Why I Believe Phil 2:5-8 is Not about Pre-existence

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Imabetterboy, Apr 4, 2018.

  1. 4,167
    835
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    You "clarified" only after I pointed out 1Cor 15:51 was speaking of two groups, and then you act as though you meant it all along...lol Anyone can read our posts and come to a rational conclusion that you want to be right, and not concerning yourself with fact.

    You clean up your mistakes by sweeping them under a rug, exclaiming; "No one saw that!"

    It is my humble opinion you could use some good old fashion prayer...
     
  2. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    No! I'm not calling you a lair, I was drawing your attention to something you said, but it may not have been what you meant, which was not true.

    I reread your post it still says what I quoted nothing about Jesus NOT having the memories or not having the mind of an angel.
    Perhaps an older one. Maybe, I don't know, you have been very detimine to say he is/was an angel in some form or another.
     
  3. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok fine, I take that, I was wrong. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I apoligize! I'm sorry.

    Yes we can always do with more prayer! Thanks for reminding me!
     
  4. 4,167
    835
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Again, I'm having to repeat myself yet again...LOL

    Post #96
    Same post:
    Post #91
    Same post:
    As well there were a handful of other times I've had to repeat myself over and over... And here I am doing it for you again.

    How come you can't understand it? Because your to busy calling me a liar, and telling me what I actually believe instead?

     
  5. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    I can't understand you, your right about that!

    If your telling the truth? That he is only a man nothing more and nothing less as per your quote # 96

    **Quote # 96 The Watchtower does not believe Jesus was an angel, but only a man, nothing more, and I agree with them"

    And If your telling the truth that he NEVER had previous memories (Quote #98) and as per your quote to earthbound quote #91 (Which incidentally, seem to be saying, you believe he had previous memories)

    ** Quote # 91 Now, had Jesus not had his previous memories, he would not have been anything more then a man. After all, that is what resurrection is, or as you put it (reincarnation) when one is raised from the dead they are given their previous memories. Our memories and experiences are what make us who we are. Had Jesus made all new memories from infancy, without any of his prehuman knowledge, he would have been nothing more then the product of his environment and perfection from God. And that is the debate we are having, how he was able to be born of women and be perfect, is it not?"

    If you're telling the truth, that he is only a man, That he is not an angel reincarnated, That he has no memories of a past life as an angel.

    WHY, do you keep justifying that he is / was, to answer the paradox that he (a man) was before Abraham, Jn 8:58 and had a glory, before the world was Jn17:5?????

    It is not possible for a man to have lived that long! How do you justify without saying he (a man) had a pre-existence or that he is not an angel???
     
  6. 0
    0
    0
    Earthbound

    Earthbound Guest

    I'm a bit bleary-eyed this morning, so please bear with me as I try to wake up while I pick up where I left off. o_O

    Okay, so this whole "I AM" debate has raged for way way longer than either you and I have been alive, so I'm not going to kid myself that you and I are going to resolve anything here. That leaves us only the opportunity to approach the Great Debate™ with our own thoughts and observations, bias and conclusions.

    And I thought I'd touched on some of this in an earlier post I left in this topic.

    For brevity's sake, then...

    Am I correct in perceiving that your present view is that when Jesus said, "before Abraham was born, I am," Jesus is both identifying himself as the same person who spoke those words to the Israelites in Moses' day... and that as that person, he has been in existence since "before Abraham"?

    Such a view would certainly be in agreement with mainstream Christianity's view that manifestations of Jehovah in the patriarchal days was actually Jesus taking on human form to interact with humans, insofar as I understand their view. (See Genesis 18:13, 22, 26, 33)

    This, then, would explain why you conclude that Jesus is identifying himself as the very same person that was there with Abraham on the day of Sodom and Gomorrah's judgment, as Jesus stands before the Jews demanding explanation after explanation of him, yes?

    To wit: those same Jews misunderstood every single thing Jesus said throughout this account to them except this one-- which offended them to such an extent that they sought to stone him, thinking he was, for the sake of our discussion, identifying himself as Jehovah. Jesus was declaring himself Jehovah, in summation, and the claim was so preposterous and offensive and blasphemous to the Jews that they were obligated to stone him right then and there, spilling human blood in the midst of the Temple!

    If memory serves me, capital punishment was the exclusive prerogative of the Roman empire, who allowed subject nations to handle punishment up to that extent. Still, I want to qualify that by saying that by this stage in the conflict between the Jews and Rome, the Jews had become emboldened enough to go ahead anyway with handling certain cases of capital punishment, since they are reported as stoning Stephen to death.

    All of which is really more a point of curiosity than pertinence to our discussion, so let me get back to that.

    I would be foolish to dispute the extent which the Johannine gospel seems willing to go in order to establish Jesus as "I AM" for readers. For those remaining unconvinced, the writer finally cuts to the theological chase, as it were, when they report as part of their closing arguments that the disciple Thomas says of Jesus:

    “My Lord and my God!” —John 20:28 Berean Study Bible

    The problem for me is that such a view of Jesus is not found before late into the first century, when the gospel was written anonymously. The earlier gospels share no such view, nor do they suggest that the disciples had this view of Jesus. That, to me, is significant, especially considering magnitude of this theological implication!

    Again, I'm sure I addressed some of this in an earlier post of mine, when I showed scripturally why I believe as I presently do regarding this.

    You wrote, "There would be no reason to need a savior of a world before it had sinned, therefore what does he mean by having glory before the world began?"

    A couple points here:

    First, the writer of 1 Peter sheds some light on what is meant by "world" (Greek 'kosmos'):

    And God did not spare the ancient world--except for Noah and the seven others in his family. Noah warned the {kosmos} of God's righteous judgment. So God protected Noah when he destroyed the {kosmos} of ungodly people with a vast flood. —1 Peter 2:5 New Living Translation

    We ourselves are living in the post-Flood kosmos (world).

    Now, with that in mind, I hold that there is sufficient scriptural reason to believe John 17:5 is a reference to the pre-Flood kosmos moreso than the post-Flood kosmos— after all, the writer of John isn't here for me to ask directly which kosmos he was referring to when he used the term.

    Can it be demonstrated that sin existed before the ancient world was founded— before that system of things began?

    I believe so.

    The kosmos came about as a consequence of Adam's disobedience. To that point, Adam was, quite bluntly, the god of planet earth, having in subjection all things here in earth— both him and his descendants, all gods in relation to the rest of the flora and fauna— having had the authority given them by the Creator. (Cf Psalm 82:6)

    We likewise can establish that Satan became the god of the post-Flood system of things, because Jesus himself is recorded as confirming it:

    Now there is a judging of this {kosmos}; now the ruler of this {kosmos} will be cast out. —John 12:31 New World Translation

    Again, for clarity, 1 Peter 2:5 illustrates that the pre-Flood kosmos was judged and destroyed. That kosmos is no more. The present kosmos was under the godship (authority) of Satan at least up to the point Jesus said that Satan is to be cast out. Arguably, when Satan is cast out, the Messianic kingdom begins as Jesus becomes the new god of this kosmos, and endures until the end of this present kosmos, at which point this kosmos will be replaced with one where Jehovah Himself becomes all things to all— an observation made by the apostle Paul in his first letter to the believers at Corinth. (Cf 1 Corinthians 15:28)

    Until then, this kosmos will continue to pass away, along with it's desires. (See 1 Corinthians 7:21; 1 John 2:17)

    Now, having said all that to set the background here, did sin exist before the present kosmos? Yes, of course. Did sin exist prior to the founding of the kosmos which developed after Adam's disobedience— in other words, before the founding of that ancient kosmos? Yes, because that kosmos came about as the result of Adam's sin.

    I think it's at this point that we diverge in our perspective.

    You take the writer's words there in John to mean that Jesus had an actual, and fully realized existence before he was reincarnated as a human being to become the second Adam.

    I take the writer's words to mean that Jesus is speaking to the glory Adam formerly had before Adam disobeyed and set into motion the kosmos that resulted, as his own corresponding position with Adam.

    Adam was the glory and pinnacle of Creation. When he disobeyed, the former glory was lost— and like a fan unplugged from the source of its power, began to die. The nearest we've seen to the glory Adam lost for all of us descendants is when Moses came down from the Mount and his face glowed to such an extent that he actually had to wear a veil.

    A stark contrast to what we have now, although we get hints of it spiritually as Jehovah's holy spirit operates in our lives. Still, in due time, as the writer of 1 John expressed in his expectation: we shall likewise be as Jesus proved to be, and experience that extent of unity with our Creator. (See 1 John 3:2)

    Yes.

    A corresponding Adam (read: Jesus) would never have been needed, and thus Jesus would have never existed, had Adam never sinned.

    I must take issue with your summary judgment of "some meaningless(ness)" of the view I've explained scripturally to this point. It may be meaningless to you, but it surely is not so to me or others who share this view based on their study of the scriptures, and could be understood as ridicule from you.

    Keeping in mind that we're dealing with the theology promoted by the writer of the Johannine gospel solely (with the exception of the John epistles) and apart from the other "witness" gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, let's go over this:

    "I came from the Father..."

    Your position is, if I've understood you to this point, that this means Jesus previously existed as a being in the heavens.

    My position is that Jehovah is the source of all Life, and Jesus is being consistent here with that understanding— there is no requirement to believe that he previously existed as an angel, an archangel, or what-have-you.

    "...and entered the world..."

    Again, I do not believe this is speaking as a transferral from heaven to earth, based on the apostle Paul's own statements:

    Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned-- —Romans 5:12 New International Version
    Who among us would say that sin came from heaven when it entered the world?!

    "...now I am leaving the world..."

    Jesus, for me, is speaking here about his imminent death, not about leaving planet Earth, per se, in light of kosmos being found here, which I've already attempted to establish scripturally as the current system of things.

    I'm not sure what more I can add here beyond statements and observations I've made elsewhere in my posts.

    "...and going back to the father."


    Once again, we are at variance on the meaning here. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are of the opinion that this is a second reincarnation— this time of Jesus back into an angel, and Jesus saying that he's going back to heaven.

    My present position is that just as Jesus acknowledged a moment earlier his origin from the Father, as the Source of all Life as espoused at Numbers 27:16, Jesus is here speaking to his going back to the source of all Life in the same way that Solomon expressed it:

    ...the spirit returns to God who gave it. —Ecclesiastes 17:7 New International Version
    The caveat here is that Jesus' death is very different from that of, let's say, the ancient Fathers of Israel, about whom we read expressions like this one, recorded of Jacob:

    When I rest with my fathers, carry me away from Egypt and bury me in their burial place." Joseph answered, "I will do what you have asked." —Genesis 47:30 Holman Christian Standard Bible {Emphasis added}
    Jesus' body would not see corruption in the grave, such as the bodies of the great Patriarchs did. Even more importantly, the relationship that Jesus had with Jehovah was precisely the relationship which Adam enjoyed before disobedience, when Jehovah and Adam would "walk together" in Eden, and enjoyed direct communication.

    Again, I emphasize the corresponding situation here of Jesus of Nazareth with Adam— with the exception of disobedience resulting from self will.

    As the Source of all Life, we ought recognize that our very existence originates from our Creator, yes?

    So when you write, "All men could say they are from the Father," my responses is that all men should be saying this. Every one of us should recognize that we have not a single thing apart from our Creator. Most do not, of course, which is why the kosmos is where we see it today, albeit with the scriptural reassurance that this kosmos is passing away, along with its desires.

    At the same time, believe this or not, I happen to agree with you when you write, "The context indicates that [Jesus] comes from the Father in purpose and will" simply because you are right in that observation insofar as I can determine, too.

    It's simply our application of that fact where we diverge.

    I see your framing of this as an artificial and unnecessary limitation, and here's why I feel so:

    Your position as stated is that Jesus, in his pre-human life, consented to be reincarnated into the person of Jesus. It is also your stated position that if Jesus didn't have a "previous origin" that would mean, for you, that Jesus "had no free will in the matter." It is also your stated position that since "Adam was created as an adult," Adam had "free will" from his beginning.

    The problem for me is that Jesus was created in the womb of Mary. The conception was as miraculous as Adam's own birth with one difference: Adam didn't have an umbilical cord because he wasn't conceived in the womb of a woman because Eve didn't exist (yet). When it came time for the Law and the Prophets to be fulfilled, there was a womb available through which Jehovah wrought our redemption. Evidently, there wasn't a need for Jesus to be formed from red mud like Adam had been, or Jehovah would've gone that route. As you've cited at various places in the topic, Jehovah could've raised someone out of a stone or rock if doing so would have served our Father's Purpose. But He didn't. He created Jesus within the womb of Mary so that she conceived and came to be with child.

    I'm not clear why you say that unless Jesus had a heavenly pre-existence that it must mean that Jehovah "created a life without free will," however. Insofar as I can determine, this would only be true IF one believes that Jesus must have had a pre-existence as a spirit being before becoming Jesus, a position I do not hold, in conjunction with the scriptures and explanations thereof.

    I mean, are you saying that Jesus didn't have free will as a man born of woman? In other words, where is the scriptural prerequisite that heavenly preexistence is required for Jesus to have free will? Jesus spent his entirely life subjecting his will to that of Jehovah, did he not? Furthermore, he subjected himself to those in authority as the occasion required-- first his parents, and then to the secular and religious authorities up to the point where their commandments clashed with Jehovah's commandments. He subjected himself as far as his own death. Even during the Passion, when he iterated what his own will was wanting, he bent it to our Father's Will.

    Did Jesus have a choice in being created any more than Adam had a choice in his own creation? No, I do not believe so.

    Nor do any of us. Some are born into poverty, others into disease, still others into far worse.

    So, I go back to the corresponding value factor here. If Adam had no choice in his creation, reasonably, Jesus did not either. The difference falls, then, to what they did after their creation, and the gospels cover that sufficiently enough that I don't need to elaborate further in that respect.

    Again, I'm not clear what you are saying here, so would you elaborate a bit, please?

    In the meantime, I'm going to step away to grab a cup of coffee and then see to the next post in the order of their appearance in the topic. :)

    Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
    Timothy

    PS. As might be obvious from my opening statement, I started this post early this morning, got a few more thoughts in over my lunch hour, and just now finished it up, so I probably forgot some of the points I was wanting to make at certain parts. Apologies, in advance!
     
  7. 0
    0
    0
    Earthbound

    Earthbound Guest

    LOL!

    One last thing: I just realized that there is an itty bitty number at the lower right of the posts, so that should make it MUCH easier for me to keep track of where I'm at with the responses. I just finished responding to post 27 in this topic. ^_^

    Previous to the discovery, I was going all the way back to the FIRST post and then forward, trying to find where I left off. :eek:
     
    wallflower likes this.
  8. 4,167
    835
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Yea, this forum was pretty well built, this was right after they left vBulletin. They really packed it with useful features and things they wished the other company had used...

    Not sure of later versions, but I got in at the right time...
     
    Earthbound likes this.
  9. 0
    0
    0
    Earthbound

    Earthbound Guest

    I think IABB mentioned this in his own response, but the statement you refer to is from the writer of John's perspective, and is past tense in relation to when the writer is committing these thoughts to parchment.

    If you'll note, John 3:16-21 is a parenthetical aside by the writer as an expression of his theological point concerning Jesus, and not Jesus saying these things of himself to Nicodemus. The writer is building on the high Christology started in the first chapter of this particular and unique gospel.

    I believe I touched on 1 John 4:9 in a previous post, so I won't retread things here.

    Perhaps it would help if we started at this point:

    "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.' —Psalm 2:7 New American Standard Bible
    Here I see to elements:

    One: there would come one who would "tell the decree of" Jehovah God.

    Two: Jehovah says to this person "You are My son, today I have begotten you." {Emphasis added}

    I'm fairly confident that we can agree this isn't a reference to David, although he was inspired to write the words.

    I'm likewise confident that we can agree that this is a reference to Jesus. Jesus spent himself in telling the decree of our heavenly Father, Jehovah.

    That just leaves the second part: what day did Jehovah beget Jesus?

    We have various testimonies in our Greek Christian scriptures we can turn to for the answer, and, in turn, establish what is meant by the expression "begotten."

    He has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: 'You are My Son, today I have become Your Father.' —Acts 13:33 Berean Study Bible
    Here, the apostle Paul is himself citing Psalm 2:7... except that he isn't quoting it exactly. He is adapting Psalm 2:7 in relation to its fulfillment. Whereas Psalm 2:7 says "I have begotten you [Jesus]," Paul chooses to express it this way: "I have become Your Father."

    I find that interesting, because Jehovah becomes Jesus' Father as a result of Jesus' "telling the decree of" Jehovah, and not because of some primordial, pre-existing relationship.

    I mean, surely Paul knew what Psalm 2:7 actually said, right?

    Yet for the apostle Paul, this expression "begotten" means that Jehovah became Father to Jesus.

    For to which of the angels did God ever say: "You are my Son; today I have become Your Father"? Or again: "I will be His Father, and He will be My Son"? —Hebrews 1:5 Berean Study Bible
    Again, we find a temporal marker: "today I have become your Father" and "I will be His Father... he [Jesus] will be My Son."

    Logically, for Jehovah to become Jesus' Father and for Jesus to become Jehovah's son, there cannot have been a prior father-son relationship in the sense you are recommending. Otherwise, "have become" would needs be worded as "am" and "will be" worded as "is."

    So also Christ did not take upon Himself the glory of becoming a high priest, but He was called by the One who said to Him: "You are My Son, today I have become Your Father." —Hebrews 5:5 Berean Study Bible
    This confirms my previous point as well as additional verification of the view during the first century that Christians understood "begotten" to mean that Jehovah became Father to Jesus, not that Jehovah already was Father to Jesus.

    For us today, this creates the appearance of a conundrum, in that Jehovah obviously is the physical father of Jesus, having created Jesus in the womb of Mary, yet such can easily be remedied when we realize that while Jehovah created Jesus in the womb just as He created Adam from adamah, He didn't become Father to Jesus until the day when He approved Jesus and got Jesus as the first of many sons and daughters.

    I know this because of what I find written by the apostle Paul:

    For the creation eagerly waits with anticipation for God's sons to be revealed. —Hebrews 8:19 Holman Christian Standard Bible [Emphasis added]
    This revealing had not happened by the time Paul wrote this, but it does confirm that there will be others just like Jesus— that is, they will begotten of and by Jehovah God.

    As witness to this:

    Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. —1 John 3:2 English Standard Version

    But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God —1 John 3:2 Berean Study Bible

    For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. —Galatians 3:26 Berean Study Bible
    The common element here is that by remaining faithful unto death, and our placing faith in this, Jesus opened the way for all of us to become sons and daughters of God just as he was. To be gotten by Jehovah.

    It thus seems that if we say that Jesus had a pre-existent life to which he returned after living as a human, then to be like him, as Paul describes, we will be restored to heavenly life formerly enjoyed by us, as well. In effect, whatever Jesus is, we will become in due course. Again, Paul's words, not my own.

    This is really an oversimplification, I know, but is sufficient for the purposes of this particular post.

    So, back to the day. When was Jesus be gotten by Jehovah?

    As soon as Jesus came up out of the water, he saw the heavens breaking open and the Spirit descending on Him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.” —Mark 1:10-11 Berean Study Bible
    Based on this, I'd have to say it was when Jesus underwent baptism, in keeping with this statement from the Matthean gospel:
    Which brings us full-circle back to the scripture we opened with at Psalm 2:7.

    Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
    Timothy




     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 11, 2018
  10. 4,167
    835
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    My Quote: "Rather then this Scripture being some meaningless lesson of Jehovah being the origins of life,"

    I apologize if someone might have taken offense to my statement, but it was directed to the idea that Jesus words were simply to denote that his Father was the origin of his life, rather then he being sent from his Father prehuman.

    Rather, it was the idea of Jesus's words becoming meaningless because (to be quite frank) all creation is from his Father, that I was directing attention to, but if offense was taken, I certainly apologize.

    With that said, believing Jesus's words are some parable about Jehovah being the source of life, appears to me an interpretation that simply is not there. With all do respect, believing Jesus was saying his Father was the source of his life, would be just the same as me saying, "I am from my Dad, and I'm going Sunday to see him." No one is going to say they are from their dads loins, simply out of the blue, and then call him their Father. Just the inclusion of the word Father indicates they are the source of their life, then the word "from" is not needed. Let alone then tie that into going to see him on a later date. That violates laws of communication, social norms, and quite frankly would be a comment from one with developmental defects.

    I do not believe Jesus was a "reincarnation" as you are more defining your meaning. I believe Jesus was a brand new creation, not having any memories of his previous life, he was only a man who had the Spirit of life put into him just like Adam. Only his resurrection could be seen as the "reincarnation" that you are describing, if you are including his memories.

    Again, with all do respect, I don't prefer that form of reading the text. Clearly Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus from verses 1-21, and to simply take out of context what Scriptures don't correspond to what we believe Jesus would have been saying to him, is conjecture.

    After all he's even talking about himself in the third person in verse 15. Why do you start with John implementing his own theology at verse 16, why not 15? Why not verse 13? His words from their on could be seen as being spoken of as outside one speaking about himself.

    The proof of this is the fact that if you take verses 16 on out of Jesus's conversation with Nicodemus, he would have never answered his question about what it took to be reborn, and what is "salvational". In those verses is the very answer to Nicodemus about the Christ being the Messiah, the Way, and the life.

    As well, Jesus spoke about himself in the third person throughout all the text, and I'm sure you don't need me to quote some...

    No, verses 1-21 is the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. With your approach I could say John started his own theological input anywhere I want, such as verse 13. Such an approach represents a classical example of one implementing an interpretation to conform to a concept. The text never indicates Jesus had stopped talking from:

    Jhn 3:5 "Jesus replied:"

    Until:

    Jhn 3:22 "After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Ju·deʹan countryside."

    All love in The Way...

    PS: It would appear I need to give you time to catch up on some of the posts you still wish to respond to.
     
  11. 0
    0
    0
    Earthbound

    Earthbound Guest

    I knoooooow!

    I'm starting to feel like I'm watching two younger men running along ahead of me, poking at each other with sticks as we all make our way down the road, and y'all looking back at me saying, "Come on, grandpa! Hurry up!!" LOL

    And I can remember having hours and hours of time available to write at-length on this subject or that. Now, all I have is envy for those who are able to do so!

    There's still 24 hours to each and every day, and yet here I am struggling to find snippets of moments to compose posts, frequently losing a point that suddenly comes to me throughout the day. Even when I jot things down, I lose the piece of paper! It's terrible!! LOL

    Buying out the opportune time seems to be available only from the time left to me after a 55-60 hour work week and the prerequisite sleep each day... precious little remaining time I get to spend with my beloved wife of 20 years. So, I either respond here, or I spend time with her. Now, factor in that the average response I leave takes around 2-3 hours to compose, between the reading of the passages being discussed; prayer over the topic and pleading with God to help me speak in an encouraging, upbuilding manner; research either to brush up on a point or to evaluate something so I don't come across as a complete idiot; and, getting caught up in this biblical passage or another because as I was writing, scriptures come to mind that bear relevance and I go to look them up and cross-reference them with others.

    Why, it's enough to make me long for and yearn toward the day when we can discuss, without concern for the constricts of Time, the immeasurable facets of wisdom, foresight, and blessing provided by our Father in the heavens, Jehovah!!

    Thank you for your patience!

    Sincerely,
    Old Man
    Timothy
     
  12. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Joshua, Christian greetings!
    I was reading your reply to "earthbound", and came across this statement,above. I couldn't help but comment on it, and ask a couple of inquiring questions! What you are saying above is (almost what I understand to be the truth) with the exception you say he is a new creation. not having any memories of his previous life.

    I simply believe he is a new creation who did not have a previous life. I understand Jesus was begotten at his conception when God breathed the spirit of life into Mary seed cell thereby causing her maternal organ to function! Jehovah was the progentor the father, giving of life out of his holy spirit. There by creating a new son with new life blood similar to that of Adam before he sinned.

    I did ask once what was your understanding of "the spirit of life". And at the time you felt I was changing the subject and we never got back to finding out.

    So the question I'd like to know is, what is your view of "the spriit of life?"

    And when would Jehovah had put that spirit of life in him if he is a new creation?

    All love to you!
     
  13. 4,167
    835
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    lol...

    Here's my process: I read through your entire post, and then walk away to consider your approach, I personally don't write anything down because I force myself to remember the points. It's seemed to have helped with memory in general... Just my own diagnonsense...lol (Hmm, can't imagine why my dictionary doesn't like that one.)

    Amen brother...
     
    Regent Lessard and Earthbound like this.
  14. 0
    0
    0
    Earthbound

    Earthbound Guest

    That used to be how I worked, too.

    But since I underwent an emergency colonectomy back in 2012 and with it nearly nine hours of deep sedation, there has been a marked and increasing degradation in my ability to remember, and I have no reason to believe that things will improve this side of the veil, unfortunately, based on my research into similar cases where someone needed to be placed under extensively long periods of chemically-induced sedation for surgical procedures.

    I do what I can to keep myself sharp, of course, but this is a physical damage that exceeds my abilities to undo. If I had not underwent surgery, I would not be here today. This is the small price I paid for that privilege.

    But the experience was a blessing in that it changed my entire paradigm, realizing that the things I thought were a BIG deal really weren't any such thing, and I found debates and passionate discussions included among those things. Now, I try to focus on simply explaining my beliefs and answering questions about my faith when they are presented— and leave the rest to Jehovah and the one whom He appointed to judge the hearts and intents of those confessing to be the followers of Jesus.

    Onwards and upwards, as some say.

    —Timothy
     
  15. 0
    0
    0
    Earthbound

    Earthbound Guest

    I'll start with your last point first by saying that one person could very well see something as figurative or more profound than someone else, who sees the same thing at face value (read: literal). It really comes down to how a scripture or passage speaks to the person and resounds in their spiritual heart. This is why I value the thoughts and observations of others so very much! Have we not all at one time or many said in response to someone else, "Wow! I never thought of it that way before!"?

    Alright, so... Mark 14.

    Jesus' reply here is distinctively different from that of the one the writer of John records in that throughout the conversation at John 8:13-58, Jesus is answering plainly but his listeners are not understanding what he means by what he says. They are taking his words literally, at face value, rather than interpreting their meaning—and, because they are not looking past the literal words, they insist he is talking nonsense. To their way of reasoning, he's rendering meaningless the obvious facts (as far as they're perceiving).

    I think we've all experienced people like this. o_O

    Finally, Jesus gives them a non-answer, and it launches them over the top so that they make to stone him to death. For the record, I find this account suspect because it shows a willingness on their part to shed human blood inside the Temple, which would have been anathema to a devout Jew in the first century (or any century!). King David was himself prohibited from having any part in the building of the Temple due to the blood on his hands, and he was loved by Jehovah like few others had been throughout history, a man after Jehovah's own heart!

    Be that as it may, the construction of the sentence is at odds with any other.

    Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see My day. He saw it and was glad.”

    Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?”

    “Truly, truly, I tell you,” Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
    —John 8:56-58 Berean Study Bible

    The perennial question, for me, is: Why didn't Jesus, if he was referring to himself, simply say, "I am [from] before Abraham was born"? Why does the writer record it the way we now see it?

    THAT would have justified the view many (most?) followers of Jesus today suggest that he is identifying himself as God Himself, who had used the expression "I AM" when speaking to Moses.

    But if we insist that "I am" here is a "lifting" of the "I AM" from Exodus, then we would do much better by reading Jesus' words as: "Truly, truly, I tell you: before Abraham was born, Jehovah (or, YHWH)," since we hold the view that it was Jehovah who was speaking to Moses there in Exodus, telling Moses to tell the Israelites that "I AM" has heard their prayers, etc.

    There wouldn't have been anything offensive with that for the Jews there with Jesus. After all, who would debate that Jehovah wasn't from [long] before Abraham's birth? Such a statement wouldn't have warranted an offense so great that the person making the observation would merit death by stoning!

    And, like I mentioned already, I don't see Jesus identifying himself as the same "I AM" found in Exodus, because, quite simply, up to this point, Jesus was speaking plainly to them with his answers without needing to obfuscate and use reversed sentence constructions.

    What I do see here is Jesus explaining that he is the long-anticipated fulfillment of a Purpose set into motion long before the birth of Abraham— whose own birth produced an entire nation of descendants.

    Bear with me as I try to explain:

    The expression "I AM" found in Exodus is understood by me to mean "I am what I will be." So, when Jehovah tells Moses to tell the Israelites in bondage to Egypt to identify Him, it isn't by His Name "Jehovah," but rather, "I am what I will be."

    With that in mind, then, Jesus seems to be telling these Jews that he is the fulfillment of what Jehovah was talking about to Moses, the fulfillment of a Purpose that pre-dates the birth of Abraham, a Purpose that goes back to where it all began there in the Garden when Adam disobeyed, thus sinning against his Creator.

    Which, of course, makes the Jews apoplectic, and they seek to stone him; but it also supports the theological view of Jesus the writer of John holds throughout this unique late first-century view of Jesus.

    The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. —John 1:14a Berean Study Bible
    Christians, in general, insist that the "Word" here was an individual, namely, Jesus in pre-existence before Creation. I held the same view for as long as I was in association with the Watchtower because, to be honest, I didn't have a better explanation, and my feeling about the foreignness of the application couldn't be put into words at that point, and so was moot until I could explain what I felt.

    Don't get me wrong, though. I can appreciate the satisfaction that comes from that application to Jesus. Like I said, I accepted it and explained it that way to others as such.

    Now, I believe that I can explain what used to be a hunch, nudge, or feeling.

    Throughout the ancient world, the power of the spoken word did not go unnoticed. By the word (logos) of a king, another man might be killed, or exonerated. Armies would flow forth by the same logos. The spoken word holds power!

    Death and life are in the power of the tongue... —Proverbs 18:21 New American Standard Bible
    Now, if that is true when we're talking (no pun intended) about the logos of mortal man... how much more powerful is the logos of our Creator!

    Why, from that power all things came to be that are and have ever been or ever will be! The universe and its inhabitants, from heaven to earth itself. Angels, men and women, flora and fauna. There is not a single thing that exists that was not first Willed and then Spoken into existence by Jehovah God.

    The writer of 2 Peter likewise recognizes the power and authority of God's spoken Word when he writes:

    ...by that same word (logos), the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. —2 Peter 3:7 Berean Study Bible
    According to the theology of the Johannine gospel, Jesus is the fulfillment of what Moses had been told "will be" back in Exodus, God's Word, realized just as all things in existence were realized according to their being spoken into existence— that is, by the power and authority inherent and embodied within the Word of Jehovah God.

    Bearing witness to this, we find, from the prophet Isaiah:

    It is the same with my word (logos). I send it out, and it always produces fruit. It will accomplish all I want it to, and it will prosper everywhere I send it. —Isaiah 55:11 New Living Translation
    So, back to Mark again.

    I see a distinctive difference here. The Jewish high priest (who is imminently about to lose his job) asks Jesus pointedly whether Jesus is "the Christ," which is to say whether Jesus is the Messiah.

    Jesus' answer? That he was.

    He then proceeds to tell them how they will soon see the "son of Man" sitting at the right-hand of God, with the expected response: they go ballistic!

    Where the arguments begin among followers of Jesus is about whether they lose their minds over Jesus admitting to be the Christ OR Jesus telling them he is the "son of Man" spoken of in the prophecy of Daniel. As I elaborated in an earlier post, the Jewish view is that the term applies to Israel in its entirety whereas Christians apply the identity to Jesus— leading me to conclude that they lose the plot here because of said application/interpretation rather than because Jesus is admitting to being the "Christ" or Messiah.

    We know, from history itself, that they indeed saw the son of Man seated at the right-hand of God when 70CE came tumbling down upon them. But that's a whole other discussion very much apart from the pre-existence of Jesus.

    Your referencing John 18:37 is the same situation as Mark's was: Pilate isn't asking Jesus whether Jesus is the "I AM" of Exodus, and Jesus is confessing that he himself is the king of the Jesus (since he is the Messiah). The remainder of his statement (sent into the world, etc) I've touched on earlier and so won't revisit here.

    With many such parables He was speaking the word to them, so far as they were able to hear it; and He did not speak to them without a parable; but He was explaining everything privately to His own disciples. —Mark 4:33-34 New American Standard Bible

    “Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. “In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

    ‘YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND;
    YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;

    FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,

    WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,
    AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,
    OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES,
    HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,
    AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,
    AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.’
    —Matthew 13:13-15 New American Standard Bible
    As exemplified, again, with the aforementioned biblical passages, scriptural precedence didn't necessarily play a role during the course of Jesus' ministry. It could, of course, but there was no fast and hard rule requiring it.

    John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.” —Luke 9:49-50 New American Standard Bible
    I'm pretty sure I touched on this before, but the apostle Paul himself explained that while he was uncomfortable with the divisions that were developing, and even wrote of their danger when said divisions create followers of personality, he recognized that such divisions had to come to allow what is in the hearts of men to become manifested.

    You certainly won't find me disagreeing with you about the various views and understandings "out there" among the followers of Jesus now that we are some two millennia into the time of the Gentiles. It's a mixed blessing in some ways, because we have historical precedence when ONE view and understanding prevails among imperfect men and impacts the lives of all others (catholicism 'universal faith'). It didn't go so well. And since the development of Protestantism against the catholicization of Christianity we've seen the outworking of the other end of the spectrum, with those following Jesus having a variety of views and understandings.

    I can only refer you back to the above-cited Luke 9:49-50 along with my feeling that if a person's heart is inclined toward Jehovah and Jesus, and this is reflected in their lives:

    As for us, ourselves:

    The one who eats everything must not belittle the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. —Romans 14:3-4 Berean Study Bible
    See above.

    Aside: It's actually interesting to me to notice how in the earliest gospel, Mark, pretty much everything Jesus says and teaches is not only not understood by the crowds, but also his own disciples. Only the hearer of Mark's gospel and its writer understand the profundity of Jesus' good news. By the time Matthew and Luke were written, the crowds don't understand Jesus, but the disciples themselves do the majority of the time. And by the time the gospel of John was written, everyone understands and appreciates Jesus' good news.

    I snipped what you wrote after this, only for brevity's sake, and because I wanted to say that I am in no way requiring you to accept my view and understanding on anything I've written as the correct one. I can only explain why I believe such-and-such and provide some scriptural elaboration in the process which I feel bore relevance on leading me to such-and-such conclusion.

    Personally, I don't even believe this topic of the pre-existence of Jesus is a salvational issue in that one MUST believe Jesus pre-existed (or didn't) in order to merit salvation or even to merit being recognized as someone who is following Jesus. I see no reason to think of or treat you as less of a brother and fellow slave on the basis of whether you and I agree on what the scriptures relate on the subject, because I have come to know that your heart is inclined as mine own is toward our Father and the one whom He appointed as both our Exemplar and our King.

    Beyond that, I am only thankful for the opportunity and venue to express my belief and reasons thereof here on the site in what I always hope is a reasonable manner. :)

    A fellow slave,
    Timothy
     
  16. 4,167
    835
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Might I ask; Are you giving to much credit to a group of elders that Jesus ridiculed on many occasions for their idolatress behavior? These men were doing everything abhorrent in the sight of God, so why discount the possibility of them wanting to kill Jesus on the spot, based on some perceived ethical virtue?

    Based on Jesus's own criticism of these men, I don't find that argument tenable.

    My view of his use of "I am" was to denote his existence (life force) was ongoing, not something that had stopped. Therefore by saying "I am" he was simply saying that his current life force had been then and now.

    I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that Jesus didn't speak in parables, or figuratively at times, but that I didn't believe his words are proven by concept, but rather his words show concept.

    In other words, you have two ideas; One that Jesus had a prehuman existence, and the other that he did not. I do not believe the text is used to prove either of these, because one could position them however they wish to make their point, rather I believe his words show concept by rules. If one always takes his words literal, unless another location in Scripture can be directly connected to show figurative, you then allow the text to show concept, not a concept used to prove the text.

    Let me give another example. You connect these Scriptures under one concept:

    You connect these Scriptures because they all use the same word, "logos". Now is this a proper precedent rule someone should use in reading the text? Well, does it stand up to scrutiny? We have to say no, because many other times in the text the word "logos" is used to describe nothing more then sinful human words, or intent.

    Mth 5:37 "Just let your word (logos) ‘Yes’ mean yes, your ‘No,’ no, for what goes beyond these is from the wicked one."

    Mth 28:15 "So they took the silver pieces and did as they were instructed, and this story (logos) has been spread abroad among the Jews up to this very day."

    On and on, while I estimate dozens of other uses of the word "logos" having nothing to do with Jehovah or his son within the text.

    Again, this is a matter of precedence when understanding the text, and I don't see these connections of the word "logos" as a precedent to affirm that "logos" in Jhn 1:1, or "logos" in describing Jesus in Rev 19 as the Word, as speaking purely figurative simply because the text says our Father's will was through his word (logos). This word is used as simple speech for sinful humans all throughout the NT, and therefore this form of Biblical comprehension cannot be verified. You cannot say Jesus as the "logos" is figurative simply by connecting other uses of the word "logos" in the text along with Jehovah's will, because a word like "logos" is used for many things throughout the text.

    I also had this discussion with IMABB about connecting words, and how unreliable this approach is when understanding the text. I used the example of our Lord saying we should buy "gold" from him in Rev 3. The word "gold" is used figurative, and therefore this word does not carry the same meaning all throughout the text. Therefore this form of reading the text will lead you down an interpretive road.

    Rather, in the examples that I have given, if one always takes our Lords words as literal, and only understanding them figurative when he directly shows he was speaking metaphorically, one has a Biblical precedent that cannot be contradicted.

    The burden of proof does not lie with the literal interpretation, but that of a figurative one.

    I would have to respectfully disagree with you. Language in general must follow precedence or there would be no understanding at all. In the OT texts, each line meant only one thing. Part of Jesus's preaching work was straightening out everyone's misconception of what the text was actually saying, which means there is only one right answer.

    There are examples of Jesus indicating that the elders were taking some things literal, while other figurative, and he was constantly correcting them as to their misunderstandings of the text.

    I agree, but for one who delights in the Word, and is jealous over it, I find it egregious how the world handles it...

    I see your "time of the Gentiles" as a fulfillment of prophecy these last 2000 years within your statement. I would would bring up Rev 11:2, but that would take us WAY off topic... ;)

    Then again, one could argue that a singular understanding among Jehovah's Witnesses has allowed multitudes from faltering from the MANY views that can be found in the world...

    I completely agree, we don't debate subjects that are salvational, because they are cut and dry. We are here to strengthen our brotherhood. We come under this same roof in compliance of our Lords direction.

    Mth 18:20 "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.”

    As I am, very appreciative of this opportunity as well. I learn more quickly when discussing alternative views then I do studying under my own umbrella.

    All love in The Way...

    AJ
     
    Regent Lessard likes this.
  17. 0
    0
    0
    Earthbound

    Earthbound Guest

    Although this digresses from the topic of pre-existence, I will try to explain where I'm presently at in my understanding and grasp of this particular passage, first by citing the scripture itself:

    Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?" —Genesis 3:9 New American Standard Bible
    You wrote "the text says... ...having no clue what happened."

    In my estimation, you are embedding a personal belief onto the text here (since you state [below quote] that it is your understanding that Jehovah chose not to know), because the text itself declares nothing of what Jehovah knew or did not know when He called to Adam.

    This is, I'm confident you'll agree, what constitutes a private interpretation.

    In identifying what you said as a private interpretation, I am NOT establishing whether you are right or wrong. It's, quite simply, your reasoning in the absence of missing facts, filling in the blanks in accordance with your present understanding shaped through bias and perception. (I really do need to go find that post by (I think) Utuna because it's great stuff!)

    With that in mind, I, too, must rely on private interpretation to offer an alternative view, so consider that my full disclosure right out of the gate. ;)

    As a parent of five children, all grown into adulthood now, I cannot tell you the number of times when a similar situation would arise where I knew what one of my children had done, but I wanted to give them an opportunity to tell me, in a non-threatening way.

    For me, holding the view that Jehovah chose not to know creates an unnecessary paradox for the believer. At the same time, it creates the specter of pre-determination when one suggests that Jehovah already knew what Adam and Eve had done, and that they had hid.

    To wit: that Jehovah knew Adam would fail in his obedience, thus making it an act of pre-determination.

    Somewhere between the two polarizing interpretations, I feel, will be found the answer.

    Does the question "Where are you" require that Jehovah not already know where they are? No, I do not believe so— any more than when I, as a parent, sought out one of my children to get their response to a situation I already was aware of (let's say the school called about something). My child is "hiding out" in their room in the (unrealistic hope) of avoiding me, of course, because they may be ashamed or even fearful of how the dad, whom they love as children love their parents, will react when he finds out what they did.

    In the case of Adam, he had no precedence from which he could develop a sense of what to expect from Jehovah for an act of disobedience in the form of punishment, beyond this "dying" he'd been told to expect, should he disobey.

    Any number of Christians today like to, again, "fill in the blanks" here by saying that Adam knew and understood what death was because he would've seen animals who died. This view operates on the assumption that 1) sufficient time passed during Adam's life in the garden that an animal could live out its entire lifetime, birth to death; 2) that animals died before Creation was subjected to futility (Cf Romans 8:20)

    We are nowhere told how much time passed there in the Garden.

    How Jehovah approached Adam here shows His immense Love. It's non-threatening, non-accusatory. How much differently Adam would have responded, had Jehovah manifested Himself immediately in front of Adam, demanding "Why'd you do this?!" For all I know, Satan could very well have been hoping that Jehovah came across as a petulant, capricious God— after all, Satan certainly tried to paint Jehovah as such when he subtly led Eve to think Jehovah was holding something back from her and Adam.

    I mentioned your above-quoted words a moment ago, and I can see, too, that you recognize that going much further into this would digress from the original topic and thus would be better served in a separate discussion for anyone finding this site who might be drawn to said discussion explicitly.

    On that note, I will simply write that I do not believe Jehovah chooses not to know this or that, nor do I believe this precludes free will. He knows. Does this mean that Jehovah knew Adam would disobey? I'm forced by my aforementioned belief to believe that He did know, and already had redemption in mind, because it is simply more reasonable, within the scope of my ability to comprehend and understand, to believe thus than to believe that Jehovah can be caught unawares and must at times be reactive rather than proactive, as if Satan could ever squeak something by Jehovah. That gives, in my own estimation, too much credit (and power) to Satan.

    So how do I account for free will, then, since I believe Jehovah is omniscient and does not "switch off" this divine characteristic? That's a matter best suited for a separate topic, as we both seem to agree.

    This, too, feels better suited to the above-mentioned separate topic. Regardless, I'll at least say that I think I agree with some of what you said. /mulling

    What is mortal man that you keep him in mind, And the son of earthling man that you take care of him? You also proceeded to make him a little less than godlike ones, And with glory and splendor you then crowned him. You make him dominate over the works of your hands; Everything you have put under his feet: Small cattle and oxen, all of them, And also the beasts of the open field, The birds of heaven and the fish of the sea, Anything passing through the paths of the seas. —Psalm 8:4-8 New World Translation [Emphasis added]

    And God went on to say: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth." And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God's image he created him; male and female he created them. Further, God blessed them and God said to them: "Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth." —Genesis 1:26-28 New World Translation
    The apostle Paul would disagree, since it is precisely this lost intimacy that imbues glory which we are heading toward:

    But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone. —1 Corinthians 15:28 New World Translation
    Once the need for a mediator between Jehovah and man has achieved its Purpose, we will have the same glory and splendor Adam once had— yet lost for all his descendants.

    Yes, Man continues to have the various (things) in subjection to him, but I'd be hard-pressed to confess that it is at the level we'll see once we see perfection restored. I can imagine what it will be like, but I must admit that even my imagination is limited and short-sighted to the extent of the reality which awaits us if we hold true to our faith in what Jesus has opened the door to for us.

    Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
    Timothy
     
  18. 0
    0
    0
    Earthbound

    Earthbound Guest

    While the word "umbrella" appears nowhere in the original text (hah hah), I can appreciate Solomon's words on-point here:

    Intelligent people are always ready to learn. Their ears are open for knowledge. —Proverbs 18:15 New Living Translation

    With Agape and Philia,
    Timothy
     
    Joshuastone7 likes this.
  19. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    I read with interest your explanation of "Logos" to earthbound,which seems to me that I may have given you the wrong expression of what the word (= logos) meant. The word is generic applying to both humans and God. It is our power of speech, it is how we communicate by the use of our thinking abilities, the word logic and logical are derivatives of logos.

    It is simply that which comes out of the mouth as the expression of ones thoughts. (Be it God's or Humans) The context readily clarifies whose word is whose.

    Humans, are not prone to give good and meaningful speech simply because they have fallen short the glory of God (Rom 3:23) Hence, they do not reflect God spirit or word in all they do, where as God's word is his power or spirit. (Heb 4:12) What he says, we should take notice of and obey.

    Jesus was given the power of God's word, and used it throughout his ministry, he spoke to a raging storm and the elements of that storm obeyed and it became calm.

    **Jn 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words (Logos). The word (logos) that you are hearing is not mine, but belongs to the Father who sent me.

    I believe Jesus was filled with the spirit word of God at his baptism when the spirit came down out of heaven and IT became one with his flesh appointing him as God's spiritually chosen son. Isa 40:1-5, Jn 1:14, Deut 18:15-18, He now reflected the glory of God that was to be revealed to the world.

    Peace brother!.
     
  20. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Joshua, I am quite intrigued by your comment, Are you saying that your (life force) has it's own consciousness?

    That it would be cognizant of pre-existence??

    Just curious???
     

Share This Page