Was Jesus a spirit being before coming to earth as a human?
- Thread starter Robert Gwin
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
It is those who "Christ is in" the holy ones through whom the spiritual food comes to the congregations of God maam. They are referred to as Christ's brothers, and Christians who are not anointed support these brothers in their assignment, in fact that is the basis of their judging Mat 25:40
It would have been easier to have simply said Jesus, we agree. Did you pick up on the part that this personified "wisdom" was the first creation? I see you also went on to include that he was the master worker as well as found in verse 30, what is the significance of that maam?
How can it be “direct communication “ VIA A MEDIATOR “ …Sounds like an oxymoron to me LOL
I say that sadly you have swallowed the koolaid
I didn't inhale
. It kinda does doesn't it Helen. It is simple however, under the new covenant, we are told to pray directly to Jehovah Mat 6:9, later Jesus included these words: (John 15:16) . . .no matter what you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.He is the mediator for sure: (1 Timothy 2:5) . . .For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus,
Pythagorean12
Active Member
VictoryinJesus
Well-Known Member
- Jan 26, 2017
- 9,669
- 7,924
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
“Wisdom” was the first creation? …Spirit? Was that the question of the thread? Was the first creation…Spirit? For This wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. James 3:14-18 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. [15] This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. [16] For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. [17] But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. [18] And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
“I see you went on to include he was the master worker as well as found in verse 30, what is the significance of that maam?”
wisdom builds her house? Which house does bitter envying, strife, earthly, sensual, devilish, lying against the truth build?
Rejected by the builders…“The master builder” no other foundation can man lay than that which was laid, which is Jesus Christ. The chief corner stone? (Rejected) Where The forerunner has entered in, having this Hope as an anchor by which “run not in vain” …
John 10:25-30 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. [26] But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. [27] My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: [28] And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. [29] My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. [30] I and my Father are one.
John 5:36-37 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. [37] And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
I’ve lost though what the disagreement is? Do you hear the risen Christ in that proverb, full of Wisdom and Mercy coming out from ‘the bosom’ of God the Father? Considering “out from His bosom” with every good gift comes from God. Considering how wonderful and gracious God gives out from His bosom, testifying of the Son. John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
The opposition would be Proverbs 17:23 A wicked man taketh a gift out of the bosom to pervert the ways of judgment.
If Wisdom was the first creation “prepared”before all things and by all thing, by the side of God …was Wisdom present when the Spirit of God moved over the void and darkness saying “let there be Light” who is speaking in “a body you have prepared for me”? And “let there be Light” there had to be before some foreknowledge, an already knowing as existence of “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.” John 12:46
Again, what am I missing? What is the argument or disagreement? Who do you say He is?
Last edited:
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
I think Jesus was God in flesh, so it was correct to call him Emmanuel (God with us).
Jesus is that wisdom of Proverbs 8, and with the exception of himself, he was privileged to have everything else that was created come through his hands as Jehovah's master worker. Col 1:16. I just thought it was nice that you brought out Pro 8 to begin with, many are unaware of what that means maam.
Who spoke from heaven at Jesus' baptism Bob, and why did Jesus say that God was a spirit while he was in the flesh? Jn 4:24 No sir, I think Jesus was correct when he pointed out that God sent him to the world Jn 3:16. Certainly God is with mankind by sending the means for our redemption.
Are you familiar with the event that foreshadowed Jesus' sacrifice? There was a reason why Jehovah asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, that was a symbolic prophecy of Jehovah offering up His son as well. No sir, Jehovah and Jesus are not the same individual. Not to mention the fact if Jesus is God he point blank lied at Mk 10:40 and 13:32, what hope would we have from a god that is a liar?
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
So many questions.
It was God speaking to Jesus. I would say God was speaking to himself for our benefit.
Jesus said God was spirit because God was spirit. Was it beyond God's capability to be spirit, while at the same time walking the earth in the flesh?
I am familiar with the account of Jesus' sacrifice.
When did I say God was a liar?
Jesus clearly told the mother of James and John that he did not have the authority to grant her sons to sit on his right or left, and he did not know the day or hour, but Jehovah did. So if Jesus is God, he lied. We have no hope from any god who is a liar sir. That would definitely explain why satan rebelled, but I think that was not the case of why he rebelled.
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
Jesus (God) is bound by love. Therefore he could not allow James and John to sit on his right or left, because they had not earned that honor.
Please show me the Bible verse regarding Jesus not knowing the day or hour.
Mk 13:32: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father
Do you believe Jesus when he said this Bob: “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” ?
Yes, Jesus was a spiritual being before God changed him into human form.
Colossians 1 (WEB):
Jesus is now a spirit being again, and Christians are promised, as members of Christ's body, that they will have the same nature as Jesus now has - the divine nature - the highest form of spirit being, having immortality:
John 4:24 (WEB): God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 17:5 (WEB): Now, Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.
As I understand it, Jesus existed with God before the universe was created. The whole universe, and all physical life on earth, was created by Jesus as directed by God. Even all the heavenly spirit beings - angels, cherubim and seraphim - were also created by Jesus. So Jesus could not have been a physical being at that time (physical matter had yet to be created), and therefore he could only have been a spiritual being.
Colossians 1 (WEB):
(16) For by him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, 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 in him all things are held together.
Revelation 3:14 (TLV):(17) He is before all things, and in him all things are held together.
(14) To the angel of Messiah’s community in Laodicea write: “Thus says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Originator of God’s creation:
Jesus is now a spirit being again, and Christians are promised, as members of Christ's body, that they will have the same nature as Jesus now has - the divine nature - the highest form of spirit being, having immortality:
John 4:24 (WEB): God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 17:5 (WEB): Now, Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.
(God more than answered that prayer, granting him the immortal divine nature - previously he was mortal.)
2 Peter 1:4 (WEB): ... he has granted to us his precious and exceedingly great promises; that through these you may become partakers of the divine nature.
John 1:1
I have another train of thought for you think about. Is what you're reading into John 1 mostly church tradition? For almost 400 years, we have a read John 1 through the eyes of the Catholic Church. (reinforcing the Trinity). In the New Testament, “the Word” (Logos) happens to be of the masculine gender. Therefore, it's pronoun -"he" in our English translations - is a matter of interpretation, not translation. Did John write concerning “the word” that “he” was in the beginning with God or did he write concerning “the word” that “it” was in the beginning with God? As already stated, in the NT Greek the logos or word is masculine noun. It is okay in English to use “he” to refer back to his masculine noun if there is good contextual reason to do so. But is there good reason to make “the word” a “he” here?
It is a fact that all English translations from the Greek before the King James version of 1611 actually read this way: (notice Him and He are now “It”).
Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men
Cranmer 1539
John 1:1 IN the begynnynge was the worde and the worde was wyth God: and God was the worde. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it and without it, was made nothynge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was the lyght of men
Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. 4 In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,
Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.
And now our modern Concordant Literal Version:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men."
The word logos appears many, many more times in this very Gospel of John. And nowhere else do the translators capitalize it or use the masculine personal pronoun "he" to agree with it ! The rest of the New Testament is the same. Logos is variously translated as "statement"
(Luke 20:20), “question" (Matt 21:24), "preaching" (1 Tim 5:17), "command" (Gal 5:14), "message" (Luke 4:32), "matter" (Acts 15:6), "reason" (Acts 10:29), so there is actually no reason to make John one say that "the Word" is the person Jesus himself, unless of course the translators
are wanting to make a point to. In all cases logos is an “it.”
In the light of this background it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, a reason by which He brought all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who he is.
"The Word" for John is an “it” not a "he." On one occasion, Jesus is given the name "the word of God" and this is in Revelations 19:13. This name has been given to him after his resurrection and ascension, but we will not find it before his birth. It is not until we come to verse 14 of John's
prologue that this logos becomes personal and becomes the son of God, Jesus. "And the Word became flesh." A great plan that God had in his heart from before the creation at last is fulfilled. Be very clear that it does not say that God became flesh.
There is even strong evidence suggesting that John himself reacted to those who were already misusing his gospel to mean that Jesus was himself the Word who had personally preexist the world. When later he wrote his introduction to 1 John, he clearly made the point that what was in
the beginning was not a “who” he put it this way: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life…"
Logos - This word is translated in English as "Word". This word has an actual meaning which has been almost completely lost due to the Greek philosophical interpretation of John 1:1-3 & 14. who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. (Rev 1:2)
"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God." (Rev 20:4)
Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God. Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing.
John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one (God) who judges him; the word ( logos ) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
Act 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He ( God) has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
So what does "logos" mean?
Logos - 1. Denotes an internal reasoning process, plan, or intention, as well as an external word. 2. The expression of thought. As embodying a conception or idea (New American Bible (footnote) & Vine’s Expository Dictionary).
According to Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, it also means: Logos - the inward thought which is expressed in the spoken word.
I will give you a brief paraphrase of John 1:1-3 using the definitions for "logos:"
"In the beginning was God's plan, will, or idea for our salvation. It was present in his mind, and God's plan or will possessed all the attributes of God."
The very Trinitarian Roman Catholic New American Bible has this comment on this verse:
"Lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."
Predication - to affirm as a quality or attribute (Webster's Dictionary).
So how does the Word (logos) become flesh in John 1:14? Let me use an example which most of us can relate to. We are all familiar with the expression, "was this baby planned?" Let's say it was planned. You and your wife had a plan to have a baby. You had a logos, a plan. Your plan (logos) became flesh the day that your baby was born. In the same way, God's plan of salvation for us became a reality, became flesh, when Jesus was born. This verse is probably one of the biggest culprits in the creation of the trinity. The reason being that to someone educated in Greek philosophy such as the early church fathers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, centuries, logos had an entirely different meaning. Tertullian who was responsible for much of the creation of the trinity was a Stoic lawyer. The Stoics defined "logos" as the "divine principle of life." Which is basically a definition of God. With this definition you are going to arrive at a completely different interpretation than what John intended. You will interpret it something like this:
"In the beginning was the divine principle of life, and the divine principle of life was with God, and the divine principle of life was God. Then, the divine principle of life became flesh."
With this definition you arrive at the conclusion that the divine principle of life, which is God, became flesh. Now you have God's essence in two places at once. The explanation for this obvious problem came in the form of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Then you have God's essence in flesh, so the description of Jesus becomes that he is fully God and fully man. These concepts come straight out of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophers believed that man was composed of flesh and a divine spark.
John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word (logos) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, He is not the Logos!
I hope this information helps to clear up the confusion the translators causes in 1611.
Paul
I have another train of thought for you think about. Is what you're reading into John 1 mostly church tradition? For almost 400 years, we have a read John 1 through the eyes of the Catholic Church. (reinforcing the Trinity). In the New Testament, “the Word” (Logos) happens to be of the masculine gender. Therefore, it's pronoun -"he" in our English translations - is a matter of interpretation, not translation. Did John write concerning “the word” that “he” was in the beginning with God or did he write concerning “the word” that “it” was in the beginning with God? As already stated, in the NT Greek the logos or word is masculine noun. It is okay in English to use “he” to refer back to his masculine noun if there is good contextual reason to do so. But is there good reason to make “the word” a “he” here?
It is a fact that all English translations from the Greek before the King James version of 1611 actually read this way: (notice Him and He are now “It”).
Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men
Cranmer 1539
John 1:1 IN the begynnynge was the worde and the worde was wyth God: and God was the worde. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it and without it, was made nothynge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was the lyght of men
Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. 4 In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,
Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.
And now our modern Concordant Literal Version:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men."
The word logos appears many, many more times in this very Gospel of John. And nowhere else do the translators capitalize it or use the masculine personal pronoun "he" to agree with it ! The rest of the New Testament is the same. Logos is variously translated as "statement"
(Luke 20:20), “question" (Matt 21:24), "preaching" (1 Tim 5:17), "command" (Gal 5:14), "message" (Luke 4:32), "matter" (Acts 15:6), "reason" (Acts 10:29), so there is actually no reason to make John one say that "the Word" is the person Jesus himself, unless of course the translators
are wanting to make a point to. In all cases logos is an “it.”
In the light of this background it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, a reason by which He brought all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who he is.
"The Word" for John is an “it” not a "he." On one occasion, Jesus is given the name "the word of God" and this is in Revelations 19:13. This name has been given to him after his resurrection and ascension, but we will not find it before his birth. It is not until we come to verse 14 of John's
prologue that this logos becomes personal and becomes the son of God, Jesus. "And the Word became flesh." A great plan that God had in his heart from before the creation at last is fulfilled. Be very clear that it does not say that God became flesh.
There is even strong evidence suggesting that John himself reacted to those who were already misusing his gospel to mean that Jesus was himself the Word who had personally preexist the world. When later he wrote his introduction to 1 John, he clearly made the point that what was in
the beginning was not a “who” he put it this way: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life…"
Logos - This word is translated in English as "Word". This word has an actual meaning which has been almost completely lost due to the Greek philosophical interpretation of John 1:1-3 & 14. who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. (Rev 1:2)
"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God." (Rev 20:4)
Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God. Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing.
John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one (God) who judges him; the word ( logos ) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
Act 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He ( God) has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
So what does "logos" mean?
Logos - 1. Denotes an internal reasoning process, plan, or intention, as well as an external word. 2. The expression of thought. As embodying a conception or idea (New American Bible (footnote) & Vine’s Expository Dictionary).
According to Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, it also means: Logos - the inward thought which is expressed in the spoken word.
I will give you a brief paraphrase of John 1:1-3 using the definitions for "logos:"
"In the beginning was God's plan, will, or idea for our salvation. It was present in his mind, and God's plan or will possessed all the attributes of God."
The very Trinitarian Roman Catholic New American Bible has this comment on this verse:
"Lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."
Predication - to affirm as a quality or attribute (Webster's Dictionary).
So how does the Word (logos) become flesh in John 1:14? Let me use an example which most of us can relate to. We are all familiar with the expression, "was this baby planned?" Let's say it was planned. You and your wife had a plan to have a baby. You had a logos, a plan. Your plan (logos) became flesh the day that your baby was born. In the same way, God's plan of salvation for us became a reality, became flesh, when Jesus was born. This verse is probably one of the biggest culprits in the creation of the trinity. The reason being that to someone educated in Greek philosophy such as the early church fathers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, centuries, logos had an entirely different meaning. Tertullian who was responsible for much of the creation of the trinity was a Stoic lawyer. The Stoics defined "logos" as the "divine principle of life." Which is basically a definition of God. With this definition you are going to arrive at a completely different interpretation than what John intended. You will interpret it something like this:
"In the beginning was the divine principle of life, and the divine principle of life was with God, and the divine principle of life was God. Then, the divine principle of life became flesh."
With this definition you arrive at the conclusion that the divine principle of life, which is God, became flesh. Now you have God's essence in two places at once. The explanation for this obvious problem came in the form of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Then you have God's essence in flesh, so the description of Jesus becomes that he is fully God and fully man. These concepts come straight out of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophers believed that man was composed of flesh and a divine spark.
John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word (logos) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, He is not the Logos!
I hope this information helps to clear up the confusion the translators causes in 1611.
Paul
I Am
There has been quite a bit of discussion on John 8:58. What happened to this verse as to confuse so many? Let's start in Exodus.
KJV Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Now we shall read the same verse from the Greek Septuagint
Septuagint Exo 3:14 και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην [εγω ειμι ο ων] και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ [ο ων] απεσταλκεν με προς υμας
Note the two separate Greek words used for 'am'
Concordant Literal Version Exo 3:14 Then Elohim spoke to Moses: I shall come to be just as I am coming to be. And He said: Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, I-Shall-Come-to-Be has sent me to you.
Now when translated literally you get a whole different look. What happened to the other I am's?
The Hebrew Bible uses the word (hâyâh H1961) in the place of "Am" which is a verb meaning to exist, to be.
Check the Strongs' number.
Clearly Jesus did not say (εγω ειμι ο ων) nor did he state (ο ων), in John 8:58. Jesus spoke the words (εγω ειμι) just like other people in the bible who are not God. So just what was Jesus saying?
But what about the great "I Am him" statement of Jesus? Especially that classic one in John 8:58 where Jesus says, "Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born I am"?
Surely here Jesus makes the same claim for himself that Jehovah God made back in Exodus 3 where the LORD says to Moses at the burning Bush "I Am Who I Am." Surely Jesus is claiming to be the I AM of the Old Testament as Trinitarian belief asserts?
Now here is something very obvious that they never told me in church. This expression from Jesus' lips "I am" (Greek ego eimi) occurs throughout the Gospel of John and in no other text in John can it mean I AM, the God of the Old Testament.
Go back to John 4:25-26 for instance. The woman at the well said to Jesus, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when that one comes, he will declare all things to us." And Jesus said to her, "I who speak with you am he." You will notice that in most Bibles that word he is in italics. This means that the translators have correctly supplied a word in English that is not in the Greek but that nevertheless makes the intended sense quite clear. Here Jesus says to the woman - in the context of her question about the Messiah - that he is the Messiah, the Christ. "I who speak to you am he." In the Greek it reads ego eimi. Jesus simply says I am he, the Messiah. Definitely not “I am is the one speaking to you!”
In John 9 Jesus heals the blind man. Is this really the beggar who used to sit groping in the dark? Some people said, "Yes, it's him all right." Other said, "No, he just looks like him." But the beggar says, "ego eimi!" And the translators have no problem writing, "I am the one." So why aren't the translators consistent? Why not capitalize what this man says as I AM? Because it is clear that he is not claiming to be the God of the Old Testament. Saying "I am" (ego eimi) does not make somebody God in the Bible!
What Jesus is saying is simply “Before Abraham was born, I am he,” that is, "I am the Messiah."
Notice the context in John 8:56 where Jesus says, "Abraham rejoiced to see my day." By faith Abraham looked forward and saw the coming Messiah before he came in history. He believed the promise that God would send the Promised One. On the other hand these Jews did not believe that Jesus was their Messiah. They were claiming to be Abraham's descendents. Jesus said that this was impossible for they did not recognize him as their Messiah. But Jesus asserts that even before Abraham was born, he is the One who was always in God's plan. This Abraham believe and saw. The Messiah preexisted in God's plan and therefore in Abraham's believing mind, because he trusted the promise of God. Jesus positively did not say, before Abraham was, I was." Also, Jesus did not say, “Before Abraham was, I AM WHAT I AM."
The conclusion is inevitable. Jesus’ claim "Before Abraham was born, I am he" is the straightforward claim that he is the long promised one, the Messiah, the One in question. Jesus is the Savior in God's promise even before Abraham was born.
The Jewish leaders were very well aware of what Jesus was saying about himself! Jesus Was not claiming to be God but the Son of God as Shown in John 19:6. They give the very reason they wanted Him dead!
John 19:6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. 7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
Jesus, NEVER claimed to be God!
There has been quite a bit of discussion on John 8:58. What happened to this verse as to confuse so many? Let's start in Exodus.
KJV Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Now we shall read the same verse from the Greek Septuagint
Septuagint Exo 3:14 και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην [εγω ειμι ο ων] και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ [ο ων] απεσταλκεν με προς υμας
Note the two separate Greek words used for 'am'
Concordant Literal Version Exo 3:14 Then Elohim spoke to Moses: I shall come to be just as I am coming to be. And He said: Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, I-Shall-Come-to-Be has sent me to you.
Now when translated literally you get a whole different look. What happened to the other I am's?
The Hebrew Bible uses the word (hâyâh H1961) in the place of "Am" which is a verb meaning to exist, to be.
Check the Strongs' number.
Clearly Jesus did not say (εγω ειμι ο ων) nor did he state (ο ων), in John 8:58. Jesus spoke the words (εγω ειμι) just like other people in the bible who are not God. So just what was Jesus saying?
But what about the great "I Am him" statement of Jesus? Especially that classic one in John 8:58 where Jesus says, "Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born I am"?
Surely here Jesus makes the same claim for himself that Jehovah God made back in Exodus 3 where the LORD says to Moses at the burning Bush "I Am Who I Am." Surely Jesus is claiming to be the I AM of the Old Testament as Trinitarian belief asserts?
Now here is something very obvious that they never told me in church. This expression from Jesus' lips "I am" (Greek ego eimi) occurs throughout the Gospel of John and in no other text in John can it mean I AM, the God of the Old Testament.
Go back to John 4:25-26 for instance. The woman at the well said to Jesus, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when that one comes, he will declare all things to us." And Jesus said to her, "I who speak with you am he." You will notice that in most Bibles that word he is in italics. This means that the translators have correctly supplied a word in English that is not in the Greek but that nevertheless makes the intended sense quite clear. Here Jesus says to the woman - in the context of her question about the Messiah - that he is the Messiah, the Christ. "I who speak to you am he." In the Greek it reads ego eimi. Jesus simply says I am he, the Messiah. Definitely not “I am is the one speaking to you!”
In John 9 Jesus heals the blind man. Is this really the beggar who used to sit groping in the dark? Some people said, "Yes, it's him all right." Other said, "No, he just looks like him." But the beggar says, "ego eimi!" And the translators have no problem writing, "I am the one." So why aren't the translators consistent? Why not capitalize what this man says as I AM? Because it is clear that he is not claiming to be the God of the Old Testament. Saying "I am" (ego eimi) does not make somebody God in the Bible!
What Jesus is saying is simply “Before Abraham was born, I am he,” that is, "I am the Messiah."
Notice the context in John 8:56 where Jesus says, "Abraham rejoiced to see my day." By faith Abraham looked forward and saw the coming Messiah before he came in history. He believed the promise that God would send the Promised One. On the other hand these Jews did not believe that Jesus was their Messiah. They were claiming to be Abraham's descendents. Jesus said that this was impossible for they did not recognize him as their Messiah. But Jesus asserts that even before Abraham was born, he is the One who was always in God's plan. This Abraham believe and saw. The Messiah preexisted in God's plan and therefore in Abraham's believing mind, because he trusted the promise of God. Jesus positively did not say, before Abraham was, I was." Also, Jesus did not say, “Before Abraham was, I AM WHAT I AM."
The conclusion is inevitable. Jesus’ claim "Before Abraham was born, I am he" is the straightforward claim that he is the long promised one, the Messiah, the One in question. Jesus is the Savior in God's promise even before Abraham was born.
The Jewish leaders were very well aware of what Jesus was saying about himself! Jesus Was not claiming to be God but the Son of God as Shown in John 19:6. They give the very reason they wanted Him dead!
John 19:6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. 7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
Jesus, NEVER claimed to be God!
GRACE ambassador
Well-Known Member
Jesus is a man anointed by God? Are you sure about this? As sure as woodpeckers peck. How do you understand the following verses?
Acts 2:22 – "Jesus the Nazorean was a MAN commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst."
Now you tell me which part of this verse is hard to understand. What is Jesus according to Peter?
- A Godman
- A God
- A man
Acts 10:40 – This MAN God raised on the third day."
It doesn’t get any simpler than this. There is no way to misunderstand this verse. Okay, let’s see if your catching on.
- Who did God raise? That’s right, this MAN!
- Who raised this MAN? Bingo, God!
- Whom Did God appoint? A MAN.
- Who appointed this MAN? God.
1 Timothy 2:5 – "For there is one God and one mediator also between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus."
1. Who is the mediator? The MAN Christ Jesus.
2. Who is he the mediator between? God and men.
He is not the mediator between himself and men, but between God and men. You can see that Jesus is not considered in the term "God."
1 Corinthians 15: 21 –"For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man"
So wait, I think I’ve got it now. He is a MAN anointed by God. Yessirree Bob! Hallelujah! So that’s what Peter was saying in Acts.
Acts 10:38 – "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy Spirit and power.
1.Who did God anoint? Jesus.
2.Who anointed Jesus? God.
It’s easy once you get the hang of it. The problem with Trinitarians is that in order to substantiate the Trinity, they have to read a passage like this and then say that Jesus is God. You can read, can’t you? It doesn’t say that Jesus is God. But they have to stick to it or their whole doctrine is ruined. So basically they end up with the following interpretation of such a simple verse
"How God anointed God with God."
Is that what you get out of it? As Isaiah pointed out earlier, the Messiah is a man anointed by YHWH. He is supposed to be a prophet from among their own kinsmen. The following is a Messianic prophecy spoken by none other than Moses.
Deuteronomy 18:18 – "And the LORD (YHWH) said to me, I will raise up for you a prophet like you FROM AMONG YOUR OWN KINSMEN, and will put my words into his mouth; he shall tell them all that I command him."
Did the Apostles know that Jesus was a MAN from among their own kinsmen? Of course they did. They quoted this verse in reference to Jesus in Acts.
Acts 3:20-22 – "And that the Lord may grant you times of refreshment and send you the Messiah already appointed for you…For Moses said; A prophet like me will the Lord (YHWH), your God raise up for you FROM AMONG YOUR OWN KINSMEN."
Wow! They did know! Of course they knew. This is what the Old Testament predicted of the Messiah. Let's now look at the famous suffering servant of Isaiah 53 states:
Isaiah 53:3 – "He was spurned and avoided by men, a MAN of suffering."
The Apostle Matthew quotes Isaiah 53 in Matthew 8:17. Peter quotes Isaiah 53 in 1 Peter 2:22-24. Isaiah 53 is quoted all over the place in the New Testament by all the Apostles. Of course they knew.
Now other things are starting to make sense. Trinitarians claim that since Jesus is fully God at all times, that he is omniscient. That’s a big word. It means all knowing. It means Jesus knows everything about everything. But that’s not what these simple verses say. Revelation’s opening verse states;
Rev. 1:1 – "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him."
1.Whom did God give a revelation to? Jesus.
2.Who gave Jesus a revelation? God.
3.Did Jesus know everything? Nope.
4.Does it make sense to you that God would have to give himself a revelation? Nope.
Mark 13:32 – "But of that hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father."
Do I need to say anything about the verse above? Does Jesus know the hour? Nope. Then he is not omniscient.
Only two more easy verses. This is Jesus himself speaking:
John 17:3 – "Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."
1.Who does Jesus consider the first "you" to be? The ONLY true God.
2.Does Jesus think that he himself is that "you"? Not according to this verse.
3.Who sent Jesus? The only true God.
If Jesus did not consider himself to be God, why should we? Jesus always pointed us to the one who is greater than he, The God of Abraham. Here is probably the simplest verse in the whole Bible on this matter.
Mark 10:18 – "Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."
If you have trouble with this one, I do not think there is much else I can say. Does this sound to you like Jesus believes himself to be God?
CONCLUSION – Jesus is exactly who the Old Testament said he would be, the Christ. A man anointed by the Spirit of God. Jesus knew that he was the anointed one and so did the Apostles and all his followers. It was only centuries later when pagan philosophers had converted to Christianity that this simple truth was almost completely obliterated. If this isn’t the great apostasy, I don’t know what is.
OneIsTheWord
Member
Greeting
how did Christ come?
This was my answer
In 1 John 5:7-9 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son.
In John 16:12-15, I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truths; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.
All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.
Then in 1John 4:6, We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this, we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
In John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus the Christ.
a Note
That which is born of the flesh is flesh. John 3:6
This is He who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not only by water but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness because the Spirit is truth. 1 John 5:6
And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. 1 John 5:8
But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. John 19:34; See Zech 12: 10.
You need to use verses not added by Men many hundreds of years after the scriptures were written.
The Johannine Comma
(1 John 5:7-8)
The so-called Johannine Comma (also called the Comma Johanneum) is a sequence of extra words which appear in 1 John 5:7-8 in some early printed editions of the Greek New Testament. In these editions the verses appear thus (we put backets around the extra words):
ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
The King James Version, which was based upon these editions, gives the following translation:
For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts. In fact, they only appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts. They seem to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts. In the Clementine edition of the Vulgate the verses were printed thus:
Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra:] spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt.
From the Vulgate, then, it seems that the Comma was translated into Greek and inserted into some printed editions of the Greek text, and in a handful of late Greek manuscripts. All scholars consider it to be spurious, and it is not included in modern critical editions of the Greek text, or in the English versions based upon them. For example, the English Standard Version reads:
For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
We give below the comments of Dr. Bruce M. Metzger on 1 John 5:7-8, from his book, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1993).
After μαρτυροῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
(A) External Evidence.
(1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:
· 61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
· 88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
· 221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
· 429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
· 629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
· 636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
· 918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
· 2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.
(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)
(B) Internal Probabilities.
(1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.
For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1 John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, "I. John v. 7 and Luther's German Bible," in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458-463.
Similar threads
