 1.

            Since the seas are absent from the new creation (Rev 21:1), and likewise with the Colossians creation, and dominions are absent from the Genesis creation, but present in the new creation (Jesus is the king of kings), I find it hard to reconcile the belief that Colossians 1 is referring to the Gen 1 creation when there is a much better fitting creation in the new creation.

            Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
            I can see that you are focusing on Jesus referring to his identity as Son of Man, a reference to his being the Messiah, instead of focusing your attention on his words, "where He was before." Can you answer the question Jesus asks there in John 6:62What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” Where was Jesus before?
            The man speaking gives meaning to the words, especially when he identifies a characteristic about himself and applies the words to himself in the context of that characteristic. Since Jesus is teaching on the manna, and likening himself to it, where was the manna before, and what was the manna before? This answers the question to where was Jesus before, and what was Jesus before.

            Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
            Not tenuous at all, not turning it into a doctrine without an abundance of other scriptural support, and not unusual. For example take this passage in Hosea 11:1 And out of Egypt I called My son. which Matthew quotes in 2:14-16 So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. 15 He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”
            I'm not sure where you are going here, as if you read Hosea, Hosea is referring to Israel. Matthew is saying Jesus is fulfilling the type. If Jesus is fulfilling the type of the manna, his appearance in creation would be in like kind. Just as Jesus fulfilling the type of Israel leaving Egypt would do.

            Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
            Notice how Jesus begins his reply John 6:62, that you wanted read again, "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?"

            He knows some of them find the reference to his body and blood difficult, so he adds something that would also be difficult for them than that, maybe even more so. Holly
            If we look at the implementation of the feasting on Christ's body and blood (1 Cor 10, Matt 26), we see that Jesus was using metaphorical language, and the actual implementation of the body and blood is the bread and wine. Notice that Jesus doesn't speak in plain language until John 16:19.
            Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by StephenC View Post
              The manna didn't come from the sky. The manna simply appeared on the earth, in the same way Jesus did. Jesus is claiming to fulfill the type of the manna, and there is no requirement for the manna to have pre-existed before its appearance, and likewise there is no requirement for Jesus to have pre-existed.
              Jesus indicates his own pre-existence by saying that he came down from heaven. The only comparison he makes between himself and manna is that he is the bread of life that sustains us spiritually as the manna was the bread that sustained the Israelites physically. He is actually pointing out the differences between himself and the manna they ate. That you want to make Jesus exactly like manna in order to accept his words is no doubt what gave rise to his question to them, “What then is you see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” Your answer was that he was nowhere, which I said I was hoping you weren’t going to do (you copied my post so quickly in your eagerness to reply to it that you missed the editing I did in the few minutes it took me to proof-read and make changes.)

              Originally posted by StephenC View Post
              And likewise, you appeared on the earth, and that does not require you to have had pre-existence.
              Can it be said of you or I that, though we were in very nature God, we emptied ourselves, taking on the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of humans?

              Philippians 2:6-7 [Christ Jesus] who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

              Originally posted by StephenC View Post
              Likewise, the manna came from heaven, but nobody thinks it pre-existed its appearance on the ground.
              If the only way you can accept this passage is to liken Jesus exactly to manna, then you would have to concede that Jesus had only 40 years to be the bread of life. Again, Jesus isn’t actually likening himself to manna but is highlighting the differences between the bread the Israelites ate, and himself as the bread of life.

              Originally posted by StephenC View Post
              It appears the translations are evenly split on what happened at the foundation of the world (thanks for pointing that out), as such it is a poor text to go to. So we will deal with Ephesians 1:4.
              You seem to believe that since you did not pre-exist your birth, Jesus could not have either. Until you understand the differences between the two of you, these passages may always be difficult for you.

              Originally posted by StephenC View Post
              Regarding John 17:3, Jesus identifies somebody else as the only true God, and himself as somebody who the only true God sent.
              3 Now this is eternal life – that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.
              It would be a convoluted reading for Jesus to have included himself in the "only true God" category, and his failure to mention it is telling. The complete absence of equally forceful declaration by Jesus or anybody else in the bible that Jesus, or the holy spirit, is the only true God is conspicuous.
              When Jesus and the Holy Spirit are referred to as God, are they not the only true God?

              Originally posted by StephenC View Post
              No, why would I? Just because others hold a belief, doesn't mean I should hold it or even be the slightest bit influenced by it. Some believe the world to be resting on turtles, it is of no concern or influence to me. Jesus was a man, just as I am. Now he is a man that participates in the divine nature, just as I hope to.
              Again, was this said of you, “although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.”?

              Would you say you came down from heaven?

              Originally posted by StephenC View Post
              Please explain to me what you mean by John 1:1. I can't wrap my head around your understanding of being something, and being with that something. What do you interpret John 1:1 to mean so I can at least understand what you are saying?

              -In the beginning was the word and the word was with the Trinity, and the word was the Trinity
              -In the beginning was the word and the word was with the Father, and the word was the Father
              -In the beginning was the word and the word was with the Son, and the word was the Son
              -In the beginning was the word and the word was with the Holy Spirit, and the word was the Holy Spirit.
              -Other
              It’s your own view that is causing you such difficulty with this passage because to you it reads, “In the beginning was the plan and purpose, and the plan and purpose was with God and the plan and purpose was God. It [the plan and purpose] was in the beginning with God……The plan and purpose became flesh and dwelt among us.”

              John is showing that Jesus existed as the Word prior to becoming flesh; he, as the Word, was with God, which shows a relationship between them, and the Word was God, which shows a difference in that the Word is God but is not the same person as the God he is with, hence two separate and distinct persons who are both God, both having the nature of God.

              My advice is don’t let the word Trinity throw you off. It isn’t a word that appears in the Bible, though the principles of it are clearly there: the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Three separate and distinct persons who are the one God.

              Originally posted by StephenC View Post
              Firstly, Jesus is the image of the invisible God. That is a lot more words than saying Jesus is God. Paul is a smart fellow, and if he wanted to say Jesus is God, he would have said it. Instead he says something completely different and separates Jesus from God by saying Jesus is the image of the invisible God, a belief I hold dear.
              The writer of Hebrews describes the Son as the exact imprint of the Father’s nature, exact imprint being derived from the way a stylus makes an imprint in a clay tablet, showing that the Son indeed was as much God as the Father is God, and whether or not Paul said so, the apostle John does say so, as did the Father say so in Hebrews 1:8.

              Originally posted by StephenC View Post
              In addition, you will notice that thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities were not present at the Genesis 1 creation but present in the creation in Colossians 1. Furthermore, the seas are conspicuously absent from the creation in Colossians 1, but the seas occupy 1/3 of the creative time in Genesis 1.

              Since the seas are absent from the new creation (Rev 21:1), and likewise with the Colossians creation, and dominions are absent from the Genesis creation, but present in the new creation (Jesus is the king of kings), I find it hard to reconcile the belief that Colossians 1 is referring to the Gen 1 creation when there is a much better fitting creation in the new creation.
              I think you’ve gone off the boat here, Stephen, yes, definitely, because you are interpreting this in direct contradiction of Genesis 2:1,2 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

              Originally posted by StephenC View Post
              The man speaking gives meaning to the words, especially when he identifies a characteristic about himself and applies the words to himself in the context of that characteristic. Since Jesus is teaching on the manna, and likening himself to it, where was the manna before, and what was the manna before? This answers the question to where was Jesus before, and what was Jesus before.
              Jesus isn’t actually likening himself to the manna, but differentiating himself from it. I had said I was hoping your answer to my question, “Where was Jesus before?” wasn’t going to be “nowhere” but that is exactly what you are saying. But Jesus has already given the answer, he was going back to heaven where he was before becoming a man.

              Originally posted by StephenC View Post
              If we look at the implementation of the feasting on Christ's body and blood (1 Cor 10, Matt 26), we see that Jesus was using metaphorical language, and the actual implementation of the body and blood is the bread and wine. Notice that Jesus doesn't speak in plain language until John 16:19.
              Do you understand that Jesus is telling them something that is equally as difficult to accept when he said, “What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” I ask because you seem to be having difficulty accepting it.

              Stephen, what then if you see Jesus ascending to where He was before? Would that be difficult for you? Did the disciples see Jesus ascending to where He was before?


              Holly
              Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

              Comment


              • #8

                Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
                Jesus indicates his own pre-existence by saying that he came down from heaven. The only comparison he makes between himself and manna is that he is the bread of life that sustains us spiritually as the manna was the bread that sustained the Israelites physically. He is actually pointing out the differences between himself and the manna they ate. That you want to make Jesus exactly like manna in order to accept his words is no doubt what gave rise to his question to them, "What then is you see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" Your answer was that he was nowhere, which I said I was hoping you weren't going to do (you copied my post so quickly in your eagerness to reply to it that you missed the editing I did in the few minutes it took me to proof-read and make changes.)
                We know these things to be true, the "son of Adam" did not exist in heaven under either of our belief systems, and Jesus did choose these words as his moniker for this dissertation. No (thoughtful) trinitarian believes that Jesus is the son of Adam prior to him coming to earth and "incarnated" as a baby in Mary's womb. I certainly don't believe he was a the son of Adam sitting in heaven from eternity past either. So the question remains, where was he "before", since he the son of Adam wasn't in heaven before. The answer is, "alive and on the earth", which is exactly where "the son of Adam" was before in the context he is speaking.

                You imagine the word "before" to mean "eternity past" and wish me to accept your imagination. The fact is the word is just "before" and Jesus didn't say "eternity past". You also wish him to be saying, I will rise up to "heaven" where I was before, but the word "heaven" isn't there either. Jesus did rise up to where he was before, and that is alive and well.

                The context in which he is speaking is his death. Here are the verses, and Paul's explanation:
                John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

                1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for[f] you. Do this in remembrance of me.”[g] 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
                Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
                Can it be said of you or I that, though we were in very nature God, we emptied ourselves, taking on the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of humans?

                Philippians 2:6-7 [Christ Jesus] who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
                Since the passage in question does not "very nature God" or "very nature bond-servant", your question is rather ridiculous.

                The passage does say the Philippians should do all of those things listed (Phil 2:5), so I hope that one day, it can be said of me. Don't you hope that it can be said of you?


                Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
                If the only way you can accept this passage is to liken Jesus exactly to manna, then you would have to concede that Jesus had only 40 years to be the bread of life. Again, Jesus isn't actually likening himself to manna but is highlighting the differences between the bread the Israelites ate, and himself as the bread of life.
                We are going to have to agree to disagree here. The text clearly likens BOTH Jesus and the Manna as being from heaven. This is the prime parallel that Jesus points out, and I fully agree with it that both came from heaven the same way. You wish to say they didn't come from heaven the same way at all. The passage is rather clear:
                31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]” 32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.

                Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
                You seem to believe that since you did not pre-exist your birth, Jesus could not have either. Until you understand the differences between the two of you, these passages may always be difficult for you.
                These passages were always difficult to me before I rejected the trinity. These passages make sense now. Until you understand the similarities between you and Jesus, the entire bible will always be difficult for you.

                Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
                When Jesus and the Holy Spirit are referred to as God, are they not the only true God?
                Er... what? Not any more than the angel that claimed he was YHWH and explains what the name YHWH means (Acts 7:30)


                Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
                It's your own view that is causing you such difficulty with this passage because to you it reads......
                You didn't answer the question. It was simple enough. If you can't explain it, I understand. Rather you attempted a mind reading.

                Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
                The writer of Hebrews describes the Son as the exact imprint of the Father's nature, exact imprint being derived from the way a stylus makes an imprint in a clay tablet, showing that the Son indeed was as much God as the Father is God, and whether or not Paul said so, the apostle John does say so, as did the Father say so in Hebrews 1:8.
                The writer of Hebrews describes the son as the exact imprint of "God". (Where did you get the word "Father" from?) The passage specifically denies that Jesus is God. It directly says he is something other than God. In light of the fact that Hebrews 1 is a treatise demonstrating that Jesus is superior to the angels, he could have ended all deliberation with one sentence and demonstrated it from an Old Testament passage. The fact is that the author did the opposite, he said Jesus was the exact imprint of God, which means he's not God. Nobody thinks the imprint of Abraham Lincoln on the penny is actually Abraham Lincoln.

                Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
                I think you've gone off the boat here, Stephen, yes, definitely, because you are interpreting this in direct contradiction of Genesis 2:1,2 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
                I'm sorry your doctrine doesn't allow for the new creation that is prophesied and extensively described in the bible. We will have to simply agree to disagree.
                Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
                  Christians understand from the Bible that Jesus was the Word prior to becoming flesh by being born of Mary and that his pre-existence was that of a spirit person as fully conscious and cognizant as he was while here on earth.
                  That doesn't sound like the "Christian" Jesus at all. The WORD was eternal, of course, but Jesus didn't exist AT ALL until His conception IN MARY, and HE was born an ABSOLUTELY NORMAL Human man. who never SINNED, even though He was tempted to - but didn't. It was ONLY after he Was baptized, and changed course into Ministry that He was joined by the HOLY SPIRIT, who was the One who guided His ministry.

                  Jesus says REPEATEDLY: I speak the words of Him who sent me! That was the literal truth, not "Window dressing".

                  HE was resurrected as a GLORIFIED HUMAN, and apparently REMAINS in that Form today.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by StephenC View Post

                    You didn't answer the question. It was simple enough. If you can't explain it, I understand. Rather you attempted a mind reading.
                    Totally untrue, Stephen. And I think you know that.

                    explained John 1:1 as it is written in the Bible, not as you wrote it. That might be why you didn't understand my answer.

                    We aren't on the Trinity Forum and the topic of this thread is the pre-existence of Jesus, whom you say was God's plan and purpose as the Word in John 1:1 before anything was created, so you also subscribe to a pre-existence of Jesus, though you don't view him as a person in that pre-existence, just as a thought in God's mind.

                    As I explained to you earlier in my answer to your simple question: It’s your own view that is causing you such difficulty with this passage because to you it reads, “In the beginning was the plan and purpose, and the plan and purpose was with God and the plan and purpose was God. It [the plan and purpose] was in the beginning with God……The plan and purpose became flesh and dwelt among us.”

                    John is showing that Jesus existed as the Word prior to becoming flesh; he, as the Word, was with God, which shows a relationship between them, and the Word was God, which shows a difference in that the Word is God but is not the same person as the God he is with, hence two separate and distinct persons who are both God, both having the nature of God.

                    My advice is don’t let the word Trinity throw you off. It isn’t a word that appears in the Bible, though the principles of it are clearly there: the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Three separate and distinct persons who are the one God.

                    Now, if your remark about mind reading is referring to me reading your mind, let me remind you that I don't have to read your mind to know how you view John 1:1, all I have to do is read your posts. Where do you think I got "God's plan and purpose" from if not from your posts?




                    Holly
                    Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Bob Carabbio View Post

                      That doesn't sound like the "Christian" Jesus at all. The WORD was eternal, of course, but Jesus didn't exist AT ALL until His conception IN MARY, and HE was born an ABSOLUTELY NORMAL Human man. who never SINNED, even though He was tempted to - but didn't. It was ONLY after he Was baptized, and changed course into Ministry that He was joined by the HOLY SPIRIT, who was the One who guided His ministry.

                      Jesus says REPEATEDLY: I speak the words of Him who sent me! That was the literal truth, not "Window dressing".

                      HE was resurrected as a GLORIFIED HUMAN, and apparently REMAINS in that Form today.
                      Thank you for your opinion. We all have to have one.



                      Holly
                      Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
                        As I explained to you earlier in my answer to your simple question: It’s your own view that is causing you such difficulty with this passage because to you it reads, “In the beginning was the plan and purpose, and the plan and purpose was with God and the plan and purpose was God. It [the plan and purpose] was in the beginning with God……The plan and purpose became flesh and dwelt among us.”
                        You've misrepresented my view. I don't use the word "God" here, with good reason. Hence my question.

                        Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
                        John is showing that Jesus existed as the Word prior to becoming flesh; he, as the Word, was with God, which shows a relationship between them, and the Word was God, which shows a difference in that the Word is God but is not the same person as the God he is with, hence two separate and distinct persons who are both God, both having the nature of God.
                        If one person is "the God", then another person is not "the God". What does the word "God" mean here?
                        Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by StephenC View Post

                          You've misrepresented my view. I don't use the word "God" here, with good reason. Hence my question.
                          If you would use the word "God" there, as it is in John 1:1c, you might not have the question because John wrote "the Word was God." theos en ho logos -- ho logos being the subject, it's translated into English as "the Word was God."

                          Originally posted by StephenC View Post
                          If one person is "the God", then another person is not "the God". What does the word "God" mean here?
                          John could have used ho theos in his phrase theos en ho logos but that would have meant the Word and the God he was with were the same person. John is clearly showing that though both the Word and the God he is with are God, they are not the same person, hence two persons who are the one God.

                          In John 1:18 "No one has seen God at any time;" the author again refers to God but not to "the God" [ho theos], yet you believe he means the same "the God" [ho theon] the Word was with in John 1:1, don't you?


                          Holly
                          Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
                            If you would use the word "God" there, as it is in John 1:1c, you might not have the question because John wrote "the Word was God." theos en ho logos -- ho logos being the subject, it's translated into English as "the Word was God."
                            Yes, if I failed proper due diligence of understating the verse, I would not have a the question. I agree.


                            Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
                            John could have used ho theos in his phrase theos en ho logos but that would have meant the Word and the God he was with were the same person. John is clearly showing that though both the Word and the God he is with are God, they are not the same person, hence two persons who are the one God.
                            If you are going to insert your own meanings, rather than seeking the meaning from people who study the greek, then sure it would be clear to you.

                            However I suggest reading some due diligence.


                            Originally posted by HollyWood View Post
                            In John 1:18 "No one has seen God at any time;" the author again refers to God but not to "the God" [ho theos], yet you believe he means the same "the God" [ho theon] the Word was with in John 1:1, don't you?

                            Holly
                            Are you trying to tell me nobody has seen Jesus Christ in order to prove that Jesus is God?
                            Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X