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: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Don't worry miriam. I am on your side with this argument. All you have to do is read the last two chapters of Revelation. After the 1000 year kingdom on earth led by Jesus, the white throne judgement happens in which all evil, death, and the grave are thrown into the lake of fire thus eliminating all negativity in the world. After this we get a new heaven and new earth. New Jerusalem falls upon earth and God dwells in New Jerusalem among His people forever. Before this moment, Jesus led God's people on earth. I know we have minor differences in this part of scripture because you think Jesus and the saints are ruleing earth from heaven. I think otherwise, but the concept of Jesus handing the throne back to God is still there.




posted on May, 8 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 



we differ alittle in our timeline as well, but yeah i see what you are saying



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


I came over here to check your post out, for some reason you thought I wouldn't like it??? Don't know why you thought that cause I loved it. Great post and thanks for sharing it!



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by dthwraith
 


Thank you. It's the last thread I did. I need to do another one.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Always interesting to read John Gill's commentaries. He has a nice way of tying things into the ancient Jewish writings like the Zohar and the Targams. I do not take these as authoritative writings, like the Bible is. They are useful to see what some of the Jews believed, back when Jesus had to deal with the doctors of theology.
Strangely enough, it seems that what they believed about The Word would fit in nicely with the trinitarian system. Now, if Jesus was a trinitarian, himself, he should have had no problems with the officials of Judaism of his day. He could have pointed out from their own books how he was the fulfillment of what they had already predicted.
John 1 talks about the "Word" but for some reason Jesus avoids using that name to apply to himself. I have to imagine that John 1:1 was written for the purpose of flying in the face of the trinitarians of Jesus' day, and not at all something that should be used to support the trinity.
What John says is that the Word and God are one in the same. It is not saying that over here is someone we will call God and over here is someone else who we also call God, thus making two gods. What he says is, "Here is this single entity we will call God, and here is something that we want to focus in on and it is also God, meaning it is the first thing that I mentioned as being God. Whatever thing God is, is the exact same thing that The Word is." He is not saying that there were two separate "things".
According to what the theologians, that Jesus would have been confronted by, would have had available to them in their writings, the Messiah was a pre-existing entity who was around God since before creation and exercised the powers of God. He would eventually show up as a fully formed personality, without going through any real transition as to what he already was.
When Jesus declared himself as the Messiah, they said, "Hang on, that just can not be right at all! We know who you are and we know your parents and brothers." They did not want to accept someone who had not always been a person, in his own right, as a separate individual, who they were calling The Word.
Well, The Word was God, as pointed out by John. He was not saying that The Word was another God. Does that mean that there is no such thing as "The Word of God"? No, there is the person, God, who we do not know, and there is the Word of God that we do know, because He makes Himself known by His actions, but it is the One in the Same God.
You would think that the Jews would have thought, "Of course, that is clearly true, considering we are strict monotheists". I propose that in fact, the Jews at this point had slipped away from this because of their concentrated desire for this miraculous being who was to burst onto the scene in order to restore Israel to its rightful glory.
Christianity has itself slipped away from monotheism, just like the Jews did, in order to imagine this same sort of messianic Apocalypse. Jesus when asked what was the greatest commandment recited the Shema which is that the Lord, and the Highest form of what we understand as bing God, are one. This means God and the Lord are one in the same.


[edit on 9-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


According to the "most accurate translation of the bible" the verse saying "The Word was with God and the Word was A God." Funny how Jesus never called Himself God and humbled Himself and prayed to God. What you gave us is a trinitarian view without the title. Jesus, God and Spirit are all the same being. That's what you're saying right?



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 

What you gave us is a trinitarian view without the title.
I usually have to stand back to get a perspective on what I write.
I usually have a fuzzy idea about something I am thinking, and open the comment box and start writing. When I think that I finished a complete thought, I hit the "reply" button.
Now, I did not have a clear map of words or anything, before I started and I am not sure about how to evaluate the results as soon as I am finished. I have to clear my mind for a while and then look at it to see if it makes any sense.
Of course I have something going on in my mind, first, and it is a process of trying to analyze a bunch of data and I eventually get some kind of feelings about it, one way or the other.
Anyway, I wrote the previous post this morning, based on what I was studying last night. I went to church and tried some of it out on a few of the members to get some reaction. One guy flipped out when I said that sin came from Lucifer. He went into some spiel about Lucifer being perfect and I had to jump back a little.
Looking at it now, I think I need to try to explain it a little but I am getting a head ache.



[edit on 9-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 

According to the "most accurate translation of the bible" the verse saying "The Word was with God and the Word was A God."

That may be someone's opinion. What that means is, we can word it in such a way as to make it understandable to the common English speaking person. You need to look at a good Greek text , (and not Westcott/Hort) and take a good look at it and see if that is really what it says. It doesn't, just to speed up the argument a little. It says, “and what God was the Word was.”


[edit on 9-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


Jesus, God and Spirit are all the same being. That's what you're saying right?
Here is a link to the page that this morning's post is based on, just in case you want to know what I was talking about. Read it and tell me what you make of it.
www.studylight.org...
Something changed, and changed a lot. There is no status quo. Nothing is the same. This is what I am getting at. The Jews expected someone to just step out of heaven and be the Messiah. If you believe in Jesus, you have to say that is not correct, because Jesus did not come into the world that way. To me, in order to counteract this philosophy, you have to come up with an alternative definition for "The Word", from what was the coin of the day.


[edit on 9-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
You need to look at a good Greek text , (and not Westcott/Hort) and take a good look at it and see if that is really what it says. It doesn't, just to speed up the argument a little. It says, “and what God was the Word was.”


hold the phone... your paraphrasing something but the original passages say nothing of the sort.

i dont like to tell people that they dont know what they are talking about, but jmdewey, you dont know what you are talking about.

first off, westcott and hort do not render this passage any different than any other manuscript available. they are identical.



ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:1 Greek NT: WH / NA27 / UBS4 with Concordance
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:1 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Strong's Numbers
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:1 Greek NT: Byzantine / Majority Text (1995) with Strong's Numbers
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:1 Greek NT: Greek Orthodox Church
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:1 Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550, with accents)
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:1 Greek NT: Greek NT: WH / NA27 / UBS4
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:1 Greek NT: Westcott/Hort
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:1 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed.
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:1 Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:1 Greek NT: Textus Receptus (1550)
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:1 Greek NT: Textus Receptus (1894)
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος


second, nowhere in the passage is the claim made that “and what God was the Word was.”!

we get three basic facts from this passage. the word was there in the beginning (likely the beginning of creation), the word was with god (which makes the claim that the word was god impossible) and that the word was a mighty being.

really, seriously, im sick of arguing this passage. im sick of people using ENGLISH to twist this scripture. the most literal and simplest translation of this passage is that the word was A god.

anybody who speaks greek can atest to that.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 

Nice Greek quotes

I have known Greek people that moved to North America from Greece and they don't believe in the trinity, because you can't use that scripture on them, they will laugh at you, and with good reason too.

SO for the Christians that make this scripture the focal point of there belief in the Trinity, you should reconsider that a major belief is based on an error in translation from Greek to English. It's a deadly twisting of scripture.

This scripture is good to mention
2 Peter 3 verse 16 then in more context and another version after that

16 And as he said in all his letters, which had to do with these things; in which are some hard sayings, so that, like the rest of the holy Writings, they are twisted by those who are uncertain and without knowledge, to the destruction of their souls.


15 Think of our Lord's patience as an opportunity for us to be saved. This is what our dear brother Paul wrote to you about, using the wisdom God gave him. 16 He talks about this subject in all his letters. Some things in his letters are hard to understand. Ignorant people and people who aren't sure of what they believe distort what Paul says in his letters the same way they distort the rest of the Scriptures. These people will be destroyed. 17 Dear friends, you already know these things. So be on your guard not to be carried away by the deception of people...

This is talking about Christians that BELIEVE in the the bible!!!

Have you noticed earlier supporters of the trinity in this thread have all but disappeared, maybe they are lurking still, but scared to post because some of us really know our bibles, history and a little Greek too.

What do they have? An emotional connection to false dogma, and clergy that tell them don't listen to us.

Not solid ground to base the truth on, that's for sure.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


I too am tired of arguing this text (John 1:1).

Does any body know anything about the Coptic languages (there are several dialects) and their translation of John 1:1 ?????

If you don't, check out these links:

The Sahidic Coptic

3 minute video about the Sahidic Coptic and John 1:1

PEACE!



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Too bad there are not any trinitarians who would like to argue on this forum, because you might be able to see some sort of contrast between what I am saying and the normal way the doctrine is expounded.
If you read Athanasius, who was the instigator for the Council of Nicea, you can find some thoughts that would seem out of place to someone who has gotten their concepts of the Godhead from reading the Bible. He uses Greek philosophical axioms like; God, in order to be God, can not change. If God is the Father then He has always been the Father. That means that the Son of God has always been the Son, and so, we have this eternal relationship that is dependent on these two beings always existing as we also find them today. Once you accept that as fact, the corollary is that considering that they are co-eternal, they must be coequal. Now, you can not be allowed to turn this idea of equality into making them one because, keeping consistent with your original philosophy, they must be Gods, in their own right, as distinct individuals, just like we have the planets, (who we know are really gods) are distinct unto themselves.
The true (as codified and sealed with approval by a pagan emperor) doctrine of the Trinity is based on observable and understandable principles that govern the visible universe.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
If you read Athanasius, who was the instigator for the Council of Nicea, you can find some thoughts that would seem out of place to someone who has gotten their concepts of the Godhead from reading the Bible. He uses Greek philosophical axioms like; God, in order to be God, can not change. If God is the Father then He has always been the Father. That means that the Son of God has always been the Son,


ok, your saying that he used axioms. how is the son of god always being the son make a logical conclusion of Jesus and God being ¨co-eternal¨

thats like saying that because god had no beginning, logically neither did jesus. but by that reasoning, neither did we.

its faulty reasoning brought on by the absolutist statement that ¨god cannot change¨. by ignoring degrees of truth, you are left with absurd contradictions.

if god cannot change, and god was the sole enitity of existence, then that means he still is. then we can logically conclude that we dont exist because god IS the sole entity of existence.

absurd isnt it?

god acquiring a title ≠ god's nature changing. simply because "god does not change" cannot be taken for an absolute value.

aristotle "axioms" work for simple deducing but has ultimatly proved to be an archaic and obsolete form of logic. it requires stated definitions to be agreed on, otherwise it works on assumptions. it ignores the "midde ground"



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


hold the phone... your paraphrasing something but the original passages say nothing of the sort.

Everyone is paraphrasing.
Here is the part in question, in a format that might be easier to look at:
KAI hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON KAI _QEOS_ HN hO LOGOS
And the word_ was with this _ God and_ god _ was the word

There is no straight, word for word translation of it and any would be involved in some conjecture. But to read it as for what the phrase means, without taking into consideration what someone would like for it to mean, the best way of saying it in English is “and what God was the Word was.”


[edit on 10-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


aristotle "axioms" work for simple deducing but has ultimatly proved to be an archaic and obsolete form of logic. it requires stated definitions to be agreed on, otherwise it works on assumptions. it ignores the "midde ground"
25 years ago I started collecting the ancient fathers of the church and so forth, thinking I could get closer to understanding who Jesus was by going to the people who were close chronologically.
I found out that what passed for logic to these people would not be recognizable to us today as such.
You can see how we went into the Dark ages because people got stuck on ideas that were considered unmovable facts.
This is what Arius was going against and he did not have much of a chance for success, not because there was anything wrong with his logic but there seemed to be a type of worship of the "classics" that stunted the growth of understanding, in this time.
And so out of the depths of institutionalized ignorance, we get the Nicene Creed. YEEH!!




posted on May, 10 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 



"The Word" is Jesus and He was with God, and He was God. This language is unmistakable and can mean only one thing: There were two beings—God and the Word.



Ok I was rolling along all nice and like with what you where saying then I bumped into these verses this morning. And now I'm all confused again. Heres the verses.

Isaiah 43:10-11 “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the Lord and there is no other. Apart from me there is no Savior.

Isaiah 44:6 “This is what the LORD says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Isaiah 45:5 “I am God and there is no other, apart from me there is no God.”

Isaiah 46:9 “I am God and there is no other. I am God and there is none like me.”

Isaiah 43:10-11
Now unless God is lieing he is stating that there was no God before him nor after him. Now if thats the case how can Jesus be a seprate God??? Lil help please cause I am so lost now!

[edit on 10-5-2009 by dthwraith]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by dthwraith
reply to post by Locoman8
 



Isaiah 43:10-11
Now unless God is lieing he is stating that there was no God before him nor after him. Now if thats the case how can Jesus be a seprate God??? Lil help please cause I am so lost now!


Separate god small "g", just like Satan is a god small "g".

There are real and fake(made up by man) gods.

There is only ONE Almighty God and architect of the universe. Capital "G". When you read the scriptures that have already been quoted many time in this thread, you can understand that.

No one disputes that Jesus has been given god like power, but that power comes from the Holy Spirit via his Father. Basically Jesus has unlimited access to the Holy Spirit, so no other being in the universe has his level of power, next to Almighty God himself.
It was this power that Jesus used to help create the entire universe



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Everyone is paraphrasing.
Here is the part in question, in a format that might be easier to look at:
KAI hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON KAI _QEOS_ HN hO LOGOS
And the word_ was with this _ God and_ god _ was the word

There is no straight, word for word translation of it and any would be involved in some conjecture. But to read it as for what the phrase means, without taking into consideration what someone would like for it to mean, the best way of saying it in English is “and what God was the Word was.”


so... ¨the word was with the god, and what god was, the word was¨?

what is bothering me is that you are choosing this translation because you would like it to mean that, which is completely hypocritical given your above statements.

jm. i dont know how to put this any more simpler. the most LITERAL and SIMPLE translation of this verse is ¨and the word was a god.¨

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

"lo siento" when translated to english means "I'm sorry"

you can get into semantics and say that "lo siento" technically means "I feel". but the usage is clear. in spanish to say "I'm sorry" you say lo siento. period.

john 1:1 is along the same lines. you have 3 basic pieces of information, all are about jesus.

-when (in the beginning)
-where (in heaven with the father)
-who (jesus in a godlike angelic state)

what your reading is what trinitarians read which is a blatant contradiction.

the word was with god, but he was also god.

why would john, the apostle who wrote most damning passages to the trinity doctrine, start his gospel off with an insanely muddled and confusing first sentence like that?

how can jesus be with god and at the same time be the same thing as god?

now trinitarians refer to this 3=1 situation as a "mystery". end of story. to them saying god was with himself makes perfect sense, for me personally, i have to hit myself with a hammer a few times before that starts to make sense.

but you are saying your belief is different.

instead you bring up Athanasius.

what interesting is that he wasnt trinitarian. but what he did establish for the church is exactly what you are saying. “and what God was the Word was.” he led the belief that god and jesus were the same "stuff". make of the same substance.

ok, so lets say he was right, lets say jesus is a celestial polup (skin tag, growth, whatever you want to call it.) then how is jesus able to pay the ransom sacrifice for adam's sins.

if jesus was anything more than a man, then the ransom was overpaid.

in fact alot of the same arguments that apply to knocking down the trinity apply here also.

in fact what is the difference between jesus being part of god and actually being god?

in otherwords, your theory does alot more confusing than it does explaining.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Thanks for the fast responce, that cleared it up for me.




top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join