It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Do you ever listen to stories on the radio, on shows like coasttocoastam, where a four year old is talking about how he was flying a bomber across the Channel in WW II ? What was going on with the kid? He named off different people he was with and how different ones died. It took so many years on the part of the parents to find out that what he said was right.
So where was Jesus, if Yahweh said there was none beside him, yet you say He was "with" God before his birth.?If Jesus was Yahweh, then where was God the Father, if Jesus said there was none beside him?
Originally posted by doctorex
Jesus did not pre-exist creation, he didn't even pre-exist his birth.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
Do you ever listen to stories on the radio, on shows like coasttocoastam, where a four year old is talking about how he was flying a bomber across the Channel in WW II ? What was going on with the kid? He named off different people he was with and how different ones died. It took so many years on the part of the parents to find out that what he said was right.
What if you were Mary and your young son says, "Mother, for some reason I remember being with God when the world was created." Would you tell him, "Of course that can not be right because we know that God was alone." "Hmm, now that you mention that, there was not an actual physical presence there but His thoughts were there with me and I was doing the things, as I saw fit, that were coming from Him." "How very strange. I do not think it could have happened that way. Just forget about it and do something useful like learn how to read."
. . . immortal, and not able to pay our death penalty. . .
Jesus died. Jesus was tempted. Jesus was the both the son of man, and the son of the Eternal God.
That was John the Baptist. The Gospel says he was the greatest of all the prophets.
Deuteronomy 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
The Eternal God (Yahweh) cannot die.
The Eternal God cannot be tempted.
The Eternal God is not the son of man, He is self existent.
Jesus never said that, so it's completely hypothetical, so I don't see your point.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by doctorex
. . . immortal, and not able to pay our death penalty. . .
There are a lot of people who would take the opposite view on this. The Bible says that a man’s life is not enough to pay for another’s.
Jesus died. Jesus was tempted. Jesus was the both the son of man, and the son of the Eternal God.
Jesus was. That is correct. You have to understand that “Jesus” is specifically the name of a human person who was born of a woman.
That was John the Baptist. The Gospel says he was the greatest of all the prophets.
Deuteronomy 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
The Eternal God (Yahweh) cannot die.
The Eternal God cannot be tempted.
The Eternal God is not the son of man, He is self existent.
You are ascribing certain attributes to a certain One who you are calling “God”.
Do you just write off the first 18 verses of John 1?
How about when he found himself to be in human form but still remembered being something else? Do you just write that off too? How about where the Son was the image of God, up in heaven and went to earth to work out salvation and then returned to heaven. Is there no continuity of consciousness here?
Originally posted by jmdewey60
What if you were Mary and your young son says, "Mother, for some reason I remember being with God when the world was created."
That makes me think of a post I made a while back on the "Did Jesus go to India?" thread. Why was Jesus not famous for being outspoken for discussing the things of God? He showed his propensity for it at the age of twelve and there is no reason to think he changed his personality after that. I was putting forward the idea that he was most likely in Babylon at the schools there for studying the Bible. He seemed to show a knowledge of the concepts that were being argued in those schools. I do not think that is a complete explanation, but it would account for part of the time.
so it leads me to believe 2 possibilities, either Jesus didn't know about his prehuman existence until his baptism, or he did know but never talked about it.
The belief that Christ pre-existed is nothing but a watered down version of the trinity doctrine,
Originally posted by doctorex
We can all speculate, but why doesn't anybody want to discuss what is absolute in God's word, such as God saying that before the birth of Christ, He was alone, that there was none (no Elohim) by his side?
beside
zuwlah (zoo-law')
probably scattering, i.e. removal; used adverbially, except -- beside, but, only, save.
You use the name Israelites for some reason, instead of Hebrews or Jews. The Israelites had no problem worshiping the golden calf, so I am not sure about what you mean by that statement.
The Israelites knew quite clearly that God was one from their scriptures, and that is one of many reasons why Judaism today objects to what mainstream Christianity teaches, because they misunderstand the new testament just as much as the majority of Christians do.
The commentator is saying that there was a phrase available to John, to use to describe the preexistent nature of Jesus, that would have been recognizable to the Jews of his time, but would not be immediately identified as being of Greek philosophical origin.
for with regard to those words so often mentioned in the history of the creation, and God said, may Jehovah the Son be called the word; also he was spoken of as the promised Messiah, throughout the whole Old Testament dispensation; and is the interpreter of his Father's mind, as he was in Eden's garden, as well as in the days of his flesh; and now speaks in heaven for the saints. The phrase, (yyd armym) , "the word of the Lord", so frequently used by the Targumists, is well known: and it is to be observed, that the same things which John here says of the word, they say likewise, as will be observed on the several clauses; from whence it is more likely, that John should take this phrase, since the paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel were written before his time, than that he should borrow it from the writings of Plato, or his followers, as some have thought; with whose philosophy, Ebion and Cerinthus are said to be acquainted; wherefore John, the more easily to gain upon them, uses this phrase, when that of the Son of God would have been disagreeable to them:
Gill goes on to say that even if there was an underlying Greek connection, it was through a man who would normally be considered an icon of Greek philosophy but who was in fact a Jew.
that there is some likeness between the Evangelist John and Plato in their sentiments concerning the word, will not be denied. Amelius, a Platonic philosopher, who lived after the times of John, manifestly refers to these words of his, in agreement with his master's doctrine: his words are these;
``and this was truly "Logos", or the word, by whom always existing, the things that are made, were made, as also Heraclitus thought; and who, likewise that Barbarian (meaning the Evangelist John) reckons was in the order and dignity of the beginning, constituted with God, and was God, by whom all things are entirely made; in whom, whatsoever is made, lives, and has life, and being; and who entered into bodies, and was clothed with flesh, and appeared a man; so notwithstanding, that he showed forth the majesty of his nature; and after his dissolution, he was again deified, and was God, as he was before he descended into a body, flesh and man.''
Lets skip forward in Gill to some specific examples.
In which words it is easy to observe plain traces of what the evangelist says in the first four verses, and in the fourteenth verse of this chapter; yet it is much more probable, that Plato had his notion of the Logos, or word, out of the writings of the Old Testament, than that John should take this phrase, or what he says concerning the word, from him; since it is a matter of fact not disputed, that Plato went into Egypt to get knowledge: not only Clemens Alexandrinus a Christian writer says, that he was a philosopher of the Hebrews, and understood prophecy, and stirred up the fire of the Hebrew philosophy; but it is affirmed by Heathen writers, that he went into Egypt to learn of the priests, and to understand the rites of the prophets; and Aristobulus, a Jew, affirms, he studied their law; and Numenius, a Pythagoric philosopher, charges him with stealing what he wrote, concerning God and the world, out of the books of Moses; and used to say to him, what is Plato, but Moses "Atticising?" or Moses speaking Greek: and Eusebius, an ancient Christian writer, points at the very places, from whence Plato took his hints: wherefore it is more probable, that the evangelist received this phrase of the word, as a divine person, from the Targums, where there is such frequent mention made of it; or however, there is a very great agreement between what he and these ancient writings of the Jews say of the word, as will be hereafter shown.
Philo goes on to explain the preexistence of the word as:
the phrase is frequently used in like manner, in the writings of Philo the Jew; from whence it is manifest, that the name was well known to the Jews,. . .
it was preached before. . .by the prophets under the former dispensation, as by Isaiah, and others; it was preached before unto Abraham, and to our first parents, in the garden of Eden.
Micah 5:2 is proof that the ancient Jews understood the Messiah was eternal, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
really existed as a divine person, as he did from all eternity; as appears from his being set up in office from everlasting; from all the elect being chosen in him, and given to him before the foundation of the world; from the covenant of grace, which is from eternity, being made with him; and from the blessings and promises of grace, being as early put into his hands; and from his nature as God, and his relation to his Father:
John here speaks of the word, as a distinct person from God the Father, so do the Targums, or Chaldee paraphrases; (Psalms 110:1) "the Lord said to my Lord", is rendered, "the Lord said to his word"; where he is manifestly distinguished from Jehovah, that speaks to him; and in (Hosea 1:7) the Lord promises to "have mercy on the house of Judah", and "save them by the Lord their God". The Targum is, "I will redeem them by the word of the Lord their God"; where the word of the Lord, who is spoken of as a Redeemer and Saviour, is distinguished from the Lord, who promises to save by him. This distinction of Jehovah and his word, may be observed in multitudes of places, in the Chaldee paraphrases, and in the writings of Philo the Jew; and this phrase, of "the word" being "with God", is in the Targums expressed by, (Mdq Nm rmym) , "the word from before the Lord", or "which is before the Lord": being always in his presence, and the angel of it; so Onkelos paraphrases (Genesis 31:22) "and the word from before the Lord, came to Laban"… and (Exodus 20:19) thus, "and let not the word from before the Lord speak with us, lest we die";
If Christ was Elohim before his birth, death and resurrection, why does his Father say that before the birth of His Son there was no Elohim beside him?
Originally posted by miriam0566
Originally posted by doctorex
We can all speculate, but why doesn't anybody want to discuss what is absolute in God's word, such as God saying that before the birth of Christ, He was alone, that there was none (no Elohim) by his side?
because its a cherry picked argument.
you pick isaiah, but you ignore other passages.
in other words, your argument in the strictest literal sense doesnt hold water.
the question should be, what is Isaiah 45:5,6 saying.
"ISAIAH 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else."
first, you take "beside" to mean literally beside someone, like next to.
beside
zuwlah (zoo-law')
probably scattering, i.e. removal; used adverbially, except -- beside, but, only, save.
so, "except me, there is no other god" would clear up that confusion in this case.
is god saying that there are no other gods?
no, he cant be be cause the word "'elohiym" (gods) is also used for angels. we KNOW there are angels.
we also KNOW that the "inspired" word of god also calls other people "god" including jesus himself.
is isaiah flat our lying then? not at all. this chapter is dealing specifically with worship.
23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
there is no other god except Jehovah that we should worship.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
You use the name Israelites for some reason, instead of Hebrews or Jews. The Israelites had no problem worshiping the golden calf, so I am not sure about what you mean by that statement.
Lets take a look at some of the beliefs of the Jews.