Question For those of us that don't believe in the trinity. The next question is did Jesus pre-exist?

[Lori Jane]

Copying and pasting from Faithlife Discussion - I will copy and paste each post in a new reply as they occurred. To respond to any portion just highlight the sentence and click the little popup "reply" and it will quote it for you. This will make it easy to continue the discussion.

For those of us that don't believe in the trinity. The next question is did Jesus pre-exist?

Many cite John 17:5 to support pre-existence:​

"And now, Father, you glorify me ⌊at your side⌋ with the glory that I had ⌊at your side⌋ before the world existed." LEB

Here is a quote from Anthony Buzzard in his booklet "Who Is Jesus" that supports non pre-existence:​

"Certainly his prayer for the glory which he had had before the world began (John 17:5) can be easily understood as the desire for the glory which had been prepared for him in the Father’s plan. The glory which Jesus intended for the disciples had also been “given” (John 17:22, 24), but they had not yet received it.9



It was typical of Jewish thinking that anything of supreme importance in God’s purpose—Moses, the Law, repentance, the Kingdom of God and the Messiah—had “existed” with God from eternity. In this vein John can speak of the crucifixion having “happened” before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8, KJV). Peter, writing late in the first century, still knows of Jesus’ “preexistence” only as an existence in the foreknowledge of God (1 Peter 1:20). His sermons in the early chapters of Acts reflect exactly the same view. "



Let the discussion begin!

 

[Lori Jane]

Faithlife User 4 months ago

If Jesus had a pre-human existence, doesn't this mean that he is created by the Father as a spirit being, who was then incarnated to be a human just like us, died as a perfect human without sin(in just 6 hours!), was resurrected by God, the Father, to be a spirit being once again, to ascend into heaven, there to receive more glory, honour, and authority than he had before?
Wasn't this what Arius was trying to explain in the 4th century? That Jesus was created?
And, isn't the incarnation idea the first step toward believing the Trinity?
Just asking, no criticism intended.

 

[Lori Jane]

Lori Jane 4 months ago

Yes Gary that is how I understand it. IMHO If Jesus is to be the second Adam he needs to start as Adam did (no extra powers or head start). Jehovah knew he would have a son - a human son that would be created by his Holy Spirit as he created Adam. But in Jesus case he was begotten in Mary so he could fulfill other portions of scripture too. He FORKNEW this would happen. Our first glimpse is Gen 3:15.

Quote from "One God Translation"

Matthew 1:18 "Now this is the origin8 of Jesus Messiah; His mother, Mary, was engaged to Joseph, but before they were married she became pregnant from the power of holy spirit."

8The word is genesis = origin (as in Matt 1.1), not just birth, but the point of time at which the Son of God came into existence. A variant gennesis was attempted by some manuscripts because “origin” for Jesus was highly embarrassing, as it still out to be, to the much later notion that the Son was begotten not in time, but eternity! The later concept of “eternal generation” is foreign to the Bible and has no intelligible meaning. Any reader who is not in the grip of later tradition will have no difficult at all with Matthew’s Son of God, Jesus, who came into existence some 2000 years ago. Luke’s account of the coming into existence of Son is no less pointedly explicit (Lk. 1.35). jesus is called the Son of the Father, and God called the Father of Jesus hundreds of times. This text can create the revolution necessary for returning to Scripture to identify who Jesus, the Son of God, is. And in this way the pure monotheism of Jesus, which he stated was the most important of all teachings, can be restored (Mk. 12.29; 10.18; Jn. 17.3; Jn. 5.44).

 

[Lori Jane]

Lori Jane 4 months ago

And here is another article that speaks directly to the "genesis" of Christ that might be a shorter read than the whole book about Jesus I shared earlier in the conversation.

https://amber.faithlife.com/assets/10886366

 

[satsfacsin]

Frank Simon 4 months ago

This is the first time I have encountered the belief that Jesus DID NOT have a pre-human existence. Therefore I examined more closely the booklet by Anthony Buzzard and found his explanations on subject interesting but not convincing.

Therefore, as we discuss this I would like to present the following argument for pre-human existence of Jesus.

Jesus Involved in Creation

I may as well start at the beginning. Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

The obvious question here is who is the "us" and the "our". Most believe he is speaking to the pre-existing Jesus. Trinitarians would argue the Father is talking to the Son and the Holy Spirit. Still Others like JW's would say he is talking to Michael the archangel. Still both of these groups agree that it was Jesus in his pre-human existence.

This belief is confirmed in the New Testament in at least three locations.

John

John 1: 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
9The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11He came to his own and his own peoplec did not receive him. 12But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Sond from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15(John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) 16For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.e 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God; the only God,f who is at the Father’s side,g he has made him known.

Specifically in vs. 15-18 this passage it is identifying "the Word" as Jesus. John also specifically makes the claim in vs. 3 that everything that was created was created through him

Anthony Buzzard argues that the Word or Logos is basically the spoken word of the Father not another entity. If I understand his belief, all things came into existence because he spoke them into existence (his Word or Logos) , and the Jesus became flesh (vs. 14) because the Father spoke (or commanded) him into the flesh (Jesus' origin begins here)

What if John read this way;
John 1: 1In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
It the "Word" could be replaced with "Jesus" then this scripture would be saying that all things were made through Jesus. Not one thing was made or created without Jesus.

If John could be understood this way, then there would be no misunderstanding whether the "Word" was just the spoken word (commands coming from the Father) or the pre-existing Jesus. To confirm that the "Word" is in fact Jesus we will go to the second supporting scripture for who is the "us" in Genesis

Colossians

Colossians 1: 13He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For byf him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

There can be no confusion that Colossians is speaking of Jesus. No confusing with the Logos or Word of God.

Notice the comparison between John and Colossians

John 1:3 3All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

Colossions 1:16 16For byf him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

This brings us to the third set of supporting scriptures

Hebrews

Hebrews 1: 1Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

Once again there can be no argument that the subject of Hebrews the first chapter is Jesus. Notice once again the language that the world was created through him (vs2) Look at all three scriptures together

John 1:3 3All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

Colossions 1:16 16For byf him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

Hebews 1:2 1Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world

If there is still any question as to if the pre-existing Jesus was involved in creation notice what the God
the Father says to the son in Hebrews 1:8-10
8But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
10And,
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.a
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”

Verse 10 here confirms the wording of John 1 where it says "In the beginning was the Word". Jesus was in the beginning when the foundations of the earth were laid.

Also it is interesting that the Father (God) says to the Son (Jesus) that the heavens are the works of YOUR (Jesus) hands. Although a different topic it is interesting that in verse 8 the Father addresses the Son as God

Summary

Scriptural evidence totally supports that when God said "let US make man in OUR image he was speaking to the pre-existing Jesus. John and Paul confirm each other on this subject.
I could be wrong but when Anthony Buzzard is confronted with these arguments in his booklet, his argument, is that these scriptures cannot be understood as presented here BECAUSE, to do so would be making an argument against monotheism (belief in one God).
That is not the case but a different topic.
Your comments are appreciated.

 

[William]

William Kuevogah 4 months ago

Here's what I was basically trying to say:

What if Genesis 1:26 addresses neither Son and Spirit (Trinity) nor Michael the archangel (JW)? What if it's a divine assembly being addressed by Yahweh?

"These plurals [us, our] have been interpreted as a remnant of polytheistic mythology (referring to the gods of the Canaanite or Mesopotamian pantheon), an adumbration of the Trinity (Augustine’s suggestion) or at least of a plurality within the Godhead (proposed by Barth, or a request to the earth to aid in creating humanity (one of many rabbinic suggestions), as well as plurals of deliberation or of majesty..... A careful intertextual reading of the plurals in 1:26 suggests that God here addresses the heavenly court or divine council of angels."—J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (page 55) [emphasis mine]. There seems also to be some consensus among OT scholars on this. Another prominent scholar is Dr. Michael Heiser (his PhD dissertation was on this). See the following books by Dr. Heiser: The Unseen Realm & Supernatural. If they're right, it would be inaccurate to read Jesus into Genesis 1:26.

 

[Lori Jane]

Faithlife User 4 months ago

As I remember the account, there were at least 3 angels present at the time of creation-2 angels set to guard the way back into the Garden of Eden, and the one who spoke to Eve through a serpent.
This at least validates using the plural "us", as in existing spirit creatures with sentient abilities.

 

[Lori Jane]

Lori Jane 4 months ago

Regarding Frank's point on John 1:1 I think it can be explained that the word could mean Jehovah's Holy Spirit - just as he "spoke" things into existence. He thinks something or speaks it and it happens. He said Jesus would come and he did via the Holy Spirit. Jesus became flesh via the Holy Spirit. God's word/thought became flesh. So "the word" that was WITH God in the beginning wasn't Jesus IMHO but the Holy Spirit.

 

[Lori Jane]

Regarding Colossians 1:15 the word "firstborn" CAN be taken to mean firstborn of all time. Or it can mean taking precedence over all who are born after him. Jesus was the beginning of the New Creation. He was the first to be resurrected to immortal life.

And a quote from the book "Who Is Jesus?" in the Chapter "What the Scholars Admit"

Here, then, is the statement of a leading expert to the effect that there may not be a single reference in all four Gospels to Jesus being the Son of God before his birth. Yet it remains a fact that the churches teach the eternal Sonship of Jesus as a basic and indispensable tenet of the faith.



Professor Sanday is left guessing why Matthew, Mark, and Luke know nothing about Jesus’ preexistence: “It is probable that the writers had not reflected upon the subject at all, and did not reproduce a portion of our Lord’s teaching upon it” (Ibid., p. 577). When he comes to the epistles Sanday can only conjecture that there might be a reference to a preexistent Son in Hebrews 1:1-3, but by no means necessarily. On Colossians 1:15 he says that “the leading idea in ‘firstborn’ is that of the legal rights of the firstborn, his precedence over all who are born after him.” He adds that “it seems wrong to exclude the idea of priority [in time] as well.” He concludes his remarks by quoting a German theologian as saying that “from the Old Testament and Rabbinism there is no road to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ” (i.e. that he is God). Professor Wernle maintained that “the title Son of God is strictly Jewish and that the further step from Son of God to God the Son was taken upon Gentile ground through lax ideas brought in by the converts from paganism” (Ibid., p. 577).



Statements of this kind show on what shaky ground the whole edifice of “preexistent Sonship” is built. The possibility must be squarely faced that the dogmatic statements about Jesus which date from postbiblical times rely on their own authority rather than that of the apostles. The wisest course is to take our stand upon the dogmatic statements of the Scripture itself and to recognize with Jesus that “eternal life consists in this: that we may come to know the Father as the only true God and Jesus, the Messiah whom He sent” (John 17:3).

 

[Lori Jane]

Regarding John 1.3 the "him" being referred to is still "the logos" which IMHO is the Holy Spirit - and would be better translated as "it". If you accept this possibility then it is totally possible/probable that Jesus had his genesis in Mary as Mark says and did not pre-exist previously.

It is this complex of ideas which go to make up the significance of logos, the “word.” “Through it all things were made and nothing was made without it” (John 1:3). In John 1:14 the word materializes in a real human being having a divine origin in his supernatural conception.14 From this moment, in “the fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4), the one God expresses Himself in a new creation, the counterpart of the original creation in Adam. Jesus’ conception and birth mark a new unprecedented phase of God’s purpose in history. As the second Adam, Jesus sets the scene for the whole program of salvation. He pioneers the way to immortality. In him God’s purpose is finally revealed in a human being (Heb. 1:1).

 

[satsfacsin]

Frank Simon 4 months ago

I want to thank everyone for their comments. I know my original post was quite long so I am going to simplify into 4 basis points.

1. Gen 1:26 When God says "let us" the point is there was someone else present. The scriptures do no clarify who he was talking to. The answer could be any of the suggestions in your posts.
2. John 1 may answer that question as the Word was present in the beginning. Verse 3 says "everything was made through the Word" Verse 14 says the word became flesh and vs 15 says this is the one John the Baptist was talking about. However I can see room for further discussion on the topic of who or what is the Word.
3. Colossians 1:16 says speaking clearly of Jesus, "all things created in heavens and earth were created through him and for him" This time there is no question this is in reference to Jesus prehuman existence, and the wording is identical to that of John 1.
4. Hebrews 1:2 speaking of Jesus it says "through whom he created the world" In verse 10 the Father addresses the Son as “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,and the heavens are the works of your hands"

I did not see any discussion in the previous posts that can show that a prehuman Jesus was NOT involved in the creation. Especially when Colossians and Hebrews specifically state that he was

your comments please

 

[satsfacsin]

Frank Simon 4 months ago

This post may be of interest to the whole group but I am directing to Lori in particular.
I have taken some interest in Anthony Buzzard. This week have listened with keen interest a lot of you tube videos featuring him specifically. I have probably spent more time than i intended but would suggest to you and the rest of the group the following which is a debate between Anthony Buzzard and James White. There are 3 parts to the debate but they cover our topic here completely. Being in three parts this is NOT a short listen but very educational. Hope you can review.

 

[Lori Jane]

Jose Vincent 4 months ago

I had to go and search in my library of books as I had addressed these points many years ago. I found a book "The Doctrine of the Trinity" by Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles Hunting written in 1998. The two of them are viewed as the premier exponents of the Socinian view of Unitarianism. I did not realise that 20 years had passed.

As already stated in other posts the main idea promoted by the two authors is that all the verses show Foreordination rather than Preexistence of Jesus. In page 165, They link John 17:5 to 2 Corinthians 5:1, where Paul is referring to the promised reward in the future. They go onto say "When Jesus says that he "had" the glory for which he now prays (John 17:5), he is merely asking for the glory which he knew was prepared for him by God from the beginning. That glory existed in God's plan and in that sense Jesus already "had"it. We note that Jesus did not say "Give me back" or "restore to me the glory which I had when I was alive with you before my birth."
There are two lines of arguments that Buzzard and Hunting (B&H) are using to support their view:

1. What Jesus said in John 17:5 or did not say.
2. The comparison of "had" in John 17:5 and 2 Corinthians 5:1.

I will address each point separately.

1. What Jesus said in John 17:5 or did not say.

John 17:5 So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was. (NWT Reference Bible 1984)

John 17:5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. (NASB Strong's)

John 17:5 And now, Father, you glorify me ⌊at your side⌋b with the glory that I had ⌊at your side] before the world existed. (Lexham English Bible).

A quick glance will show that there is no controversy on translation and all three use the "I had".

B&H say: Jesus did not say, “restore to me the glory which I had”
Jesus words: “glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had.”

B&H say: Jesus did not say, “I was alive with you before my birth”
Jesus words: “I had alongside you before the world was.”

What B&H claims that Jesus did not say is actually what he said! Clearly, they have a made a major faux pas. Please note that in translation terms this is not a problematic verse. Jesus speaks to the Father and references his life “before the world was.” He uses first-person form of the verb for “have” (Greek: eichon [“the glory that I had”]), from the preposition “with” (Greek: para), and from the second-person pronoun in the dative case (Greek: soi) to refers to his “life” . This correlates to Philippians 2:5-9, Proverbs 30:4 and John 1:1 about his prehuman existence.

2 The comparison of "had" in John 17:5 and 2 Corinthians 5:1.
B&H try to compare Jesus’ use of “had” (“the glory I had”) with Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 5:1, “For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, should be dissolved, we are to have a building from God, a house not made with hands, everlasting in the heavens.” NWT Reference 1984

The problem with comparing John 17:5 and 2 Corinthians 5:1 in this way is that the verb for “have” is in the present form in 2 Corinthians 5:1, showing that it is something “laid up for him in God’s plan.” In John 17:5 John uses a past verb form for what Jesus at one time “had,” does not have now (at the time of the speech events of John 17:5), but that Jesus wants again! If the “glory” that Jesus “had” according to John 17:5 is what belonged to Jesus already (because it “existed in God’s plan”), then John could simply have used the present form of the verb like Paul did in 2 Corinthians 5:1.

This addresses the two arguments and they have faults in them. For this verse their position of foreknowledge vs pre-existence of Jesus is incorrect.

Finally, a natural reading in context of John 17 makes it clear that Jesus is referring to a prehuman existence.

Hope that helps.

 

[William]

William Kuevogah 4 months ago

This is directed to Frank, though all are invited to share their thoughts on it. I've gone digging for some information on John 1:1-18. These thoughts are my synthesis of some scholarly views. I'll provide a list of publications, in case you want the claims substantiated. Here we go.....

WHO OR WHAT IS THE WORD?
Background information
NB: John's prologue is poetic (or hymnic) rather than prosaic! The problem only arises when trinitarianism insists on interpreting the poetical description in a literal way.

Israel's theologians recognized that there was what we might call a double aspect to God—on the one hand, God invisible, unseeable, 'un-image-(in)able', and on the other God acting upon creation and reaching out to humankind, in revelation, salvation and inspiration.

The one aspect was what could never be experienced by humans or seen by human eyes (however close apocalyptic vision and mystic ecstasy came to that impossible ideal).
The other aspect was God in his self-revelation, in and through creation, in inspiration and in redemption.

The wisdom writers and sages of Israel and early Judaism understood the Spirit, divine Wisdom, and the Word (Logos) as different and complementary ways of speaking about God in his interaction with his creation and his people. They were variously used as ways of speaking of God's immanence without infringing on his transcendent otherness. There is also the concept of the shekhinah, the divine presence on earth.
As noted by Benjamin Sommer, a professor at Jewish Theological Seminary, “God is the same as the shekhinah, but the shekhinah does not exhaust God, so one can refer easily to ‘God’ and subsequently to ‘God and the shekhinah.’”
God's Spirit was a prominent way of speaking of God—not so much the Spirit of God as though the Spirit were a being different and distinct from God, but more accurately God as Spirit.
The New Testament writers were no doubt aware of this and knowingly drew on these ways of speaking of God's action and revelation as they strove to express the significance of Christ and of what God had accomplished through him.

What the "Word" may have meant to to John's audience:
Remember that in the Creation account, God created by speaking. The repeated use of “and God said” is an emphatic way of saying that God created all things by His Word.
God’s word is sometimes an extension of himself, as in Psalm 107:20, “He sent forth his word and healed them,” or Isaiah 55:10–12, which speaks of God’s word going forth from his mouth, accomplishing its mission, and then returning to him. In the Targums (Aramaic paraphrases of the OT used in the synagogues in the first century), when reference was made to God drawing near to man or interacting directly with man, very often it was not God who did these things but rather his 'Memra’, his Word (or, word). The Word is the expression of God, the unspoken thought of God coming to verbal expression. Hence the opening attribution of creation to the Word; that is, to the divine fiat. The Word is a way of speaking about God acting. In effect the claim of Jewish theology is that the Word is the self-revelation of God, the way God makes himself known.

Understanding John 1:1-2, 14 in the light of the background information:
John 1:1, 2 literally:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word had reference to God, and God was the Word. This in the beginning had reference to God."
Interpretation:
In the beginning (alluding to Genesis 1:1) was the Word (a metonym for Yahweh), and the Word had reference to God (“identifying God,”), and God was the Word. This (the Word) in the beginning (another allusion to Genesis 1:1) had reference to God.
That the Word in John 1:1, 2 is poetically portrayed (like Wisdom) as a person who was “with God” “in the beginning” is Scripturally unproblematic. A metonym of God points to a specific aspect of His character, attributes, and works. The description of God as the Word in John 1:1 (“the Word was God”) highlights His creative power as displayed in His creation.

John 1:14
Just as God “pitched his tent” in the midst of his people Israel through the Tabernacle and Temple—while remaining God in heaven and filling the universe with his presence—so he pitched his tent among us through a man, Jesus of Nazareth—while remaining God in heaven and filling the universe with his presence. Jesus is the replacement of the ancient Tabernacle.

In the midrash (the Jewish homiletical commentary) to Psalm 91 it is written:

At [the moment that Moses finished building the Tabernacle], a great question arose: How could a Tabernacle with walls and curtains contain the Presence of the Almighty? The Master of the Universe Himself explained, “The entire world cannot contain My glory, yet when I wish, I can concentrate My entire essence into one small spot. Indeed, I am Most High, yet I sit in a [limited, constricted] refuge—in the shadow of the Tabernacle.”

The Greek word skenoo means “to pitch a tent, to tabernacle,” and so, just as the Yahweh pitched his tent among us in ancient Israel, filling it (the Tabernacle, which was actually a tent) with his glory while remaining God in heaven, so also he pitched a human tent among us (Jesus of Nazareth), filling it with his glory, while remaining God in heaven.

It is not so much that the personification language used of the Word is now used of Jesus. It is rather that Jesus reveals the personal character of God's word, a character that previously could only be expressed in personification terms. Hence too the understanding of the Word as manifesting divine glory ( John 1:14), indeed as manifesting God, as making the unseen and unseeable God known, or literally as expounding (exegegesato) God (John 1:18).

The Word became incarnate (enfleshed) in or as Jesus, so that Jesus is the epitome and summation of that self-revelation.

Parallel

The wisdom writers of Israel could think of Wisdom becoming or at least being identified with the Torah. But to identify Wisdom with a particular person was a step beyond them too. Yet this is what John's prologue does. Jesus is the Word, God's creative speech, God's revelatory and redemptive action, become flesh. As the identification of divine Wisdom with the Torah was an evangelistic pitch (The Torah, according to the rabbis, is where you will find the Wisdom you are looking for and need), so John's identification of the Word with Jesus was evangelistic. John was saying that if you look at Jesus, his mission, death and resurrection, you will see the glory of God; you will hear God's word, God himself speaking to you; you will be drawn into an intimacy with God that nowhere else is possible. You will see the unseen God in and through Jesus; you will encounter God in and through Jesus.

Some helpful books:

1. Christology in The Making (James D. G. Dunn)

2. Did The First Christians Worship Jesus? (James D. G. Dunn)

3. Born Before All Time? The Dispute Over Christ's Origin (Karl-Josef Kuschel)

4. The Real Kosher Jesus (Michael L. Brown)

 

[William]

William Kuevogah 4 months ago

Interesting. I'll take your point into account. John's gospel is not exactly my forte. Thank you.

 

[satsfacsin]

Frank Simon 4 months ago

Jose Vincent Thanks for this reply and especially including Philippians 2 which I have not presented yet. This was really a good post thank you for the time you spent putting it together

 

[satsfacsin]

Frank Simon 4 months ago

Thank you William for another good post on the subject. In an earlier post I mentioned that there may be a lot of discussion on who or what is the Word in John. I am still waiting for a reply from the group on Colossions 1:16 and Hebrews 1 that state Jesus was involved in creating everything in heaven and earth. He had to have a prehuman existence if he was there for creation.

Thanks for you comments.

 

[Lori Jane]

Jose Vincent 4 months ago

Hi Frank,

They make a similar error in their analysis in Philippians 2:5-9. In the book it is in page 102

 

[Lori Jane]

Grant 4 months ago

Thank you William for that input. Too many Trinitarians and pro Jesus pre-existence people just jump the gun and say that it must have been Jesus that almighty God was referring to. The scripture makes no such assertion. It is more likely to be his divine counsel. Some people just start with their pre-existence Jesus bias into the text

Yes Lori, I’ve read up on and seen quite a few videos on the subject of Jewish thinking, culture and writings referring to God’s mind, plan, purpose, foreknowledge etc. the notional vs the actual. John 17:5 is a classic example of Jehovah’s plan and Jesus glory in the mind/plan/ purpose of God before the world was. One really needs to read the context of John 17. Jesus was not glorified ( at least in our reality) until he ascended to heaven. As you pointed out, John 17:22,24 raises a lot of questions

Yes Lori, I absolutely agree that John 1:3 can mean “it”. “ it” shows up in all the English version translations prior to the King James. There are many of them. I think I might post them when I get on the desktop. It’s interesting how in time they changed it to personal pro nouns of “ him” and “ he” . That reminds me of when 1 or 2 scriptures call the Holy Spirit “he” and wisdom is sometimes referred to as “lady”. There are also quite a few scriptures that refer to “ with God” and not actually meaning being with God but being part of God, his attributes. Proverbs-Wisdom was with God. I have many things to say and have argued about the so-called pre-existence of Jesus and I’ve had some good advice not to debate it because the argument is pre-existent itself. I can answer just about every so-called “ proof” text regarding Jesus pre-existence but I’m afraid I may just create enemies rather than brothers in Christ. I love the way the likes of Anthony Buzzard, Dale Tuggy, Sean Finnegan, Dan Gill and not to mention Kel from “The Trinity Delusion” channel present sound arguments on the matter. God bless

Yes Gary, I think we also need to consider all the other times our father just says that he created the heavens and the earth on his own, no one else.

I like the illustration one man gave when he said regarding Genesis 1:26 it’s like a grandmother that’s a really good cook and has made these scones ( or cakes, whatever) absolutely perfectly tasty in the past and has asked her grand kids to help her. She says..”let’s make some cakes today shall we” knowing full well that she is going to do most of the work or even all of it.

One other thought about Genesis 1:26 is that it is the plurality of God’s wisdom, not to mention the divine counsel of God which we’ve already touched on. God bless

Yes Lori, Jesus originated in the womb of Mary ( Matthew 1:1, 18) and for this reason he is called “ son of God” (Luke 1:31-35) It’s amazing just how many Christians just gloss over that, or they sort of accept it but would rather counter it with their interpretation of John 1:1 and Colossians 1:16. ( yes, I know there are other scriptures but those seem to be the default ones) Jesus was Abraham’s and David’s offspring. He was mentioned many times as the son of David. How can one be older than his relatives one may ask? He can’t.

Almighty God knew Jesus ( and us Christians) from the foundation of the world. We weren’t physically there but we existed in God’s arrangement and purpose.

I’d just like to bring up Luke 4. If Jesus pre-existed, would there have been any point to Satan tempting Jesus? Because surely Satan would have known that this person was the second most powerful, spiritual creature in the universe. Why bother? Even more important is the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke don’t even bother touching on the subject. I guess it slipped their minds.

Another thing worth mentioning is that Jesus never talks to the disciples or anyone for that matter about his so-called experiences in his so-called pre-exsistence ( yes, I know there is John 8:58 and general ones like that which are debatable) like, hey, I remember the time I lead the Israelites out of Egypt or when I was talking to Abraham and It was great the day he made up his mind that he was going to sacrifice Isaac because my father asked him to and I said this and did that and he said this and did that and they did this etc. Food for thought

 

[Lori Jane]

Very good point about Luke 4 Grant!



Regarding John 5:28 the portion "I am" is translated from "ego eimi". When we see other instances of "ego eimi" we see it means "I am he" or "I'm the one that is being referred to". If that is the case then could that apply to John 5:28? What was the context?



Jesus was saying that Abraham rejoiced that he would see the day the Messiah would come or “see my day” as Jesus put it. So the Jews were saying there was no way you could have seen Abraham you are too young.



So Jesus was saying before Abraham was even born the plan for the Messiah was in place and I am He - I am the one. Not I am God.



What other examples do we have of using “I am he”



We don’t have to go very far - John 9:9 where the blind beggar is saying “I am he” I am the one you are referring to. The beggar wasn’t saying he was almighty God.



There are several more like this. Here are several videos I have bookmarked on the subject:



John 8:58 Explained in Detail

John 8:58 - "Before Abraham I am" - Anthony Buzzard & J. Dan Gill