[quote name=Naten00' date='16 April 2013 - 09:09 AM' timestamp='1366128591' post='551710'
So please read it and share it with others on other social media like facebook and twitter!
I ask people read what I wrote and then discuss on this thread what they think on the certain topics that I am talking about in regards to the book Jesus Christ is Not God...
Hey Naten00, welcome to the GSC. Thanks for posting.
I read your blogs like you suggested and if I find valuable information for sharing with other I will share them on facebook and twitter. Pertaining to the book you are reading and blogging about, I never believed Jesus was God. It didn't take a book to reveal to me what I had already known before I ever heard of VP weirwille's book.
To me, (you may believe differently than I do), put simply Jesus never existed but in the mind of God before he was made man. Any child trying to put the trinity of God together understands that God is God and has always been. Jesus was a man, and had a beginning, unlike God.
You Said,
"Knowing that προς is a word showing deep connection between two persons physically present",
The word WITH, translated here, or pros, which weirwille tried to describe as together with, but distinctly independent of, still doesn't make apple to oranges and oranges to apples.
I kinda see Jesus as being with God his Father from the beginning like this:
A couple decide they want a child. They make sure they're both as healthy as they can be. They try to find a safe place to raise their child. They work so that they have a home, a roof over their heads - and that of their baby. They have funds in the bank to help pay the expenses of the baby. They get themselves ready. Their preparations might take years, depending on their ages and situations in life.
Their child is "with" them all this time, in their thinking, their plans, their dreams, call it what you will. Others may "buy into" this - grandparents setting up trust funds, educational arrangements, etc.
But the child has no existence, other than in the wannabe parents' minds.
Everything we understand from the Bible tells us that Jesus was in God's thoughts and plans from the beginning. That doesn't mean he existed.
We were "chosen in him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4) - we also were in God's thoughts and plans from a long time before we were born. That doesn't mean we existed. Does it?
Or do you think we were playing games with Jesus in some place in the sky before any of us landed on Earth?
I was starting off with the clearer verses with a point that we can't force any verse over another.
For example John 8:58 "Before Abraham was I AM"
Jesus was in a heated discussion with those who were fallowing him and after wards threw stones at him...
The greek rendition of this verse goes as follows. πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι
Literally translated "Prior to abraham came into existence I exist."
The phrase εγω ειμι is the emphatic use of the word ειμι
Jesus is proclaiming existence before Abraham came into being.
No, that's what the Pharisees came away with,
but they were deliberately obstuse all chapter.
Jesus was teaching when they interrupted him and tried to entrap him with sparing
that woman's life. They failed, and then they interrupted him directly and
repeatedly, generally misunderstanding him while making themselves sound all holy.
Jesus kept saying one thing, and the Pharisees kept saying he said something else.
As for me, if they claim Jesus said one thing, I'm confident that whatever he said,
it was something else.
John 8:51-58 (KJV)
51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
They said he was possessed. They said he said people would never die instead of asking
what he meant. Jesus was either an idiot or meant something else. Jesus was NOT an idiot.
I believe Jesus was correct, and that he was smart enough not to mean they wouldn't ever
drop dead. (All his disciples dropped dead-I don't think that was a shock to him.)
Jesus said Abraham saw Jesus' day. Jesus' day was either when he was speaking, or a time
yet to come when he said it. Abraham most assuredly was NOT alive when Jesus was born,
let alone preaching. So, Jesus didn't mean Abraham was alive watching him.
Few of us would contest that Jesus said that Abraham foresaw Jesus, saw a vision of Jesus
or was otherwise informed by God Almighty of Jesus.
Of course, they didn't even get that far. Jesus said Abraham (in the past, dead guy)
saw Jesus (in the present and future, living guy.)
They said Jesus said he, Jesus (present and future) saw Abraham (past.)
Did Jesus mean that? He neither said it nor confirmed it, and they had a horrible track
record of reporting what he actually said and meant. We can see that right here.
Jesus then said what is under much contention.
"Before Abraham was, I am."
First of all, we're both just addressing what's actually said, which will save a lot
of time.
Jesus did NOT say "Before Abraham was, I was."
That would have been a clear claim of preexisting Abraham, which is odd for him to do-
especially after avoiding claiming he preexisted Abraham when he said Abraham saw him/his day.
Jesus easily COULD have said something like
"When I saw Abraham, I was pleased" or "When I met Abraham, he was glad".
Instead, it was both non-interactive and one-sided. Abraham sure sounded like he
preexisted Jesus about 2 verses back.
But Jesus existed in the present, and seemed to understand that he did.
He used the present tense in his verb about himself. He didn't make any claims of himself
and the past.
Abraham WAS. Past tense. I AM. Present tense.
If I WAS, then I preexisted before the present.
If I AM, then I exist in the present.
So far, all clear. The only thing that isn't fairly straightforward is the word
"BEFORE." It's being taken to mean a reference to existing in the past.
This becomes peculiar.
So, since we're talking of English, we can speak of the two meanings of "before."
AFAIK, they should remain consistent with the Greek.
The word "before" can refer to either PREEMINENCE, or of the PAST.
If Jesus meant preeminence, then he said that his (Jesus) existence in the present
was preeminent to Abraham's existence in the past. Compared to Jesus,
Abraham is a footnote in human history-and Abraham knew it.
IF that's what Jesus meant, then there's no confusion.
Jesus came much later, but was much more important.
And all the verses agree.
If Jesus meant the PAST, then we saw him previously AVOID claiming to exist prior
to Abraham. When they claimed he said he saw Abraham, he did anything but say
"Yes."
Jesus was in God Almighty's plans before Adam arrived. All God's plans, as they
unfolded, had Jesus in mind centuries later and were planned with Jesus taken
into account. (Maintain the bloodline, keep a remnant faithful, keep humanity
alive...)
That was true when Abraham was alive. Jesus was still very much a future reality
as concerns existence, but in God's plan, he was almost an artifact of the
blueprints. Jesus existed in the present, Abraham existed in the past-
but Jesus' present existence "predated" Abraham who died long before Jesus
was born because Jesus was the big plan. God knew it, and planned accordingly.
Pieces were on the board thousands of years earlier than Jesus' birth only to
play a bit part of Jesus' life. (Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego and other
Jews were kidnapped and raised away from Israel- all so they could spread
teachings to "wise men" (Magi) who would later appear and play their own
small, necessary part in Jesus' early life.
Magi: Here's some expensive, easy-to-sell stuff, Joseph!
God: Joseph, move your family immediately- Herod wants you dead.
Joseph: Good thing I have enough money to move immediately and provide for
my family-carpenters aren't rich...
Of course, that could even go both ways-
Jesus, the preeminent one, "existed" in the plans long before he was born,
"existing", so to speak, before he literally existed.
Naturally, some people will disagree with me.
However, I see this at least as PLAUSIBLE even if I disagreed with it,
and it DOES explain how one could be born at time A and be referred
to before that yet not be said to have been there. It was an oddly PRECISE
phrase which, I think, is commonly read IMprecisely.
However one interprets the accounts, one's overall view should account for
ALL the verses so that they ALL make sense. No matter one's position, that
means SOME verses will be harder to explain than others.
Unless one begins with the premise that some verses won't make sense.
I reject that premise just as the original poster did-
but some do not.
It doesn't matter how many times Jesus prayed to God. This statement is an emphatic true or false statement.
Jesus also said in John 17:5 in His prayer to the father
"Father give me the glory I had with you before the world existed"
How does foreknowledge have glory with the father? It can't
The usages of foreknowledge are of events or of those who are called... You can still foreknow someone and them exist.
Both literally must both be true at the same time....
Jesus said he pre-existed... He may not have claimed to be God... But he definitely claimed to be present before the world was here.
I can reiterate my point here, but for now, I don't think
I have to.
If Jesus was part of God's Plan from before Adam,
and was written into the stars,
and all the prophets spoke of him,
then he assuredly had glory in God before his birth.
Why would it be such a jump to think that Jesus would
have glory "IN GOD" (who was all that existed before
"In The Beginning") when God's plan for thousands of
years revolved around him, from times predating 4000 BC
I was starting off with the clearer verses with a point that we can't force any verse over another.
Jesus said he pre-existed... He may not have claimed to be God... But he definitely claimed to be present before the world was here.
Vp's book claimed and made the argument that there were approximately 4 scriptures which when compared to hundreds of others made the case whether he claimed to be God or the son of God. I don't have access to the book anymore but I believe this was one of them.
This is just another example of reading into scripture and erroneously making the case without an accurate account of the testimony of the bible. What are we really engaging here? Is it the existence of Christ, or the pre-existence of Christ? If He, Christ were God he would have said just that, and therefore there would not be any discussion about his pre-existence.
God's plan involved the existence of a savior.
1John 1-3: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life:
2 For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life which was manifested to us;
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us, and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his son Jesus Christ.
From the beginning God's plan was the existence of a savior. God proclaimed the existence of Christ without Christ having actually having existed. This is why I referred earlier to a child understanding these things. Because we've become clouded with the theories of and for the existence of Godman. Jesus wasn't God. God wasn't a man. A child understands this. (not that I'm calling you a child Naten00). We just need to look into the scriptures as a child for understanding.
Glad to see someone is still keeping up the fight about Jesus not being God. I have been studying what Paul was teaching through this cool teacher, his name is Curt Crist, but he teaches that Jesus is God junk. Keep up the good work, check out what this Curt dude is teaching about what Paul was teaching, it is cool stuff.
49 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”
52 At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”
Yes like everyone they didn't like what Jesus was saying... Anyone would think you were nuts saying what Jesus was saying...
54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
Here Jesus is saying Abraham looked forward to seeing Jesus daying being at that moment in time...
57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
They put 2 and 2 together... Making the right next questioning statement because if Jesus ONLY existed starting from his birth that is impossible to know
58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Jesus then gives the answer to their most logical response... A lot better translation than "Before Abraham was, I am"
This is the greek rendering in the text
πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι
the word γενεσθαι means to come into existence It is the aorist middle infinitive form of the verb γινομαι
the words εγω ειμι εγω is I and ειμι meaning to be or to exist... It is the same phrase used in the Septuagint the Old Testament in Greek created 200 bc when God says I am that I am in hebrew it means I exist that I exist...
So Jesus answers their question with a statement of origin... The reason why Jesus uses the present verb ειμι after say
"Before Abraham came into existence" is because he was making the statement of being present at the moment in time in order to observe Abrahams actions... Because that is the context for εγω ειμι.
So it would be
Before Abraham came into existence, I exist
There just isn't another way to read it in the immediate context...
Unlike my trinitarian colleagues I don't think this statement proclaims him being God.. I think the only thing you can grasp from this is that Jesus thought he existed before Abraham...
There just isn't another way to read it in the immediate context...
Unlike my trinitarian colleagues I don't think this statement proclaims him being God.. I think the only thing you can grasp from this is that Jesus thought he existed before Abraham...
"Exist" isn't really that different all from "am" - I am, I exist. They both basically mean the same thing.
Abraham was a man who existed at a point of time. Jesus didn't every exist prior to Abraham, in that way.
I would say that we all need to agree on that first - Jesus didn't not say that He existed as a man before Abraham. Jesus was born, the man Jesus had a beginning. If I believe in a multi-personality deity that is still a true statement.
If we can accept that as a true statement - that the man Jesus was born and did not exist before Abraham, but He did say that He did in fact - "exist" -
Then we need to understand what that existence was.
I know there's a format to this discussion but I would add right up front I am not a trinitarian by any stripe. I don't see that Jesus Christ spoke as one who understood Himself to be "God", it's not a natural assumption if I simply read the gospels. And historically I see that the theological premise(s) that began to develop that perception of Jesus as God took time and led to it as a conclusion but not one that was strongly driven by scripture itself, rather it's an intellectual exercise and conclusion.
I would agree with that Human - I think that's a very simple non-voodoo understanding of what it means to "exist"....
In the way described earlier - my own son "existed" in my mind before he was born, my "Intents" were clearly to have a son, him. He then had a beginning, a birth, where that intention came into being.
"Logos" - John 1 describes Jesus correctly then, as the logos of God.
We know Jesus was born, we know Jesus died. The significance of Jesus, the Christ is that He DID have a beginning and end, and a resurrection that was completely outside the planning or forethought of mankind. His "ascension" is to a place at the right hand of God - one that He then assumed. God's intentions are now known.
Another aspect to the existence is our side of it - there is no existence for us, no being or "am" - until we are born and then gain awareness. I suppose one could argue that we exist in some former state in the big never never land of wherever - but if we do, we don't know it. Not cognitively the way we learn to know our own existence, when we do.
I actually think that is the one single most vital aspect to an understanding of who God "is", who we are and who Jesus Christ "is".
We all share life together but each of us is a single, non repeatable instance of life, there is only one of us that knows that we are "us"....Again, we can postulate a lot of what ifs and maybe's but practically speaking the only verifiable life that we have is this one, and when it's over, all other considerations aside, that collection of memories dies with us. We accumulate a completely unique set of experiences and memories.
God too appears to clearly declare Himself through the Bible in the same way - we understand God as a "1", we pray to "a" God that is a Father.
Each child can only have one father.
I can't pretend to understand the conciousness of God and won't pretend to through conclusions but - I do think it's clear that a God that exists for "eternity" - forever, if no beginning and no forseeable end - the state of awareness that we call "memory" and remembering, or knowing....is something I can't even begin to grasp or understand. But I can say that then for there to be a memory that is singular there must be an accumulation of experience this is also singular.
If God made "us" after "His" image............that may be why we are individual and not collections of consciousness. We are "like" God in the most basic fundamental way.
I'm just finishing my last semester of advanced Greek, and I find very intriguing what I have learned NOT.
Prepositions at the basic level can have mathmatic exactness and scientific precision, more so than in English, but at an advanced level, they might NOT (notice the use of subjunctive mood).
Tenses have more to do with the type of action (progressive or punctiliar) in Greek, NOT as much with the time of action as in English.
Greek infinitives can NOT be translated exactly into English, since Greek is an inflected language and English is not.
Greek participles can NOT be translated into English as well as Greek infinitives can. Greek does NOT have gerunds.
Nearly all of these grammatical considerations came up in class when we translated John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 from the Septuagint.
ALL of these arguments came up in the early church councils, and those guys understood the Greek nuances much better than we do. They still disagreed, and the only way it was settled was in 381 AD when Theodosius laid down the law.
By the way, the ancients had some very different ideas from ours about what it means to exist. Is being itself a thing? Is it solitary? If so, how can "coming into being" come into being?
The ancients did not attribute what we think of as "perfection" to God, because they thought that would put limits on Him, and He can't be limited.
then one would have to be able to define perfection.. or would one? Perfect sets are easier to define, mathematically. Every element of a perfect set is a limit point of the set.. at least I think. I wonder how much mathematical analysis grew out of theology.. at least some of the terms..
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
Eh,
WHERE is the website link?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
It didn't add it... hold on
I updated it... But I can't get it to hyper link
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I DON'T believe the Trinity because to me it is the best answer to what scripture portrays.
The first link in your post works. Otherwise, Wordwolf, you could try copy and paste into your browser.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
It wasn't on there at first.. I have to put http:// before the www. for it to show....
The more you know :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Clarifying for Naten00, who sought my advice before posting this.
I am "a" moderator here. I am not "the" moderator and I am not the site owner.
Welcome, and happy posting.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
[quote name=Naten00' date='16 April 2013 - 09:09 AM' timestamp='1366128591' post='551710'
So please read it and share it with others on other social media like facebook and twitter!
I ask people read what I wrote and then discuss on this thread what they think on the certain topics that I am talking about in regards to the book Jesus Christ is Not God...
Hey Naten00, welcome to the GSC. Thanks for posting.
I read your blogs like you suggested and if I find valuable information for sharing with other I will share them on facebook and twitter. Pertaining to the book you are reading and blogging about, I never believed Jesus was God. It didn't take a book to reveal to me what I had already known before I ever heard of VP weirwille's book.
To me, (you may believe differently than I do), put simply Jesus never existed but in the mind of God before he was made man. Any child trying to put the trinity of God together understands that God is God and has always been. Jesus was a man, and had a beginning, unlike God.
You Said,
"Knowing that προς is a word showing deep connection between two persons physically present",
The word WITH, translated here, or pros, which weirwille tried to describe as together with, but distinctly independent of, still doesn't make apple to oranges and oranges to apples.
Welcome again Naten00.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I kinda see Jesus as being with God his Father from the beginning like this:
A couple decide they want a child. They make sure they're both as healthy as they can be. They try to find a safe place to raise their child. They work so that they have a home, a roof over their heads - and that of their baby. They have funds in the bank to help pay the expenses of the baby. They get themselves ready. Their preparations might take years, depending on their ages and situations in life.
Their child is "with" them all this time, in their thinking, their plans, their dreams, call it what you will. Others may "buy into" this - grandparents setting up trust funds, educational arrangements, etc.
But the child has no existence, other than in the wannabe parents' minds.
Everything we understand from the Bible tells us that Jesus was in God's thoughts and plans from the beginning. That doesn't mean he existed.
We were "chosen in him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4) - we also were in God's thoughts and plans from a long time before we were born. That doesn't mean we existed. Does it?
Or do you think we were playing games with Jesus in some place in the sky before any of us landed on Earth?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
I was starting off with the clearer verses with a point that we can't force any verse over another.
For example John 8:58 "Before Abraham was I AM"
Jesus was in a heated discussion with those who were fallowing him and after wards threw stones at him...
The greek rendition of this verse goes as follows. πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι
Literally translated "Prior to abraham came into existence I exist."
The phrase εγω ειμι is the emphatic use of the word ειμι
Jesus is proclaiming existence before Abraham came into being.
It doesn't matter how many times Jesus prayed to God. This statement is an emphatic true or false statement.
Jesus also said in John 17:5 in His prayer to the father
"Father give me the glory I had with you before the world existed"
How does foreknowledge have glory with the father? It can't
The usages of foreknowledge are of events or of those who are called... You can still foreknow someone and them exist.
Both literally must both be true at the same time....
Jesus said he pre-existed... He may not have claimed to be God... But he definitely claimed to be present before the world was here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
No, that's what the Pharisees came away with,
but they were deliberately obstuse all chapter.
Jesus was teaching when they interrupted him and tried to entrap him with sparing
that woman's life. They failed, and then they interrupted him directly and
repeatedly, generally misunderstanding him while making themselves sound all holy.
Jesus kept saying one thing, and the Pharisees kept saying he said something else.
As for me, if they claim Jesus said one thing, I'm confident that whatever he said,
it was something else.
John 8:51-58 (KJV)
51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
They said he was possessed. They said he said people would never die instead of asking
what he meant. Jesus was either an idiot or meant something else. Jesus was NOT an idiot.
I believe Jesus was correct, and that he was smart enough not to mean they wouldn't ever
drop dead. (All his disciples dropped dead-I don't think that was a shock to him.)
Jesus said Abraham saw Jesus' day. Jesus' day was either when he was speaking, or a time
yet to come when he said it. Abraham most assuredly was NOT alive when Jesus was born,
let alone preaching. So, Jesus didn't mean Abraham was alive watching him.
Few of us would contest that Jesus said that Abraham foresaw Jesus, saw a vision of Jesus
or was otherwise informed by God Almighty of Jesus.
Of course, they didn't even get that far. Jesus said Abraham (in the past, dead guy)
saw Jesus (in the present and future, living guy.)
They said Jesus said he, Jesus (present and future) saw Abraham (past.)
Did Jesus mean that? He neither said it nor confirmed it, and they had a horrible track
record of reporting what he actually said and meant. We can see that right here.
Jesus then said what is under much contention.
"Before Abraham was, I am."
First of all, we're both just addressing what's actually said, which will save a lot
of time.
Jesus did NOT say "Before Abraham was, I was."
That would have been a clear claim of preexisting Abraham, which is odd for him to do-
especially after avoiding claiming he preexisted Abraham when he said Abraham saw him/his day.
Jesus easily COULD have said something like
"When I saw Abraham, I was pleased" or "When I met Abraham, he was glad".
Instead, it was both non-interactive and one-sided. Abraham sure sounded like he
preexisted Jesus about 2 verses back.
But Jesus existed in the present, and seemed to understand that he did.
He used the present tense in his verb about himself. He didn't make any claims of himself
and the past.
Abraham WAS. Past tense. I AM. Present tense.
If I WAS, then I preexisted before the present.
If I AM, then I exist in the present.
So far, all clear. The only thing that isn't fairly straightforward is the word
"BEFORE." It's being taken to mean a reference to existing in the past.
This becomes peculiar.
So, since we're talking of English, we can speak of the two meanings of "before."
AFAIK, they should remain consistent with the Greek.
The word "before" can refer to either PREEMINENCE, or of the PAST.
If Jesus meant preeminence, then he said that his (Jesus) existence in the present
was preeminent to Abraham's existence in the past. Compared to Jesus,
Abraham is a footnote in human history-and Abraham knew it.
IF that's what Jesus meant, then there's no confusion.
Jesus came much later, but was much more important.
And all the verses agree.
If Jesus meant the PAST, then we saw him previously AVOID claiming to exist prior
to Abraham. When they claimed he said he saw Abraham, he did anything but say
"Yes."
Jesus was in God Almighty's plans before Adam arrived. All God's plans, as they
unfolded, had Jesus in mind centuries later and were planned with Jesus taken
into account. (Maintain the bloodline, keep a remnant faithful, keep humanity
alive...)
That was true when Abraham was alive. Jesus was still very much a future reality
as concerns existence, but in God's plan, he was almost an artifact of the
blueprints. Jesus existed in the present, Abraham existed in the past-
but Jesus' present existence "predated" Abraham who died long before Jesus
was born because Jesus was the big plan. God knew it, and planned accordingly.
Pieces were on the board thousands of years earlier than Jesus' birth only to
play a bit part of Jesus' life. (Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego and other
Jews were kidnapped and raised away from Israel- all so they could spread
teachings to "wise men" (Magi) who would later appear and play their own
small, necessary part in Jesus' early life.
Magi: Here's some expensive, easy-to-sell stuff, Joseph!
God: Joseph, move your family immediately- Herod wants you dead.
Joseph: Good thing I have enough money to move immediately and provide for
my family-carpenters aren't rich...
Of course, that could even go both ways-
Jesus, the preeminent one, "existed" in the plans long before he was born,
"existing", so to speak, before he literally existed.
Naturally, some people will disagree with me.
However, I see this at least as PLAUSIBLE even if I disagreed with it,
and it DOES explain how one could be born at time A and be referred
to before that yet not be said to have been there. It was an oddly PRECISE
phrase which, I think, is commonly read IMprecisely.
However one interprets the accounts, one's overall view should account for
ALL the verses so that they ALL make sense. No matter one's position, that
means SOME verses will be harder to explain than others.
Unless one begins with the premise that some verses won't make sense.
I reject that premise just as the original poster did-
but some do not.
I can reiterate my point here, but for now, I don't think
I have to.
If Jesus was part of God's Plan from before Adam,
and was written into the stars,
and all the prophets spoke of him,
then he assuredly had glory in God before his birth.
Why would it be such a jump to think that Jesus would
have glory "IN GOD" (who was all that existed before
"In The Beginning") when God's plan for thousands of
years revolved around him, from times predating 4000 BC
to times following 2012 AD?
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
Vp's book claimed and made the argument that there were approximately 4 scriptures which when compared to hundreds of others made the case whether he claimed to be God or the son of God. I don't have access to the book anymore but I believe this was one of them.
This is just another example of reading into scripture and erroneously making the case without an accurate account of the testimony of the bible. What are we really engaging here? Is it the existence of Christ, or the pre-existence of Christ? If He, Christ were God he would have said just that, and therefore there would not be any discussion about his pre-existence.
God's plan involved the existence of a savior.
1John 1-3: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life:
2 For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life which was manifested to us;
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us, and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his son Jesus Christ.
From the beginning God's plan was the existence of a savior. God proclaimed the existence of Christ without Christ having actually having existed. This is why I referred earlier to a child understanding these things. Because we've become clouded with the theories of and for the existence of Godman. Jesus wasn't God. God wasn't a man. A child understands this. (not that I'm calling you a child Naten00). We just need to look into the scriptures as a child for understanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Glad to see someone is still keeping up the fight about Jesus not being God. I have been studying what Paul was teaching through this cool teacher, his name is Curt Crist, but he teaches that Jesus is God junk. Keep up the good work, check out what this Curt dude is teaching about what Paul was teaching, it is cool stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
49 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”
52 At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”
Yes like everyone they didn't like what Jesus was saying... Anyone would think you were nuts saying what Jesus was saying...
54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
Here Jesus is saying Abraham looked forward to seeing Jesus daying being at that moment in time...
57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
They put 2 and 2 together... Making the right next questioning statement because if Jesus ONLY existed starting from his birth that is impossible to know
58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Jesus then gives the answer to their most logical response... A lot better translation than "Before Abraham was, I am"
This is the greek rendering in the text
πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι
the word γενεσθαι means to come into existence It is the aorist middle infinitive form of the verb γινομαι
the words εγω ειμι εγω is I and ειμι meaning to be or to exist... It is the same phrase used in the Septuagint the Old Testament in Greek created 200 bc when God says I am that I am in hebrew it means I exist that I exist...
So Jesus answers their question with a statement of origin... The reason why Jesus uses the present verb ειμι after say
"Before Abraham came into existence" is because he was making the statement of being present at the moment in time in order to observe Abrahams actions... Because that is the context for εγω ειμι.
So it would be
Before Abraham came into existence, I exist
There just isn't another way to read it in the immediate context...
Unlike my trinitarian colleagues I don't think this statement proclaims him being God.. I think the only thing you can grasp from this is that Jesus thought he existed before Abraham...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Good point. What if you, I, and all the rest of every living organism existed before the incarnation of Abraham..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
It would be a pretty wild claim, wouldn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
Yes. it would, but we did. In God's foreknowledge.
Called before [before there wasn't anything but God] the foundations of the world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
When I was a kid, we speculated on his middle name.
(We concluded it must have been Herman.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Before Abraham came into existence, I exist
There just isn't another way to read it in the immediate context...
Unlike my trinitarian colleagues I don't think this statement proclaims him being God.. I think the only thing you can grasp from this is that Jesus thought he existed before Abraham...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Exist" isn't really that different all from "am" - I am, I exist. They both basically mean the same thing.
Abraham was a man who existed at a point of time. Jesus didn't every exist prior to Abraham, in that way.
I would say that we all need to agree on that first - Jesus didn't not say that He existed as a man before Abraham. Jesus was born, the man Jesus had a beginning. If I believe in a multi-personality deity that is still a true statement.
If we can accept that as a true statement - that the man Jesus was born and did not exist before Abraham, but He did say that He did in fact - "exist" -
Then we need to understand what that existence was.
I know there's a format to this discussion but I would add right up front I am not a trinitarian by any stripe. I don't see that Jesus Christ spoke as one who understood Himself to be "God", it's not a natural assumption if I simply read the gospels. And historically I see that the theological premise(s) that began to develop that perception of Jesus as God took time and led to it as a conclusion but not one that was strongly driven by scripture itself, rather it's an intellectual exercise and conclusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
maybe we need to define existence.. when did you, presonally, exist? Maybe that is the big question..
before Abraham, after Abraham..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
The same could be said of us today, now...... in this day and age.
|----------------------------|----------------------------|----------------------------------|--------------------------------|-----------------------------|----------
^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^
Let's look at existence like a time line.
Existence is infinite. We exist. Have we lived before? Not physically. But most definitely, we existed in God's infinite wisdom.
No one doubts that Jesus existed! Nor do we doubt that Jesus still exists. Jesus exists, we exist. If we die, we will exist again.
Existence is infinite.
Edited by Human without the beanLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I would agree with that Human - I think that's a very simple non-voodoo understanding of what it means to "exist"....
In the way described earlier - my own son "existed" in my mind before he was born, my "Intents" were clearly to have a son, him. He then had a beginning, a birth, where that intention came into being.
"Logos" - John 1 describes Jesus correctly then, as the logos of God.
We know Jesus was born, we know Jesus died. The significance of Jesus, the Christ is that He DID have a beginning and end, and a resurrection that was completely outside the planning or forethought of mankind. His "ascension" is to a place at the right hand of God - one that He then assumed. God's intentions are now known.
Another aspect to the existence is our side of it - there is no existence for us, no being or "am" - until we are born and then gain awareness. I suppose one could argue that we exist in some former state in the big never never land of wherever - but if we do, we don't know it. Not cognitively the way we learn to know our own existence, when we do.
I actually think that is the one single most vital aspect to an understanding of who God "is", who we are and who Jesus Christ "is".
We all share life together but each of us is a single, non repeatable instance of life, there is only one of us that knows that we are "us"....Again, we can postulate a lot of what ifs and maybe's but practically speaking the only verifiable life that we have is this one, and when it's over, all other considerations aside, that collection of memories dies with us. We accumulate a completely unique set of experiences and memories.
God too appears to clearly declare Himself through the Bible in the same way - we understand God as a "1", we pray to "a" God that is a Father.
Each child can only have one father.
I can't pretend to understand the conciousness of God and won't pretend to through conclusions but - I do think it's clear that a God that exists for "eternity" - forever, if no beginning and no forseeable end - the state of awareness that we call "memory" and remembering, or knowing....is something I can't even begin to grasp or understand. But I can say that then for there to be a memory that is singular there must be an accumulation of experience this is also singular.
If God made "us" after "His" image............that may be why we are individual and not collections of consciousness. We are "like" God in the most basic fundamental way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think there were a few who came close. Generally.. a friend is one who understands another being that is friend..
Me? I dunno.. I sometimes have a hard time understanding the Cats here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm glad Naten's looking at this but there's at least 2 things I think he's missing in that chapter.
1) He sounds like he thinks the Pharisees were in any way LOGICAL.
They were actively looking for any excuse to discredit Jesus.
They interrupted his teaching and tried to use someone's potential execution to get Jesus
to make a mistake, without even caring what happened to that person.
Follow them through the chapter. They didn't get ANYTHING Jesus said.
That's not specifically because Jesus was speaking illogically.
He was speaking on a level they couldn't understand because they heard his words
but didn't listen to them.
2) The verb tenses of past and present, I think, tell us a lot, and there's a lot
they DON'T say. Jesus never said he predated Abraham. Jesus never said he saw
Abraham. Jesus said he existed in the present. Jesus said Abraham existed in the past.
Yet Abraham-in the past- looked to see Jesus' day-which was in the present.
Abraham saw what hadn't happened in his time.
That's because God could show Abraham what was planned long before Abraham came along.
Jesus didn't exist yet- and yet, he did, because God's plan concerning Jesus was
complete and set. So, when Jesus was finally conceived and born, he literally
existed for the first time, but reality had been set with him in mind thousands
of years before. He was "there" already.
I don't expect everyone to AGREE with me, but if they can't even see my point,
they aren't trying very hard and probably don't WISH to.
Which is not my problem. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
What WordWolf says makes sense to me.
I'm just finishing my last semester of advanced Greek, and I find very intriguing what I have learned NOT.
Prepositions at the basic level can have mathmatic exactness and scientific precision, more so than in English, but at an advanced level, they might NOT (notice the use of subjunctive mood).
Tenses have more to do with the type of action (progressive or punctiliar) in Greek, NOT as much with the time of action as in English.
Greek infinitives can NOT be translated exactly into English, since Greek is an inflected language and English is not.
Greek participles can NOT be translated into English as well as Greek infinitives can. Greek does NOT have gerunds.
Nearly all of these grammatical considerations came up in class when we translated John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 from the Septuagint.
ALL of these arguments came up in the early church councils, and those guys understood the Greek nuances much better than we do. They still disagreed, and the only way it was settled was in 381 AD when Theodosius laid down the law.
By the way, the ancients had some very different ideas from ours about what it means to exist. Is being itself a thing? Is it solitary? If so, how can "coming into being" come into being?
The ancients did not attribute what we think of as "perfection" to God, because they thought that would put limits on Him, and He can't be limited.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
then one would have to be able to define perfection.. or would one? Perfect sets are easier to define, mathematically. Every element of a perfect set is a limit point of the set.. at least I think. I wonder how much mathematical analysis grew out of theology.. at least some of the terms..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.