The pre-creation existence of Jesus

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

(Answer: Only then will the law be destroyed.)

You seem to be pretty sure about that.
And that is based on. . .what?
Why don't you go to your pastor and tell him flat out, "the Ten Commandments are destroyed and we no longer need to keep them".
Let me know how that works out.

The MOSAIC Law is abolished, we now have TWO commandments to follow instead of 619 of them. And the Lord told us which two commandments to follow in the New Covenant.

Obeying the conviction of the Holy Spirit is the greatest form of worship one can do for God.

What is destroyed is the need for man TO FOLLOW THE LAW OF MOSES FOR JUSTIFICATION TO GOD.

We are NOT justified to God for salvation by following the LAW, it's by the life, blood, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. And HIM alone, period.

Man is no longer "justified" by the Law of Moses, but by faith in Jesus Christ and HIS righteousness for justification unto the Father.

And I'm "sure" of it because that is what Jesus said.

He never said the Law would never be destroyed... He said it would never be destroyed UNTIL IT BE FULFILLED.

He also said he came to "FULFILL IT".

For Pete's sake, read Romans!

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Let me be clear to you that the little argument about Exodus talking about the Israelites not leaving their dwelling places was the Israelites keeping the Sabbath before the Ten Commandments were given to Moses. The manner in which they were told to keep the Sabbath was to teach them to trust God and to realize how important the Sabbath was to Him. The actual law of the Sabbath written in Exodus 20 does not give limitation to being inside or outside. It only limits people to the city walls. You are not to do long travels on the Sabbath. As miriam said, Jesus and His apostles were in the fields picking grains on the Sabbath. He taught in the synagoges on the Sabbath because that's when the Jews worshipped. How do you explain that with your little theory?

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Let me be clear to you that the little argument about Exodus talking about the Israelites not leaving their dwelling places was the Israelites keeping the Sabbath before the Ten Commandments were given to Moses. The manner in which they were told to keep the Sabbath was to teach them to trust God and to realize how important the Sabbath was to Him. The actual law of the Sabbath written in Exodus 20 does not give limitation to being inside or outside. It only limits people to the city walls. You are not to do long travels on the Sabbath. As miriam said, Jesus and His apostles were in the fields picking grains on the Sabbath. He taught in the synagoges on the Sabbath because that's when the Jews worshipped. How do you explain that with your little theory?

Very simply, Jesus was "fulfilling" the Mosaic Law to every last jot and title. The Mosaic Law could not be abolished and a New Covenant made with man until the Old Covenant was fulfilled by Him.

He had to follow the Old Covenant to perfection for His death to be sufficient.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
. . .What is destroyed is the need for man TO FOLLOW THE LAW OF MOSES FOR JUSTIFICATION TO GOD.

We are NOT justified to God for salvation by following the LAW, it's by the life, blood, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. And HIM alone, period.

Man is no longer "justified" by the Law of Moses, but by faith in Jesus Christ and HIS righteousness for justification unto the Father.

So, now it's the law of Moses, then? You see no destiction here concerning God coming down on the Mountain and personaly speaking to the Israelites? (as was the Ten Commandments) There is all of a sudden no such thing as God's law?

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God in my inner being.

Romans 8:7 because the outlook of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so.

1 Corinthians 9:21 To those free from the law I became like one free from the law (though I am not free from God’s law but under the law of Christ) to gain those free from the law.

Psalms 37:31 The law of his God is in his heart; his feet do not slip.

Romans 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Mark 7:9 He also said to them, “You neatly reject the commandment of God in order to set up your tradition.


[edit on 30-10-2009 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by miriam0566


grandma so neatly pointed out the contradiction. if jesus was uncreated, he couldnt be the "firstborn of all creation". firstborn of god? sure, but not of creation.

God the Son has always been. The flesh of Jesus has not always been.

In John we read that Jesus is the Word, the Word was not only with God but was God, therefore God the Son (Jesus, Yeshua, Yesoos) has always been. In other words God the Son is Eternal.

The flesh aspect of God the Son was created, the part of Him that suffered, was crucified and killed was that which was “born of a virgin”. The Spirit of Jesus was never born, did not die nor was it ever separated from God the Father.

God the Son did not grow weary, hunger, feel pain nor thirst but the humanity of Jesus did.

God the Father shares His Glory with no one for He alone is God yet Jesus says this:

“And now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory I had with you before the world was” – John 17:5

To the Greek mindset of Johns day there was a concern over “What was the first cause” or “What was the beginning?” So it’s no coincidence then that John borrows from or perhaps continues with the theme of Genesis and “In the beginning God created……..” in describing the Word which became flesh.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2He was in the beginning with God.
Jesus is God incarnate therefore He was never created but has always been, only the flesh of Jesus was created.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And I'm "sure" of it because that is what Jesus said.

He never said the Law would never be destroyed... He said it would never be destroyed UNTIL IT BE FULFILLED.

He also said he came to "FULFILL IT".

For Pete's sake, read Romans!

Did Jesus say the law would be destroyed?
So the earthquakes and the appearing of Jesus as judge, to separate the sheep from the goats, all that has been fulfilled? We are now living in the wonderful direct kingship of Christ, in the New Jerusalem, and all pain has been forever removed?

reply to post by TangoVooDoo

God the Son has always been.

Then in what way is he a son?
Are you created? You are some body's son. Did you always exist? If so, you would not be the son of anybody, and on top of that, you would be God.
Well, no problem, right (?), Jesus is God, plain and simple. So why all the pretense? What is all this son business?
Jesus is not God. God is God. The Son came from the Father, who happens to be God. Everything Christ has and everything Christ is, was given to him by God. So he is a creature of God, but completely unique in that he has not just one attribute of God, but all the attributes of God and every power of God at his disposal.

reply to post by jmdewey60
Now you are playing semantics. The commandments given by God to Moses on mount Sinai are referred to as the "Mosaic Law"

Ask anyone who practices Judaism.

reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Did Jesus say the law would be destroyed?
So the earthquakes and the appearing of Jesus as judge, to separate the sheep from the goats, all that has been fulfilled? We are now living in the wonderful direct kingship of Christ, in the New Jerusalem, and all pain has been forever removed?

Yes He did, He said it would only be destroyed when it be fulfilled. And not a second earlier. It can only be abolished once it be completely fulfilled, and He came to what??

He said He came to FULFILL the Law.

So naturally, what do you think happened at the moment He died thus fulfilling the Law in it's entirety with His death penalty for sin?

Have you read Romans yet? It's impossible for man to be in a new covenant with God if the old covenant is still in effect.

Jeremiah 31:31-33 foretold this as happening, Hebrews 8:12-13 confirmed this as being done.

You can continue to live your life as if there is no new covenant with man from God, I won't. If you want to live as if the new covenant is of none effect, then you're also by default saying that the life and death of Christ is also of none effect.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by TangoVooDoo

 

God the Son has always been.

Then in what way is he a son?
Are you created? You are some body's son. Did you always exist? If so, you would not be the son of anybody, and on top of that, you would be God.
Well, no problem, right (?), Jesus is God, plain and simple. So why all the pretense? What is all this son business?
Jesus is not God. God is God. The Son came from the Father, who happens to be God. Everything Christ has and everything Christ is, was given to him by God. So he is a creature of God, but completely unique in that he has not just one attribute of God, but all the attributes of God and every power of God at his disposal.

You didn't learn anything from the pages explaining Hebraisms did you?

When the bible says certain people are the "sons of Baalam" is it saying "Baalam created them", or "Balaam is their father"?

For the love of God Almighty JM, learn what a Hebraism is:

There exist in the Hebrew language numerous idiomatic terms that don't translate easily to more widely used languages. To the extent those broader cultures rely for cultural meaning on Hebrew-language-based scriptures, those idioms sometimes prove puzzling.

"Hebrew-language-based scriptures" in layman's terms is THE BIBLE.

Hebraism ~ Wikipedia



[edit on 30-10-2009 by NOTurTypical]

Originally posted by TangoVooDoo
In John we read that Jesus is the Word, the Word was not only with God but was God, therefore God the Son (Jesus, Yeshua, Yesoos) has always been. In other words God the Son is Eternal.

john 1:1 says no such thing. it specifically says that the word was WITH god. someone cannot be WITH someone and BE that same someone at the same time.

the correct grammatical translation is "the word was A god"

in which case, all it proves is that jesus was there at the beginning of creation, not that he's uncreated

The flesh aspect of God the Son was created, the part of Him that suffered, was crucified and killed was that which was “born of a virgin”. The Spirit of Jesus was never born, did not die nor was it ever separated from God the Father.

so what is jesus spirit or flesh?

if jesus was part spirit, then how could he be called "son of man"?

how could jesus serve as a ransom if he wasnt a perfect human but was actually part god? (matt 20:28)

if jesus' spirit did not die, where was jesus for 3 days?

if the fleshly part died, but the spirit didnt, then how was jesus "resurrected"?

how did jesus BECOME a quickening spirit if he already was a spirit?

God the Father shares His Glory with no one for He alone is God yet Jesus says this:

“And now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory I had with you before the world was” – John 17:5

Isaiah 48:[11] For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

"MY glory"

just because GOD is referring to HIS glory doesnt mean there isnt other glory in the universe.

GOD is referred to as "almighty", "alpha and omega" "the one true god". these are titles and glory that god will never give to another.

in fact, jesus is never called these things, nor did he claim to be any of these things.

GOD's glory is GOD's glory.

Jesus has his own glory. jesus is the "masterworker" "only begotten" "the son of god"

jesus referring to HIS glory (the glory he had as a spirit creature) is not in conflict wth GOD'S glory

Jesus is God incarnate therefore He was never created but has always been, only the flesh of Jesus was created.

the bible NEVER says that. it does say that the word became flesh. but nowhere does it say he is God incarnate

[edit on 30-10-2009 by miriam0566]

reply to post by NOTurTypical

So naturally, what do you think happened at the moment He died thus fulfilling the Law in it's entirety with His death penalty for sin?

You may be overlooking the fact that Jesus was around for a while after the resurrection.
He had ample opportunity to declare the law null and void to his disciples, but strangely (according to your account) did not.
What did Jesus do. He gave the great commission, to go out and baptise. Why would there be a baptism of repentance if there was nothing to repent of, since there was no longer a law?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

If you want to live as if the new covenant is of none effect, then you're also by default saying that the life and death of Christ is also of none effect.

According to my reading of the New Testament, one makes the sacrifice of Jesus of no affect by continuing to sin.

btw, let me know how your pastor reacts to your proclamation that the Ten Commandments is not the Law of God, but was only given by Moses.


[edit on 30-10-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by NOTurTypical

When the bible says certain people are the "sons of Baalam" is it saying "Baalam created them", or "Balaam is their father"?

Earlier you were saying that "first born" was a Hebraism.
Now you are saying "son" is also a Hebraism.
And you seem to be implying that the whole bible is one big Hebraism.
I think you have thoroughly diluted your argument to the point that it is completely meaningless.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So naturally, what do you think happened at the moment He died thus fulfilling the Law in it's entirety with His death penalty for sin?

You may be overlooking the fact that Jesus was around for a while after the resurrection.
He had ample opportunity to declare the law null and void to his disciples, but strangely (according to your account) did not.
What did Jesus do. He gave the great commission, to go out and baptise. Why would there be a baptism of repentance if there was nothing to repent of, since there was no longer a law?

Okay, then we can just erase Hebrews 8:12-13 out of the Bible. Since you claim it's a lie.

And based on what he wrote in Romans we can label Paul a heretic and a wolf in sheep's clothing correct??

reply to post by jmdewey60
Semantics again...

I never said Moses made it up, I said God gave it to Moses on Mt. Sinai. The OT "Law" is called the "Mosaic Law". Is this new information to you?

Should we remove Romans and Hebrews from the Holy Bible???

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Earlier you were saying that "first born" was a Hebraism.

It is, and I still say that.

Now you are saying "son" is also a Hebraism.

It is, and the links I provided you with also state that it is... APPARENTLY you never read any of them...

And you seem to be implying that the whole bible is one big Hebraism.

Straw man argument, I never implied that. There are about 12 words that are though. Perhaps you should attempt to read the links?

I think you have thoroughly diluted your argument to the point that it is completely meaningless.

And I think your willful ignorance of Hebraisms will be cleared up when you admit they exist and read up on it, links HAVE BEEN provided numerous times.

Willful ignorance to a certain fact doesn't make the fact invalid. Ironically, it makes YOUR argument completely meaningless.

Lemme get this straight, if "Son" or "Sons" is not a Hebraism, then in Mark 3:17 we learn that James and John's parents were thunder?

Jesus calls them both "Sons of Thunder", I suppose their dad was thunder, perhaps their mother was lightning??





[edit on 30-10-2009 by NOTurTypical]

Originally posted by miriam0566

john 1:1 says no such thing. it specifically says that the word was WITH god. someone cannot be WITH someone and BE that same someone at the same time.

the correct grammatical translation is "the word was A god"

in which case, all it proves is that jesus was there at the beginning of creation, not that he's uncreated

You have a misunderstanding of John 1:1

I need to dust off my inadequate Greek here so bear with me but a rather literal translation of John 1:1 would be read as:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word”

In Greek it reads as:

"En arche hen ho Logos, kai ho Logos hen pros ton Theon, kai Theos hen ho Logos."

Daniel B. Wallace can expound upon this in far greater detail than I ever could. I quote this from his Greek text book “Basics Of Biblical Greek Grammar”

In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order(the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphases rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject...When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis.

A good illustration of this is John 1:1c...We know that 'the Word' is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: 'and the Word was God.'...why was theos thrown forward?...why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: 'What God was, the Word was" is how one translation brings out its force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word...with the person of 'God'(The Father).

That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John's wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

So Miriam, based on your exegesis above of John 1:1, in that Jesus was “a god” may I ask just how many Gods are there, how many do you worship?

>>>>>>Part 2 to be posted

Originally posted by miriam0566

Isaiah 48:[11] For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

"MY glory"

just because GOD is referring to HIS glory doesnt mean there isnt other glory in the universe.

GOD is referred to as "almighty", "alpha and omega" "the one true god". these are titles and glory that god will never give to another.

in fact, jesus is never called these things, nor did he claim to be any of these things.

Here is Revelation 1:8 –

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Reading this alone it is clear that the Lord God states He is the “Alpha and the Omega” or the “Beginning and the End”

The NWT states it as such:
“I am the Al´pha and the O•me´ga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.”

Let’s look at the greater context of Revelation 1

4John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne,

5and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood--

6and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father--to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

7BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

8"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

In verse 7 we are told that someone is “coming with the clouds” and this someone was “pierced”. Since Scripture speaks of Jesus being “pierced” or crucified upon a cross and also speaks of Jesus returning in the clouds it is safe to place Jesus as the one verse 7 is describing.

Verse 8 and 4 though seem to state that the Lord God is the one coming yet God the Father was not crucified, Jesus was.

In Rev. 22:12-13 we read of something similar.

12"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.

13"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

So again we have the question of just WHO is “coming quickly”? According to you Miriam it can’t be Jesus because Jesus is never referred to as the “Alpha and the Omega” yet please tell me WHO states this?

20He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly " Amen Come, Lord Jesus. – Rev. 22:20

It appears that Jesus testifies that He is in fact the one who is to come, in fact Jesus has already come and He shall return again meaning He also fits the description of Rev. 1:8

8"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

To further solidify this we read in Rev. 2:8 this:

8"And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, says this:….”

Well again this is speaking of Christ Jesus for He was “dead” and He also returned “to life” but we have a tricky phrase here in that Jesus must then also be “The first and the last” but is that not a title for God alone?

6"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me. Isa.44:6

So who is mistaken here……God, Jesus, an angel, John or perhaps all translations are wrong but the NWT? So how does it read these passages?

NWT Rev. 2:8
8 “And to the angel of the congregation in Smyr´na write: These are the things that he says, ‘the First and the Last,’ who became dead and came to life [again],

NWT Isa.44:6
6 “This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, ‘I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.

No difference so clearly even the NWT claims that Jesus is God, the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. He is God in the flesh, He is Eternal and the readers of John would recognize this because of the words used to describe Jesus. You can deny it but you disagree with Scripture, not me.