The pre-creation existence of Jesus

Originally posted by Simplynoone
Begotten means ONE AND ONLY OF HIS KIND >...


ONLY BEGOTTEN SON
1) single of its kind, only

a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)

b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
www.blueletterbible.org...

while that is true, it doesnt display all the definitions of the word monogenēs.

monogenēs literally means ¨only born¨.

literally mono - only,
and ginomai - to be brought to pass or happen. to become (come into being). be assembled, be(-come, -fall, -have self)

this is why monogenēs is translated ¨only begotten¨ because in english, beget means 1 : to procreate as the father : sire 2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth

jesus is only begotten in that he is the only creation directly made by god.

So, what are you saying? That God did not make Adam? It sounds like it to me, from reading Genesis, or was that really Jesus, you know, standing in for God? (in which case, the idea of Jehovah being the supreme god goes right out the window) I was hoping someone else would point this out or ask the question.
I have to think it may be necessary to have a little more meaning to the word "only begotten" than just assembling something.
I think Jesus called God "Father" in a literal sense, that he was begotten by God, and so can rightly be called "The Son of God", also in a literal sense.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You have to understand that while God is supreme, Jesus did create everything beyond Himself. The book of Genesis speaks of creation. He commanded there to be light, and since Jesus was the Word of God, HE created these things. Even during the creation of man, it states in Genesis 1:26, "Let US make man in OUR image..." implying that God and the Word were working together. While God commanded, Jesus built or created. He was a carpenter after all.

reply to post by Locoman8
I think over on the "trinity" thread, someone quoted that no one has been able to see God or speak much concerning His nature, but one, who was in the bosom of God, knows God to where he can speak of Him in a direct and informative way, from personal experience. (paraphrasing)
If we take this in a literal way, you could have the voice that emanates from the mouth of God, but has as its seat or source, from inside the chest of God. Now the word of God went out in a very active sort of way that could have seemed to be someone at work, doing things and not just a kind of sound. It would have been something working in an organized way, so that it was apparent that it had a mind guiding it. The Active Wisdom of Creation was evident in the actual work of creation and we could call it the logos. There is no distinction concerning the Logos that would identify it properly as a separate entity but was an integral part of God. That creative mind of direction would have to be fully knowledgeable of the intent of the mastermind of God in order to complete the tasks that were necessary. So there is an intimacy that binds these aspects together. The question would be, could that part of God somehow be broken off in order to be the core of a separate being. Or could that essence of understanding be somehow transferred into a material being and yet retain its spiritual existence? I don't know and can only wonder.
How is it that God can have a son in the first place? Is the son "God" or someone else who has the attributes of God? If that is so, do we end up with two gods? Is there a limit on the godness abilities of the Son? I do not see evidence of it. So to understand some of this, we should take an assessment of the situation. We have an all powerful god who creates everything and becomes flesh. Then, after he fulfils his role on earth, receives all powers not exercised while being an ordinary person. Jesus is no longer an ordinary person at that point because he has become The Overcomer. On account of that status, he is declared worthy, by the Father to receive his kingdom. In order to carry out this role (additional to what he had already accomplished), whatever titles and authorities and abilities he had not exercised as Christ by appointment, he receives as Christ the Redeemer. Once he executes the order of redemption (from the Father) and all are gathered, he receives the ultimate title of our God. At any time during these phases was god not in evidence? (From creative God, to God in the flesh, to our Spiritual Lord) No. Was there some time when he was not literally the Son? I think so. So who was God talking to when He said, “Let us make man in our own image.”? Notice He did not say “our images” or “in the same kind of image that I made you into”. He said “our image”. So there is a unity of minds in one body.
Here is the mystery; at the great reunion of the Saints, is there another reunion spoken of? Yes there is. Will God be united and One? Yes, Paul says so. What will that be like? I think we have to get there and find out. Wouldn’t that be nice. Yes and it is possible at great personal cost to God and we will have eternity with Him to understand it.

i dont know why, but ive been having problems understanding your posts. i have to break it down alittle

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Locoman8

 

I think over on the "trinity" thread, someone quoted that no one has been able to see God or speak much concerning His nature, but one, who was in the bosom of God, knows God to where he can speak of Him in a direct and informative way, from personal experience. (paraphrasing)
If we take this in a literal way, you could have the voice that emanates from the mouth of God, but has as its seat or source, from inside the chest of God.

inside the chest of god? sounds like you are applying physical thinking to a heavenly situation.

in the last post you asked me if i was saying that god did not create adam. locoman replied instead of me. i believe the phrase goes, ¨locoman spoke for me¨

does this mean that for locoman to do that, he has to be literally in my chest?

the spokesman for the president speaks for the president. he conveys the information that the president wants to convey. the president has a voice of his own, but he still delegates most conferences to the spokesman.

GOD too has his own voice. when jesus was baptized, he spoke with his own voice. this wasnt the ¨word¨, he was busy being baptized. GOD spoke again a few days before christ´s death when jesus was teaching in the temple. again this wasnt jesus relaying anything. it was god.

just because jesus is god´s word doesnt mean that they are integrated like some celestial transformer. it simply means that jesus is god´s spokesman. a job that was delegated to him.

There is no distinction concerning the Logos that would identify it properly as a separate entity but was an integral part of God.

i have explained John 1:1 a hundred times. it itself makes a distinction between the 2.

The question would be, could that part of God somehow be broken off in order to be the core of a separate being. Or could that essence of understanding be somehow transferred into a material being and yet retain its spiritual existence? I don't know and can only wonder.

its statements like these that leave me guessing. sometimes i get the feeling that you believe in ¨unity¨ and sometimes it feels like you dont.

How is it that God can have a son in the first place? Is the son "God" or someone else who has the attributes of God? If that is so, do we end up with two gods? Is there a limit on the godness abilities of the Son? I do not see evidence of it.

this is an interesting point.

im going to say yes. jesus is a god. made in the image of GOD. however jesus does have limitations.

if you go back to the trinity thread and go back to the 20 something excerts, it shows that jesus did have limitations

- jesus could die
- jesus was not all knowledgeable and had to learn
- jesus was not untemptable
- jesus was not all powerful as he regularly called on god for help.

but that is not what they mean by ¨image¨

if are made in god and jesus´ ¨image¨, then this image would imply the traits we all share.

- our sense of love
- our sense of justice
- our sense of honor

im sure the list could go out the door.

¨our image¨ implies that when we are perfect, our thinking and feelings relate to god´s. there is this understanding.

people think that god is incomprehensible. sometimes they want it that way because the supreme god of the universe ¨has to be¨ confusing. but actually he is not. we are made in his image.

reply to post by miriam0566
A heavenly situation. Ok, we can start there. Was God in heaven when He created things, let’s say in the six days of creation in Genesis? That would involve a certain kind of physicality. It may not be so strictly material in the way the world is. But if God is in this place, it also implies that He had a certain type of physicality to himself. Or maybe your other point is that when God created man in His image, he meant that we would have just so many emotional similarities and that it is not explicit that he meant it as in an actual physical form. Does God have a form, in the meaning that He has a shape? In Revelation, John sees, while “in the spirit”, a scene in heaven with God on his throne and surrounded by angels and elders and some other beings that seem to always be in this place and watching everything. It may not be absolutely literal because the lamb that was slain is presented before the throne as representing Christ.
There are a few verses that seem to indicate that there is something about God that will be seen, at some time in the future.
Matthew 5: 8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
1 Corinthians 13: 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
1 John 3: 1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Revelation 22: 3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: 4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
John 5: 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.

It is not too surprising that you do not understand these posts because it is what is called “stream of consciousness”, meaning I am writing what I am thinking, in real time.It is not exactly meant to be so much a definitive statement as wondering out loud. Let me present something that was meant to be definitive and is an actual Bible commentary and see if it makes any more sense:

was with God-having a conscious personal existence distinct from God (as one is from the person he is "with"), but inseparable from Him and associated with Him (Joh 1:18; Joh 17:5; 1Jo 1:2), where "THE Father" is used in the same sense as "God" here.
was God-in substance and essence God; or was possessed of essential or proper divinity. Thus, each of these brief but pregnant statements is the complement of the other, correcting any misapprehensions which the others might occasion. Was the Word eternal? It was not the eternity of "the Father," but of a conscious personal existence distinct from Him and associated with Him. Was the Word thus "with God?" It was not the distinctness and the fellowship of another being, as if there were more Gods than one, but of One who was Himself God-in such sense that the absolute unity of the God head, the great principle of all religion, is only transferred from the region of shadowy abstraction to the region of essential life and love. But why all this definition? Not to give us any abstract information about certain mysterious distinctions in the Godhead, but solely to let the reader know who it was that in the fulness of time "was made flesh." After each verse, then, the reader must say, "It was He who is thus, and thus, and thus described, who was made flesh."

[edit on 31-3-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60

It is not too surprising that you do not understand these posts because it is what is called “stream of consciousness”, meaning I am writing what I am thinking, in real time.

Well I have the same issue with some of your posts, brain waves don't always turn out the best in printed form, just saying.

You need to translate a little, don't you think?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Ideas and thoughts on the bible but not definitive? Sounds familiar like trying to turn Michael into Jesus, right? I'm not being offensive, at least I'm not trying to. It's just that you are speaking about defining things in the bible when the Michael-Jesus thing isn't definitive. It's similar to trying to link God and Jesus as the same person which most of us are speaking against due to biblical proof. I'm just saying...

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)
That was what I quoted in the above post and it seems to go along with what I was considering in my earlier post. It is this idea that there is a way of thinking about The Word that allows of it to have something like a consciousness that is at least semi-independent but not a separate being. Once the word was made flesh, that consciousness became a separate being, who is Christ.
Then, later in my thoughts I consider if this process could possibly be reversible. Not exactly because of what the Word went through as a person and is still going through. At the end of the age and the beginning of the new age, when we are brought together to live with God, could there be a re-combination? I would have to say that if that were to happen, the end result would be different from where it began. God (meaning, TheWord) is forever changed by becoming a man and suffering through what he had to experience in order to bring about our redemption.
This little little mental exercise is not completely useless because there are plenty of people who think this very thing will happen.
That quote in Revelation in my last post seems to negate it because it says the Lamb and God, as if it implies two beings. I think the real big change will be to ourselves.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Ideas and thoughts on the bible but not definitive? Sounds familiar like trying to turn Michael into Jesus, right? I'm not being offensive, at least I'm not trying to. It's just that you are speaking about defining things in the bible when the Michael-Jesus thing isn't definitive. It's similar to trying to link God and Jesus as the same person which most of us are speaking against due to biblical proof. I'm just saying...

your right, its not definitive. and it is implied. however it is strongly implied.

but it does bare important difference to the god/jesus argument. its not a life or death issue. getting micheal mixed up with jesus doesnt affect the respect we show for jesus or the worship we show for god. its more of a ¨likely¨assumption.



[edit on 31-3-2009 by miriam0566]

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by miriam0566

 

A heavenly situation. Ok, we can start there. Was God in heaven when He created things, let’s say in the six days of creation in Genesis? That would involve a certain kind of physicality. It may not be so strictly material in the way the world is. But if God is in this place, it also implies that He had a certain type of physicality to himself.

again, you are not separating yourself from the physical.

consider this. angels are depicted with wings. does this mean angels have wings? probably not. the wings describe something about the angels. daniel prayed to god and his prayer was answered before he finished praying. the angels are fast. they can get places we cant in speeds we cant. how do you explain this to someone who has no concept of these things?

the seraphs are described as having eyes all over their wings. what would that do? nothing. it would make flying harder if you had wings with eyes all over them. they are figurative.

consider too that the cherubs are described differently in ezekial and in revelation. in ezekial, they are described with 4 faces, in revelation they are described and have 1 face of each. its figurative.

whenever heavenly things are described, its figurative. for the word to be the word does not mean he is in god´s chest. god doesnt have a chest. its figurative.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by miriam0566]

reply to post by miriam0566


I like how you worded that. I enjoy you and bluejay in posting great threads and posts. I don't particularly care for the "assumption" of things like that because they take away from the actual theme of the thread. Also, I thought you'd like to know that no angel is mentioned in the bible by name until Daniel when both Michael and Gabriel are mentioned. Also, you mentioned the passage in 1 thessalonians 4:16 and it reading "with the voice of THE archangel" but my NKJV bible reads "with the voice of AN archangel." Which one is right? The word is not italicized which tells me it wasn't added to clarify the greek in the passage. My NRSV reads "with THE archangel's call."

I just found out that Daniel 10:13 is the first place to mention Michael by name. Interesting verse though.....

"But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, ONE of the CHIEF PRINCES, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia."

Interesting how Michael is simply ONE of the cheif princes which implies more than one. If "Chief Prince" is another way to say "archangel" then the argument of him being the only archangel is null.

I think we have more questions than answers for this idea of Michael = Jesus theory and Michael being the ONLY archangel.

reply to post by Locoman8


I wondered if you would study up on this, and you did, good job.

But I have a answer for that too. The only reason that I never used it before because I wasn't going to use scripture that never needed to be used on an issue that had not yet been raised, as these are some of the deepest theological points of the bible not for those just starting out learning.

And I know there are lurkers reading this thread and they don't feel qualified to post in this thread, and I say to you guys.

Anyways the answer is found in Isaiah chapter 9 verses 6&7 which also on the surface seems to support the trinity.

American Standard Version
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this.

Yes Jesus has many names and titles, he is also THE Prince, in this scripture he is even called a "Mighty God". Now this confused me at first, because Jesus when called god in other verses is refereed to with a small "g".
So why here does he get a big "G"? It is because within the context of his level of power at this time, it is referring to a specific period of time, namely the 1000 year reign, the bible talks about, which the Almighty God has decreed as the Messianic Kingdom, this is Jesus Kingdom. For 1000 years Jesus will have more control in this universe than God ever gave him before or will give him again, and in that context he is promoted to a capital "G".

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Volume 2, page 514) says: “When Christ has overcome every power (1 Cor. 15:25), he will submit himself to God the Father. Thus Jesus’ lordship will have achieved its goal and God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).” At the end of his Millennial Reign, Christ Jesus hands back to his Father, Almighty God, the power and authority previously delegated to him. Hence, all glory and worship are rightly given to Jehovah, “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—Ephesians 1:17.

Furthermore as the light of inspired prophecy continued to brighten, more was revealed about the rule of this Messiah. (Proverbs 4:18) At 2 Samuel 7:12-16, King David, a descendant of Judah, was told that the Seed would come from his line. Furthermore, this Seed was to be an unusual King. His throne, or rulership, would last forever! Isaiah 9:6, 7 supports this point: “There has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule [“government,” King James Version] will come to be upon his shoulder. . . . To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom in order to establish it firmly and to sustain it by means of justice and by means of righteousness, from now on and to time indefinite.







[edit on 1-4-2009 by Blue_Jay33]

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Good stuff bluejay. Although the references to Jesus as THE Prince doesn't give proof to Michael being referred to as ONE of the chief Princes. I just scratch my head at this notion of an angel being Jesus. I guess I should just let it go.

reply to post by Locoman8



I understand how people have a hard time with this, but compare Satan with Jesus, he is the exact opposite at every point but has a somewhat equal power rating. Obviously God makes sure through use of the Holy Spirit that Jesus has the power to defeat Satan.

1)Both Satan and Jesus are referred to as "gods" in the bible.
2)Both have Angel designation, one good, one bad.
3)Both are Princes over other Angels/Demons.

Polar opposites, one leads all God's forces of good in the universe, the other lead all the forces of evil in the universe.

Of note is that the 2 accounts of the struggles with bad demons and Satan, it isn't a flash in a second win for the good guys, they have to fight it out on a spiritual level, the good guys always win, but obviously the demons and Satan have retained tremendous power, God never removed it from them. He just increases the power the good guys have enough to defeat them in time. By our time standard it might seem longer, but it really is fairly quickly that they lose/win, to beings that have lived for billions of years.




[edit on 6-4-2009 by Blue_Jay33]

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


I understand the polar oppositeism of these two "gods" in the bible but that has nothing to do with Michael. This thread should have nothing to do with Michael. You should start a new thread for this theory and we'll see what others think. Sound like a plan?

Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Does this mean literally what it seems to be saying in the English of the king James Version?
There are some other translations that word it differently. One is Young's Literal Translation.

'And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness -- the faithful and true -- the chief of the creation of God;

That is one way of looking at it, if you were just going by what the language seems to be pointing at.
Another way of looking at it by comparing it to other verses in the Bible would be that the Son of God is the beginner of creation. John 1 says that all things were created by the Word.
Looking at other verses in the Book of Revelation, you can find some other apparently odd sounding descriptions of this same person:

13:8 8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Does this literally mean that Jesus was crucified before he was ever born? Well, I do not think so, but the concept was there, from the beginning, that if necessary, it was pretty much a certainty that something like that was going to have to happen. So, Jesus, the person, existed, in concept but not in actual reality before he was ever born.
Going back to the Gospel of John, he says, "the word was with God and was God. . . " To me, John goes on to describe how the Word became flesh. Eventually there is this person, Jesus, walking about and showing himself to certain people. I do not see any other transformation going on as a transitional state, between being God and becoming the embryonic Jesus.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Does this mean literally what it seems to be saying in the English of the king James Version?
There are some other translations that word it differently. One is Young's Literal Translation.

'And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness -- the faithful and true -- the chief of the creation of God;

ἀρχὴ arche (ar-khay')
From archomai; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank) -- beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.

in other words, ¨first¨.

others scriptures that use ¨ἀρχὴ¨

Matthew 24:8 πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων.
But all these things are the beginning of birth pains.

Mark 1:1 ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ].
The beginning of the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Mark 13:8 ἐγερθήσεται γὰρ ἔθνος ἐπ' ἔθνος καὶ βασιλεία ἐπὶ βασιλείαν, ἔσονται σεισμοὶ κατὰ τόπους, ἔσονται λιμοί· ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων ταῦτα.
For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places. There will be famines and troubles. These things are the beginning of birth pains.

John 1:1 ἐν ἀρχὴ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχὴ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.
The same was in the beginning with God.

Acts 11:15 ἐν δὲ τῷ ἄρξασθαί με λαλεῖν ἐπέπεσεν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐπ' αὐτοὺς ὥσπερ καὶ ἐφ' ἡμᾶς ἐν ἀρχὴ.
As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning.

Philippians 4:15 Οἴδατε δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς Φιλιππήσιοι ὅτι ἐν ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας, οὐδεμία μοι ἐκκλησία ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως εἰ μὴ ὑμεῖς μόνοι,
You yourselves also know, you Philippians, that in the beginning of the Good News, when I departed from Macedonia, no assembly shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you only.

Colossians 1:18 καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος τῆς ἐκκλησίας· ὅς ἐστιν (ἡ) ἀρχὴ πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων,
He is the head of the body, the assembly, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Revelation 3:14 Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ἐκκλησίας γράψον· Τάδε λέγει ὁ ἀμήν, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς καὶ (ὁ) ἀληθινός, ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ
"To the angel of the assembly in Laodicea write: "The Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Head of God's creation, says these things:

Revelation 21:6 καὶ εἶπέν μοι, γέγοναν. ἐγώ [εἰμι] τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος. ἐγὼ τῷ διψῶντι δώσω ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν.
He said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the End. I will give freely to him who is thirsty from the spring of the water of life.

Revelation 22:13 ἐγὼ τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος.
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the End.

so yes, the king james version was correct. jesus was the first to be created.

chief is also correct in that it denotes first or primary.

the "chief" commandment given by the law was the love god with all our heart, mind and soul. this is the "first" or primary commandment.

reply to post by miriam0566

so yes, the king james version was correct. jesus was the first to be created.

I doesn't really say that. If you want to say "the first" that still does not say specifically that he was created. Going back to John 1, it says all things were created by him. It does not say, "With the exception of himself, all things were created by him."

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I doesn't really say that. If you want to say "the first" that still does not say specifically that he was created.

honestly, i dont know what more you want...

he is the beginning of creation, i dont see how that can mean anything else.

its like you saying "the beginning of the movie" actually means "the beginner of the movie"

how you are getting to that conclusion, i dont know.

Going back to John 1, it says all things were created by him. It does not say, "With the exception of himself, all things were created by him."

are you serious?

does it REALLY need to specify that jesus is excluded?