Logos – Part 4: The Word Made Flesh

One of the most compelling passages in the Bible is found at John 1:14:

“So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.” (John 1:14)

“The Word became flesh.” A simple phrase, but in the context of the preceding verses, one of profound significance. The only-begotten god through whom and by whom all things were created, takes on a slave’s form to live with his creation—for all things were made for him. (Colossians 1:16)
This is a theme that John emphasizes repeatedly in his gospel.

”No one has gone up to heaven except the Son of Man, who came down from there.” – John 3:13 CEV[i]

“I didn’t come from heaven to do what I want! I came to do what the Father wants me to do. He sent me,” – John 6:38 CEV

“What if you should see the Son of Man go up to heaven where he came from?” – John 6:62 CEV

“Jesus answered, “You are from below, but I am from above. You belong to this world, but I don’t.” – John 8:23 CEV

“Jesus answered: If God were your Father, you would love me, because I came from God and only from him. He sent me. I did not come on my own.” – John 8:42 CEV

^“Jesus answered, “I tell you for certain that even before Abraham was, I was, and I am.”” – John 8:58 CEV

What does it say about this god named Logos who existed before all other created things—who was with the Father in heaven before time itself existed—that he should condescend to live as a man? Paul explained the full measure of this sacrifice to the Philippians

“Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, ⁶ who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. ⁷ No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human. ⁸ More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake. ⁹ For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, ¹⁰ so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— ¹¹ and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” (Php 2:5-11 NWT[ii])

Satan grasped at equality with God. He tried to seize it. Not so Jesus, who gave no consideration to the idea that he should be God’s equal. He held the loftiest position in the universe, yet was he determined to hold on to it? Not at all, for he humbled himself and took a slave’s form. He was fully human. He experienced the limitations of the human form, including the effects of stress. Evidence of his slave’s state, his human condition, was the fact that at one point even he needed encouragement, which His Father supplied in the form of an angelic helper. (Luke 22:43, 44)
A god became a man and then subjected himself to death so as to save us. This he did when we didn’t even know him and when most rejected and mistreated him. (Ro 5:6-10; John 1:10, 11) It is impossible for us to grasp the full scope of that sacrifice. To do so we would have to understand the extent and nature of what Logos was and what he gave up. It is as much beyond our mental powers to do that as it is for us to grasp the concept of infinity.
Here is the critical question: Why did Jehovah and Jesus do all this? What motivated Jesus to abandon everything?

“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16 NWT)

“He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being,. . .” (Heb 1:3 NWT)

“He that has seen me has seen the Father. . .” (John 14:9 NWT)

It was God’s love that caused him to send his only-begotten Son to save us. It was Jesus’ love for his Father and for mankind that caused him to obey.
In the history of humanity, is there a greater expression of love than this?

What God’s Nature Reveals

This series about Logos aka “the Word of God” aka Jesus Christ began as an initiative between Apollos and myself to explain something of the nature of Jesus, who is the exact representation of God. We reasoned that understanding the nature of Jesus would help us to understand the nature of God.
It took me a long time before I could even attempt to write about this subject, and I confess the main reason was an awareness of how ill-equipped I felt to undertake the task. Seriously, how can a measly human comprehend the nature of God? We can understand something of the nature of Jesus, the man, to some extent, because we are flesh-and-blood humans as was he, though we do not enjoy a sinless nature. But the 33 ½ years he spent as a human were just the briefest snip-it of a life stretching back to before creation. How could I, a good-for-nothing slave, understand the divine nature of the only-begotten god that is Logos?
I cannot.
So I decided to adopt the methodology of a blind man asked to expound on the nature of light. Obviously, he would require instruction from sighted people in whom he puts great trust. In a similar way, I, though being blind to the divine nature of Logos, have relied on the most trusted source, God’s only Word. I have tried to go with what it says in plain and simple fashion and not try to conjure up deeper hidden meanings. I have tried, I hope with success, to read it as a child would.
This has brought us to this fourth installment of this series, and it has brought me to a realization: I have come to see that I have been on the wrong track. I have been concentrating on the nature of Logos’ being—his form, his physicality. Some will object that I use human terms here, but really what other words can I use. Both “form” and “physicality” are terms dealing with matter, and a spirit cannot be defined by such terms, but I can only use the tools I have. Nevertheless, as best I could I have been trying to define Jesus’ nature in such terms. Now however, I realize that it doesn’t matter. It just doesn’t matter. My salvation is not tied to an accurate understanding of the nature of Jesus, if by “nature” I am referring to his physical/spiritual/temporal or non-temporal form, state or origin.
That is the nature that we have been striving to explain, but that is not what John was revealing to us. If we think that, we are off-track. The nature of the Christ or the Word that John reveals in the last Bible books ever written is that nature of his person. In a word, his “character”. He didn’t write the opening words of his account to tell us exactly how and when Jesus came into being, or whether he was created by or from God, or even created at all. He doesn’t even explain exactly what he meant by the term only-begotten. Why? Perhaps because we are not capable of understanding it in human terms? Or perhaps because it simply doesn’t matter.
Rereading his gospel and epistles in this light reveals that his purpose was to reveal aspects of Christ’s personality that were hitherto hidden. Revealing his pre-existence begs the question, “Why would he give that up?” This in turn leads us to the nature of Christ, which as the image of God, is love. This awareness of his loving sacrifice motivates us to greater love. There is a reason John is referred to as “the apostle of love”.

The Importance of Jesus’ Prehuman Existence

Unlike the synoptic gospel writers, John reveals repeatedly that Jesus existed before he came to earth. Why is it important for us to know that? If we doubt the prehuman existence of Jesus as some do, are we doing any harm? Is it just a difference of opinion that doesn’t get in the way of our continued fellowshipping?
Let come at this from the opposite side of the issue so that we can see the purpose behind John’s revelation about the nature (character) of Jesus.
If Jesus only came into existence when God inseminated Mary, then he is less than Adam, because Adam was created, while Jesus was only procreated like the rest of us—just without inherited sin. Additionally, such a belief has Jesus giving up nothing because he had nothing to give up. He made no sacrifice, because his life as a human was win-win. If he succeeded, he’d get an even bigger prize, and if he failed, well, he’s just be like the rest of us, but at least he would have lived for a while. Better than the nothingness he had prior to being born.
John’s reasoning that “God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son” loses all its force. (John 3:16 NWT) Many men have given their only son to die on the battlefield for their country. How is God’s procreation of a single human—one more out of billions—really that special?
Neither is Jesus’ love so special under this scenario. He had everything to gain and nothing to lose. Jehovah asks all Christians to be willing to die rather than compromise their integrity. How would that differ from the death Jesus died, if he is just another human like Adam?
One way we can blaspheme Jehovah or Jesus is to question their character. Denying Jesus came in the flesh is to be an antichrist. (1 John 2:22; 4:2, 3) Can denying he didn’t empty himself, humble himself, sacrifice all he had to take a slave’s form, be any less like an antichrist? Such a position denies the fullness of both Jehovah’s love and that of his only-begotten Son.
God is love. It is his defining characteristic or quality. His love would demand he give his most. Saying he didn’t give us his firstborn, his only-begotten, the one who existed before all others, is to say he gave us as little as he could get away with. It demeans him and it demeans Christ and it treats the sacrifice both Jehovah and Jesus made as of little value.

“How much greater punishment do you think a person will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God and who has regarded as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt?” (Heb 10:29 NWT)

In Summary

Speaking for myself, this four-part series into the nature of Logos has been very illuminating, and I am grateful for the opportunity as it has forced me to examine things from a number of new perspectives, and the insight gained from the many comments you have all made along the way has enriched not only my understanding, but those of many others.
We have barely scratched the surface of the knowledge of God and Jesus. That is one of the reasons we have everlasting life before us, so that we can continue to grow in that knowledge.
________________________________________________
[i] Contemporary English Version of the Bible
[ii] New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Archived Comments

We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.

Comment by stonedragon2k on 2014-12-12 01:50:44
You said
If Jesus only came into existence when God inseminated Mary, then he is less than Adam, because Adam was created, while Jesus was only procreated like the rest of us—just without inherited sin. Additionally, such a belief has Jesus giving up nothing because he had nothing to give up. He made no sacrifice, because his life as a human was win-win. If he succeeded, he’d get an even bigger prize, and if he failed, well, he’s just be like the rest of us, but at least he would have lived for a while. Better than the nothingness he had prior to being born.
I am afraid the above is incoherent and non sequitur.
1. Offering a sacrifice is not about giving up something you previously had. So if you died as a Christian martyr, then according to your logic you have not really sacrificed anything, because you didn't have a pre-existence. Really??????
2. You offer no proof that a life begat by God which begins in a womb (Jesus) is less than one that started as mud (Adam).
3. You offer no explanation (neither does the Bible) how this life was transferred from heaven to the womb in Jesus.
4. You fail to address the question of Jesus nature, if somehow he had a spirit transferred in him. For example when Jesus used the pro noun "I" who is really speaking? The 'angelic/spirit creature' or is the 'human' speaking?
5. Jesus would be MORE than Adam if he had existed before. Adam did not have a pre-existence. Unlike Jesus, Adam would not have 'billions' of years of intimate experience with God and the Devil to be ready and defensive against the attacks of the Devil. Jesus would have a distinct advantage.
6. Does the Bible teach that Jesus offered God TWO sacrifices? The first his 'angelic/spirit' sacrifice? The second his human sacrifice? Does the BIBLE teach that he would have lost his SPIRITUAL glory as well as his HUMANITY if he failed? Or is that an assumption on your part?
7. Did Jesus have in dwelling in him a spirit part as well as a human part? If he did Jesus would be a hybrid human.
8 Was the human body possessed by this angelic/spirit creature?
I could go on, but I have to get to work.
Finally, believe it or not I'm not totally convinced one way or the other.
However I just feel the traditional arguments presented by yourself (which are REALLY Trinitarian, arguments - except they say Jesus was God) are very weak.
The so called 'scriptural' evidence is also very weak and arises IMO from a misunderstanding of the scriptures and Hebraic writing styles and thought that are alien to our way of expression.
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-12 08:42:24
  Thank you for numbering your points as it makes a response easier to follow.
  1. I wasn't referring to the sacrifice of his death, but that he sacrificed (in the sense of freely offered up) his place in heaven. If he had failed to keep his integrity, he would have lost much more than his human life. He would have lost his place beside God in heaven.
  2. I think that is self-evident and something I did explain in the article.
  3. Why should that be necessary? Is God now required to explain how he does things?
  4. Because that would be off topic.
  5. There is no evidence that all Jesus' past experience in heaven was transferred to him in the womb.
  6. No the Bible teaches that. The wages sin pays is death. Satan broke his integrity to God and is condemned to die for it.
  7. No.
  8. No.
  - Reply by on 2014-12-12 16:12:23
    Meliti i concur with what you have said and yes you were humble enough not to get into things beyond our comprehension. Did Jesus have a prehuman existence? Was the logos created? Is the logos an extension of God? All important questions, but really only secondary to the most important message in the NT. This message was love.
    GOD IS LOVE; What prompted the Logos to become flesh and suffer the most painful death; Love.
    What is the most important command for us humans .Love. The Nt is all based on this premise of love.
    As you said ; Quote my salvation is not tied up with pre-empting the very nature of the logos, Unquote - but appreciating the love our creator has for us humans.
    I'll never understand why some people over analyse each and every word from scripture when the message is fairly simple, John 3;16 for God loved the world so much he gave his only begotten son. and thats what we must do, cultivate this same love. if we do that then i truly believe we have the "truth"
    - Reply by ilovejesus333 on 2014-12-12 17:15:03
      sorry if there's some confusion But i made 2 posts thinking neither went through (forgot my password) Finally remembered pass word and went through as ilovejesus. Same comment just worded differently

Comment by stonedragon2k on 2014-12-12 02:24:42
Another quick point is this:
The Bible teaches the relationship between Adam and Jesus is like so:
Human Adam = Human Jesus
But from your comments the relationship becomes
Human Adam = Human Jesus + Pre existent Christ
Does the latter relationship make sense? I think not.
The only relationship that works is the first one. That is, where there is no pre existing Christ in the picture.
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-12 08:44:24
  The flaw in this reasoning is that it is built on the assumption that Jesus was still a god in some way with all his past memories and experience to fall back on.
  - Reply by ilovejesus333 on 2014-12-12 16:44:54
    I concur with your reasoning Meliti, Quote My salvation is not tied to the knowledge of Jesus prehuman existence.
    Our salvation is tied to emulating and cultivating those most important commands to love God and our neighbor. John 3;16 For god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son. What prompted Jesus to suffer that horrific death for us - Love.
    So why do some people need to analyse each and every word from scripture when the message is so simple. Yes the bible does say quite clearly Jesus had a pre-human existence , why fight it. When we follow Jesus example to love I'm convinced that's when we can safely say we then have the "truth"
- Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-12-12 11:48:11
  Stonedragon, I'm afraid you are wrong with your = signs.
  Romans 5 clearly teaches that the free gift was much more then the offense.
  Sure Jesus was a type of Adam, as he was a type of Moses, Salomon, Melchizedek, David, ... but that doesn't mean that his life was worth ONLY as much as Adam's was.
  Given that your premise is wrong, your conclusions must be rejected as well.

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-12-12 06:44:39
None of the texts which you quote from John, if taken in context with the rest of the Bible, prove the pre-existence of Jesus Christ.
You are entitled to your beliefs, and so are others. Meleti, leave such name-calling as "antichrist" to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-12 08:28:17
  I'd rather not, Jannai40. I'd much rather leave the application of that name to the Bible itself.
  - Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-12-12 08:44:50
    Meleti, I'm glad to hear it - does that mean you will be amending your article?
- Reply by Aletheia on 2014-12-12 12:42:36
  I would ask that you leave making presumptive claims and comments without providing any scriptural backing to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.
  I agree with Meleti on this one, I think the divine nature of Christ and the true depth of his sacrifice for us is an important truth that lies at the very core of being a Christian. I also feel the bible could not be more clear in relaying this truth to us.
  John 8
  56"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." 57So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
  Many of us spent much of our lives accepting the following arguments to steer us away from basic Bible truths: "I know it seems like the Bible is teaching this. I know there are dozens of scriptures that seem to reveal this truth. But just ignore them all, because that's not what it is saying, trust me."
  If you are going to contradict something that many of us feel is a deeply important and crystal clear teaching of God's Word, then bring proof. Teach us why we should ignore every scripture that plainly states that Jesus came from Heaven. Otherwise, please keep your dismissive and condescending comments to yourself.

Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-12 09:01:24
But why? The definition of antichrist I quoted is from the scriptures.
- Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-12-12 09:23:06
  Meleti, how sad.

Comment by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-12-12 11:56:19
Very interesting article Meleti. I think you displayed great humility when you acknowledged that us as humans will never be able to fully intelligently speak about the surpassing quality of our great Lord.
While it's very satisfying to talk about, we always keep in mind that we are viewing through a hazy mirror, and we will soon be able to see fully. We can learn from history that the language of the bible is vague enough to conclude quite a few positions, but we shouldn't let it prevent us from being united in the body of Christ.
I also enjoyed your conclusion that we definitely should value the surpassing sacrifise the Father truly made for us by giving up that which was his own.

Comment by miken on 2014-12-12 12:21:22
" For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name"...NWT
Good to see you quoting from another bible translation besides the NWT. However when you do quote from the NWT I think I it would be more accurate not to include words added in the NWT that are not in the Greek. In this case "other," irrespective of what the theological implications might be. (Acts 4:12)
- Reply by menrov on 2014-12-13 04:58:10
  With regard to this verse, I agree with you.

Comment by kev c on 2014-12-12 13:18:55
Thanks meleti. I liked the comment I tried to read the bible as a child and not look for hidden meanings. When those verses you quoted. Comments like. ..... I came from heaven and before abraham was I am. I am from the realms above. They seem pretty plain statements to me. If jesus did not have a pre human existance then those bible verses are very misleading. And let's not forget they came from jesus himself. Or perhaps I'm just a fool. 1 corinthians 1 v 26. 27. Kev.

Comment by stonedragon2k on 2014-12-12 13:59:11
INOG
The equal sign denotes the sacrifices.
In this article Meleti said and I quote…
“Additionally, such a belief has Jesus giving up nothing because he had nothing to give up. He made no sacrifice, because his life as a human was win-win.”
Therefore it is Meleti’s premise that he gave up something, which constituted a sacrifice, of some kind.
However Adam only gave up a SINGLE perfect HUMAN life. Therefore a CORRESPONDING sacrifice would be a SINGLE perfect HUMAN life.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself a CORRESPONDING ransom for all-[this is] what is to be witnessed to at its own particular times (emphasis added)
However according to your reasoning and Meleti he gave up much more; The Bible is completely silent on such a notion and therefore is a product of your own imagination.
Ergo my proposition stands (unless you can show me that corresponding does not mean equal)
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-12 14:19:13
  Let us not get lost in a debate over words. My use of "sacrifice" in reference to what Jesus was risking in coming to the earth was not a reference to the ransom sacrifice. You are imposing a context on my argument that simply is not there. The ransom sacrifice was the forfeiture of his perfect human life which corresponded to Adam's lost perfect human life. (Again, to avoid word arguments, by "perfect" I mean "sinless", not "perfected by test".) Jesus gave up his right to human life by offering that value to his Father for the redemption of mankind.
  So if it clarifies matters, please accept this rewording which continues faithful to the original meaning in intended:
  "Additionally, such a belief has Jesus giving up nothing because he had nothing to give up. He took no additional risk because his life as a human was all he had in the first place."
  I hope that clarifies matters and makes it clear that I do not nor have I ever considered that Jesus self-effacing act of giving up his spiritual life and position was part of the "corresponding ransom".
- Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-12-12 15:02:08
  unfortunately the Greek does not have the word "corresponding".
  The greek word is "antilytron" something in exchange for something else as a ransom, a price. Notice how it says ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων. So he gave himself (ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸ) in EXCHANGE, as a PRICE, RANSOM (antilytron) for who? for ALL.
  Not just for Adam.
  The exchange wasn't for Adam. His sacrifice did not CORRESPOND with Adam.
  He gave his life for all. Please don't devalue the scarifice of Jesus.
  Remember as well that Jesus was the Azazel scapegoat. He loaded up the sins of the ENTIRE PEOPLE. Not Adam's sins, the ENTIRE people's sins.
  I cringe each time when I see people say that Jesus was just Adam 2.0 and that his life was only worth as much as Adams. NO WAY. Scripture NEVER teaches that.
  - Reply by stonedragon2k on 2014-12-12 17:42:15
    Please tell me which scripture says that Jesus wasn't the second Adam or tell me which scripture say that Jesus is MORE than the second Adam?
    By the way and I mean this in no disrespect - do you read Biblical Greek? If not, then how can you be sure the translators are telling you the truth?
    Also I never stated that the sacrifice was for Adam - nobody believes that. Really!!
    - Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-12-12 18:19:49
      1. Jesus was not the second Adam, he was the last Adam. The greek word used in 1 Corinthians 15:45 is ἔσχατος.
      2. Jesus is greater then Adam (I think that is what you meant with " which scripture say that Jesus is MORE than the second Adam?")
      - But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Romans 5:15
      - The life of God's only begotten Son is way more valuable then the first man.
      For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16
      as such the Father was the Greater Abraham and Jesus the greater Isaac. (Genesis 22) That doesn't make the Father equal to Abraham, nor does it make Jesus equal to Isaac. It just means that there are commonalities to illustrate the point the writer is trying to get across.
      - Nowhere in the bible do we read that Adam had any of the powers Jesus had. To name a few, not exhaustive, Jesus on earth had resurrection power, could forgive sins,
      was judge, was omniscient, etc etc
      - Jesus was the only one knowing the father. "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. - John 3:16
      So Adam was the first man, and walked with God. Yet he did not know God. Jesus is called the Greater Moses, and about Moses is said: "But since then there has not arisen in Israel, a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt before Pharaoh, before all the servants, and in all his land, and by all that mighty power and all the great terror which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel" (Deuteronomy 34:10-12).
      Yet Moses TOO did not know God as Jesus did.
      Did Adam had EVERYTHING committed to him?
      I could go on and on about the superiority of Jesus without even going into the things which you might yet want to accept, such as his pre-existence, his eternality, his great power etc.
      3. "By the way and I mean this in no disrespect – do you read Biblical Greek? If not, then how can you be sure the translators are telling you the truth?"
      I do. I studied Greek for 6 years in school and translated various parts of ancient Greek literature. I am no Greek scholar, but I definitely can translate these texts for myself or follow the analysis of scholars. But I don't believe one needs to know biblical Greek to have a founded opinion on this. Giants have gone before us in the faith, and I can see clear love on their behalf and guidance of the Holy Spirit.
      4. "Also I never stated that the sacrifice was for Adam – nobody believes that. Really!!"
      If Jesus was a "corresponding" sacrifice, then what was he corresponding to is the next question. You argued that he was, not me. Adam didn't sacrifise anything, he got punished. And Jesus' life was only worth that of Adam, then he could not redeem all mankind. We are all sinners after all, and all guilty before God. Paul says it best when he says none are righteous, not even one. So if Jesus was only Adam 2.0, then at best he could only redeem for Adam's sin, not for the rest of the world. Yet scripture says precisely that he loaded OUR sins (not Adam sins) (1 Peter 2:24)

Comment by stonedragon2k on 2014-12-12 14:03:30
Meleti you said
The flaw in this reasoning is that it is built on the assumption that Jesus was still a god in some way with all his past memories and experience to fall back on.
Ah now here is the rub. If it was not his memories that were transferred, then I ask. What was transferred?
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-12 14:23:00
  You are asking me to explain a process that no human can explain. Personally--and please understand this is merely an opinion--I am not in the camp of those who believe all we are is a conglomeration of memories. That a human is merely the biological equivalent of a robot; that resurrection is just the construction of a new bio-body and the download of memories from some celestial database.

Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2014-12-12 14:17:45
Well I suppose that if Jesus name means "Jehovah is salvation" then his name IS above every name (Greek or otherwise) since there is no salvation in anyone else. IMHO
sw

Comment by on 2014-12-12 14:26:53
Thanks for this article Meliti, it was written with great humility and yes we will never fully understand the depth of Jehovahs qualities and the love his son displayed in pleasing his father offering himself as a sacrafice for our sins.
John 3;16 - For God loved the world SO MUCH that he gave his only begotten son --- It's simple enough, I'll never understand why people have to complicate things analysing, scrutinising every single word of scripture in order to come to a conclusion that only complicates matters more.
God IS love; a quality we need as humans to emulate. Would we as a father allow our only son to die for someone who didn't even like us? Jehovah did, think on this for a moment!
Also Jesus freely gave his life "a painful one at that" because of his love for us and his father.
If anything this is what we should be analysing, scrutinising, pondering then growing in appreciation of: LOVE
Even Jesus gave us the command to love MT 22 .35 - 40 Those were the greatest commandments
I think we lose sight of this when we try to over analyse scripture, the message of the christian Greek Scriptures is based on the premise of love and that's it.
So was the logos created, did he have a prehuman existence, is the logos an extension of god, all good questions but only secondary to understanding and growing in appreciation of God's love for us. When we cultivate that true love in our lives then we can truly say we have the true religion

Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-12 15:19:07
Thanks Meleti for an excellent series of articles. We are still apart on some issues but not that far. I personally cannot accept that the concept of “a god” that is worthy of our honor (if not worship), other than the “one True God”, is compatible with the Hebrew scriptures. This is where we tread a different line. Many here and on DTT have expressed similar thoughts that Jesus is indeed God but is not the Father. I perfectly understand why this seems too Trinitarian for some to accept, and yet I don't think the scriptures can be coherent without accepting it, even if we don't fully understand it.
Since most of the comments here – and a central point of your article - have been about Jesus' preexistence I would like to firmly align myself with your point of view and reasoning from the scriptures on that issue. I too have been wrestling with the question of whether the deniers fall foul of the warnings issued in 1 John. I used to be certain that they do. I then listened to the arguments they made, and while I couldn't agree with them I became less sure that fellowship with them was wrong. Now I am leaning back toward the feeling that there is a major problem for someone to deny the preexistence, and I think you have done a good job of identifying why that is.
What I cannot understand is WHY those who call themselves Christian “kick against the goads” so hard. Not one of those who denies the preexistence has yet made a clear statement that John's gospel can easily be read through that theological lens. They all admit that there are serious difficulties, or they call into doubt the gospel itself, or they like to say that they are not fully decided themselves one way or the other while at the same time picking holes in the Christology of those who believe. Why, why, why?
Jannai says that “None of the texts which you quote from John, if taken in context with the rest of the Bible, prove the pre-existence of Jesus Christ.“
This is surely false. There is no statement elsewhere in the Bible that would lead us to believe that the preexistence was not possible. So what context does she refer to that would lead us to ignore or try to circumnavigate the plain text given to us by God through the apostle John?
If you deny the preexistence and believe that someone has made a clear case as to why the preexistence contravenes a letter of the rest of God's Word then please refer me to it, or make a clear case yourself. If not, then the weak and false arguments of “it is not clearly stated in John's gospel” should be seen for what they are.
Let me draw a parallel with John's account of Jesus washing the feet of the apostles at the last supper. None of the other gospel writers mention it. Why not? There is no need for us to answer that question if we believe that the Bible forms a harmonious whole and is inspired of God. John tells us of the account. Do we dismiss him, or try to find ways to say that it was only a symbolic narrative and didn't really happen because the synoptic writers do not mention it? That would be foolish.
The apostle John puts the final pieces of a beautifully complex jigsaw puzzle together to complete what we need to know. Those who would rather leave holes in the picture than accept what he says are at liberty to do so, but they cannot claim that the truth of God's Word is on their side.
Apollos
- Reply by menrov on 2014-12-13 05:04:26
  Fine reasoning!!

Comment by stonedragon2k on 2014-12-12 17:21:21
Apollos,
I totally refute what you have said.
Firstly let it be clear, that no where in the Gospels or the Bible that says it is necessary to believe in a pre-existent Jesus. Regardless of whether you feel there is an argument or not, being a Christian is not synonymous with a belief in Jesus' pre-existence. Let the Bible speak for it tells us what we need for salvation
Rom 10:9 For if you publicly declare that 'word in your own mouth,' that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved.
Secondly, what is the anti-Christ? Who was John addressing when he said these words?
2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
I see no mention of deniers of a pre-existence Christ in this or any similar verses as those who are called anti-Christ. These verses address the Gnostics and to label me or others who do not hold your view by calling us the anti-Christ is slander. I believe he came in the flesh. I believe he died for our sins. I believe he was raised on the third day. I believe he sits at Gods right hand. I believe Jesus is functionally a God in the fullest sense - although this last statement is not fully supported in the NT.
Thirdly throughout this series I have answered the questions regarding John. And believe me I would answer or at least point you to an alternative understanding for ALL the John texts. But I fear that most have their minds already made up.
Fourthly I have raised some series questions about the logical implications on pre-existence, but apparently they are off topic and remained un-answered.
Fifth- the whole Philo question still remains a white elephant in the room. As yet nobody has answered how a Jewish mystic/philosopher came up with the SAME conclusions BEFORE the revealed word of God in the Gospels. I provided the links to Philo and his teachings, which is professionally peer reviewed website by Philosophers for Philosophers. This question has been completely ignored.
Sixth - I coming to the opinion that this particular question about Jesus, apart from what is clearly stated in black and white is a tool used by Satan to cause division. The scriptures never require or ask us to debate such issues. We are only required to believe that he is God's son, that he lived as a man on earth and died for our sins. When Christians go beyond this, trouble follows. From the earliest days of Christianity, Satan has shifted the question from WHO to WHAT Jesus is. Hence the Gnostics, Arians, Trinitarians, Polish Brethren etc. And everybody is fighting over a question the Bible does not ask us to answer or make definitive statements about. As Jesus said a tree is known by its fruit. And the fruit of this question has over the last thousands of years borne nothing that bears any resemblance to Christ, especially those that gained the upper hand in the argument. What did these go and do? Persecute their own brothers. Even as the name calling has begun on this thread. Why do we have to look backwards when trying to understand Jesus? We all accept him as our Lord and give him fealty, why isn't that enough?
HOWEVER - IF you are really open to a different view point why don't we pick up the thread on DTT and begin with ONE scripture at a time? Let the moderators decide when enough is enough and then move onto the next? Lets talk through the logical ramifications of such a belief. Lets discuss Philo since he is such a big player regarding current thinking in pre-existence theology. There is no rush and this topic could take months to run, because of time constraints etc. But as yet I don't think you or anybody have even begun to hear the alternative arguments in a logical, structured coherent manner. If the moderators allow, I would like to invite an ex-JW elder who has some excellent thoughts on this subject. I don't know if he would agree, but to warn you in advance I would be 'lifting' some of his ideas.
- Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-12-12 18:50:19
  On the Philo argument I would like to point out that there are older texts than the Bible with similar stories and miracles. Employing your argument , you might dismiss the Holy Scriptures also.
  My personal perspective on "coming in the Flesh".
  1. This expression 'in the flesh' is without meaning if Christ was born as man without pre-existing as a spirit. Why, every man that ever lived came in the Flesh. Only If he were spirit, he could have the choice to come not in the Flesh.
  2. Also "coming" - whence? A baby comes out of nowhere. Where did you come from? First you were not, and then you were. Christ came from a place.
  From Answering Islam website: "Jesus’ Personal Prehuman Existence" (Sam Shamoun)
  For instance, Jesus says that he has been sent forth from the Father in order to enter the world, and would be returning back to him in heaven:
  “No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.” John 3:13
  “Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!” John 6:62
  “‘Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from beside (para) God. I came from beside (para) the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.’ Then Jesus’ disciples said, ‘Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.’ ‘Do you now believe?’ Jesus replied.” John 16:25-31
  Here we not only see Jesus affirming his personal preexistence, but also accepting the disciples’ confession that he knows all things, which is a characteristic that belongs uniquely to God:
  “for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.” 1 John 3:20
  Jesus also speaks of coming down in order to make known the things which he learned from the Father’s presence in heaven:
  “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from beside (para) my Father I have made known to you.” John 15:15
  In this next passage, Jesus not only says that he came from the Father’s side, he also claims to have personally seen Abraham who, unlike the Jews of his day, did not try to kill Christ, but was actually happy at meeting him:
  “‘I am telling you what I have seen in the presence of/from beside (para) my Father, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.’ ‘Abraham is our father,’ they answered.’ ‘If you were Abraham’s children,’ said Jesus, ‘then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from (para) God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.’ ‘We are not illegitimate children,’ they protested. ‘The only Father we have is God himself.’ Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for from God I have proceeded forth and am here. I have not come on my own; God sent me.’… Very truly I tell you,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham came into being, I AM!’ At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.” John 8:38-42, 56-59
  Christ explains why it was possible for he and Abraham to have seen each other. Unlike Abraham who came into being, e.g., was created, Christ has always existed since his mode of being transcends time!
  Jesus even goes as far as to say that no one has ever seen or comprehended the Father besides him, which is why he is the only One infinitely qualified to make him known:
  “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me— No one has seen the Father except the One who is from beside (para) God; only he has seen the Father.” John 6:44-46
  “Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, ‘Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own authority, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, but I know him because I am from beside (par’) him and he sent me.’” John 7:28-29
  Hence, there can be absolutely no doubt that Christ truly existed alongside the Father, and enjoyed intimate, perfect communion with him, even before the world was made.
- Reply by ilovejesus333 on 2014-12-12 21:02:50
  Hi stonedragon,
  Having just read your post it seems to me the points you are making bear a similar resemblance to the comments made by someone in an earlier post regarding the Logos. Particularly so as you have also made references to the Greek/hebrew philosopher Philos.
  I had heard of Philos before but admittedly had never read any of hisworks. As you have advocated the writings of Philo so strongly i decided perhaps this may prove interesting, so I checked him out.
  To be honest I certainly wont get into a debate with you over this simply because I'm not accustomed to his philosophys. Never the less having read the article on his life and works it appears to me that he likens the Logos as the personification of God's wisdom and I'll quote;
  (1) Logos is used only as a figure of speech designating God's activity or action.
  (2 )Following the Jewish mythical tradition, Philo represents the Logos as the utterance of God found in the Jewish scripture of the Old Testament since God's words do not differ from his actions
  (3) The Logos which God begat eternally because it is a manifestation of God's thinking-acting.
  So it appears according to Philo the logos is only an extension of God himself necessitated by creation,a creation exhibiting intellect and wisdom
  Now the next statement is interesting!
  The Logos is the Bond of the universe and mediator extended in nature. The Father eternally begat the Logos and constituted it as an unbreakable bond of the universe that produces harmony. Hmm!
  Certainly his thoughts are deep and profound and frankly I did find his writings difficult to digest
  It also suggests that he took the MYTHICAL hebrew explanation of creation and expanded it using the Greek.philosophical views.
  Anyway, his concept of the logos in my opinion actually raises more questions than answers. Mat 18; 2-4 Jesus called a little child to come to him. Jesus stood the child before the followers. Then Jesus said, "I tell you the truth. You must change and become like little children . If you don't do this, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. The greatest (most important) person in the kingdom of heaven is the person that makes himself humble like this child."
  If I am having difficulty coming to grips with Philo's philosophys i doubt if any child could understand it either. I do not wish to come across as condescending
  2 Tim 3;16 Gods written word alone should be sufficient to come to an accurate knowledge of him.
  - Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-12-12 21:59:31
    A child I am, and a child I shall remain.....to God alone in Christ.
    sw
    - Reply by ilovejesus333 on 2014-12-12 22:33:04
      It would be foolish to remain a child.1 cor 3;2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.
      In Mat 18 Jesus likens his followers to children in exercising humility, being humble enough to recognise we cannot rely upon our own wisdom but to rely upon "Every utterance from Jehovah" Jesus recognised that and he was the great teacher. Far greater than Plato Aristotle or Philo. So with respect I would prefer to follow scripture rather than man made philosophys
    - Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-12-14 01:09:34
      I liked that Sw. Thanks!

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-12-12 18:35:36
Apollos, I don't mean any disrespect, but am I right in thinking that you are a Jehovah's Witness elder? There are many Christians who do not believe in the pre existence of Jesus Christ and many who do. However your misguided tendency to imply antichrist to those who do not agree with your believes may better be understood if we knew your religious identity. I'm sure you understand, brother. We just want to help one another and show loving kindness, understanding and patience.
- Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-12 18:54:00
  With respect in return I could be a Buddhist and it would have no bearing on what God's Word says on this matter. John's Gospel is quite clear, and that is the issue here, not my religious identity.
  That being said if you read my comments you will not find that I have accused anybody of being antichrist either.
  I agree with showing loving kindness, understanding and patience. These are fundamental to Christianity of course. And it is "understanding" in particular that I seek from those who deny the preexistence. It is not sufficient to say that only part of God's Word confirms it and we are therefore at liberty to call it into question.
  I do not call into question the parting of the Red Sea just because it is recorded in Exodus and Psalms, but not in Malachi or Galatians. Why then apply a different standard to the important preexistence of Christ and deny what he gave up just because John's Gospel makes it preeminent and the other synoptics do not? The Apostle Paul confirms it too especially in the Philippians passage that Meleti draws attention to.
  By all means I am open to understanding you, but you must make your position from scripture and not seek to just make assertions or question my religious identity. Such things are entirely irrelevant to the truth.
  Apollos
  - Reply by Nightingale on 2014-12-12 19:27:17
    Because the pre-existence is such a huge issue that if it was true it should be all over the Bible, especially in all the Gospels, not just one of them. The Gospels should be filled with the topic, Jesus should be talking about his previous position in many occasions. Why don't the disciples ever ask excited questions about his previous life? Parting the Red Sea is almost nothing compared to this topic, we are talking about most important person of the whole Bible here.
    Besides, I am not convinced that that passage in Philippians confirms any pre-existence at all. You have to look at the context which is about the example of humility and self-sacrifice that Jesus gave to his followers, not about some transformation that took place earlier. Imo that passage is about Jesus who was sinless, perfect human and image of God like Adam was but didn't use that superior position (God's form) for his own benefit (unlike the first Adam did), he instead humbled and emptied himself (a slave's form) by serving others and went so far that eventually sacrificed his life on behalf of others. Feel free to disagree but that's how I see it.
    - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-12 20:49:29
      I think it should rest with the author of the book to say how much emphasis should be placed on any subject he chooses to reveal to his readers, or are we now to be God's editor-in-chief. We have to wait until one of the very last books of the Bible to read the words, "God is love", yet is there a more important fact than that? Everything pivots around God's love. The universe exists because God is love. Why did God not have every writer record that phrase? He had his reasons and the discovery of them will only serve to educate us further in God's wisdom.
      As Apollos has pointed out repeatedly. We have clear and unambiguous statements made by Jesus and recorded by John showing he preexisted. The fact that other Bible books do not mention it, is not evidence to the contrary.

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-12-12 18:48:40
Apollos, have you read Meleti's articles 1, 2 and 3 on the Logos - you will see plenty of scriptural reasons given for the non pre-existence of Jesus. You will also notice how commenters are discouraged at times and told to go to the Discussion Board!
Let's be clear - name calling is not for Christians; I think that is something we have learnt by now.
- Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-12-12 19:03:36
  Hi Janna,
  I tried to understand the perspective you defend but find no Scriptural foundation for it. I really tried because I like A. Buzzards work and figured he must have a reason to believe so.
  Saying it's a possibility because Bible might allow for it by some interpretational contortionism is your defense. But what do you make of the need to worship God 'in spirit and truth?'
  I personally would think the term anti Christ helps the discussion, but I do believe it's very important to seek to worship God in truth. And I perSonali believe Scripture is abundantly clear on this topic.
  Notice Apollos like me also tried to see things from your viewpoint for a while. I'm sure he's not antichrist for that ;-) But we need to stick to the Bible on clear and easy subjects. I came to the conclusion that denying pre existence is a unitarian requirement to avoid some theological inconsistencies when denying Jesus is God. But we need to take the Bible how it is written, not how we want it to be.
  - Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-12-12 19:05:21
    I meant “doesn't help the discussion". Sorry for mistake.
- Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-12-12 19:07:11
  Meleti didn't directly accuse you or anyone of being an antichrist. He did ask an important question. If you feel personally addressed by it, then you should answer it in your heart and prayerfully.
  Sometimes it's an act of love to speak for truth. Paul many times issued warnings against false doctrine. This doesn't distract from love, it actually is love motivated.
  These discussions have and always will be heated because it talks about that which we hold most dear, the Christ. Some get offended easily, and I understand that, I too sometimes get offended by certain things said. But if we can move passed that, we often learn a lot from these discussions back and forth.
- Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-12 19:10:15
  Jannai
  Let us not forget that Jesus name-called when it was required. Matt 23 should provide a sharp refresher on this matter.
  Of course he did not do so as a matter of course and neither would we. But we still have a duty to point out falsehood.
  I have no idea what you mean by Meleti's previous articles giving scriptural reasons for the "non pre-existence of Jesus". You would need to provide references. Otherwise I assume that you have been misreading or misunderstanding what was written. I say this with confidence as I know that he has never at any time doubted the preexistence of Jesus, and would never have implied such a thing.
  Please just make your own point from scripture if you are able to do so.
  The reason for pointing people to DTT is simply that it is an easier tool to use for discussion. You twice withdrew from conversations over there when you were unable or unwilling to continue your points from scripture. That is totally your prerogative, but please don't make a pretense that you have a scriptural argument to share if in fact you do not.
  Whether here or on DTT I think it reasonable to expect our brothers and sisters to express thoughts with clarity, but more importantly to base them firmly on scripture.
  Love is indeed key to our discussions, but that does not mean that we should accept all that is stated by others without boundaries. Meleti's article investigates where the boundaries might lie in relation to this important theological point of preexistence and I for one agree with his conclusions at this point in time.
  Apollos
  - Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-12-12 19:42:56
    I was referring to scriptural reasons given by commenters for the non pre-existence of Jesus.
    - Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-12 19:59:33
      There are none. That's the reality. Jesus is indeed who the scriptures say he IS, WAS and always will be. (Heb 13:8)
      Please don't confuse my straightforwardness as being judgmental on you or anyone else who chooses not to believe.
      If you have read things that I have written you will find that I firmly wish that all attain to salvation just as our heavenly Father does. That includes atheists, muslims, those who deny preexistence, Adam and Eve and Cain and Judas. However... all will finally have to accept the truth about Jesus to be saved. (John 8:24) There is simply no way around that.
      Now if that truth about Jesus does not involve his preexistence then so be it, but I am firmly convinced that the Bible teaches it clearly, and that without it we will not be able to accept the full value of the sacrifice.
      Those who believe otherwise are welcome to do so, but our mileage will probably vary.
      Apollos

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-12-12 19:10:07
It is true, Apollos, as you say, if you were a Buddhist, it would have no bearing on what God's Word says on the matter. But you are missing the point, Apollos - if we knew whether you were a JW elder, then it would help us to understand your attitude. It's when we understand each other, then we can make allowances and show loving kindness.
- Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-12 19:49:35
  Dear Jannai,
  How would this information define my "attitude"? More importantly how will it change the truth of God's Word?
  If you can convince me that my religion, or status within that religion has any bearing whatsoever on the subject matter at hand you are welcome to have not only have the immediate answer you seek, but my street address, my SSN, and my inside leg measurement also.
  Humorous as this might be I do find it a little cheap to use this discussion to ask me this irrelevant question as if it really meant something.
  You say it would "help us", not "help me". So perhaps others will weigh in on this and explain why it will help if you are not able to do so.
  If not, then please let's just politely stick to the topic.
  Thank you.
  Apollos
  - Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-12-12 21:59:08
    Let's not forget Ill need your prosthetic leg and eye as well Apollos. As representatives of Christ, we are Guardians of The Galaxy!!

Comment by CQQiee on 2014-12-12 20:02:20
Meleti,
This post is excellent. Nice spiritual treat.
Jesus arrives fully human, he's another perfect human target for Satan. But this time it's a Satan loss, Jesus succeeds at being our Savior.
His life force is scaled to the human realm minus Logos might and power. What is the one indelible constant that follows him? The Father’s “character.”
That’s missing with Adam, his minions, along with fallen angels.
QC

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-12-12 20:34:36
Dear Apollos, I'll pass.

Comment by stonedragon2k on 2014-12-13 00:45:51
People - please understand JEWISH pre-existence language.
Jeremiah is a case in point.....
Jer 1:4 And the word of Jehovah began to occur to me, saying:
Jer 1:5 "Before I was forming you in the belly I KNEW you, and before you proceeded to come forth from the womb I sanctified you. Prophet to the nations I made you."
The Jewish rabbis used to say that these things existed BEFORE the earth was created - Adam, Torah, Tent of Meeting, Garden of Eden and Moses
Of course they did not mean literally in HEAVEN any more than Jeremiah. I use this as an example to show how the Jewish writers thought and wrote. Where they use the term EXIST we in our Greek mindset would say PLANNED.
During the course of this discussion - over the last 4 blogs I have raised many questions and like my answer to Apollos nobody has really addressed any of the points I made.
I leave this discussion with these thoughts AND questions
1. I have NEVER ADVOCATED Philo. I DO NOT ADVOCATE PHILO
All I asked was for somebody to explain to me how he came to a knowledge of Christ in terms of an Archangel, Firstborn, Creator of the Universe etc BEFORE Jesus was born or the Gospels were penned.
Did God inspire him or demons? It is as simple as that.
It is because Philo's writings came before John's Gospel that many people believe that John plagiarised Philo. I don't agree, but you can't blame them especially when people like yourselves to a theological argument that is identical to his that is mixed with Greek philosophy.
Somebody wrote in this thread and I can't find the comment, that many religions held views that might pre date the Bible account on certain issues or even may be similar. That is a fair point. The Hammarubi code is such a case and some scholars think Moses plagiarised this code. Of course that is not the true and is explained by Romans 2:14
BUT NEVER HAS ANYBODY BEEN ABLE TO SECOND GUESS GOD. NO MAN, DEMON CAN EXCISE FROM GOD'S MIND THINGS HE WILL REVEAL IN HIS OWN TIME - ROMANS 11:34
Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for Philo to have known in advance by guesswork or philosophy the TRUE plan of God or to reveal the "true" nature of the Logos before he wanted it penned (1 Peter 1:12)
Therefore the question remains - DID GOD INSPIRE HIM OR DEMONS?
2. Again everybody skirts around this issue - WHAT was transferred from heaven?
When I posed this question to Meleti further up this thread his reply was as follows:
"You are asking me to explain a process that no human can explain."
I am not asking anybody to explain the HOW. I want to know the WHAT.
QC made a stab at it. He/She wrote
"His life force is scaled to the human realm minus Logos might and power."
Pure conjecture - because the Bible does not say any such thing either implicitly or explicitly.
And what is meant by this statement?
"What is the one indelible constant that follows him? The Father’s “character.”
I make have two observations:
1. My fathers 'character' followed me when I was conceived, as was yours. It is called genetics. That is no proof of pre-existence.
2. Are you implying that the egg of Mary was somehow implanted with the spirit of the Logos (albeit a scaled down version)? If so that would make Jesus part spirit and part human. A hybrid. Does the Bible teach such a thing?
So again I ask - ANYBODY - WHAT WAS TRANSFERRED FROM HEAVEN????
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-13 09:06:08
  If you are asking WHAT was transferred, the answer would be the person. Not the power, not the body, not the memories, but that unique undefinable essence which represents the person himself.
  Because we can't figure that out, because we cannot comprehend it, we are required to exercise faith in the character of the one telling us these things and simply believe. At some point, God requires us to just trust him because there are some things we simply cannot understand. He tells us plainly that something is so, and we put faith that he wouldn't mislead us.
  If we refuse to believe, then we are in danger of grieving the spirit which leads us to the truth.
  -----------------------
  As for Philo, you say:
  "All I asked was for somebody to explain to me how he came to a knowledge of Christ in terms of an Archangel, Firstborn, Creator of the Universe etc BEFORE Jesus was born or the Gospels were penned. "
  Please present the evidence first, then ask the question. I would ask that you open a post on DTT and make quotes from Philo's writings that prove he prophesied all the things you are alleging here. Give references to his writings so others can research them as well, and examine the context.
  - Reply by Nightingale on 2014-12-13 10:10:23
    "Because we can’t figure that out, because we cannot comprehend it, we are required to exercise faith in the character of the one telling us these things and simply believe."
    Isn't this what the Trinitarians like to say?
    - Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-13 10:38:03
      Trinitarians also like to say that Jesus is our King and Redeemer.
      Does this mean that Jesus is not either of these things?
      The only alternative position to what you imply is that we CAN fully comprehend the nature of God and His Son. By definition God would no longer be transcendent to us if this were true.
      It often takes humility to admit that we cannot know something, and that we must accept scripture as it is written. It is not up to us to reconcile every aspect of God in human terms. It is only up to us to accept what we are told by Him.
      Apollos
    - Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-13 10:51:21
      Nightingale
      You may not like this but I do suspect that your own approach to this subject is tainted by JW thinking. What I mean by that is that JWs are conditioned to in a sense mock any religion that cannot explain God in human terms. If there is any element of "mystery" to God then the term is used in a pejorative sense. We were trained to think that other religions were wrong if they admitted some aspects of God as being a "mystery". But in reality we must accept God's transcendence and this is just another way of expressing it.
      Now that does not give us license to describe God as unknowable. That is a different matter, and would be an insult to Him considering the lengths He has gone to to be known by us. But scripture is the means by which we know. We do not have to squeeze square pegs into round holes in order to feel we've got things right. We simply accept what scripture says. Unless there is a conflict in scripture that needs resolving then we don't have to start picking it apart because it doesn't fit our metaphysical view of the world. And as yet nobody has shown me any scriptural conflict caused by a belief in the preexistence of Jesus. They have only tried to excuse away the scriptures that state it. I ask again - why?
      Apollos
    - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-13 11:04:31
      We need to put faith in what Jesus tells us. We don't need to understand how it was possible for him to descend from heaven and become flesh. It is enough that we trust him.
      Trinitarians are not asking us to have faith in what Jesus plainly states, but in their interpretation of his words. When they cannot explain them, so they claim it is a mystery and require us to just believe.
      If someone comes to me and says that Jesus didn't mean what he said, then that person had better prove it, for that person has no right to expect me to put faith in him. I know the character of Jesus and I know the character of man. Only one deserves my unquestioning faith.
    - Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-12-13 11:15:49
      At least it is humble. If there is one thing I've learned is that as JW we have been conditioned to want to explain "everything" and understand "everything", even if it means oversimplification or even plain denial of the written text.
      There is nothing wrong with saying this is what scripture reveals, yet how this works I cannot fully understand.
- Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-13 09:59:55
  Stonedragon
  May a second Meleti's request for specific references on Philo. I don't think the questions you raise in this regard are inconsequential, but after some preliminary research I can see how it would be possible to reach invalid conclusions based upon his work.
  However since I might not be looking at the exact writings you refer to it would be better if you were to present these first, as the argument is yours, and then we could discuss its validity further.
  Apollos

Comment by stonedragon2k on 2014-12-13 01:28:50
Hey bros and sisters I would like to finish my comments by saying that I respect ALL of the positions presented here.
I remember how it was HUGELY difficult for me to think or even contemplate the Jesus I was taught, in way other than the pre-existent model.
At the end of the day, we are all on a road to learning and we all love and respect Jesus - and that is what matters.
I love you ALL - really!!!. I respect those who have taken the time to comment and for Meleti and Apollos for providing a forum where 'former' JWs can openly discuss and disagree. Thank you.
We may never agree on all things (and especially this), but we can agree that Jesus rules us NOW and his life is a model to follow, regardless of whether he lived before coming to this earth or not.
Again A BIG HUG AND THANKS TO ALL - LET LOVE AND PEACE BE OUR GUIDES.
- Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-12-13 05:50:10
  stonedragon, Thanks for all the points you have raised and the information you have provided. I have been doing research on the Jewish pre-existence language and it's very interesting. Since I have come to understand the non pre-existence of Jesus, it has removed all the clutter that we are so weighed down with when trying to understand God's Word. It's amazing how everything starts to fall into place.
  And that's good advice - let love and peace be our guides. Thank you.
- Reply by ilovejesus333 on 2014-12-13 11:18:28
  Dear Stone dragon Peace to you also
  Thank you for your comments they inspired me to examine some of your posts particularly the discussion regarding Philos,although on face value I don't agree with many of his arguments but at least it was a unique learning process for me even though he is a difficult read.

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-12-13 10:13:29
I thought Meleti's discussions about the Logos started out fairly well.It seemed pretty clear that Jesus pre existed as the Word. It was just a matter of defining who or what that meant.Now we are discussing wether he pre existed or not.I am familiar with Buzzard and I think he brings to light a lot of the symbolic language used in scripture which traditionally, churches have taken too literally.But to say that Jesus simply did not pre exist is inaccurate at best at worst, just wrong.Jesus had heavenly origins as the Word.How we explain his seems to be causing some debate.
.
I don’t agree that Jesus was either “a god” or an angel, this idea might harmonise with some scripture but it does not with many others.Nowhere does the bible teach that Jesus pre pre-existed as the son.He was the Word.He is only identified and commonly known as the son in the form of a man.
Colossians has already been discussed, And the first chapter is claimed to be a lesson in identifying Christ’s pre existence as the son.
But It says at Col 1:26”the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people”
This mystery is not that Jesus pre existed, but is “this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory”
See, the point Colossians is making is that Jesus the son of God who dwelt among men and who God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,Has in turn put His spirit in all those who believe.This is the mystery revealed.
In fact there is a warning to the Colossians “I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments”.This is not warning us about not believing in his pre existence but the need to understand the mystery that is”Christ in you”
Anyone who even insinuates that our salvation depends on understanding that Jesus pre existed as an angel or a god is deluded and missing the point.Christians of all kinds for the last 2000 years have simply believed that "the man" Jesus, is the son of God, and has all of Gods divine nature in him.We can wonder all we like,how Jesus pre existed along side his Father. We were not there and haven’t a clue how to comprehend such an idea.But,we can comprehend Christ the man, this is how we know God.
- Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-13 10:32:40
  “Anyone who even insinuates that our salvation depends on understanding that Jesus pre existed as an angel or a god is deluded”
  I guess by this definition Meleti is deluded, and so am I. So was John and Jesus himself. Oh we could add Thomas to the mix and arguably Peter.
  The points you make about what you personally can be sure about regarding Jesus are certainly all true and important also. But you have not in any way convinced me that the person of the Son of God did not preexist. All you have done is cast doubt on it by saying we cannot know. Buzzard casts greater doubt by saying we CAN know that he did NOT preexist. He does this only by applying human logic and reasoning. I simply refuse to accept this refutation of God’s Word.
  Apollos
  - Reply by markchristopher on 2014-12-13 11:08:21
    Why?Are you saying that you and Meleti believe that our salvation depends on believing your point of view?What has Thomas and Peter got to do it?
    Im not trying to convince you that he did not pre exsist. Did you not read what I said.”But to say that Jesus simply did not pre exist is inaccurate at best at worst”
    - Reply by markchristopher on 2014-12-13 11:17:35
      Oops i meant "But to say that Jesus simply did not pre exist is inaccurate or just wrong"

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-12-13 10:20:57
Just want amend my first paragraph as there was a few errors!
"I thought Meleti’s discussions about the Logos started out fairly well.It seemed pretty clear that Jesus pre existed as the Word. It was just a matter of defining who or what that meant.Now we are discussing wether he pre existed or not.I am familiar with Buzzard and I think he brings to light a lot of the symbolic language used in scripture which traditionally, churches have taken too literally.But to say that Jesus simply did not pre exist is inaccurate or just wrong.Jesus had heavenly origins as the Word.How we explain this seems to be causing some debate".

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-12-13 11:41:47
Meleti, Apollos,
There has been many scriptural and well thought out answers to questions you have raised here, and yet it appears you don't seem to have the ability to understand anything anyone says, and you keep coming back with the same questions. You have also implied very hurtful and damaging accusations, and then when you are asked why, you seem to deny what you actually said.
I say this to you out of love, brothers. This site has helped so many people who have been so damaged by the Organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses - please don't let it all fall apart now.
- Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-13 13:35:26
  Jannai
  I have been through your past numbers of comments again. I am very sorry to say it so bluntly, but it seems that you are “stirring the pot” rather than adding anything to the discussion. This is not what the forum is for and I would politely ask that you stop doing it.
  I would welcome any new thoughts or insights that you might be able to bring to the conversation, but so far you have not done that.
  (If anybody thinks I am being in any way unfair I invite them to scroll down the comments in this article and read the ones made by Jannai40.)
  Just about every other comment of the 68 so far have added something to the conversation. But I do not think it right for someone to simply accentuate differences in position in a way that clearly has no other purpose than to stir up emotions of those with differing viewpoints. And that is what I believe you are doing.
  While I don't currently agree with Stonedragon, Nightingale and MarkChristopher I can at least respect their comments and intentions.
  Please respect the purpose of this site and use it for something positive if you are to use it at all.
  Apollos
  - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-13 13:53:58
    I concur with Apollos.
    - Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-12-14 09:04:51
      Meleti, Apollos, Thank you for your comment. I see the topic has been raised on the Discussion Board; I hope that Stonedragon will be able to take part. Once people have all the information, then they can decide which direction to choose.
      May our Heavenly Father and our brother, Jesus Christ continue to guide and bless us all as we make our way to the Kingdom of God where we will all meet up and serve together.

Comment by Nightingale on 2014-12-13 12:34:17
Reply button is missing below Apollos' post, so I put this here.
When you say things like "it's a mystery, we can't explain it", it might be okay, we cannot understand everything, that's of course true. I don't mock anybody who says that. But sometimes saying it can be also an easy way out when you don't understand something fully - though that something could maybe be understandable when you study it more or when you look it from a different, new viewpoint that you haven't thought about before.
If you want to try the Unitarian viewpoint to this topic, you notice there is no mystery left, i mean you don't have to speculate what was transferred, what pre-human Jesus exactly was etc. There is "just" a miracle of beginning of life that happened in a young woman's womb 2000 years ago like Luke 1:32-35 describes. What was the reason the baby would be called "Son of God"? What did Gabriel say? Because he had been in heaven with God since who knows when? No, because of this miracle by the holy spirit that was about to take place. "For that reason precisely", the verse says.
I don't think this contradicts John, most of it fits with this idea when you don't ignore the fact that figurative language is used in many passages. There are a couple of verses that might leave you scratching your head though. But personally the pre-existence idea makes me scratch my head much more. Pre-human Jesus creating the universe when God himself says dozens of times that it was He who is the Creator. I don't understand how the Arian view can explain that.
- Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-13 14:41:51
  Nightingale
  I certainly have tried the Unitarian viewpoint - several attempts actually - and failed to reconcile it.
  I will grant you that the wording in Luke does give some credit to what you say. But it doesn't rule out preexistence either.
  What did you mean by your last sentence? I refute the Arian position so maybe there is a misunderstanding there.
  Apollos
  - Reply by Nightingale on 2014-12-13 15:01:24
    Hmm I might have used a wrong term there - should have taken a closer look at what that term means exactly (Isn't the way JWs believe a form of Arianism?) Anyway I meant the theology that teaches that Jesus was the first thing that God created and through whom he then created the Universe. In other words, the way that the Wt teaches.
    - Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-13 16:51:32
      Yes, I agree that JW theology is based upon Arianism, and I reject it. Hopefully that clarifies that.
      Apollos
  - Reply by menrov on 2014-12-13 15:47:46
    I guess we can all agree that the birth of Jesus was a miracle as it is presumed (Luke 3:23) that Joseph was not the biological father. Jesus is specials because up to Jesus, all His ancestors can be considered sons of God (Luke 3:23-38). In these verses, Adam is still considered son of God.
    But it was only to Jesus where the Father specifically declared Jesus to be His son and that everyone should listen to Him. John had various remarks from which one can conclude Jesus had a role in heaven before He came in the flesh. For humans, I believe this concept is sometimes hard to capture. But most believes more easily accept the stories about angels materializing them and even reproduce with humans. We accept the angels that helped Lot. The key difference with Jesus is then that if Jesus indeed was a spirit before, He materialized via conception via a woman. The question is more: why did God not send Jesus to earth as a materialized angels. Was it because angels, albeit materialized, cannot die? ANd was the purpose of Jesus not to give his life for many? In other words, the fact that Jesus came to earth via a natural way made it possible that Jesus learned what it meant to be obedient as a human (like Adam)?
    Heb. 5:5-9 reads 5 So also Christ did not glorify himself in becoming high priest, but the one who glorified him was God, who said to him, “You are my Son! Today I have fathered you,” 6 as also in another place God 9 says, “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.” 7 During his earthly life Christ offered both requests and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death and he was heard because of his devotion. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through the things he suffered.
    Anyway, to consider this view.
    - Reply by Nightingale on 2014-12-13 16:41:25
      menrov: "John had various remarks from which one can conclude Jesus had a role in heaven before He came in the flesh."
      You are referring to John 1:15, 30. These verses have translation issues which cause misunderstanding. These verses refer to superiority of Jesus and his ministry compared to John the Baptist, not him being in existence before John was. John is saying that the one who comes after him outranks him, like in Matthew 3:11. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rZa7ufT5nI
      - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-13 19:40:20
        The link you provide claims three possible renderings for the Greek word prótos, "chief", "first", or "before". Of those, which fits the context? The NIV Bible says, "'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'" So let's try it with all three possibilities.
        1. 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was chief of me.'"
        2. 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was first of me.'"
        3. 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'"
        John was born before Jesus, so if Jesus didn't preexist, then 1. is inconsistent. Jesus has surpassed John by the time of this speaking so why does John speak about his ranking in the past tense. If Jesus continues to be his chief, then he would use the present tense. Using the past gives the sentence the meaning that Jesus was his chief, but isn't anymore. With the second, also dealing with ranking not time, we have the same problem. If Jesus was first in the sense of ranking, then why the past tense. Doesn't John consider Jesus to still be first in ranking.
        Only if we use first or before temporally, does this incongruity go away. Even though John was born first, Jesus was before him, was first in existence. So I would say that your bloggers suggested alternate rendering is the one that causes misunderstanding. These verses refer to the superiority of Jesus because he existed before John. In fact, rendering it as the blogger suggests, you end up with John spouting the circular reasoning: "Jesus is superior to me because he is superior to me."

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-12-13 13:52:38
Meleti/Apollos.A question. If Colossians 2:9 says “For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body” .Does that mean he also had the fullness of the god called the word as well?.
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-13 14:15:21
  Since the "fullness" Paul refers to is to be acquired also by Christians based on the next verse, I guess before even attempting to answer that question you should explain what you understand the "fullness" or "be filled" of the two verses means?
  - Reply by markchristopher on 2014-12-13 15:16:47
    I pasted this quote from biblehub-”The Greek (theotes) means the ESSENCE and NATURE of the Godhead, not merely the divine perfections and attributes of Divinity (Greek, "theiotes"). He, as man, was not merely God-like, but in the fullest sense, God”
    Did Jesus possess two nature/essences, the nature/essnce of God and the nature/essence of the other god called “'the word”?I simply read colossians as saying that the man Jesus had the essence nature of God.Not that he has a pre exsisting lesser god dweling in the form of I man, who also had the fullness of God in him as well.Its seems almost schizophrenic. How do see it works?
    - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-13 15:37:56
      I'm still not sure what you understand "fullness" to represent, but from your quote, I believe you accept the doctrine of the godhead. Is that the case?
- Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-13 14:25:37
  I'm not quite sure if I understand the question correctly, but as per my first comment on this article I differ from Meleti in that I don't find place for "a god" as completely distinct from "the True God" and so the question as you've raised it is probably an erroneous question from my perspective. However I may have misunderstood it, so perhaps you would clarify.
  - Reply by markchristopher on 2014-12-13 15:07:42
    i will Meleti to answer then.
    - Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-13 15:21:48
      Okay. And yes, now I see how you've expanded on the question I can see that it would not be directly applicable to my framework of belief.

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-12-13 17:19:37
Meleti. Why don't you want to answer the question?I think its straight forward. In Jesus Christ the fullness of deity dwells.Col 1:9 confirms that Paul is taking about the fullness of God.
Col 1:19 “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him”NIV
Col 2:9 “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form”NIV
I never mentioned Godhead. I used the term nature/essence, but deity, God can be used for theotetos as well.Take your pick.
Heres a few examples
For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body NLT
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form NASB
For the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily in Christ HCSB
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-13 19:43:25
  Now this is a hoot. I've asked you to clarify what you understand "fullness" to mean and first you quote something about the godhead which just confuses the issue, so I again ask you to clarify what you mean by "fullness" and you respond by quoting a bunch of renderings, but not defining the term as you understand it, then to avoid answering the question, you accuse me of not answering the question.
  We should take this routine on the road. We could kill at a comedy club.
  - Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-12-13 22:47:40
    As you suggested, I've made a comedy strip:
    http://i60.tinypic.com/14avq89.jpg
    - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-14 00:04:35
      Thanks. I needed a good chuckle.
  - Reply by markchristopher on 2014-12-14 03:02:04
    Sorry, but you are just trying to avoid answering.As if you don,t know what fullness means.Fullness=Filled to capacity, complete,whole, all that he is.After you and Alex Rover have finished having a hoot maybe you can both answer!

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-12-14 05:01:26
Heres a hoot
So, the little god called the word became flesh,a man, and also his dad the bigger God dwelt in the same body!. Iam sure Christians everywhere will be thrilled and less confused with Meleti's Revelation!
- Reply by on 2014-12-14 05:54:06
  Mark what ive concluded about colossians 2 v9 and many other verses that because the holy spirit dwelt in jesus .after his baptism especially. Jesus could say things like the father is in me .i and the father are one who has seen me has seen the father . I think that viewpoint could be a possible interpreration of what he meant . John 8 v29 he that sent me is with me the father has not left me alone .kev
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-14 08:20:17
  FINALLY! Thank you for answering my question. I had a suspicion that you were taking the verse literally, to mean that God actually dwelt in Christ. That premise is incorrect. This verse is discussing Jesus' reflection of his Father's qualities. As the perfect reflection of God's glory, Jesus, even as a man, was the image of God. We are talking qualities here not physicality. The context reveals that for in the next verse we are told that we, Christians, have been "filled by him". So your idea that God literally dwelt in the same body as Jesus is wrong and will naturally lead you to a wrong conclusion. Once you start out with a wrong premise it will jeopardize all your research. It will require you to explain away texts that plainly state Jesus preexisted because they don't conform to your premise. This is what happened to us as Jehovah's Witnesses when we adopted the premise that 1914 marked the start of the last days.
  - Reply by markchristopher on 2014-12-14 09:30:52
    Your missing the point.The world knows God through Jesus the man.Christians see it as simply as that.All that God is in Human form, but with human limitations.Your article claims that Jesus the man is a little god incarnate but with Fullness of all that is Dad is in human form.Alex, with all respect, thats a JW answer which they use to explain Jesus as Michael the angel and diminish his direct divinity.They are just like two peas in a pod.
    As we know billions of Christian see colossians 2:9 as proof of Christ direct divinity..not a shared divinity.
    Now we have to re write fundamental christian belief.So,when Thomas suddenly realises who Jesus is for the first time and exclaims"My Lord and my God!"What he really meant was my Lord and my god, the little god called the word, who I didn’t previously believed existed, who is just like his Dad the big God Yahweh.You went wrong in your first article by insisting that John 1;1 should without a doubt be translated “a god” and it went down hill from there
    Actually, the question is,t important anymore and neither is this discussion meaningful.You have lowered the conversation to rudeness.not only did you avoided answering the question.You and side kick Alex Rover decided to make Fun of me.A screen of anonymity does not give you licence to take the mickey.I bit like when angry motorists hurl abuse from the comfort of the motor cars and drive off.
    Its seems when you get put into a corner you resort either mocking or just plain rudeness.
    - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-14 13:48:24
      Your missing the point.The world knows God through Jesus the man.Christians see it as simply as that.All that God is in Human form, but with human limitations.Your article claims that Jesus the man is a little god incarnate but with Fullness of all that is Dad is in human form
      
      It is you who is missing the point if you believe that my article make the claim that Jesus is a god incarnate. I believe no such thing. As the Word, he was a god. As Jesus he was a man.
      
      Its seems when you get put into a corner you resort either mocking or just plain rudeness.
      
      We had a little fun with you because you kept avoiding answering my question then finally accused me of what you yourself were doing. It seems that you were offended by a little friendly banter and then again fall back on your old tactic of accusing others of what you yourself are doing; or do you not think that you have just engaged in mockery and rudeness in your comment?
      If this is how you are prepared to handle Bible research and discussion then you should look elsewhere.
    - Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-12-15 02:10:22
      I'm sorry mark, I thought I'd help defuse the tension with the comic strip. I have a vivid imagination and when meleti said comedy road tour...
      I didn't mean to make fun of you and honestly thought you'd laugh as well.
  - Reply by Nicodemus on 2016-04-29 19:16:37
    Hi Meleti,
    We should discuss this again in light our recent discussions regarding 'in' vs 'in union' and the doctrine of the indwelling Christ

Comment by Markchristopher on 2014-12-14 18:35:37
If its friendly banter then there is no harm.And I apologise if i responded defensively.
- Reply by markchristopher on 2014-12-15 02:54:28
  Alex,OK.Thanks for that.Sorry I misunderstood both your intentions.
  - Reply by on 2014-12-15 05:12:06
    Well done alex thats the way . That means more to me than all these doctrinal arguments .matthew 18 v4 kev c

Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-12-15 19:27:13
I haven't commented because I'm now split down the middle with this one .
I have a few questions that may bear on this subject :
Would the Jews of John's day been naturally inclined to believe that the prophesied Messiah pre-existed as the Son of God? The seemed to be expecting a human Messiah or Savior. Maybe they thought the "Messiah" would be another Moses or David. I think that the Jews would have no trouble believing that Jesus was a prophet ( he was curing people, he resurrected the dead, many saw him go up in the air after the resurrection and he accurately prophesied the end of the Jewish system)
What they consistently seem to have trouble believing is that he was the Son of God because they equated that to being God. Jesus didn't go around proclaiming he was the Son of God nor the Messiah.
Matthew 16:1
"The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven."
Why did they ask Jesus for this? They saw him perform miracles.
Matthew 16:13-17
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven
Notice all the varying expectations of what the "Christ" would be. I don't think think they would have reasoned from that Christ was the Messiah AND the Son of God. I talked to a Jew awhile back and it was interesting he believes that the Messiah is going to be just a man. He will not be the Son of God, nor will he be God in the flesh.
IMO Satan has seems to want to discredit that Jesus is the Son of God . His "if you are the son of God " reasoning reminds me of some of the beliefs I've been exposed to so far on this site
( We all know that Satan knew very well that Jesus was the Son of God)
I've been wanting to jump in the convo but I didn't know where or really how. It's been like a game Double Dutch for me :) My thoughts are a bit scattered and I haven't formed an opinion either way. I haven't had a chance to read all the comments so hopefully I'm not repeating anything. I can't think of any additional scriptures to throw in either.
Hopefully, this is a start.
- Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-15 19:53:25
  Hi GWiT
  I responded to your comment on DTT where you posted it here: http://discussthetruth.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=801&start=30#p8582
  Hopefully we can continue the conversation over there if there is more to add.
  Apollos

Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2014-12-15 23:09:23
Sorry but I just have to comment albeit so briefly and simply. Trinitarian vs. Unitarian/ Athanasius vs Arius. Both fought to be politically correct and Roman dogma won. Trinitarians overstated the divinity of Christ whereas Unitarians (such as JW's) understate the same. The devil is the one with the last laugh until Christ returns.
sw.

Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2014-12-15 23:49:35
As a postscript I might add that if Jehovah could make Moses, God to Pharaoh in Egypt (as stated in Exodus 7:1), could He not make Jesus God to the rest of the world? Isn't it all about who has the power to give? Why do we always need some humanly functional formula to explain God anyway?
- Reply by Wild Olive on 2015-03-11 19:40:57
  Have read all the posts with much interest,seems to me that no one really knows for sure what the true nature of logos is.
  For me the original verse that started it all Joh 1:1 still has more mystery than answer,the Greek word Theos translated God,but translated "a god"in the NWT doesn't cut it,if Jesus is a god,why do we not worship him?
  Is the translation wrong or is the concept of Jesus wrong,or both?
  John had a word in Greek to express divine nature,it's theotes in Greek,it's used at Col 2:9 exactly that way,but John didn't use it at Joh1:1, how it can be translated any other way is beyond me,so it should read "the word was with God and the word was god (theos not theotes), is Jesus god in the same sense that Willy Wonka is chocolate ?
  (Couldn't think of a better example to make comparison ).

Comment by Silus-silvanus on 2015-04-17 21:07:31
Im in the same boat as Godswordistruth.. I thought all my life That Jesus pre-existed in the heavens. But now after some examination am undecided.
Some scriptures appear clearly to state he pre-existed. Some seem to state he could not have preexisted. JW teachings have us believe prehuman Jesus is Michael the arcangel but little if anything is known about his prehuman life in the heavens outside of this.
Having said this, I do believe that satan is to blame for all the confusion. The great apostasy that set in to the Christian congregation in the first few centuries has permeated Christianity as a whole. Maybe as Daniel 12:4 says:4 “As for you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will become abundant.”
With respect to each of us, we need to remember that our baptism was, as Matt 28:19 says: "In the name of the father, of the son, and the Holy Spirit." So knowing who our father is and knowing who his son is are vital to our salvation.
I pray that God will reveal these things to us in due course. I find it hard to believe that our Heavenly Father would deny us the oportunity of of knowing one way or the other.
Lastly, I would like to offer a scripture I find intriguing.
1 Cor 15:45-49
45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, what is spiritual is not first. What is physical is first, and afterward what is spiritual. 47 The first man is from theearth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust; and like the heavenly one, so too are those who are heavenly. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the one made of dust, we will bear also the image of the heavenly one.
Notice a few things in this scripture.. When comparing Adam to Jesus verse 46 seems to apply to both when it says that what is spiritual is not first. In other words Jesus was not first a spirit, then a man, then back to a spirit. Verse 48 compares Jesus to his anointed brothers stating that they all are heavenly ones. However we know the anointed had no prehuman existence, only a promise stored up in heaven awaiting them.
With regard to the discussion so far, I am of the opinion that sticking to what the scriptures say is of vital importance. If two scriptures appear to contradict each other then we should search for more that bear on the subject untill it becomes clear.
Perhaps it might be a good exercise to list scriptures in columns, those for and those against and see where the weight of the scriptures lies.
Thanks again for the discussion.

Comment by Silus-silvanus on 2015-04-17 21:37:35
Sorry. Forgot to mention another few scriptures for meditation..
1. Heb 1:5. For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father?
Appears to indicate that no angelic creature was ever considered as Gods son.
2. Isaiah 44:24 24 This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser, Who formed you since you were in the womb: “I am Jehovah, who made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself, And I spread out the earth. Who was with me?
This scripture indicates twice that God was alone and no one was with him.
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-04-17 23:13:28
  Yet, Hebrews 1:2 says that it was through Jesus that God made the systems of things. Vs. 6 calls Jesus God's firstborn, indicating that there would be more sons. Heb. 2:10 speaks of Jesus as the one "for whom and through whom all things exist" which makes no sense if he didn't exist before coming to earth.
  Job 38:7 refers to the angels as sons of God. Psalm 89:6 also refers to sons of God. So there is evidence that indicates Jesus wasn't the only son of God. Therefore, we have to evaluate Heb. 1:5 in this context. It must refer to "son" in a special sense.
  Acts 13:33 parallels Heb. 1:5 by also making reference to the second psalm, linking it to the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus, pre-existent or not, was God's son when he was born as a human. So why would Paul refer to the resurrection as the moment when Jesus became his son and not his birth in the manger? It was to indicate sonship in a special way, through the resurrection. Paul is comparing Christians to Jesus in the opening two chapters of Hebrews. By resurrection, we too become sons of God. Jesus led the way. Although he was God's son when he existed in the heavens prior to coming to the earth, and he was God's only-begotten son when he was born of Mary, yet he became son in a new sense when he was resurrected becoming "better then the angels". (Heb. 1:4)
  - Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2015-04-18 19:09:37
    Well I maintain a simple opinion. Without plutonium or lightening to power my flux capacitor, no way can I generate the 1.21 gigawatts needed to examine the space/time continuum let alone fathom it!
    Whether Jesus preexisted or not makes no difference to our salvation or comprehending what exists for some final analysis. What the spirit reveals, the spirit reveals and no human need explain it. (2 Corinthians 12:2-7)
    (Besides, I can't get my DeLorean past 50 not to mention 88 mph)
    :)

Comment by Andres on 2017-07-07 22:37:15
It seems to me that these articles on logos are indeed enriching; Long ago I read an article about Jehova's gratitude to his son. All that Christ did for Jehovah is so vast and deep that Jehovah, like his son, did not mind giving his son up to the authority of receiving worship. In fact the scriptures say that Christ will have a position superior to jehova during the millennium ... the gratitude is not only the greatest of the virtues but it surpasses all the others .... ciceron

Comment by Balkan Boy on 2020-03-22 18:41:33
Thanks for all of your effort and research! In addition to this series, I found a satisfying answer in David Bercot's research: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpPmXUEK3F8

Comment by tito2019 on 2020-04-08 22:48:52
Meleti, why did you choose for Philippians 2:5-11 the biased and corrupt New World Translation? Let's compare verse 6 with other translations.

NWT: 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.

NIV: 6Who, being in very nature a God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

Berean Study Bible: 6Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

ESV: 6who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

All other Bibles indicate that Jesus was equal with God in heaven before coming to the earth. The NWT completely mistranslates the text to try to prove the complete opposite.

Another point, John 1:1c in most Bibles indicates that the Logos "is God". Of course, the NWT translates it "a god". For argument's sake, let's say ok, Jesus is "a god". Would you say that Jesus is a true god or a false god?

If he is a true God, as Isaiah 9:6 talks about Jesus being a Mighty God, how would you explain Isaiah 43:10 which says: 10“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed,
nor shall there be any after me.

There was no god formed before or after says Jehovah. Please explain, how is it possible that Jesus was created or a secondary god when there is only one God? Should we believe in only God the Father and his son a minor god? Doesn't that mean that there are two gods? Wouldn't that mean polytheism? The Bible indicates that there is only one God.
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-04-08 23:00:21
  For a scholarly answer to your questions, I would recommend you read Truth in Translation by Jason Beduhn
  - Reply by tito2019 on 2020-05-05 22:50:58
    Hi Meleti, thank you for your suggestion. After doing some research I came across this book: A review of J BeDuhn's "Truth in Translation" by Dr. Trevor R Allin http://livingwater-spain.com/beduhn.pdf. I think that having the other side of the coin should be helpful. Please review Jason Beduhn's credentials in chapter 2. All the evidence points out that Dr. Beduhn is NOT a Bible scholar, a translator of Biblical texts or linguist.
    - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-05-06 11:54:03
      Just a quick skim of the chapter headings leads to the suspicion this book is more of an ad hominem attack rather than an unbiased analysis of the data. The author also seems concerned by the support the Watchtower corporation gives to BeDuhn's findings. The source of the information should never the main focus. For example, let us say I had written the BeDuhn book. I am not an accredited Bible scholar nor linguist. But what matters would be whether what I write is true or not, not my credentials, wouldn't you say?
      - Reply by tito2019 on 2020-05-07 23:29:39
        Hi Meleti, thank you for looking into this. Of course, I agree with you and I just want to search for the truth. I really like your videos and agree with you in most of your analysis from scripture. I really commend you on that. You taught me what exegesis means! In 13 years in the organization, I never heard about that word. I understand now that what the GB does is a lot of eisegesis! You don't claim to be a Bible scholar without being it so you are being honest and not claiming something you aren't. But getting to the point, I'm all about the facts and not opinions. For example, one of the texts Dr. Allin analyzes is Hebrews 1:8 in page 36. The NIV (1984) gives the translation:
        “But about the Son he says,
        "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
        and righteousness will be the sceptre of your kingdom. " ” This is a quote of Psalm 45:6 and applying it to Christ as God. Many Bibles translate it the same way. The NWT on the other hand is translated: "But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness."
        Dr. Allin shows that Hebrews 1:8 is the only occasion where the New World Translation does not translate into an appropriate, vocative, form in the English a phrase in which God is addressed with the phrase [“ho theos”] or O God.
        This reveals a lack of consistency by the translators of the NWT. I invite you to look at this.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-05-08 08:12:55
        Hi Tito, I don't want to get into a debate over the merits and shortcomings of the NWT Bible. I'm not interested in defending any version, since all have their failings. Hebrews 1:8 does not prove nor disprove the trinity. We need to find texts which are unequivocal in their meaning. I will be doing an extensive analysis of the trinity doctrine in the future. This debate has been raging since the Trinity doctrine was conceived in the time of Constantine and will continue until Kingdom Come--literally. ?
        Reply by tito2019 on 2020-05-08 22:17:32
        I definitely agree with not defending any specific Bible translation. The important thing should be to understand the meaning of the original Greek words inspired by the Holy Spirit. I look forward to your videos on the Trinity. On another topic, maybe you know this already, but the recent WT July 2020 study article "Keep Walking in the Truth" paragraph 11 goes again with "We must reject apostate teachings [...]. Our enemies may use the Internet or social media to try to undermine our trust in Jehovah and our love for our brothers. Remember who is behind such propaganda, and reject it!". Interestingly they don't even mention one of these supposed lies! Also, in paragraph 12 says To resist Satan’s attacks, we need to deepen our trust in Jesus and in the role he plays in God’s purpose. We also need to trust in the only channel that Jehovah is using today. (Matt. 24:45-47). Amazing how the slave can contradict himself when Jeoffrey Jackson said that it would be presumptuous to say that they are the only God's channel on earth. Maybe you can also do a video on this. They are feeling the pressure of their lies being exposed!

Comment by swaffi on 2020-04-11 03:15:43
I must admit when I was a Witness I used to believe in the pre-existence of Jesus and I continued to believe in it until about a year ago. I used to take those scriptures of John and Colossians 1:16 and thought they were a slam dunk as to the pre-existence of Jesus. I have also read other support for the pre-existence of Jesus from this forum recently which I have never taken into account before.
Listening to the likes of Sir Anthony Buzzard (Reformation Fellowship) and "The Trinity delusion" youtube channel (Kel) has swayed my belief in the so-called pre-existence of Jesus.I'll do my best in breaking down why I believe this to be so, firstly...

It is impossible to pre-exist yourself. How can a human being be something else before their birth? If they are, it is not them. It is not human and it cannot be them, thus it cannot be the human Jesus, the person Jesus did not pre-exist himself. Apart of course from being in the plan, mind, purpose of God. More about that later

No one can be older than their ancestors, which includes Jesus. Jesus was not older than David or Moses

Jesus originated in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:35) That's when he was born so that is where Jesus originated as the person Jesus (except in the purpose/plan/ mind of God, more on that most important factor later) This scripture also tells us why he is to be called the "Son of God"....."The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

I think we all need to start with the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke before we read John. Why on earth would we ignore these most important gospels writers who tell us the originality and genealogy of Jesus? Now, I know Mark doesn't touch on the birth of Jesus but he doesn't touch on any pre-existence either

Now, going back to those scriptures of John, lets first discuss these important points; Jewish literature confirms that "notional" pre-existence (existence in the mind or plan of God) was in Jewish thinking at the time of Christ and this comes out in scripture. "Before the foundation of the world" type scriptures such as Luke 11:50, 1Peter1:19-21, Ephesians 1:4, 2 Timothy1:19, Hebrews 4:3, Revelation 13:8

John uses notional, poetic and typological language in his writings. It is the same thing in the book of revelation. One must remember also that Jesus was himself a Jew and spoke like a Jew.

I hope the mods don’t mind but I found this snippet in a biblical Unitarian website that really goes along with what I’m getting at…

“To sum up: Both extra-Biblical commentary from the Second Temple Jewish world (Jesus’ own culture), and throughout the Scriptures themselves, objects and people are said to exist notionally without any thought of them literally being in Heaven before materialising here on earth in God’s due time. When this paradigm is applied to those texts which seem to our Western understanding to imply that Jesus personally did consciously exist (as God) before his physical appearance on earth, confusion disappears. As always, context should win the day! Let’s leave it to a modern Jewish writer to have the last word…
Messiah … “is present in the mind of God and chosen before the creation, and from time to time revealed to the righteous for their consolation, but he is … not actually pre-existent. He is named and hidden from the beginning in the secret thoughts of God, finally to be revealed in the Last Times as the ideal Man who will justify God’s creation of the world”

With this in mind, I think most of those so-called “pre-existence” texts in John can be explained with an open mind. I came across Hebrews 1:2 the other day and I will attempt to explain it. Firstly, the second part of Hebrews is mistranslated as “ whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe or worlds in some translations. This should be translated into “the ages”. The NWT actually has this right. The Greek word here is aion, not Kosmos or oikoumene meaning world or universe. Trinitarian biases are rife with many translations of the bible. The first part of Hebrews 1:2 reads...”But in these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son” so the Hebrews writer is making a distinction that it was God who used prophets before(no mention of using Jesus or the son) the last days and now is using the son Jesus in the last days whom through he made the ages or the system of things (NWT). How can the “son of man” meaning human beings create the world or universe? You can see the Trinitarians have influenced the minds of many through their many biases. With this scripture in mind and a correct translation of Greek, you can see that Jesus the son was born and later on with his baptism, impalement, and resurrection (Last days onward) the father (Jehovah, Yahweh, Yehovah) has made the ages, or system of things and actually supports the idea that Jesus the son did not pre-exist more than he did.

Now, I’d like to explain Colossians 1:16. Firstly I think the apostle Paul is writing about the new creation and I don’t believe the Genesis creation is on his radar. Let me make this point; In the Genesis creation, are we seeing thrones, powers, rulers or authorities being created. No, we’re not. That should be our first tip-off. Secondly, Paul isn’t talking about the creation of the heavens or the earth but things in the heavens and on the earth. Paul is talking about God reconciling the Cosmos to himself in Christ. Thirdly, in the Genesis creation, you don’t see authority structures.

It’s important that we remember that Paul is talking about the risen Christ in and around Colossians 1:16. If we replaced “he” and “him” with “the risen Christ” with neighbouring scriptures I believe that things start to look a bit clearer. To sum it up, Paul was referring to the kingdom of God’s son Jesus Christ and the creation of authority structures. Revelation 11:15 is a good scripture for this. Other linking scriptures are 1 Peter 3:22 (closely related) Matthew 28:18 (Yes we all know that one but important none the less) Hebrews 1:3-4 & 6. Hebrews 2:5-8, 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, especially verse 24. Ephesians 1:20-22 deserves a mention as well. Yes, Jesus was the firstborn of the dead. The firstborn of many brothers in fact. The first fruits of the new creation of God. Just before verse 16 in 13 is worth reading as well. Paul says that he rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved son” and in Collossians 2: 10-14 says that he is the head of all rule and authority, he disarmed the rulers and authorities, making a public display of them, having triumphed over them through the cross. I believe that the apostle Paul is not referring to the Genesis creation. As I said before, it is not even on his radar.

Satan did not know Jesus when he was tempting him in the wilderness. Do you think that if Jesus pre-existed, Satan would have been aware of him? He didn’t

Not once does Jesus ever mention any prior experiences or events he had with his apparent pre-existence. He could have said something along the lines of..”I remember when the father (or Jehovah etc) did this with Moses and Pharaoh said this etc and I was used this way and that or I was there when Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac etc

I’ve also read somewhere in this forum that it couldn’t have been much of a sacrifice from the father if Jesus didn’t in fact pre-exist. Remember, the son (Jesus) was the almighty’s purpose from the beginning, before the foundation of the world, so are we believers, sons of God. Remember, Jesus was the firstborn of many brothers, but Jesus was special, he was directly created by God, yes I know, so was Adam, but Jesus never sinned. Jesus was in the mind of God from the beginning. Let's not forget that that miracle empowered into Mary is something we just do not understand. This “Power of the most high” must have meant a lot to almighty God. We should not underestimate this and think “Oh well Jesus the son must have pre-existed with the father as a conscious person otherwise the impalement of Jesus could not have been a real sacrifice to God or mankind. Another thing to remember, even in his heavenly state, Jesus is still referred to as a man, and this man is going to judge the living and the dead. This man died for us. This is the victory we have in Jesus. If this man impossibly existed beforehand as a self conscious person, then that robs us of that victory. That tells us that he had heavenly backing and supernatural powers to guide him along the way as some sort of God man. Something Trinitarians will support

I have been debating with Trinitarians for a while now but for nearly all of them, it is like talking to a brick wall. For most of them, their Trinity idol is more important to them than listening to the father and Jesus. I will say that this forum is a new beast for me so it is a little strange. I’m pretty confident most commentators in this forum believe the same things I do except maybe this pre-existence issue. God bless
- Reply by tito2019 on 2020-05-05 23:17:34
  I suggest you read the John 1: 1-18. John 1:1,2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. . John wanted us to know that in the beginning the Word Jesus Christ was already there with the Father! See verse 2: He was with God in the beginning. Before anything was created he was already there, in other words Jesus Christ is eternal. Verse 3: Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. If Jesus the Word created ALL things how is it possible that he himself is a created being? The only way is to corrupt scripture and do the same as the watchtower and insert the word "other".
  
  Verse 14. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. The Word existed in heaven and became flesh. It's there in the text, he came from the Father. A simple thought couldn't be the creator of all things. Jesus existed in heaven with God the Father and became flesh. As simple as that. That is what in my view John wants to transmit and establish.
  - Reply by swaffi on 2020-05-06 03:02:59
    Ok, I have read John 1-18 many times and I am just about convinced that the pronoun he and him should be translated as "it". Do you realise that the rendering could go either way? All the English translations before the KJV had "it" placed there instead of he, or him. I don't know why they changed it to the pronoun "he" or 'him". Trinitarian influences maybe? Hmmm. John wanted us to know that in the beginning "the Word" (not the person Jesus) was already there with the Father and was the father, was God. Not Jesus. No mention of the son or Jesus there. Verse 3-through "it" all things were made. You know? God's word, that same word that appeared to the prophets of old, the same word in Isaiah 55:11, those same words that created the earth. He spoke it, and it was good as done. God's word in the Hebrew scriptures is never used as personification. The word is always used there as God's spirit, his power, his magnificence, his will. The same word that Jesus spoke right throughout the book of John, from the father. Jesus was the epitome of the word, the embodiment. This was how "the word" became flesh. This is how the father showed himself to the world, through Jesus that spoke his "word" or "words" John 8:28, 12:49, 50 14:10,17:6,14. The son did his work and spoke his words. The father's word is truth John 17:17. The apostles spoke "God's word" with boldness Acts 4:31. Could this be the same word as the prophets had by the spirit of God? I think so. Verse 4 and 5 of John talks about the light. The light of the father. It speaks of Jesus further down the track. John 1:51 is significant in answering some verses in John that may appear that the person Jesus actually came down from heaven. It tells us that the father's spirit is descending and ascending on the son of man. Hmmm, this sounds very familiar. I think what John is trying to convey to us is how the father showed himself through his only begotten son at the time, Jesus Christ, and I think it's important that one takes notice of Matthew, Mark and Luke before they read John. It's quite bizarre to think that not one of those gospel writers even mention a "pre-existent Jesus". One might think that this most important factor just might have been brought up by those gospel writers. Must have just slipped their minds. Food for thought
    - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-05-06 11:33:14
      Can you prove that John 1:1 should be "it" rather than "he"?
      - Reply by swaffi on 2020-05-06 19:01:22
        Hi Eric, firstly by proving it do you mean by showing you the scriptures or the Greek? If it's the former then please check out all the English bible versions before the King James. You will find "it" inserted instead of "he". If it's getting more into the Greek then have a gander in the second part of John 6:60. Where "This" and "it" is rendered in the Greek. I can send you an attachment with all the "it" renderings a bit later today before the king james if you have trouble finding it. I'll also give you more reasonings about the justifications of "it".... or even "this"
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-05-06 20:38:53
        I just did a scan of all the versions on Biblehub.com and not one uses "it". Also, the greek word houtos is used as "this; he, she, it."
        
        I don't see the relevance of John 6:60. The word Logo means simply "word". So it would be "it" in that case, but the context in John chapter 1 indicates that John is not speaking about a particle of speech.
        Reply by swaffi on 2020-05-07 02:24:40
        The new Matthew bible comes to mind straight away. The CEV does not include "him" or 'he" so this can be added to the list
        *Update correction: The CEV does have "him" in verse 4
        Have a look at these English versions before the King James version http://www.focusonthekingdom.org/translations.htm If you don't want to read the interesting information then skip the first 8-9 paragraphs. I'm not sure what you mean about John 6:60 but I have a feeling you might be on to something. How I see it is if "this" is translated as houtos (in John 6:60) and "it" is translated as autou (John 6:60) and they are the exact Greek words used in John 1:2,3,4.
        My fault with "houtos" ("this") refers to verse 2. I found it interesting though that "houtos" ("this") used in John 1:2 is in quite a few versions that are in Bible hub. These include ASV, KJV, Douey -Rheims, ERV, WEB, YLT and the GNT is silent as rendering it as "he" as well and the NWT translates it as "this one". The rest include the word "he". Anyway, "it" in (John 6:60) as you know is rendered in the Greek as "autou", correct? So why can it not be included in John 1:3? as in ...."All things through it came into being and without it......... I guess it might not sound as smooth to our English ears or maybe even not 100% grammatically correct. It seemed to work fine all those English versions before the KJV in 1611. God bless. Oh, Anthony Buzzard has been working on a translation of John's gospel from the Greek...http://www.focusonthekingdom.org/John.htm
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-05-07 08:07:44
        Some render it "this one" or "the same". The aramaic bible says "this one himself".
        
        I have a friend who is Christadelphian. They, like Buzzard, reject the idea of pre-existence. I do plan to do a thorough analysis of this soon by video, because I believe this to be a harmful teaching which is drawing in many who leave the organization.
        Reply by swaffi on 2020-05-07 19:40:05
        I don't know how you can see this as harmful, especially if it is the truth. Isn't this what we're all seeking? This teaching in no way takes away the magnificence of Jesus and how the father expressed himself through him and what he is now. Did you get a chance to read some of the English bible versions before the King James. What do gather from those? I understand how our cherished beliefs as ex JW's can be hard to toss. I was only in for around 7-9 years (2 of those were when I got baptised in 2016) so I can understand how a belief such as the pre-existence of Jesus being brought up as a JW can be a hard doctrine to dismiss. God bless Eric
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-05-07 22:37:00
        What Bibles written before the King James are you referring to? I haven't found any. Please give me links or references to them.
        
        Also, don't think I believe in the preexistence of Christ because I was a Jehovah's Witness. I believe it because that is what the Bible teaches. Those who believe in non-preexistence are a tiny minority. The fact that the majority of Christendom believes in preexistence is not proof, of course. But the reverse is also true. You cannot discount it because the majority believe in it. You have to go with what the Bible says and avoid human interpretation.
        Reply by swaffi on 2020-05-07 22:51:24
        I already have left you the url to those bible versions http://www.focusonthekingdom.org/translations.htm. That's good about why you believe in the pre-existence of Christ. Yes, I may be the tiny minority but that also could be said about non-trinitarians. Yes, I agree with you when you say the reverse is also true and that you have to go with what the bible says and avoid human interpretation. This means looking at the context and cultural side of things and if something is debatable or controversial, then look at other scriptures to have a bigger and better insight on the matter. I believe the Jewish language and culture should never be overlooked
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-05-08 08:04:37
        Thank you. I missed that. Now the question becomes why do you think these versions carry more weight than the KJV? I'm no fan of the KJV by the way. I'm seeing that other versions on this pages were written a little before the King James, but they would also suffer from the same problem facing the KJ translation committee: a limited number of original manuscript copies. In the past two hundred years, translators have had access to additional copies of ancient manuscripts, many far older than those available to the KJ committee. Shouldn't we consider those as well.
        
        Further, rather than focus on an individual translator's choice of pronoun, shouldn't we look at the whole of scripture to see if the idea that Jesus first sprang into existence in the womb of Mary is viable?

Comment by swaffi on 2020-04-12 21:44:51
I'd just like to retract what I said about Satan not knowing who Jesus was when he was tempting him. (I looked for an edit button in my last post but I'm not sure there is one)
What I meant to say was...Satan, of course, would have known that he was the promised messiah, the predestined one, the one mentioned in Genesis 3:15, 22:18, 26:-5, 28:13-14. Deuteronomy 18:18, The throne of David, many more, and the fact that many others knew from Jesus' infancy onwards prove that Satan absolutely would have known that Jesus was the promised messiah. No doubt about that, but that's a completely different thing than Satan knowing Jesus from a pre-existent state. (Before he was born) Of course, he absolutely would have taken notice of what Jehovah said in Genesis 3:15 and the ensuing prophecies about the promised seed, the promised messiah, the lord messiah. Yes, Satan was testing the promised messiah to see if he could hold up and held up he did indeed

Logos – Part 4: The Word Made Flesh

What God’s Nature Reveals

The Importance of Jesus’ Prehuman Existence

In Summary

Archived Comments

Comment by stonedragon2k on 2014-12-12 01:50:44

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-12 08:42:24

Reply by on 2014-12-12 16:12:23

Reply by ilovejesus333 on 2014-12-12 17:15:03

Comment by stonedragon2k on 2014-12-12 02:24:42

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-12 08:44:24

Reply by ilovejesus333 on 2014-12-12 16:44:54

Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-12-12 11:48:11

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-12-12 06:44:39

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-12 08:28:17

Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-12-12 08:44:50

Reply by Aletheia on 2014-12-12 12:42:36

Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-12 09:01:24

Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-12-12 09:23:06

Comment by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-12-12 11:56:19

Comment by miken on 2014-12-12 12:21:22

Reply by menrov on 2014-12-13 04:58:10

Comment by kev c on 2014-12-12 13:18:55

Comment by stonedragon2k on 2014-12-12 13:59:11

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-12 14:19:13

Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-12-12 15:02:08

Reply by stonedragon2k on 2014-12-12 17:42:15

Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-12-12 18:19:49

Comment by stonedragon2k on 2014-12-12 14:03:30

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-12 14:23:00

Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2014-12-12 14:17:45

Comment by on 2014-12-12 14:26:53

Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-12 15:19:07

Reply by menrov on 2014-12-13 05:04:26

Comment by stonedragon2k on 2014-12-12 17:21:21

Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-12-12 18:50:19

Reply by ilovejesus333 on 2014-12-12 21:02:50

Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-12-12 21:59:31

Reply by ilovejesus333 on 2014-12-12 22:33:04

Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-12-14 01:09:34

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-12-12 18:35:36

Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-12 18:54:00

Reply by Nightingale on 2014-12-12 19:27:17

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-12 20:49:29

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-12-12 18:48:40

Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-12-12 19:03:36

Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-12-12 19:05:21

Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-12-12 19:07:11

Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-12 19:10:15

Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-12-12 19:42:56

Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-12 19:59:33

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-12-12 19:10:07

Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-12 19:49:35

Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-12-12 21:59:08

Comment by CQQiee on 2014-12-12 20:02:20

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-12-12 20:34:36

Comment by stonedragon2k on 2014-12-13 00:45:51

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-13 09:06:08

Reply by Nightingale on 2014-12-13 10:10:23

Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-13 10:38:03

Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-13 10:51:21

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-13 11:04:31

Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-12-13 11:15:49

Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-13 09:59:55

Comment by stonedragon2k on 2014-12-13 01:28:50

Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-12-13 05:50:10

Reply by ilovejesus333 on 2014-12-13 11:18:28

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-12-13 10:13:29

Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-13 10:32:40

Reply by markchristopher on 2014-12-13 11:08:21

Reply by markchristopher on 2014-12-13 11:17:35

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-12-13 10:20:57

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-12-13 11:41:47

Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-13 13:35:26

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-12-13 13:53:58

Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-12-14 09:04:51

Comment by Nightingale on 2014-12-13 12:34:17

Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-13 14:41:51

Reply by Nightingale on 2014-12-13 15:01:24

Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-12-13 16:51:32