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
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Can you prove that John 1:1 should be “it” rather than “he”?
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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.
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)… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
For a scholarly answer to your questions, I would recommend you read Truth in Translation by Jason Beduhn
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.
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?
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… Read more »
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. ?
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… Read more »
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
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
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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)
🙂
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… Read more »
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?
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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
If its friendly banter then there is no harm.And I apologise if i responded defensively.
Alex,OK.Thanks for that.Sorry I misunderstood both your intentions.
Well done alex thats the way . That means more to me than all these doctrinal arguments .matthew 18 v4 kev c
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!
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
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
Hi Meleti,
We should discuss this again in light our recent discussions regarding ‘in’ vs ‘in union’ and the doctrine of the indwelling Christ
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… Read more »
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.
As you suggested, I’ve made a comedy strip:
http://i60.tinypic.com/14avq89.jpg
Thanks. I needed a good chuckle.
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!
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?.
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?
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… Read more »
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?
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.
i will Meleti to answer then.
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.
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,… Read more »
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
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.
Yes, I agree that JW theology is based upon Arianism, and I reject it. Hopefully that clarifies that.
Apollos
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… Read more »
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
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
I concur with Apollos.
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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”
Oops i meant “But to say that Jesus simply did not pre exist is inaccurate or just wrong”
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… Read more »
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.
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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?
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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
Dear Apollos, I’ll pass.
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
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.
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… Read more »
Let’s not forget Ill need your prosthetic leg and eye as well Apollos. As representatives of Christ, we are Guardians of The Galaxy!!
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.
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… Read more »
I meant “doesn’t help the discussion”. Sorry for mistake.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
I was referring to scriptural reasons given by commenters for the non pre-existence of Jesus.
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
A child I am, and a child I shall remain…..to God alone in Christ.
sw
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
I liked that Sw. Thanks!
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… Read more »
Fine reasoning!!
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… Read more »
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
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?
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.
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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!!
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… Read more »
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.
” 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)
With regard to this verse, I agree with you.
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… Read more »
But why? The definition of antichrist I quoted is from the scriptures.
Meleti, how sad.
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.
I’d rather not, Jannai40. I’d much rather leave the application of that name to the Bible itself.
Meleti, I’m glad to hear it – does that mean you will be amending your article?
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… Read more »
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.
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.
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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