The pre-creation existence of Jesus

reply to post by Locoman8
You come off better when you you are speaking for yourself and seem very reasonable.
In my first post on this thread I was trying to be helpful by pointing out the problems in the language of the articles that might not be readily apparent to the casual reader. It takes true concepts and put them together in such a way as to lead people into a certain way of thinking that I have to figure the writer would be aware of himself and would know that he was using these things wrongly.
You personally might read it and be unaffected by some of the nuance of it because you have a more solid base that is not so easily overturned. But for the average person, it is dangerous, in my opinion.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Well, thank you for the concern, but I think you should listen to your own advice with your own posts. We're arguing this point on the "trinity" thread right now and I apologize if I seem to be "making fun" of you but that's not what I'm doing. Just remember that confusion leads to deception. Because I wasn't confused with the article, I am not decieved by small matters like the greek or hebrew between the testaments.

reply to post by Locoman8

I am not decieved by small matters like the greek or hebrew between the testaments.

I am not talking about that. I mean the English words that are adaptations of the ones used by Nicea, and a couple other words that have more recently been recruited to the cause.


[edit on 24-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60


I do study these matters closely. I do study the meanings of words and the transcripts being translated to english. I use my greek-hebrew dictionary (Vines Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words)
my concordance (Strong's concordance) and multiple versions of the bible (KJV, NKJV, NRSV, NIV, etc.). I also read a lot from many churches and denominations and parallel their doctrine with what the bible says. I have grown fond of the United Church of God and Living Church of God for thier FREE literature and multimedia which have helped me a bunch. Not everything they put out is perfect, but the core bible doctrine is there and that's what I'm looking for in a church.

reply to post by Locoman8
SDA's are famous for their smugness and I have to admit I am not immune from it myself. It is nice to be a fourth generation member and sitting around congratulating each other for being in the "right " church.
So we who can be the least bit objective have to every week tell the group to stop it and realize that God can replace us if we get too comfortable in our "rightness". (easy for me to say,"switch churches" when there is no way in the world I ever would)
It is like what I heard someone tell me once. When people hear the story being preached about the publican and the Pharisee, everyone sitting in the pews thinks, "I am so glad I am the publican", just making Jesus' point.



[edit on 24-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by Locoman8
Jesus being the Word of God would most likely put Him as the spokesperson of God. You can make the claim that Jesus as the Word was any physical representation of God. He was the burning bush, He was the High Priest that Abraham tithed to, He was the voice the prophets heard. This is not taking away the fact that God or Jehova exists separate from Jesus.... it's just that Jesus carried out the works of God as a physical or visual force in the lives of the patriarchs.

true, i agree with most of the points above, but saying that jesus was calling himself Jehovah is kind of crossing a line. jesus never did that when alive on earth, nor after, so why would he have done it before?

god using an angel to relay his message does not mean that the angel calls himself god.

Originally posted by Locoman8
but the main part of this article, which maybe should have been the part I concentrated on is that of Jesus calling Himself the Good Shepherd and Jehova calling Himself a Shepherd. Jesus claiming to be the light of the world and Jehova being the Light of the World, etc. It's not such an outrageous claim.

jesus also tells the apostles to shepherd the flock (john 21:16)

jesus also shows us that the congregations bare light. (matt 5:14-16)

these titles are not even exclusive to jesus.

it logical that some titles would overlap. Jehovah is the light of the world, but so is jesus since he reflects that light.

1 cor 4:4b ... lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

hebrews 1:[3] Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

men too share in reflecting that light

1 cor 11:7] For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

its this notion that because jesus and jehovah are called the same things, they have to be the same person. and thats not true.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I am sure that you think I have sold out to the anti-christ. If you feel a need to bash me about, feel free to do so, while we still have a forum to do such things...

So, I just want to let you know if you, or anyone else ever feels like accusing me of being a sell-out and a traitor, or something worse, I will accept it as loving guidance from a concerned fellow Christian, and not "hate speech".

its not that at all.

i just dont think you are using common sense.

john 17:[3] And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

you mentioned in another thread that god is incatagorizable, but then how are we suppose to get life?

your posts go around in circles. you are open to everything (which is good when you are looking for truth) but you are settled in nothing (at least so it seems)

your trying to dig deeper and deeper into the scriptures but you doing this before you actually get the basic sense of the scriptures. its like worrying about the doorknobs before you have the walls up.

i know it sounds weird that god might not be that incomprehensible but its true. god wants you to know him. jesus said the most important commandment was to love god with all your heart, how can you do that if knowing god is impossible?

reply to post by miriam0566

I never thought I had a problem with it. I grew up with a mother who was a saint and went to church twice a week and would lecture my Sabbath school class when I was just a child.
I just never doubted that God loved me and Jesus was His Son. I did not have to have some great revelation at some point in my life of this realization that God loved me. I get this and have quite a bit in the past, that people think I am missing something. I think what I am missing is any moment in my life where I ever had a lack of faith, and that means any, and I am serious.
It comes off to many people as having no faith. The thing is it requires no effort on my part. Trying to have faith, to me is the real indication of having no faith.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
It comes off to many people as having no faith. The thing is it requires no effort on my part. Trying to have faith, to me is the real indication of having no faith.

im not speaking of faith. im speaking of accurate knowledge that supports that faith.

reply to post by miriam0566

Ezekial 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

Here is my motivation for the last 25 years for looking into the trinity.
I was thoroughly indoctrinated into the concept that God has a seal for his people and Satan has the mark of the beast. The Sabbath is the sign that you are worshiping the true God. Keeping the anti-sabbath (Sunday) of the anti-christ is worshiping the false god. The idea is that you could be worshiping a god, but if the god you worship is not the real God, with His sign, your worship only condemns you.
Having this as a fundamental of belief, when I looked at the fraud of Nicea, I had to apply the same principle. God says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." If we substitute a false god that takes precedence over the real God who is pushed into the background, then we would be just as much, or more so, worshiping a false God, than if we followed Sunday replacing the Sabbath.
So, this requires believers to question who they are worshiping. Constantine, the guy who gave us Sunday, is the same guy who gave us Nicea and their version of God. If we just roll over without looking past the official trinity doctrine, we are guilty of negligence.
In my case, I can not just out of hand wholesale reject most any interpretation of the relationship of God with His Son and the Hoy Spirit. That means having to, at one time or another, take into consideration, and investigating, possibly false doctrines.
What I decided after so much of this, is that each person will be responsible for their own belief. I can criticize people's doctrines but it is not my place to condemn anyone for coming to a different conclusion than I do. (I should add that I might think it is ok to poke at people who never bother looking into it at all)


[edit on 25-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60


That gave me a better understanding as to what you believe. It's reasonable to say saturday is God's seal and sunday is Satan's mark but I think the mark and seal are a little bit more than what day you worship. I am a true believer in the sabbath and very anti-sunday in my worshipping views. God commanded sabbath in His 4th commandment though the book of Genesis shows how it was His very first command when He sanctified it and kept it as a memorial. Miriam had it right though. You are trying to dig way too deep and just confusing yourself and others with your words of an "indescribable God." Maybe His image is indescribable, but He isn't. His character. Who He is. It's like a blind date in which you know everything about the person but still have not set eyes on him/her. It still doesn't matter to you because that person is so beautiful just from what you know about them. Think of it in that way. It's inner beauty.

reply to post by miriam0566

its this notion that because jesus and jehovah are called the same things, they have to be the same person. and thats not true.

I still don't believe that Jesus and Jehova are the same thing. They are separate. Most of the article was put there for people to discuss, and not completely my views. I guess I should have mentioned that or clarified that before the posts. I do maintain that it was Jesus, the Word of God, who was speaking to the patriarchs of the Old Testament and with that being said, as He's speaking on Jehova's behalf, He is identified by the patriarchs or in the bible as Jehova. Not that Jesus is. It's God's words spoken by Jesus.

reply to post by Locoman8

It's reasonable to say saturday is God's seal and sunday is Satan's mark but I think the mark and seal are a little bit more than what day you worship.

I was not trying to promote that idea just now, but showing how being taught that can affect your thinking.
You are correct that it is more than that and I decided to specialize in that one aspect, which is the examination of how we think about God, as affected by Nicea.

reply to post by Locoman8

as He's speaking on Jehova's behalf, He is identified by the patriarchs or in the bible as Jehova. Not that Jesus is. It's God's words spoken by Jesus.

I do not think people had to scratch their heads when John spoke about The Word. They understood exactly what he meant.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by miriam0566

 

Ezekial 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

Here is my motivation for the last 25 years for looking into the trinity.
I was thoroughly indoctrinated into the concept that God has a seal for his people and Satan has the mark of the beast. The Sabbath is the sign that you are worshiping the true God. Keeping the anti-sabbath (Sunday) of the anti-christ is worshiping the false god. The idea is that you could be worshiping a god, but if the god you worship is not the real God, with His sign, your worship only condemns you.
Having this as a fundamental of belief, when I looked at the fraud of Nicea, I had to apply the same principle. God says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." If we substitute a false god that takes precedence over the real God who is pushed into the background, then we would be just as much, or more so, worshiping a false God, than if we followed Sunday replacing the Sabbath.
So, this requires believers to question who they are worshiping. Constantine, the guy who gave us Sunday, is the same guy who gave us Nicea and their version of God. If we just roll over without looking past the official trinity doctrine, we are guilty of negligence.
In my case, I can not just out of hand wholesale reject most any interpretation of the relationship of God with His Son and the Hoy Spirit. That means having to, at one time or another, take into consideration, and investigating, possibly false doctrines.
What I decided after so much of this, is that each person will be responsible for their own belief. I can criticize people's doctrines but it is not my place to condemn anyone for coming to a different conclusion than I do. (I should add that I might think it is ok to poke at people who never bother looking into it at all)

the sabbath was a sign to the Israelite people. it was part of the mosaic law.

the mosaic law was fulfilled and done away with with the death of christ.

col 2[11] In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
[12] Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
[13] And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
[14] Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
[15] And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
[16] Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
[17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

the law was a tutor that lead to christ. when we have the christ, the law was no longer needed.

the principles of the law are everlasting of course. but the ceremonies and traditions are not.

this is why christians do not offer sacrifices. they do not celebrate passover.

the sabbath was included in that.

note too that jesus did not say that christians would be known for their keeping of the sabbath. he said it would be their love that people would know them by.

john 13:[34] A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
[35] By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

reply to post by miriam0566

[16] Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
[17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

You didn't just use that verse did you? Oh man! I'm gonna put you in your place for a minute if you don't mind!

Colossians 2:16-17 is used to support the claim that observance of the Sabbath is no longer necessary. "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ," Paul wrote.

Let's examine these verses' context and historic setting to see if they support that view.
Did Paul intend to say that Sabbath-keeping is abolished? If so, we encounter some immediate problems with this interpretation. To accept this position, it is difficult to explain how Paul could leave the issue so muddled by not stating that these practices were unnecessary, when these verses indicate that the Colossian church was primarily gentile (Colossians 1:27; 2:13), so Paul could have used this epistle to make it plain that these practices were not binding on gentile or other Christians.

However, Paul nowhere said that. Regarding the practices of festivals, new moons and Sabbaths, he said only to "let no one judge you," which is quite different from saying these practices are unnecessary or obsolete.

A more basic question to ask is whether Old Testament practices were even at the core of what Paul was addressing here. Was Paul even discussing whether Christians should keep the laws regarding clean and unclean meats, the biblical festivals, the weekly Sabbath or any other Old Testament laws?

Many people assume that the "handwriting of requirements...nailed...to the cross" (verse 14) was God's law and the requirements He gave in the Old Testament. But this is not what Paul meant. The Greek word translated "handwriting" is cheirographon, and this is the only place the term is used in the Bible. It meant a handwritten record of debt, or what we would today call an iou. In contemporary apocalyptic literature, this word was used to designate a "record book of sin," meaning a written account of our sins.

Paul was not saying that God's law was nailed to the cross. What was nailed there, he said, was all record of our sins. Because God's law required the death penalty for sin (Romans 6:23), this record is what "was against us, which was contrary to us" (Colossians 2:14), not the law itself. The New Testament in Modern English, by J.B. Phillips, makes this plain, translating verses 13 and 14 as: "He has forgiven you all our sins: Christ has utterly wiped out the damning evidence of broken laws and commandments which always hung over our heads, and has completely annulled it by nailing it over His own head on the cross." It is the evidence against us, not the law itself, that was nailed to the cross, enabling us to be forgiven.

This becomes clear when we read the rest of this chapter. It is apparent that other issues were involved that had nothing to do with God's laws given in the Old Testament. Among these were "principalities and powers" (verse 15), "false humility and worship of angels" (verse 18), forbidding to touch, taste and handle (verse 21) and "neglect of the body" (verse 23).

Further, Paul referred to the false teachings in Colosse as rooted in "persuasive words" (verse 4), "philosophy and empty deceit" and "the tradition of men" (verse 8). He also referred to submitting to "regulations" of this world (verse 20) and "the commandments and doctrines of men" (verse 22).

Could Paul, who in Romans 7:12 said the law is "holy and just and good," possibly be referring to the same law here, or is he addressing an entirely different issue?

Let's not forget the fact that the Sabbath was commanded in the Ten Commandments. Keep in mind also that Jesus called Himself the "Lord of the Sabbath." He and His disciples, as well as the first century church kept the Sabbath commandment. It wasn't until the early to mid 2nd century that the Sabbath was starting to be replaced with Sunday in the Roman Catholic Church. This practice was carried over into the Protestant Reformation. Though Protestants deny the Catholic observance of Sunday, their claim for Sunday worship is the term "The Lord's Day" used mainly in Revelation. Most Protestants believe the term "The Lord's Day" refers to the day Jesus Resurrected from the tomb, commonly believed to be Sunday, though close study of scripture will tell otherwise. What was John talking about when he said he was carried away in the Lord's Day in the book of Revelation? The Lord's Day is simply the time of Judgement on Earth. The 7th trumpet sound is better known as the Day of the Lord.

All in all, the Sabbath commandment as well as all other commandments were never done away with. God sanctified it from the beginning of creation.... that's how important the Sabbath is to God. He didn't make it just for the Jews. If this was the case, only 2 tribes of Israel would be included in this assumption. Remember, not all Israelites were Jews but all Jews were Israelites.

I know this was a little off topic and I may start a new thread on this subject but I had to call you out on that one miriam, seeing that you come off as a very intelligent biblical studier. Study harder on the Sabbath. Oh, and I have plenty more where that came from. I was just commenting back on that specific area of Colossians that you referenced.

[edit on 5/26/2009 by Locoman8]

reply to post by miriam0566

Under normal circumstances, none of this stuff would even be anything that would be worth arguing about. But the world is not normal and we will not be allowed by the new world order to go about our lives normally. They thrive on crises and if there is no naturally occurring crises, they will create one.
What they are planning is the institution of a "Czar" for religion.(the EU already has one but they have not make all the announcements of it yet, and they do not call it that. it is the Pope.) In the US, they went into a frenzy to make an appointed czar for everything, this is ongoing. Started with a drug czar, I think.
Real soon the future Religion Czar will say we need an enforceable sabbath to keep as a weekly day of rest. The argument against keeping Sunday is that it puts you at a disadvantage, economically, to one who works every day. If you make a law that everyone has to take a day off, everyone is on a level playing field. I had Oliver North tell me this directly, over the phone, on national radio when I called in to ask him about it.
When the day comes when the fascist youth corps will come door to door to see if you are keeping Sunday, everyone will have to consider what they will do about it. Save up all your arguments and see how you are going to use them against a forced "christian sabbath".
No one is ever going to come to your door to see if you are keeping the seventh day Sabbath, unless it is to make sure you are not.


[edit on 26-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by Locoman8

[16] Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
[17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

You didn't just use that verse did you? Oh man! I'm gonna put you in your place for a minute if you don't mind!

forceful AND polite. you sound english lol

actually i was expecting you to jump on this.

However, Paul nowhere said that. Regarding the practices of festivals, new moons and Sabbaths, he said only to "let no one judge you," which is quite different from saying these practices are unnecessary or obsolete.

yes, but as was said earlier, there was this claim that those who observe the sabbath on the wrong day had the mark of satan and not of god.

those are heavy claims. if that was such a vital part of worship, why would paul make it clear that it was a conscience matter?

A more basic question to ask is whether Old Testament practices were even at the core of what Paul was addressing here. Was Paul even discussing whether Christians should keep the laws regarding clean and unclean meats, the biblical festivals, the weekly Sabbath or any other Old Testament laws?

Many people assume that the "handwriting of requirements...nailed...to the cross" (verse 14) was God's law and the requirements He gave in the Old Testament. But this is not what Paul meant. The Greek word translated "handwriting" is cheirographon, and this is the only place the term is used in the Bible. It meant a handwritten record of debt, or what we would today call an iou. In contemporary apocalyptic literature, this word was used to designate a "record book of sin," meaning a written account of our sins.

exactly, and how do we know that we have sinned? paul expands on this in romans chapter 3

[19] Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
[20] Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
[21] But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
[22] Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
[24] Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Paul was not saying that God's law was nailed to the cross. What was nailed there, he said, was all record of our sins. Because God's law required the death penalty for sin (Romans 6:23), this record is what "was against us, which was contrary to us" (Colossians 2:14), not the law itself. The New Testament in Modern English, by J.B. Phillips, makes this plain, translating verses 13 and 14 as: "He has forgiven you all our sins: Christ has utterly wiped out the damning evidence of broken laws and commandments which always hung over our heads, and has completely annulled it by nailing it over His own head on the cross." It is the evidence against us, not the law itself, that was nailed to the cross, enabling us to be forgiven.

we agree to a certain extent

Let's not forget the fact that the Sabbath was commanded in the Ten Commandments. Keep in mind also that Jesus called Himself the "Lord of the Sabbath." He and His disciples, as well as the first century church kept the Sabbath commandment. It wasn't until the early to mid 2nd century that the Sabbath was starting to be replaced with Sunday in the Roman Catholic Church.

actually, there is nothing to prove that they observed the sabbath. we know that some did, as paul pointed out, but there is nothing to say that first century christians followed it as law.

All in all, the Sabbath commandment as well as all other commandments were never done away with. God sanctified it from the beginning of creation.... that's how important the Sabbath is to God. He didn't make it just for the Jews. If this was the case, only 2 tribes of Israel would be included in this assumption. Remember, not all Israelites were Jews but all Jews were Israelites.

are you suggesting that abraham kept the sabbath? or that noah did too?

I know this was a little off topic and I may start a new thread on this subject but I had to call you out on that one miriam, seeing that you come off as a very intelligent biblical studier. Study harder on the Sabbath. Oh, and I have plenty more where that came from. I was just commenting back on that specific area of Colossians that you referenced.

first, one must understand the point of the sabbath.

besides being a time of rest, the sabbath was also a time focus on spiritual things. it was common in israel to go to the levites and the prophets to receive spiritual instruction on the sabbath (2 kings 4:22,23)

however, the sabbath was still part of the law and was instituted when the law was instituted (deut 5:2,3 and exodus 31:16,17)

jesus was "the end of the law" (or fulfilled the law) - rom 10:4

as such christians are "delivered from the law" rom 7:6 (released, delivered, or discharged depending on the translation)

eph 2:[13] But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
[14] For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
[15] Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

romans 14:4-6 says basically the same thing as col 2:16.

so the question is, if christians are expected to faithfully observe the sabbath, why is it being said that it is a conscience matter? it doesnt completely make sense.

if the sabbath is so important to to christian worship, why is it not included in the requirements for christians? (acts 15:28, 29)

if the law wasnt abolished, that why do christians disregard other parts of the law like eating pork, or circumcision?

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

i want to make something clear. by the law being abolished, that doesnt mean that christians can go out and kill people. everything that a christian does has to follow the principles that were the foundation of the law. namely love god wholesouled and love others as you love yourself.

Locoman

I will let Miriam continue to quote scripture and I won't use any.

I will just say the ENTIRE Mosaic Law is done and finished. Sure some fundamental things transferred over, but others didn't, adultery and murder still wrong.
Eating pork and working on the sabbath that type of stuff is allowed now.
Sacrifices of animals all finished. The rules of unclean, done, circumcision which was hugely debated in the 1st century, finished.

Jesus made things way easier for those us that want to serve God, as far as rules go. And I am thankful for it.