It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The pre-creation existence of Jesus

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Since Miriam is quoting Greek, it is important to understand that some things can be misunderstood in translation, so it is good if we have people that, actually can read and understand the language, their opinion has a lot of value.

This this quote from a Greek Speaking person on John 1 verse 1




English readers often claim that NW is false in John 1:1. Trinitarians in Greece have never used this specific verse to claim that the New World Translation (NW) is wrong, since all the Orthodox versions read actually the same with the Greek version of the NW. And this happens because the wording of this verse is very clear for the Greek reader, and there is no place for debate. I am sorry to say this, but for a Greek it is ridiculous to debate on John 1:1.


This is a very interesting point Greeks can't and don't use John 1 to support the trinity or that God=Jesus because they can't. Yet millions of North American Christians that don't speak or understand Greek hang a fundamental belief on that one scripture. How crazy is that.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by Blue_Jay33]




posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
How crazy is that.


no, you want to know whats crazy? when so called ¨unbiased¨ scholars weigh in with some obscure grammatical application.

anything to make the doctrine fit. anything but the obvious truth staring right at you.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


honestly, i dont know what more you want...
he is the beginning of creation, i dont see how that can mean anything else.
its like you saying "the beginning of the movie" actually means "the beginner of the movie"
how you are getting to that conclusion, i dont know.

Going back to Genesis, it says, "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth." I do not see any mention of creating other god-like beings, other than man, who was made in His image.
If The Word was with God at the beginning, then The Word was not created, because nothing had been created yet.


[edit on 28-4-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by miriam0566
 


honestly, i dont know what more you want...
he is the beginning of creation, i dont see how that can mean anything else.
its like you saying "the beginning of the movie" actually means "the beginner of the movie"
how you are getting to that conclusion, i dont know.

Going back to Genesis, it says, "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth." I do not see any mention of creating other god-like beings, other than man, who was made in His image.
If The Word was with God at the beginning, then The Word was not created, because nothing had been created yet.


so by your logic, the angels werent created either since there is no mention of their creation in the account either.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


so by your logic, the angels werent created either since there is no mention of their creation in the account either.

Looking into this question about angels I have to think that the main reason for having angels existing before the creation of the earth is to have a time-line for Lucifer to go through whatever process he went through, from being good to being evil. There is this mythology about Satan and this story about everything going just fine, up to when God started creating the world and making man. This apparently set Lucifer off by creating a relationship between God and man, that allowed for jealousy to enter his heart. You have him gradually becoming more devious until he evolves into an instigator of open rebellion. For this to make a story that we can relate to, you have to interject a lot of assumptions that are just not supportable from the Bible.



[edit on 28-4-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Looking into this question about angels I have to think that the main reason for having angels existing before the creation of the earth is to have a time-line for Lucifer to go through whatever process he went through, from being good to being evil.


your avoiding my point.

according to your logic, angels were never created because the bible does not specifically mention it in the genesis account.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


your avoiding my point.
according to your logic, angels were never created because the bible does not specifically mention it in the genesis account.

No, because it is a given that they were created. It is not clear that The Word was created and John seems to say that The Word existed before creation ever began. It looks like John is trying to make the point that The Word is something, or someone, or a consciousness that has always existed.
I think the problem comes when you read, later on in the Bible, where it is apparently talking about Jesus and it ties him into the creation process. Someone reading this may be led to think that the human-like person of Jesus was existing, as a separate and independent entity, back in the original six day creation event of Genesis.
To me, this is at odds with the opening verses of John about The Word. There was The Word who existed from before creation and then he becomes Jesus. If you think of this pre-nativity Jesus, then you have to deal with the problem of where he came from. Then you come up against the choice of whether he was created or not. I do not see any reason to go down that path, at all.
Like I said in my last post, all this stuff gets invented for the sake of Satan! This is a form of Satan worship, to me. You have a Christiology that is dependent on a Satanology. In order for your myth of Satan to make sense, you completely change the facts about Christ, in order to fit into the story. So, it is stealth paganism to take on Babylon through their devil worship. I guess if you can not take God on directly, you manufacture a devil to do the job for you. I had JW's tell me that I can not be saved unless I believe in Satan. What? Why is a myth about this person who is Christ's twin necessary to be saved? No thanks. Go on believing in your anti-god and have a good time.
Of course I do not mean you personally, but the people who push certain versions of religion. I realize these beliefs were around since before you were born and are not responsible for it.


[edit on 28-4-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Are you saying the angels were created after the physical universe?

You can't support that from the bible, if you are, it's just your opinion.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by miriam0566
 


your avoiding my point.
according to your logic, angels were never created because the bible does not specifically mention it in the genesis account.

No, because it is a given that they were created. It is not clear that The Word was created and John seems to say that The Word existed before creation ever began. It looks like John is trying to make the point that The Word is something, or someone, or a consciousness that has always existed.
I think the problem comes when you read, later on in the Bible, where it is apparently talking about Jesus and it ties him into the creation process. Someone reading this may be led to think that the human-like person of Jesus was existing, as a separate and independent entity, back in the original six day creation event of Genesis.
To me, this is at odds with the opening verses of John about The Word. There was The Word who existed from before creation and then he becomes Jesus. If you think of this pre-nativity Jesus, then you have to deal with the problem of where he came from. Then you come up against the choice of whether he was created or not. I do not see any reason to go down that path, at all.
Like I said in my last post, all this stuff gets invented for the sake of Satan! This is a form of Satan worship, to me. You have a Christiology that is dependent on a Satanology. In order for your myth of Satan to make sense, you completely change the facts about Christ, in order to fit into the story. So, it is stealth paganism to take on Babylon through their devil worship. I guess if you can not take God on directly, you manufacture a devil to do the job for you. I had JW's tell me that I can not be saved unless I believe in Satan. What? Why is a myth about this person who is Christ's twin necessary to be saved? No thanks. Go on believing in your anti-god and have a good time.
Of course I do not mean you personally, but the people who push certain versions of religion. I realize these beliefs were around since before you were born and are not responsible for it.


[edit on 28-4-2009 by jmdewey60]

You need to give this scripture further consideration and meditation and study my friend, let me help.
Colossians 1 verse 12-18

12 Give thanks to the Father, who made us partakers of the inheritance of the holy ones in the light.
13 He rescued us from the power of darkness, and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love (the Son he dearly loves).
14 We have in him our redemption and the forgiveness of our sins.
15 He is the image (likeness) (representation) of the invisible God. He is the firstborn (Greek: prototokos: childbirth, offspring) of all creation.
16 All things in the heavens and upon the earth were created through him. The things visible and invisible were created through him. Whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him.
17 He is before all things, and through him all things originate.
18 He is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning (commencement), the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence (first place).


Time for a Greek lesson

Strong's Greek: 4416. prototokos (pro-tot-ok'-os)
From protos and the alternate of tikto; first-born (usually as noun, literally or figuratively) -- firstbegotten(-born).

In Greek
ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,

πρωτότοκος in Greek or prototokos is used.

Also John 1 verse 18 clarifies John 1 verse 1
18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο

Strongs
μονογενὴς in Greek or monogenes (mon-og-en-ace')
3440 >>
only begotten, child.

Christ was created before time, before space, before any physical matter.
That's what makes him so unique, but he did have a start to his existence, he was born not first physically, but as a unique created spirit, he does not have an infinite past. That's why he is God's only begotten Son.
So understand what the bible says.

If you can't see it from this, there is nothing more that can be said really.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
No, because it is a given that they were created. It is not clear that The Word was created and John seems to say that The Word existed before creation ever began. It looks like John is trying to make the point that The Word is something, or someone, or a consciousness that has always existed.


why would it be not clear?

genesis doesnt actually tell us much about the creation of the physical universe. by verse one, the heavens and the earth are already created. everything after that is specifically referring to things in relation to earth from the viewpoint of earth. i doubt very much that someone standing on earth observing creation would have seen the creation of the spirit realm.

there is nothing conflicting to say that jesus and even the entire angelic host were present when god used jesus to begin creating the physical universe.

you are simply assuming that this implies that jesus is eternal. but being there in the beginning doesnt imply anything of the sort. in fact, likely the angels were present too.

job 38:[4] Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
[5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
[6] Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
[7] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

Are you saying the angels were created after the physical universe?
You can't support that from the bible, if you are, it's just your opinion.
I typed in "when were the angels created" in Google and did a survey of the different answers that came up. I think the general consensus is that God made heaven and earth, and in between those two things, the angels were created.
So, as for it being my opinion, I figured I would go with the conservative answer. There is hardly anything that I come up with on my own. I normally weigh different options, from what I read or hear from other people, to find out what makes sense to me.


[edit on 28-4-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Christ was created before time, before space, before any physical matter.
That's what makes him so unique, but he did have a start to his existence, he was born not first physically, but as a unique created spirit, he does not have an infinite past. That's why he is God's only begotten Son.
Who do you mean by Christ? This is what I mean. If you take the first few verses of John 1, and read it the way it seems to be saying, you have The Word and you have the Son. One comes first and existed before creation. The Son comes second and is the incarnation of the first. The man Jesus has a beginning but he also has that part of his being that preexisted. John says The Word became flesh. The word is differentiated from God by saying it was with God. It is impossible to explain the nature of the relationship between The Word, and God. So, you have this statement by John saying that the Son was in the bosom of the Father and has an intimate knowledge of Him. What is unknowable by us humans, concerning a spiritual thing, is made somewhat understandable when it is describing the human being, Jesus. Another thing that this reveals is that apparently, there is a certain level of continuity of consciousness that survives the transformation of The Word into Jesus.
It is interesting that there is a redundancy in John 1. In verse 1 it says, "In the beginning was the word. . ." Then in the second verse it repeats the idea, "The same was with God at the beginning." It is emphasizing a point by repeating it. "The same" meaning, The Word. What is the point being driven home with the second pronouncement? My opinion is that John wants to make sure people understand this principle, which is, "One way or another, even if we do not understand it, this person we know as Jesus, though he was born as a man, is eternal, in the best way that we can know what the concept means."



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 

there is nothing conflicting to say that jesus and even the entire angelic host were present when god used jesus to begin creating the physical universe.
"The Host" is the host of heaven. Once heaven was created, the heavens were filled with the Host of Angels. They apparently witnessed God setting the "sockets" of the universe. Looking closely at your quote, to me, it looks like there was a heaven, and then the whole physical universe is set in place inside it.
Ex. 20:11, For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,. . .
Here are presented three things: heaven, the earth, and the sea. It says that during the six days of creation, God made those things, and everything that are in them. If the angels are in heaven, they were made during those six days.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Here are presented three things: heaven, the earth, and the sea. It says that during the six days of creation, God made those things, and everything that are in them. If the angels are in heaven, they were made during those six days.


the world ¨heaven¨means ¨sky¨. hebrew uses the same word for sky as it does for heaven. some other languages like spanish do as well.

so the 6 creation days were earth, sea, and the sky of the earth.

so no, the angels were not created during the 6 days of creation, they were created long before



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Do we know that God in Genesis 1 vs 1 is talking about both the physical and spiritual heavens? We don't know for sure, truth be told. We know that later in the bible when it talks about a new heavens it isn't talking literally but symbolically. Although some Christians seem to think God for some reason has to destroy the entire universe and start over, when there is nothing physically wrong with it.

My point is the time line for the angels isn't that important, whether it be embedded in Gen. 1 or done before that.

Jesus is the issue not the angels.

What I posted of the Greek and how it translates verifies my belief structure.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

What I posted of the Greek and how it translates verifies my belief structure.

It seems I remember commenting on this earlier, maybe in this thread.
Go down three verses and you find the exact same word being used to say something about being the firstborn of the dead. So, it should be obvious that it is not being used in the most literal sense, because Jesus is not the first person to be raised from the dead.
You have to go to the alternative meaning of firstborn which has something to do with the birthright. The literal firstborn can be passed over for a more deserving one.
If sin had not entered the creation through the disobedience of Adam, he would forever hold the birthright, just by the fact of his being the first person to exist. Jesus came along and showed himself worthy of taking away that title from Adam, and thus becoming the representative of mankind, and not just those who may have physically survived to see his day. He will also be preeminent over everyone who has died and will be raised back to life.





[edit on 29-4-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
It seems I remember commenting on this earlier, maybe in this thread.
Go down three verses and you find the exact same word being used to say something about being the firstborn of the dead. So, it should be obvious that it is not being used in the most literal sense, because Jesus is not the first person to be raised from the dead.


in a way he was literally the first.

if lazarus was resurrected to human life, jesus was the first to be resurrected to spiritual immortality.

in a very real and literal sense, jesus was the first



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


One is firstborn "of all creation"
The other is firstborn "of the dead"
Different context different time line.

Do you really believe it's the same? Ponder this. If he is firstborn of creation he hasn't died yet. And if he is firstborn of the dead, he had been alive previously and existed was already created, but then died











[edit on 29-4-2009 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Do you really believe it's the same?

You are the one who posted the Greek lesson. I went on Biblos.com and looked at the Greek versions of these verses. You have the exact same Greek word in both.
I do not see how making a time-line helps. This was my argument, that when it comes to certain principles, primacy in righteousness trumps temporal primacy.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


jesus was the first to be resurrected to spiritual immortality.

I do not really have a response to that directly. My thinking has to do with how you are generaly dealing with some of this. What I mean is the whole symbolgy thing. Or the spiritual thing. You can (lots of people do) turn the whole Bible into nothing but symbology, if you want. I do not feel like saying you are wrong. I really just wanted to register a disagreement. Not to change your mind, but to let it be know that I thought there was another way of looking at some of the verses you were quoting. If you are happy with your oppinion, I do not want to trash you for it. Compared to most of what gets put up on this forum, you are like a shining star.




top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join