The pre-creation existence of Jesus

reply to post by jmdewey60


You are a good egg jmdewey. For that, I commend you. I don't agree with a lot of your SDA doctrine but you are respectful of others opinions. Star for you for keeping my thread alive and civil!

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Do you really believe it's the same?

You are the one who posted the Greek lesson. I went on Biblos.com and looked at the Greek versions of these verses. You have the exact same Greek word in both.
I do not see how making a time-line helps. This was my argument, that when it comes to certain principles, primacy in righteousness trumps temporal primacy.

REALLY, come on dewey you know that's not true. I have to call you on this one. In some area's of the bible if you mess up the time line, your whole belief structure is pile of cards waiting to collapse. For example the 70 weeks prophesy about when the Messiah would appear, if you get that wrong you are pretty much lost as to accurate knowledge of truth. But you personally have that part correct, so it's not a very big deal, right? Talk to religious Jews that still believe the mosaic law is the true path, and you will find out it is a big deal, I hope you can see the point.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by Blue_Jay33]

reply to post by Locoman8

I don't agree with a lot of your SDA doctrine. . .

I am going against that "doctrine" at the moment. It goes along quite nicely with the JW concept. The difference is that you can be a member in good standing in the SDA church, even if you do not buy into it. No one is going to condemn you for not going around advocating that there was this big interplay between these various spiritual entities way back before creation. There is a big part of a SDA book devoted to this very thing. It is like a version of what someone thought about how the whole sin thing came about. It seems to be conveniently ignored by a lot of people, without any consequence. That is, if you do not make a habit of denouncing it. I think the safe thing is to stick with what you can argue from the Bible.


[edit on 29-4-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by Blue_Jay33
Same sort of thing as my earlier post. I typed in a Google search for "firstborn of all creation". I came up with a bunch of stuff that I think you would be very familiar with. I do not think I need to spell it all out for you because I imagine you have heard it before. I kind of summarized the conclusion that you are supposed to come up with when you follow the instructions on how to understand the concept. So, again, this is not stuff I made up, exactly.
As for the time-line, I do not see how the current topic has any bearing on the 70 weeks.



[edit on 29-4-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60

As for the time-line, I do not see how the current topic has any bearing on the 70 weeks.

primacy in righteousness trumps temporal primacy.

Sorry Mate, you just don't get it. I will leave you to Miriam now, maybe she can get through to you, but I have exhausted all avenues on this topic.


I have to tell you I am very tempted to put you on ignore right now. But we're not there yet.:bnghd:

[edit on 29-4-2009 by Blue_Jay33]

Hebrews 1:1-3 (King James Version)
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

The beginning of Hebrews could be thought of as a parallel of John 1. Here it talks about how God spoke to men through the prophets. John talks about the Baptist being a prophet.
Verse 2, here says that God spoke directly to us through the Son. It also repeats the idea in John 1 that creation came about through his agency. The first part of verse three seems to be the continuation of the thought in the second part of verse two. It is talking about what it was that did this creative work. My understanding of it is that there is this core of spiritual glory which is the person of God. What John calls The Word, is here explained in a metaphor using light, as in it being something that can exist of itself. The “effulgence” which is what radiates from the source but is separate from the source but has no existence without the source. Then, it goes into a different mode to explain that the Son is the image of God, as if it is stamped onto him.

John 5:36 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.
37And 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.
38And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Here in John 5, Jesus is saying something like that the stamp of the image of God is in the works that he does, as the representative of God.
The last part of verse three is reminiscent of Psalm 110:

1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Notice how this is something that happens because it was pre-ordained by God. It seems to be something that happens after the life and death and resurrection of Jesus.

Ephesians 1:20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

There is a reason why the Son takes this place.

Hebrews 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

This has nothing to do with the pre-existing state of Jesus, but has to do with the redemptive work of Jesus.


[edit on 2-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60


Psalm 110
1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.


Read over Chapter 2 in Acts. David is said to sit at the right hand of Jesus just as Jesus is now at the right hand of God. David at the right hand of Jesus, of course does not occur until David is resurrected when Jesus returns to earth and takes the throne.

Acts 2:34-35
34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:
'The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."'

Once again, Psalm 110 is quoted. David is saying that God said to Jesus to "sit at My right hand...."

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Hebrews 1:1-3 (King James Version)
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

This has nothing to do with the pre-existing state of Jesus, but has to do with the redemptive work of Jesus.

im confused, are you saying that "by whom also he made the worlds" is not referring to creation?

reply to post by miriam0566

Sorry about that. It is confusing. My post is confusing and the topic of the post can be very confusing.
There is not a point, like a concise argument, one way or the other, like adding up points on the ledger for my side.
My point of making the post was to jump into the place that seems to sum up the thing about the comings and goings of the various entities in the spiritual realm.
I do make a sort of conclusion at the end but it is just a fact and does not necessarily persuade someone to think anything more of it.
I guess I am being more confusing than ever, right now. Maybe I should explain it a little, though I doubt I can add much to it.
I can add my personal feeling about it. Let's say who the writer of Hebrews is calling "the Son" is this visible brilliance of the glorious unsee-able "body" of God. Well, if there is a throne, who would be sitting on it? God, of course! But God is not see-able, so the throne would be empty. The throne would be useless and be ridiculous without someone in it, so there is this brilliant likeness of God sitting on the throne, but he is really the prototypical Son, who before the incarnation would have been the thing referred to by John as "The Word".
Once The Word became flesh and fulfilled the redemptive actions on Earth, and returned, he had a heightened status, on account of who he was, now, which he was not, before. Because he had showed himself faithful and successful in his work, he is recognized in heaven by actually having a place on the throne, next to what actually would be himself, as he was before his incarnation. It is now even more confusing because you have The Lord sitting next to My Lord. To have it make any sense at all, you have to go back to the original intent of this being, which is not to be an individual person in its own right, but to be the perceivable substance of the person of God. (you have to see the form of God as being actually the presence of God, just as the Shekinah in the Temple would be considered the actual presence of God.)
Anyway, to answer the question, the "Word" created the universe as the the interactive presence of God, but only "the Son" by the potentiality of the "Word". Once "the Son" potentiality became fully realized, he became the heir of his own creation.


[edit on 4-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I can add my personal feeling about it. Let's say who the writer of Hebrews is calling "the Son" is this visible brilliance of the glorious unsee-able "body" of God. Well, if there is a throne, who would be sitting on it? God, of course! But God is not see-able, so the throne would be empty. The throne would be useless and be ridiculous without someone in it, so there is this brilliant likeness of God sitting on the throne, but he is really the prototypical Son, who before the incarnation would have been the thing referred to by John as "The Word".

so when revelation describes the lamb taking the scroll from the one seated on the throne, jesus is giving the scroll to jesus?

To have it make any sense at all, you have to go back to the original intent of this being, which is not to be an individual person in its own right, but to be the perceivable substance of the person of God. (you have to see the form of God as being actually the presence of God, just as the Shekinah in the Temple would be considered the actual presence of God.)

where does it say that god originally intended jesus to be the perceivable substance of himself?

reply to post by miriam0566

so when revelation describes the lamb taking the scroll from the one seated on the throne, jesus is giving the scroll to jesus?
where does it say that god originally intended jesus to be the perceivable substance of himself?

Yes, to the first question.
All of this stuff I have been writing in the last few days is to make some sense out of Hebrews 1:3. Reputable authors who should be studying this, such as College Professors are not going to write some definitive explanation of all this, so I had to kind of read between the lines a bit. You get into speculative pseudo theology when you get into what these verses that deal with the nature of Christ really mean.



[edit on 5-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60


its not really a cryptic passage... unless you add things like the trinity to it

[1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

this verse is very straight forward. the will of god from after adam to jesus was always relayed to people through prophets. abraham, noah, moses, isaiah, daniel, etc etc.

the bible also wasnt complete then so if you didnt listen to the prophet, likely you had a hard time figuring out god´s will.

[2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,

jesus not only fulfilled the law and fulfilled prophecy but he also showed us what god's law in practice looks like. he did not sin, yet he didnt look like the pharisee's (who declared themselves righteous) instead jesus showed himself to be much different.

jesus also prophesied to and provided training and instruction to the apostles. after his death, he also provided direction through visions and direct talking.

after the bible was completed, prophesying was no longer needed. the complete will of god can be discerned from the scriptures.

whom he hath appointed heir of all things,

jesus after dying was not only given immortality and incorruption, but he was to be given a kingdom to which "every knee would bow". granted, he would eventually hand that kingdom back to his father, but he will likely maintain an important role in GOD's future plans.

by whom also he made the worlds;

"by whom" is an interesting way to state this. GOD is receiving the credit for creating everything, but jesus' role in that creation is still being acknowledged.

i must state now that this particular passage says nothing about jesus' creation. but neither does it conflict with jesus' creation.

[3] Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,

there is nothing cryptic about this passage. jesus is an image of god. this doesnt imply that he sits in god's throne. this doesnt imply that god is unseeable. revelation indicates that GOD is very seeable to other spirit creatures.

remember, man is also in the image of god.

women are in the image of man.

this doesnt imply anything but likeness.

and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins,

died for our sins

sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

after jesus' death, he was given the most important station. second only to god.

reply to post by miriam0566

jesus is an image of god.

This seems to be the problem. If you understand it as saying he is "an" image, you can just keep reading and not let it bother you any further. If you think it says he is "the" image, then it gets a little more complicated.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by miriam0566

 

jesus is an image of god.

This seems to be the problem. If you understand it as saying he is "an" image, you can just keep reading and not let it bother you any further. If you think it says he is "the" image, then it gets a little more complicated.

even if jesus is THE image of GOD, i dont see how you can say he is sitting on god´s throne.

reply to post by miriam0566

even if jesus is THE image of GOD, i dont see how you can say he is sitting on god´s throne.

It can not be explained, using your parameters. You say that God is visible to the angels. If that is so, there is no need for an image of God. Whoever is able to be in heaven, in the first place, could readily behold His person.
My explanation is based on the idea that God can not be seen directly. If there is something that in affect is God, then it would take on all the mannerism that God would exhibit, if He was doing things that the image seems to be doing. I am not saying that there is another person who makes a point of mimicking God, or that there is a phantom God. What I mean is that there is something that has a spiritual form, as in it would be visible to a spiritual being like an angel. I guess I have this impression that whatever the spiritual beings are composed of, there is something that is another degree higher, as a spirit being is a degree higher than a purely material being. An angel is not visible to us unless it decides to take a form that is material enough for us to perceive it. So, if you take that idea another step further, let's say God wants to be visible to the Angels, so he takes on a form that is spiritually perceived. Now, is that form necessarily his actual body, or what he is, outside of any other consideration? Let's say for sake of argument that it is not. Is that form a separate person? Again, for sake of argument, we will answer, No. But it is a real thing, right? Yes. If it is a real thing, then could it become something else? Good question, so lets see where that might take us. Could it become a person? OK, we will allow that, but it can only do it one time. (We can arbitrarily say that, in this hypothetical direction of what God can and can not do.)
What I am doing is looking at how something that is not a person but is actually something intimately connected to a person, become its own person. If you allow that, it has to be a little difficult to explain. What happens to that original "thing" once it becomes a person? Does it cease to exist in that manner that it had always existed in before, and does the sole reason for its existence cease to exist?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by miriam0566

 

even if jesus is THE image of GOD, i dont see how you can say he is sitting on god´s throne.

It can not be explained, using your parameters. You say that God is visible to the angels. If that is so, there is no need for an image of God. Whoever is able to be in heaven, in the first place, could readily behold His person.

exactly.

flesh and blood cannot go to heaven. the issue with seeing god is only brought up with humans..

Mirriam said .....[granted, he would eventually hand that kingdom back to his father, but he will likely maintain an important role in GOD's future plans.]


Scripture says JESUS is the HEIR of all things ..he wont hand it back to God ..God handed it all to him ...why would he hand it all back ?
Hbr 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


And Jesus is not just in the image of God but the EXPRESS IMAGE of his person (an exact replica in spirit personality etc ) .............
Hbr 1:3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

b) the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile

Only Begotten is ONE OF A KIND ....

Originally posted by Simplynoone
Mirriam said .....[granted, he would eventually hand that kingdom back to his father, but he will likely maintain an important role in GOD's future plans.]


Scripture says JESUS is the HEIR of all things ..he wont hand it back to God ..God handed it all to him ...why would he hand it all back ?
Hbr 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

i always regret not quoting the scripture lol always

1 cor 15:[24] Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
[25] For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
[26] The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
[27] For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
[28] And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

the purpose of jesus´ kingdom is to return mankind to it originally purposed state. to end death from sin, and destroy all who oppse god. after that, there is not need for that kingdom.

so jesus hands it back to god.

reply to post by miriam0566

after that, there is not need for that kingdom.

There is no "after that".
Paul is lecturing the believers to get right with God and straighten up because the goal is for everything and everyone to be under direct rule of God, with no intermediary. Nothing else remains, as far as foretold future events go.
If you think you can just go about your life without any concern about things to come, you need to wake up (Paul is saying) and realize you need first, to be acceptable to take on the likeness of Jesus. Even if you were able, given enough time, to grow into a person who is worthy to be in that resurrected body, there is another step where you would have to stand the close scrutiny of the ultimate judge of everything.



[edit on 5-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by miriam0566

 

after that, there is not need for that kingdom.

There is no "after that".
Paul is lecturing the believers to get right with God and straighten up because the goal is for everything and everyone to be under direct rule of God, with no intermediary. Nothing else remains, as far as foretold future events go.
If you think you can just go about your life without any concern about things to come, you need to wake up (Paul is saying) and realize you need first, to be acceptable to take on the likeness of Jesus. Even if you were able, given enough time, to grow into a person who is worthy to be in that resurrected body, there is another step where you would have to stand the close scrutiny of the ultimate judge of everything.

by ¨after that¨ i mean after the point that humankind is recovered to perfection.

you are right though, we dont know whats going to happen ¨after that¨ since there isnt any mention of anything