Was Jesus a spirit being before coming to earth as a human?

[Robert Gwin]

I think Jesus was body, soul and human Spirit in the beginning with God.
He was pre-made to eventually replace the first Adam. God transcends time, and personally knew His son Jesus, making everything by, for and through him.
God was never left having to wait for Jesus to be born.
Even the sacrifices of Abel were made in MEMORIAL of the former sacrifice of Jesus before the foundation of the world(Rev 13:8).

The Bible teaches Jesus was the first and only creation done exclusively by Jehovah Himself Truth, Rev 3:14, there was no need for him at that time to replace Adam, as that need was yet a long time away. He was the perfect candidate however, and no doubt Jehovah knew that when He started His creation. he was created a spirit being as are all the heavenly beings are.

 

[Robert Gwin]

No one comes to Yehovah unless the Father draws them.

Are you blaming Jehovah for those who has not drawn close to Him David? Perhaps you might expound on that sir.

 

[Robert Gwin]

of course the Bible isn't contradicting itself!
and the only reconcilliation of these things is the 1st and the greatest of all the 11 mysteries, that of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, the hypostatic union.

welcome to trinitarianism.
welcome to actually believing the Bible, the whole Bible.
it warms my heart to see you discarding the disgusting heresy of watchtowerism and coming near the Truth

Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel,
and they saw the God of Israel.
(Exodus 24:9-10)​

Who did they see?

He is the image of the invisible God
(Colossians 1:15)​

he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father
(John 14:9)

​

they saw Christ: they saw God. Christ is God - the invisible made visible

The Bible does not say God was manifest in the flesh Post.

 

[Robert Gwin]

absolute rubbish.
that is a throughly discredited obvious lie you are repeating, from which you ought repent.
your open, continous, brazen blasphemy is abominable

Besides refusing to take into account the evidence set forth above, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have incorporated in their translation of the New Testament several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek.

1. In the New World Translation the opening verse of the Gospel according to John is mistranslated as follows: “Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” A footnote which is added to the first word, “Originally,” reads, “Literally, In (At) a beginning.” By using here the indefinite article “a” the translators have overlooked the well-known fact that in Greek grammar nouns may be definite for various reasons, whether or not the Greek definite article is present. A prepositional phrase, for example, where the definite article is not expressed, can be quite definite in Greek, as in fact it is in John 1:1. The customary translation, “In the beginning was the Word,” is therefore to be preferred to either alternative suggested by the New World translators.

Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, “… and the Word was a god,” with the following footnote: “‘A god.’ In contrast with ‘the God.’” It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall.

As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, “… and the Word was God.” Some years ago Dr. Ernest Cadman Colwell of the University of Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that, “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. … The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article [before θεος] does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [John 20:28, ‘My Lord and my God’].”

In a lengthy Appendix in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation, which was added to support the mistranslation of John 1:1, there are quoted thirty-five other passages in John where the predicate noun has the definite article in Greek. These are intended to prove that the absence of the article in John 1:1 requires that θεος must be translated “a god.” None of the thirty-five instances is parallel, however, for in every case the predicate noun stands after the verb, and so, according to Colwell’s rule, properly has the article. So far, therefore, from being evidence against the usual translation of John 1:1, these instances add confirmation to the full enunciation of the rule of the Greek definite article.

Furthermore, the additional references quoted in the New World Translation from the Greek of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, in order to give further support to the erroneous rendering in the opening verse of John, are exactly in conformity with Colwell’s rule, and therefore are added proof of the accuracy of the rule. The other passages adduced in the Appendix are, for one reason or another, not applicable to the question at issue. One must conclude, therefore, that no sound reason has been advanced for altering the traditional rendering of the opening verse of John’s Gospel, “… and the Word was God.”​

- Bruce Metzger​

Why then does your version translate theos/theon a god at Acts 28:6? Fact is Post, it was a deliberate manipulation of Scripture sir, to support a doctrinal belief. The Bible clearly shows that Jehovah is God, and Jesus is God's son, and as you stated, it does not contradict.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Good!

Here is what I was responding to:
...But I do see that perhaps it was just to point out the distinction between the Father and the Son.

Nonetheless, John 1:1 is quite clear:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1

The Bible does not say that at John 1:1 Scott. All versions which render it that way translate it a god at Acts 28:6 even though it was written the same way. theos/theon is properly translated god, ho theos/theon God. That was a deliberate manipulation of Scripture to promote Jesus as God rather than being God's son like he stated. Goes along with their replacing Jehovah with LORD for the same reason, which is a little easier to see the alteration Ps 110:1

 

[keithr]

He most certainly is King of Israel = the Israel of God.

Have you never read Galatians and Romans and Ephesians???

Yes, I have read them. What is your point?

Where does it confirm that Jesus is the king of Israel? Some people called him that, but not Jesus himself nor God. In Daniel the Messiah is referred to as a prince:

Daniel 9:25 (KJV):

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.​

Remember Nebuchadnezzar's dream? Daniel 2 (WEB):

The dream:
(35) Then the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold were broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors. The wind carried them away, so that no place was found for them. The stone that struck the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

The interpretation:
(44) “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, nor will its sovereignty be left to another people; but it will break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it will stand forever.

God's kingdom, which Jesus will establish and eventually hand over to God, will rule over the whole Earth, not just the tiny land and people of Israel.

It is written: "the earth is My footstool." says the LORD.

Yes it is, in Isaiah 66:1 (WEB):

Yahweh says, “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build to me? Where will I rest?​

Again, what is you point, and what relevance is that?

 

[post]

The Bible does not say that at John 1:1 Scott. All versions which render it that way translate it a god at Acts 28:6 even though it was written the same way. theos/theon is properly translated god, ho theos/theon God. That was a deliberate manipulation of Scripture to promote Jesus as God rather than being God's son like he stated. Goes along with their replacing Jehovah with LORD for the same reason, which is a little easier to see the alteration Ps 110:1

i repeat for the thick-headed:

Besides refusing to take into account the evidence set forth above, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have incorporated in their translation of the New Testament several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek.​

1. In the New World Translation the opening verse of the Gospel according to John is mistranslated as follows: “Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” A footnote which is added to the first word, “Originally,” reads, “Literally, In (At) a beginning.” By using here the indefinite article “a” the translators have overlooked the well-known fact that in Greek grammar nouns may be definite for various reasons, whether or not the Greek definite article is present. A prepositional phrase, for example, where the definite article is not expressed, can be quite definite in Greek, as in fact it is in John 1:1. The customary translation, “In the beginning was the Word,” is therefore to be preferred to either alternative suggested by the New World translators.​

Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, “… and the Word was a god,” with the following footnote: “‘A god.’ In contrast with ‘the God.’” It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall.​

As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, “… and the Word was God.” Some years ago Dr. Ernest Cadman Colwell of the University of Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that, “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. … The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article [before θεος] does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [John 20:28, ‘My Lord and my God’].”​

In a lengthy Appendix in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation, which was added to support the mistranslation of John 1:1, there are quoted thirty-five other passages in John where the predicate noun has the definite article in Greek. These are intended to prove that the absence of the article in John 1:1 requires that θεος must be translated “a god.” None of the thirty-five instances is parallel, however, for in every case the predicate noun stands after the verb, and so, according to Colwell’s rule, properly has the article. So far, therefore, from being evidence against the usual translation of John 1:1, these instances add confirmation to the full enunciation of the rule of the Greek definite article.​

Furthermore, the additional references quoted in the New World Translation from the Greek of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, in order to give further support to the erroneous rendering in the opening verse of John, are exactly in conformity with Colwell’s rule, and therefore are added proof of the accuracy of the rule. The other passages adduced in the Appendix are, for one reason or another, not applicable to the question at issue. One must conclude, therefore, that no sound reason has been advanced for altering the traditional rendering of the opening verse of John’s Gospel, “… and the Word was God.”​

- Bruce Metzger​

 

[post]

it was a deliberate manipulation of Scripture

that is a pitiably stupid thing for a person like you to say, seeing that you promote the NWT which is a horrendously clear and obvious attempt to deliberately manipulate and distort scripture to remove the deity of Christ.

 

[Truther]

The Bible teaches Jesus was the first and only creation done exclusively by Jehovah Himself Truth, Rev 3:14, there was no need for him at that time to replace Adam, as that need was yet a long time away. He was the perfect candidate however, and no doubt Jehovah knew that when He started His creation. he was created a spirit being as are all the heavenly beings are.

God made 2 Adam's...the last Adam was made from the foundation of the world and the 1st Adam was made afterwards.

God made everything for the last Adam, which existed in God's timeless reality.

What I mean is, God physically knew the man Christ Jesus before the existence of the material universe.

 

[ScottA]

The Bible does not say that at John 1:1 Scott. All versions which render it that way translate it a god at Acts 28:6 even though it was written the same way. theos/theon is properly translated god, ho theos/theon God. That was a deliberate manipulation of Scripture to promote Jesus as God rather than being God's son like he stated. Goes along with their replacing Jehovah with LORD for the same reason, which is a little easier to see the alteration Ps 110:1

I understand, but the problem with that and wordsmithing all of scripture, is it assumes that men have providence over God's word rather than God. In this case it assumes that the Greeks accurately have a word for a God that they have just learned of.

Even so, even if we allow them the benefit of the doubt, the rest of scripture shows Jesus as One with the Father. And yes, even One can be wordsmithed to mean two...but it is not advisable.

 

[keithr]

Nathanael answered and said to Him,
“Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”
Jesus answered and said to him,
“Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.”
<snipped>​

Nathanael, to Jesus: "You are THE KING OF ISRAEL!"

Jesus, to Nathanael in reply: "you believe"

Nathanael first said "You are the Son of God!" That is the important point that he believed. God was originally the King of Israel, but the people wanted a human king instead (1 Samuel 8:7 - 'Yahweh said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in all that they tell you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me as the king over them.'). Nathanael may have wanted Jesus, God's Son, to become the king of Israel, but that is not what he had come for.

 

[keithr]

Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them,
“Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The LORD has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.”​

Why have you capitalised 'Lord' to give the impression that it is God's name rather than the title 'Lord' or 'master'?

All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:
“Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’ ”
(Matthew 21:1-5)​

do you despise the Truth, keith?

Most definitely not!

The prophecy referred to (Zechariah 9:9) is predicting the triumph of Israel and the fall of the neighbouring nations. It is referring to the time when Jesus returns to fight for Israel and establish God's kindom on the Earth. Yes, he will be Israel's king at that time, but as Daniel 2:35,44 predicts his kingdom will spread to be the whole earth. He will not just be the king of Israel, he'll be the king of all mankind.

who does scripture say is The King of Israel ?

I am the LORD, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King!
(Isaiah 43:15)​

"LORD" being God's name - YHVH or Yahweh - our Father and Jesus' Father. It's saying that God was the king of Israel, not that His son Jesus would become the king of Israel. The kingdom that Jesus will establish is far greater and includes all nations and peoples.

Christ is God!
it is indisputable!

We obviously diagree about that!

 

[keithr]

e
v
e
r
y


k
n
e
e


s
h
a
l
l


b
o
w

So not just the king of Israel then!

 

[keithr]

Therefore the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate,
“Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘He said, “I am the King of the Jews.” ’ ”
Pilate answered,“What I have written, I have written.”
(John 19:19-22)​

keith, your position leaves you only 2 logical options:

1. Christ is THE KING OF ISRAEL = YHWH

Jesus admitted that he was the Messiah, but he never claimed to be the king of the Jews. It was the Jews who made that assumption. Jesus said to Pilate:

“My Kingdom is not of this world. If my Kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, that I wouldn’t be delivered to the Jews. But now my Kingdom is not from here.” (John 18:36)​

2. agree that He claims to be The King of Israel, equivallently claiming He is God - but call Christ a liar, thereby rejecting God & scripture altogether, and remain a watchtowerite, loving your deception rather than The Truth.​

Israel had many human kings, none of which were God YHVH, so why would you assume that another human king, and God's Son, would be God? I'm not calling Jesus a liar - I'm paying attention to what he said, as is recorded in the Scurptures. You're making a lot of assumptions rather than giving attention to God's word to us.

 

[Truther]

I understand, but the problem with that and wordsmithing all of scripture, is it assumes that men have providence over God's word rather than God. In this case it assumes that the Greeks accurately have a word for a God that they have just learned of.

Even so, even if we allow them the benefit of the doubt, the rest of scripture shows Jesus as One with the Father. And yes, even One can be wordsmithed to mean two...but it is not advisable.

Jesus, using the phrase “ one with the Father”, or I and my Father are one meant the two of them were unified. The Father was inside the son.

 

[keithr]

I have found nothing in scripture that supports the idea that Jesus was not a literal begotten Son of God prior to His incarnation, the express image of His Father. If the Son is an express image, a perfect reproduction, even more perfect than any human father/son similarity, how can He not be spirit, seeing God is a Spirit, therefore surely the Son is not only a spirit, but also God... Just as I am a human son to my human father. Like begets like. It's God's own law of reproduction.

But you are not your father. There is no reason to suppose that God's begotten Son was his Father either. That is illogical. Especially when Jesus refers to his Father as his Father and his God, and acknowledges that his Father is greater than he is.

 

[David in NJ]

But you are not your father. There is no reason to suppose that God's begotten Son was his Father either. That is illogical. Especially when Jesus refers to his Father as his Father and his God, and acknowledges that his Father is greater than he is.

When Jesus had spoken these things, He lifted up His eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. For You granted Him authority over all people,a so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him. Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent. I have glorified You on earth by accomplishing the work You gave Me to do.
And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed.

Yehovah always refers Himself to being Eternal with the Father and not just the Father but the Holy Spirit.

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” God also told Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.

Then God said, “Let Us(1) make man in Our(2) image, according to Our(3) likeness;

In the beginning God(1) created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit(2) of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
And God said(3), “Let there be light,” and there was light.

In the beginning was the Word (1), and the Word was with God(2), and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.

Then John testified, “I saw the Spirit(3) descending from heaven like a dove and resting on Him. I myself did not know Him, but the One who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit(1) descend and rest is He(2) who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God(3).”

 

[ScottA]

Jesus, using the phrase “ one with the Father”, or I and my Father are one meant the two of them were unified. The Father was inside the son.

That certainly fits the context, and so I might even agree.

However, if we are to accurately come to know God fully, we should be learning that even unity among [for lack of a better term] the Godhead, is only part of Him explaining. In other words, His breaking things down for our elementary learning into days and weeks and years and persons, does not define the oneness of God, except at that elementary level. Why should we as His children, stay as children and not mature? That is not the directive that we have been given. For instance, the scriptures define God as "the same yesterday, today, and forever." But that too is elementary, only fitting for children's understanding while counting the days going by in this playpen as if it were our home. It's not. Thus, God himself does not use "the same yesterday, today, and forever" term meant for infants, but says, "I am."

So, which is truth? Well, they both are-- But we should understand that all that is associated with this world, including "days, and weeks, and months", and "yesterday, today, and forever" language, is all passing away.

For this reason, I recommend not holding to the elementary use of language as it was first told to children, but pressing on, that we may lay hold of all truth.

 

[David in NJ]

That certainly fits the context, and so I might even agree.

However, if we are to accurately come to know God fully, we should be learning that even unity among [for lack of a better term] the Godhead, is only part of Him explaining. In other words, His breaking things down for our elementary learning into days and weeks and years and persons, does not define the oneness of God, except at that elementary level. Why should we as His children, stay as children and not mature? That is not the directive that we have been given. For instance, the scriptures define God as "the same yesterday, today, and forever." But that too is elementary, only fitting for children's understanding while counting the days going by in this playpen as if it were our home. It's not. Thus, God himself does not use "the same yesterday, today, and forever" term meant for infants, but says, "I am."

So, which is truth? Well, they both are-- But we should understand that all that is associated with this world, including "days, and weeks, and months", and "yesterday, today, and forever" language, is all passing away.

For this reason, I recommend not holding to the elementary use of language as it was first told to children, but pressing on, that we may lay hold of all truth.

Correct - the entirety of Scripture, that is eternal, builds upon ITSELF = as it cannot build upon another.
The Language of Scripture is from God and cannot be deciphered by carnal logic but by the Holy Spirit who is the Author.

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Truther]

But you are not your father. There is no reason to suppose that God's begotten Son was his Father either. That is illogical. Especially when Jesus refers to his Father as his Father and his God, and acknowledges that his Father is greater than he is.

The way Jesus is the express image of his Father is because his Father is fully inside his son, bodily . The father shines through the son.