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

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

  1. 4,085
    826
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,085
    Likes Received:
    826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    My belief that whoever was walking in the garden did not know what had occurred is based on my approach of Biblical precedence. Words are taken literally, unless otherwise indicating they are not.

    Was there something hidden behind those words? There is nothing to indicate there was, therefore I see believing those words do not reflect the speakers true intent, as the interpretation. If one takes the comments at "face value" one would have to come to the conclusion that the one walking through the garden did not know of the events that occurred. If those words were a lesson in Adam and Eve telling the truth, why wasn't that lesson followed up on later in the text? There would have been a lesson in the speaker questioning them even though he already knew the answer. The text is never frivolous.

    Anyway, I see the text as indicating concept, and this view is by precedence rather then interpretation, in my summation. I know others may disagree and believe I am interpreting, but as I'v said, the burden does not fall on the literal understanding, but to anyone who believes the meaning is hidden. Now if I was arguing a text should not be taken literal, I should have a direct Scriptural connection indicating that text is not speaking literally, not just some overt concept...

    In my humble opinion of course... ;)

    I will have to direct you to my previous post #116 as to my view of connecting words within the text in order to understand concepts.

    Regardless, to say Jesus was asking for something he already had in the past, while intending it to be something someone else had, and then lost, just requires to many hoops to jump through... Not that I don't respect what you are saying, but when I listen to ideas, I must work through them in my own mind, and must look at all possible objections, and when they start popping up without a possible overcome, then the paradoxes will go on forever, invalidating that concept within my own belief structure.

    When someone says "I" they do not mean someone else, in the world or the Bible... Please indicate somewhere Jesus used a similar approach.

    The burden of proof does not lie with the literal understanding, but that of the figurative, and it must be cut and dry...

    Over and over we are discussing how Jesus could not have meant what he said, and each time it is when he declared he existed before becoming a human. While each time the reasons presented to disprove Jesus was speaking literally are all differing, and rely on play on words, or some general concept. That process could be used for any subject matter. I could say that all mankind have Gods will, because our "word's (logos) should be yes and our no's, no." Your concept to explain how Jesus is the "Word" can be used in the same manner to describe anyone as the "Word", because "logos" is used in conjunction with all mankind. This same kind of interpretive behavior doesn't stop there, and would allow any two words connected together to be interpreted in any manner one wishes, and shows signs of the Bible Code. Anything you want to believe can be found at that point, it's just a matter of the concept you want to prove.

    It would seem you say that almost everything Jesus said was figurative, how do you determine in your own belief structure what to take literal?

    Can you offer another Scripture that quotes Jesus describing himself fulfilling Jehovah's will along side Abraham in order to show he did not mean he existed before Abraham, in the same way we understand how he and his Father are one by praying his disciples to be one as well? We know Jesus was not saying he and his Father were one literally, because he asked his disciples to be one just as his Father and he were one, and this has been the Biblical precedence that I have followed throughout all the text. His words are literal unless they are directly explained as figurative. Does Jesus explain his Abraham comment anywhere else as figurative? If someone takes a single step away from this process, you can read anything you want into the text.

    Take IABB's idea that Jesus became the "Word" at his baptism. I could use that same approach to argue that Jesus didn't exist until he was baptized then. If his becoming the "Word" was accomplishing his Fathers will, then I could argue he didn't exist until that moment. In so doing I could give you all the reasons how Mary being pregnant is figurative of Jehovah being the source of life, and it was never literal. I could tell you all about how the angels gave Mary and Joseph a concept of Jesus that would appear 30 years later, and they never had a physical son, but simply were given the son in their hearts. Such an approach would have no boundaries, and could be used to describe any belief one could possibly imagine, but does that make it true?

    Even though these matters are not salvational, only one of us are right... ;)

    All love in The Way....
     
  2. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Going back, as far as I can remember correctly, I have been of the opinion that the word is simply that which comes out of the mouth. The expression of ones thoughts or purposes, be they man's or Gods.

    Now, the thing, I would like to make clear from my point of view, is this, the word is never a person, a word comes out of a person it is not the person themselves. What they say can reflect favourable or unfavourably on the one hearing the WORD.

    The word can be any number of things, for example, the 10 commandments are the expressed word of God. A prophecy, is God's expressed word before it happens. The Bible as a whole is the word, These are compounded that is a serious of commands or statements constituting the word.

    The word can also be power or spirit. Which is the power of speech, we can be influenced by speech, it can be a powerful thing in the one who can uses it correctly, It is how we command and direct people. And it is the same with God, his power is in his speech, It was frightening to the Israelites who asked to Moses to speak on there behalf. God speaks and things come into being Ps 33:6, 9. Isa 55:11

    So why is Jesus called The word of The God.? Because the spirit of prophesying pointed to Jesus. Rev.19:10.

    God expressed things in the past (what we call foreknowledge = prophecy) and by his spirit the prophets wrote things down which was God's word specific to the promised seed of Gen 3:15.

    Some of those words of God were a seed, from the woman, a seed from Abraham, the lamb of Gen 22, The seed of Isaac, out of the tribe of Judah, born in Bethlehem, He be a light, a cornerstone, and many more things that the spirit had inspired the prophets to write down = the word = the promise = the message and so on. So when Jesus fulfilled these he proved faithful and true and so was given that figurative title because he proved to be the things God's word said he should be. The word of the THE God.

    I do not believe Rev 19:13 is making a formal identification of the personal proper name of Jesus prior to his birth. To me that is reading a definition backwards into the scriptures. Rev 19:13 is simply figurative, as are the other titles he is given in the same context.

    The scriptures I feel would best fits the description of Jn1:1-3, are Gen 1:2 and Ps 33:6,9. Where the power of God's word is described in the beginning of the creation of heavens and earth. Which give us the meaning of the word PRIOR to the Christian era. Many Bibles including the NWT cross reference these to Jn 1:1

    It is the power/spirit of God's word that Jesus was anointed with at his baptism. His spiritual begetting, to be born again as God's son. Who would not be declared God's son until he had proven faithful and true, and was resurrected Rom 1:4

    **Acts 10:38 about Jesus who was from Nazareth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing all those oppressed by the Devil, because God was with him
     
  3. 4,085
    826
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,085
    Likes Received:
    826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    This subject would be outside this threads topic, but I will touch base briefly.

    You cannot connect the "Spirit of life" of Roman 8:2 with the "breath of life" in Gen 2:7.

    The breath of life created Adam, the Spirit of life gives us eternal life through Christ.

    Nowhere in the text does it talk about either of these including consciousness. Jesus was created in the womb just as Adam was created. When you explain to me what the "breath of life" was that Jehovah gave Adam, then I will tell you how he transferred the "Spirit of life" into Jesus.
     
  4. 4,085
    826
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,085
    Likes Received:
    826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    This is the whole problem with your understanding. You see "logos" as simple speech in the text for anyone, but yet Jesus is called the "Word" because he's given Jehovah's speech, or will. I've told you before, so did Jonah, so did Moses, so did so many others.... Why weren't they called the "Word"? Jesus is described this as a proper noun....

    You cannot on one hand say that all people have "logos", and represents simple speech, then on the other hand Jesus is The Word because he has Jehovah's speech and will. In that sort of approach I can say that I am the "Word".... That my name is "Word" as a proper noun because I do his will. I could say Hitler was the "Word" because he did his own will his own speech or "logos"....

    It just doesn't work...
     
  5. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Joshua, because, Moses,and Jonah,Jeremiah, were not recorded in the scriptures as the seed, or the promised one who would be Jehovahs salvation. Those prophets do not therefore fit into those titles.They did not fulfil the messianic prophecies. They were simply given the word of God to convey God's word at their specific time period. Jesus is the one SPOKEN ABOUT in the scriptures. (The word about the coming one)

    ** Jn 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him: “We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote: Jesus, the son of Joseph.

    ** Jn 5:46,47 In fact, if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe what I say?

    ** Luke 24:44 He then said to them: “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was yet with you,a that all the things written about me in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms must be fulfilled.

    Jesus literally, fulfils the prophecies foretold in God's word,(Therefore he is "the word" spoken of). Moses and the other Prophets spoke God's word but they did not fulfil what was written about them to the extent Jesus did. Moses was not the foretold seed? or the lamb of God as foretold, They were not foretold to be the promise one or the messiah. They were not prophecied to be the king of the kingdom or to be the son of man who gained access to Heaven.

    Jesus as far as I know is spoken of only once as The Word of The God it in the context where it is said that bearing witness to Jesus is what inspires prophecy. Rev 19:10 -16 bearing witness is the word of God foretelling of Jesus.

    The word "word" is a common noun. A common noun is a non-specific person, place, or thing. Like "bread", "light", "stone", "lamb," or "word", they are not personal names. When used of Jesus they become figurative titles, which means that now they have some bearing on what those words mean in relation to how Jesus fulfils those figurative names or titles as recorded as God's word. It does not make them his personal name.

    There is nothing in Jn 1:1-3 that indicates that this is used as a personal name. It simple refers back to the word/spirit God spoke when creating all things. Ps 33:6,9. Gen 1:2 And that Jesus was to be filled with that spirit / word to give him the authority of God.
    Ps 104:29,30. Job 33:4. Isa 11:2, Deut 18:15-18 God created all things by the power of his word. Or simple by his spirit.(the spirit of knowledge, the spirit of understanding, the spirit of wisdom) The word is the revealed will of God.
     
  6. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Joshua! I wasn't trying to connect these two dots!
    The spirit of life is (the principle of life) it is what gives us animation. Whether we are spiritually alive or spiritually dead we have what is called life. We have very little control over it, it is keeps our heart pumping and our organs functioning.

    It is what we as fathers pass on to our children. The principle of life is in the sperm that wriggles it way unconsciously to the seed cell of the woman thus causing the cell to be come active, forming a child.

    The Bible seems to indicate that the spirit of life is in the blood. Lev 17:11

    It is a principle, God put in all living things so that they'd produce after their own kind. This is the spirit of life as as per the spirit of God which is the persona of God (+ other things, just keeping it simple)

    The spirit of God or the breath of God, is simply God's power causing the body to function as a life.

    Adam was to be spiritual as well as human, made in the image of God (God is spirit) to reflect the image of God thereby reflecting God's persona of wisdom and knowledge.

    Using that gift to rule and care for the things on the earth. Adam fell short of the glory of God and allowed his human will to take control rather than let God be the determiner of what is right and wrong. So Adam spirit became tainted and so rather than reflect the glory of God he now reflected his own human spirit. Man's wisdom as opposed to God's wisdom.

    We rather than bear the image of God as he intended we are really now in the likeness of Adam displaying the human spirit.(I tried to keep it simple to make the point)

    Brotherly love!
     
  7. 4,085
    826
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,085
    Likes Received:
    826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Again, you make a leap I cannot find in the Scriptures. If you believe the Bible says the "word" is simple speech, then were do you read that Jesus being "The Word" as a proper noun is Jesus being the "chosen one"? I don't find anywhere that the reason he's called "The Word" is because he's the "chosen one". Many other people did the will of God, but yet you say they aren't "The Word" because they weren't "the chosen one". Where is this found in the Bible? Where is that concept to be verified? It's a concept your trying to prove with the Bible.

    You quote Scripture about Jesus having been prophesied, and say that makes him "The Word". What about John the Baptist, what about Elijah, what about David, or any human prophesied about, and that fulfilled Gods word? Kings sent their "word" forth to other men, does that make these men "The Word". Your interpretation can apply to anyone who is spoken about. If "logos" can be associated with anyone, and Jesus is "The Word" because text prophesied his coming, then anyone could be called "The Word". Let alone the fact that all of this is hearsay. This conceptual web has nothing to do with allowing the text to explain itself and all about explaining a concept using the Scriptures. I'm sorry, but I wish you could see that you have an idea, and your implementing Scriptures to verify your idea, when that idea is not a premise within the text.

    I could use your same approach and say agents of Satan are "The Word" because he claimed he would raise his throne into the heavens, and Jesus called elders at the temple the sons of Satan, and so on.... Satan would have been giving his "logos", and these ones were fulfilling it, therefore using your reasoning one could call agents of Satan "The Word". You have to look at all consequences of your approach, because you can't apply your rules to one Scripture, and then not to another, because then you are interpreting, and not allowing the text to speak for itself.

    No, Jesus having the proper noun of "The Word" is based on the fact he was the very first creation by Gods will, or word, and he is the one that created all things, and gave us all Scripture, came to this world from a life in heaven, and died for our sins.

    All love in The Way...
     
  8. 4,085
    826
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,085
    Likes Received:
    826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    I never said you did... But in this post, you most certainly are now...

    How does spiritually being alive or dead have anything to do with our hearts pumping?

    I'm not following you, your getting away from terminology we established. What is the "principle of life", some concept you are now making up? We discussed the "breath of life" in Genesis, and the "spirit of life" in Romans, so what is the "principle of life"? Can we stick to Scripture and not concepts?

    You are now combining both, and saying that the "spirit of life" is the "breath of life" after saying you weren't.

    At which point I will point out that even the evils ones have the "breath of life", but no the "spirit of life".

    I might suggest you do a little more studying of that Scripture you quote. The Hebrew word you quote as "life" is "hab·bā·śār", meaning "soul". Basically the Scripture is saying that in the blood is the being, or is life in general. There was nothing extra put into Adam, no spirit that leaves, but that Adam and our blood is simply life itself, it is the soul of who we are. It can turn to dust, and there is nothing Spiritual about it.

    You start out your post by saying you are not trying to connect the "dots" but you certainly are. You are saying the "spirit of life" in Romans is the "breath of life" in Genesis that was given to Adam.

    You are completely connecting the two, and saying they are the same thing, when your opening statement claims you are not... Brother, I mean really????

    Have you not read all my posts? You saying that Adam was the image of God because he was to be spiritual like God, is complete fabrication. There is nothing in the text indicating Adam was to be Spiritual in any way. I mean how in the world can you make that step without seeing that?

    Adam, nor Jesus were the "image of God" because they were "spiritual". o_O Please do yourself a favor and read post #91 here: POST #91

    And I might suggest to read every post, not just the ones addressed to you in a discussion... (Just a brotherly suggestion) In so doing you would have known my definition of "in the image of God" and would have anticipated my response.

    All love in The Way...
     
  9. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    What I said about the word "word" is that it can be God's expressed thoughts, or it can be man's expressed thoughts. Context normally lets us know who's word it is.

    You have “your concept” of how to define what the word is at Jn 1:1, by applying a figurative title to it.

    Figurative titles can also apply to others as the disciple were to be a light to the world, and as living stones on which the church was built. Jesus is a saviour, Jehovah is a saviour, because both have the title saviour does not make them identical. Any more than the figurative title the word given to Jesus after the resurrection is the same at Jn 1:1.

    Jn 1:1-3 is highly ambiguous. As there is nothing in the writing to suggest it is a person! It has been assumed to be so. Trinitarians Catholics decided to make it into a person because it supported that doctrine. They probably thought they were doing the right thing when they changed (it) (a thing) in to a person.

    I on the other hand look at it from a different perspective before the Christian era began where we have many scriptures clearly tell us exactly what God's word is. And that John was drawing upon the Jewish understand of what the word was to highlighted the coming of the Messiah, God's chosen one or anointed one. After all that is the main purpose for John writing the gospel. Isa 53, Isa 40.

    ** Isa 42:1-4 Look! My servant, whom I support! My chosen one, whom I have approved! I have put my spirit in him; He will bring justice to the nations ….

    **Jn 20:31 these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God

    We have exact parallels to Jn 1:1-3 in Ps 33:6, 9 Where the word and spirit are used as God's power of speech causing all things to come into existence by means of it. They both come out of the MOUTH of God.

    Rev 19:13 is not even a parallel of anything as happening in the beginning. But is rather of a title given to someone after proving true and faithful to God's word! To me that is a big difference!

    You have your version of how you interpret the word and I, Joshua, take a different approach. We don't agree and that's our choice. I'm just letting you know that there is another ways to understand.
     
  10. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Why than did you quote Romans?
     
  11. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    You missed the point!
     
  12. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    This is your post on Image of God.
    How do you propose Adam rule and populated the earth if he did not have spirituality? Does not God have wisdom, power, knowledge, understanding, love, etc.,(Which are spiritual things) Surely, Adam had these to a limited degree, if he is the image of God and that he would use these to follow out God's command to rule over his dominion.

    ** Gen 2:15 Jehovah God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to take care of it.
     
  13. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    This post was mostly about splitting hairs! The principle of life is simply = life.

    And life is passed from the male to the female by means of sperm. This life s not conscious life. It is the principle of life. We say it is the spirit of life. Some say it the life force, or life energy.

    A principle = a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.

    Breath of life, and spirit of life are basically the same.

    Breath = spirit = wind = (ruach, a Hebrew word meaning 'breath, spirit') = Pneuma (πνεῦμα) is an ancient Greek word for "breath", and in a religious context for "spirit" depending on context.

    The Hebrew word for life is 'chay' and the Greek word for life is 'zoe.'

    As I said I was keeping it simple!
     
  14. 4,085
    826
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,085
    Likes Received:
    826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Hey, my speech is with me... My talking is with me. My language is with me. My words are with me. My word is with me.

    Who speaks like that, and what does that mean in the context of Jhn 1? He had speech and word and will long before Jesus was here. Who speaks like that, and what does it mean his speech was with him?

    It certainly doesn't appear ambiguous to me. Revelation calls Jesus "The Word", and says he was "the beginning of Gods way". Therefore The Word was in the beginning with God, very simply, very cut and dry. It needs no spider web of personal interpretation. Rev confirms exactly what Jhn 1 says...

    I completely disagree. Jesus is The Word, as a proper noun because he was the very first creation, the beginning of the ways of Jehovah. That beginning is the beginning of creation.

    Correct, we do not agree on this matter...
     
  15. 4,085
    826
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,085
    Likes Received:
    826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    You can have your own personal interpretation as to what the "image of God" is, but as for myself, I prefer to stick to what the text says...
     
  16. 4,085
    826
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,085
    Likes Received:
    826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    With all do respect, you are wrong.

    The "spirit of life" of Romans 2 gives us life spiritually through Christ.

    The "breath of life" in Gen 2 gave Adam physical life.

    Indeed there is a major difference between the two, they are not the same at all. There was no "spirit of life" before Jesus.

    With all do respect.
     
  17. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course your word is with you. If you give your word it is up to you to keep your word by fulfilling it! If you give a promise, it is up to you to to keep your promise, by fulilling it.
    It means in the context that in the past God gave his word (a promise or a message) which was towards God to fulfil or reveal. Isa 55:11 make that point clear.

    ** Isa 55:11 So my word that goes out of my mouth will be. It will not return to me without results, But (it) will certainly accomplish whatever is my delight, And (it) will have sure success in what I send (it) to do.
     
  18. 4,085
    826
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,085
    Likes Received:
    826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    What does his Word being "with him" in Jhn 1 have anything to do with it going out and being done?

    And why does verse 2 call the Word "this one"?
     
  19. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    That is because you use a translation that has been translated to reflect a personification of the word (word) The word (word) is THING a non-person in all languages.

    Personification =
    the attribution of a personal nature or human characteristics to something non-human, or the representation of an abstract quality in human form

    Here is an early English translation before they personified the word.

    ** Jn 1:-3 In the beginning was the word, and the worde was with God, and that worde was God. The same was in the begynnyng with God. Althinges were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkeness, and the darknes comprehended it not"
    (William Whittingham, The Newe Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Conferred Diligently with the Greke, and Best Approved Translation, Geneva: Conrad Badius, 1557)

    Also the word translated (with) should be translated (towards). If it meant to be beside or with someone else then the word meta or para should be used. The word used is pros which is the preposition that means in effect a motion toward a goal. Or pertaining to God.

    We have ambiguity, one translation says the word is an IT the other translation gives a personification and calls it a HE.

    You have ambiguity in the translation of the word (with)

    You also have ambiguity in the word chōris (= without) in some translations and (= apart from) in the NWT.

    Sure if you in interpret your way you have no ambiguity.

    When I follow the way I believe there is no ambiguity either, we are just following our bias.

    But the fact is: it can be translated a number of ways. That's ambiguity.
     
  20. 162
    13
    18
    Imabetterboy

    Imabetterboy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Rev 19:13 says nothing about Jesus being the beginning of the ways of Jehovah! That Joshua is your
    interpretation.

    Where excactly does it say Jesus is the first creation? I have never seen those words in the scriptures yet!

    Jesus says his disciples were with (Gk meta) him from the beginning! Jn 15:27

    The Alpha and Qmega is also the beginning! Rev 22:12 Is The Alpha and Omega Jesus too?
     

Share This Page