[Continuing from previous post...}

I'm actually okay with what you state here, since we know Jesus lived among (us) during the first century, and is reported as ascending to the Father— confirming what Jesus said here about going "back to the Father."

The caveat here is that as I have earlier explained why I believe Jesus existed in the same way that the prophet Jeremiah and the referenced followers of Jesus both existed (were with) Jehovah even before the founding of either the pre-Flood earth or the post-Flood earth... AND that Jesus is recorded as saying these words before his death, there may be an additional consideration here: Jesus is expressing his faith and conviction here, knowing that he is to be put to death and that his hope in being raised up by our Father rested solely in Jehovah's purview. In simpler terms, his "going back to the Father" is a reference to his own death, distinct from his "leaving the world."

The word translated "going" is poreuomai:

G4198

πορεύομαι
poreuomai

Thayer Definition:
1) to lead over, carry over, transfer
1a) to pursue the journey on which one has entered, to continue on one’s journey
1b) to depart from life
1c) to follow one, that is: become his adherent
1c1) to lead or order one’s life

Strong's Definition:
Middle voice from a derivative of the same as G3984; to traverse, that is, travel (literally or figuratively; especially to remove [figuratively die], live, etc.): - depart, go (away, forth, one’s way, up), (make a, take a) journey, walk. {Emphasis added}​

There doesn't appear to be any assertion with poreuomai that speaks to Jesus moving from earth back to heaven, but rather his finishing the work which the Father gave him to do— specifically, his death— since he states in John 17:4 that he's finished the ministry portion of his role. I suppose one could fixate on "transfer" here, but even with that, it can be argued that Jesus, having finished the work assigned him to the best of his ability, is now transferring his right as a perfect man to be raised up (See John 10:18) to the Father as a final act of subjection which would be fully realized when he cried out "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" (Mark 15:34; Compare Psalm 22:1)

John 14:3 is a great verse to bring into the distinction I am trying to make here:

"If I go [poreuomai "die"] and prepare a place for you, I will come again [erchomai "come" or "go"] and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. —John 14:3 New American Standard Bible​

Jesus afterwards explains that he is "the way, and the truth, and the life" and that nobody [else} comes [erchomai "come" or "go"] to the Father apart from Jesus. (John 14:6)

The distinction here is that Jesus' assurance of being raised up again on the basis of his role as a correspondence to Adam, yet sinless, by Jehovah stands separate from our assurance of being raised up again through the merits of that resurrection if we place our faith in this:

Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. —Romans 4:23-25 New American Standard Bible
​

In addition to all of the above-mentioned scriptures, along with those in my previous segment/post, I would add that as the greater Adam, it can be argued theologically that the writer of John is providing an even starker contrast between Jesus and Adam.

To illustrate, note what Jehovah Himself said to Adam:

"You will eat bread by the sweat of your brow until you return to the ground,since you were taken from it. For you are dust, and you will return to dust." —Genesis 3:19 Holman Christian Standard Bible
​

Any glory that Adam enjoyed before seizing authority to himself to decide what's right and what is wrong is unmistakably vanished at this point. Where Jehovah had said that Adam's creation by His hand was "good," the removal of Adam from his former nearness to Jehovah is given finality here with Jehovah, quite bluntly, declaring Adam as nothing greater than the dirt from which he was formed.

That former glory was transferred to Jesus, the second Adam, the corresponding Adam, metaphorically.

Up until the day Jehovah spoke the words found at Genesis 3:19, Adam could say he had come from God, because he had come from Jehovah through an act of creation— even as Jesus came from Jehovah through an equally inexplicable act of creation (conception in Mary's womb).

Even so, Jesus' death was not absent of hope like Adam's own death, when Adam would return to the dust. Instead, Jesus had every confidence that his personal death would not lead to everlasting separation from God. Rather than returning to dust, Jesus was returning to God, Whom Jesus knew would raise him back to a life far greater than the one he spent some thirty years living.

But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that He would place one of his descendants on his throne. Foreseeing this, David spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did His body see decay. — Acts 2:31 Berean Study Bible

...because you protect me from the power of death. I have served you faithfully, and you will not abandon me to the world of the dead. — Psalm 16:10 Good News Translation
​

One final scripture before I close, in regards to Jesus' returning to the Father:

...and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. —Ecclesiastes 12:7 New International Version [Emphasis added]
​

Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
Timothy

 

Hi, too, Imabetterboy. I read what you wrote about Phil 2:5-8 and I must say you have a tight pair of shoes to wear on that subject, in other words, it hard to fit in the knowledge that you have on that subject. I will try to explain my self, according to some Jesus never had a previous life in heaven prior to his birth from Mary and God's Holy Spirit. Some would use a Bible text like Joh 1:27 to try to prove that, it is true John the Baptist seem to say that he came to life before Jesus but we would have to ignore vs 30 were he say's "This is the one about whom I said, Behind me there comes a man who has advanced in front of me, because he "Existed" before me." One can blot vs 30 with liquid paper but would that person be for the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I wonder. Maybe a person can blot vs 30 in an other way by reasoning that Jesus only existed in God's mind prior to his birth from the Virgin Mary and God's Holy Spirit in His plan of redemption. Ower Bible studies has to fit with many other Bible texts or we have to "Aquite" Let's try to fit that understanding or reasoning just mention. We will go to Heb 1:10 It reads "And: "You, in the beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are the work of your hands." Col 1:16 say's the same. So all that creative work was only in Jehovah mind because Jesus never existed prior to his birth from God's Holy Spirit and Virgin Mary. So Jesus must have created all things after his baptism when he was sent by God the Father. Does that "Fit." You have a tight pair of shoes to wear on that subject no wonder Joshua can't fit his small toes in them. LOL. Let us all continue in our Bible study to find a better "Fit" in the knowledge of God's Word with the help of God's Spirit. Christ Love to you and to all. Regent

 

Context decides if it is figurative or literal.

** Heb 10:5 So when (he comes into the world), he says: “‘Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but you prepared a body for me. 6 You did not approve of whole burnt offerings and sin offerings.’Then I said: ‘Look! I have come (in the scroll it is written about me) to do your will, O God

On what occasion did Jesus say the above? Was it when he was born or at his baptism?

Would you say, being born into the world is different to being sent into the world? Would you send your children into the world on their own to preach before they could talk correctly?

Twice I have asked of you to supply me the Greek word that is translated (back) in Jn 16:28, post #16 and on the thread understanding John1:1-14 post #14 And to save you time looking it up I have reproduced it here for you.

"On Jn 16:28 what Greek word is the word ( back ) translated from please. It does not read going BACK in my Bible but Going TO the father.

On Jn 13:3 what is the word RETURNING translated from. My Bible says was going TO God."

Where is your reply to that?

Where excactly is the scripture that says he gave his son at his birth?

When excactly, do you say this occurred? Before he was born, or Before he left heaven? Or at his death?

Well, I'm asking you to clarify the text.

The way I understand, is that the child formed/created in the womb would be God's future son (as the Greek is future tense and not past tense Lk 1:32-36) and will be called God's son. And after being raised as a mature adult was sent into the world to save it, and to give his life as a living sacrifice, and God allowed his death to happen even though Jesus had did no wrong. And so God gave up his son as a Ransom.

How about these for a paradox! How did Jesus pre-exist himself? How could Jesus pre-exist his mother? How could Jesus pre-exist his forefather when part of him is in the loins of David? Pre-existence is a paradox, a self inflicting paradox.

 

Greets to You Regent!
Appreciate your comments! I don't necessary agree with them but is is good to consider them. I take it from your comments you are a Trinitarian? Claiming Jesus is God by quoting Heb 1.?

 

I believe, Jesus did not have a pre-existence But was born to God and Mary in the first century, God being his progenitor, his actual father and Mary his biological mother. Matthew 1:1-20 where its is stated that Jesus is out of Mary and Out of holy spirit, the two sources of origin.

Your right, we canot ingnore vs 30 because John identifies Jesus as a MAN who has existed before him. But that is contradictory! John (Who is also a MAN was born 6mts before Jesus) So how can another man pre-exist before another MAN? The actual Greek helps us to understand the paradox. A lexicon gives this meaning of émprosthen d. before, denoting rank: γεγονέναι ἔμπροσθεν τίνος, to have obtained greater dignity than another, John 1:15, 30, also John 1:27 R L brackets; And protos as And πρῶτος prōtos, pro'-tos; contracted superlative of G4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):—before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former. Therefore what John is saying is that Jesus ministry was to surpass his because his is more important. Because protos is the superlative of pros means he is the best, or as we would say in English he is number 1, He comes first, because he has greater rank. Or because he is the chief /leader of me The only reason I believe, translators translate it as “existed” is because of their religious bias or because they have been taught that Jesus was pre-existing. The best you could say it is ambiguous. And therefore it is not proving a pre-existence to my understanding.

One does not need liquid paper but a better understanding of the Greek as I have indicated above.

This is a difficult text as this supports a Trinity more than it supports anything else when read at face value. And I don't have time to go into the details just now.

Col 1 Is in a different context. As I understand this portion of scripture to be about the new creation and not the original creation. As pointed out in verse 13-14, Where Jesus is the new authority, in the kingdom of God's love. Where the word ALL is used in the limited sense and not the absolute sense. Compare with 2 Cor 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. Much appreciated my shoes are comfortable! Christian love IABB.

 

Hi again to Imabetterboy. I am amazed that you think that I am a Trinitarian by the simple quote of Heb 1:10. So according to you anyone who quotes Heb 1: is a "Trinitarian." I am asking you to make"Proof" of that from my comments because that is what you say my "Comments" brought you to the conclusion that I am a "Trinitarian." Prove all "Things". God's word the Bible say's to Prove all things 1Th 5:21 KJV and that applies even more to the Word of God, not "Imagine" all Things. I am sure you are a "Betterboy" to Prove all Things and will not fill the blanks with your own "Imaginations." All yours in Christ. Regent

 

Hi Again, Regent!
No I wasn't sure, what you believed, Most Trinitarian quote those scriptures to prove Jesus is God. So that was my reason for that assumption? I just wanted to be clear!
Thanks for the clarification!

 

Agreed

 

Yeah.......I was surprised too, when I first read that comment.

 

Joshuastone7
Yes, I agree to this logic to a point! Which is a true pre-existence! Of which is really the belief in a resurrection. The principles of LIFE do not change! They still have their mothers, original fathers and descendants and they are the same person. Not a reincarnated person who changes natures they remain who they are as human. And they DO NOT Pre-exist their mothers.

Jesus from what I read in the scriptures is a MAN when he was resurrection he was still a man, his body changed to gain access to heaven. He is an exalted Man holding high privileges of authority.

Jesus birth is not a resurrection it is a coming into reality, an existence, he had never lived as a person before! And that is the nature of this discussion Did Jesus have a pre-existence before HE WAS BORN?????

Miracles I can believe in I see that all around me! Miracles are in harmony with his principles of truth. He tells us the truth, we should believe him. I am of the strongest belief that Jehovah does not lie or expect us to believe unreasonable and foolish logic.

I agree if God wanted to raise up children from stones that's possible, after all Adam was made from out of the ground. On the other hand would he break his promise to David that one of his descendants would receive the Kingdom than, No!. God is not a man that he should lie. That would be going contrary to his principle of truth! Which the Bible says is IMPOSSIBLE for GOD to LIE.

Would you be happy with God breaking his promises to David and Abraham that he would raise up a son from within their loins?

Why does it say body here, and where it was taken from says, "But you opened up my ears to hear" ? Is this not a paradox in your understanding?

My understanding is that Jesus had listened to his father's word, and had come to understand that God was looking for willing service, to him (1Sam 15:22), It is better to obey than just give animal sacrifices. Jesus had come to the point of dedicating his life in service to God, he was to empty HIM self of his self will to be filled with the spirit of God to do God's will. He was prepared ready!

Presenting himself to do God's will, He set the example for others to follow

** Rom 12:1 Therefore, I appeal to you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason

Because they are bias to their way of thinking. You do not need to put (back) or (returning) giving the impression that he was a person before hand. Altering the scripture to side with your personal view. Where if it is translated correctly it is going to the father which the text really says should be all that is necessary.

I see this as your private interpretation, SON nor BIRTH are in the text.

I see this as your private interpretation SON nor BIRTH are in the text.

I see this as your private interpretation SON nor BIRTH are in the text.

The word beginning can mean ruler hence it is ambiguous.
.

And once again,
I see this as your private interpretation SON or firstborn son is not mentioned! In fact if this was literal than it is a daughter or a woman or a lady BUT not a son.

I certainly do not believe in an imaginary son. God by a miracle fathered Him to Mary, who was born, named Jesus 8 days after his birth, raised and baptised at 30 years, who gave his life in service to God. God rather save him because of his faithful service gave him up to die as a ransom.

Joshua, I disagree It says he gave his only begotten Son, the one begotten to Mary. That is not a interpretation I'm just quoting God's word from Matt 1:1-20

And your last point yes,that's right! Why would it be necessary if Adam had remained faithful?

Joshua, because to me and my understanding that is speculation and conjecture, I have not seen anywhere that an angel volunteer to die for mankind?

Jesus obviously was volunteering when he dedicated his life in willing service to God, vowing to do God's will. To quote him! Here I have come O God to do your will, Heb 10:7

I am not sure what you mean by this.statement......" If Jehovah created his son to die perfect, that means he wasn't going to sin"

I am sure it was possible for him to sin, the first Adam did and he was sinless before committing sin. Jesus was tempted but was able to overcome and conquered it.

Thank God for that!

Are you out in the world on your own already? lol[/QUOTE]
No, I didn’t go out into the world until I was able and capable and allowed by my guardian to do so.

I still don't like going out into the world.
Be at peace brother!

 

Tell me wallflower, do you also agree to these paradoxes?

A Man can preexist his mother? A Man can pre-exist his ancestors?

If Jesus is a man (Jn 8:40, Jn:30) who is 30-33 years of age, be also a man who has lived millions of years?

Can a man pre-exist himself before he is born to his mother?

And when do you think God "gave" his only begotten son? At his birth.... or.... at his death?.... Or..... before he is supposedly to have left heaven?

Can a man have the mind of an angel and the mind of a man? That is, think as a man and think as an angel?

Would you consider that a corresponding equivalent to the first Adam? For example, Would Adam have had the mind of an angel and the mind of a man?

Just interested to your view of these things!
Christian Greetings and love IABB.

 

Well if God can do that without considering his own promises! Then there is not much I can say! But say it is all rubbish! There is no point to any of it! Just rubbish! Wipe out the whole human race and start again if he wants to. He dosen't mean what he says! I don't want to belong to a God who can change his promises and lie. You believe what ever you want. But I'm no part of that! Sorry!
Solving an argument like that makes it impossible for any thing to be right or wrong.

 

Have it however you want! You have convinced me there is no other ways but yours!

And when things get rough just throw in a God who can do anything he pleases! With that kind of logic, I'm right as well. I have no argument against a God who can forget his promises and raise up a son to David from stones who would be a true descendant. Sorry!

Im done! No more discussion on it!

Cheers!