The religious leaders of Israel were the enemies of Jesus. These were men who considered themselves to be wise and intellectual. They were the most learned, well educated men of the nation and looked down on the general populous as uneducated peasants. Oddly enough, the ordinary people they abused with their authority also looked up to them as leaders and spiritual guides. These men were revered.
One of the reasons these wise and learned leaders hated Jesus was that he reversed these traditional roles. Jesus gave power to the little people, to the ordinary man, to a fisherman, or a despised tax collector, or to a spurned prostitute. He taught the ordinary people how to think for themselves. Soon, simple folk were challenging these leaders, showing them up as hypocrites.
Jesus did not revere these men, because he knew that what matters to God isn’t your education, nor the power of your brain but the depth of your heart. Jehovah can give you more learning and more intelligence, but it’s up to you to change your heart. That’s free will.
It was for this reason that Jesus said the following:
“I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, because this was Your good pleasure.” (Matthew 11:25, 26) That comes from the Holman Study Bible.
Having received this power, this authority from Jesus, we must never throw it away. And yet that is the tendency of humans. Look what happened in the congregation in ancient Corinth. Paul writes this warning:
“But I will keep on doing what I am doing, in order to undercut those who want an opportunity to be regarded as our equals in the things of which they boast. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 11:12, 13 Berean Study Bible)
These are the ones that Paul called the “super-apostles”. But he doesn’t stop with them. He next rebukes the members of the Corinthian congregation:
“For you gladly tolerate fools, since you are so wise. In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or exalts himself or strikes you in the face.” (2 Corinthians 11:19, 20 BSB)
You know, by today’s standards, the Apostle Paul was an intolerant man. He sure wasn’t what we would call “politically correct”, was he? Nowadays, we like to think that it doesn’t really matter what you believe, as long as you’re loving and do good for others. But is teaching people falsehoods, loving? Is misleading people about the true nature of God, doing good? Does truth not matter? Paul thought it did. That is why he wrote such strong words.
Why would they allow someone to enslave them, and exploit them, and take advantage of them all the while exalting himself above them? Because that is what we sinful humans are prone to do. We want a leader, and if we cannot see the invisible God with eyes of faith, we will go for the highly visible human leader who seems to have all the answers. But that will always turn out bad for us.
So how do we avoid that tendency? It’s not so simple.
Paul warns us that such men cloak themselves in garments of righteousness. They appear to be good people. So, how can we avoid being fooled? Well, I would ask you to consider this: If indeed Jehovah is going to reveal truths to infants or little children, he has to do it in a way that such young minds can understand. If the only way to understand something is to have someone wise and intellectual and well educated tell you it is so, even though you can’t see it for yourself, then that isn’t God talking. It’s okay to have someone explain things to you, but in the end, it has to be simple enough and obvious enough that even a child would get it.
Let me illustrate this. What simple truth about the nature of Jesus can you gather from the following Scriptures all from the English Standard Version?
“No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.” (John 3:13)
“For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” (John 6:33)
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.” (John 6:38)
“Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” (John 6:62)
“You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.” (John 8:23)
“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58)
“I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.” (John 16:28)
“And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” (John 17:5)
After reading all of that, would you not conclude that all of these Scriptures show that Jesus existed in heaven before he came to earth? You would not need a university degree to understand that, would you? In fact, if these were the very first verses you ever read from the Bible, if you were a complete newbie to Bible study, wouldn’t you still arrive at the conclusion that Jesus Christ came down from heaven; that he existed in heaven before coming to be born on earth?
All you need is a basic understanding of the language to arrive at that understanding.
Yet, there are those who teach that Jesus did not exist as a living being in heaven prior to being born as a human. There is a school of thought in Christianity called Socinianism which, among other things, teaches that Jesus did not pre-exist in heaven. This teaching is part of a nontrinitarian theology that dates back to the 16th and 17th centuries, named after the two Italians who came up with it: Lelio and Fausto Sozzini.
Today, a few smaller Christian groups, like the Christadelphians, promote it as doctrine. It can be appealing to Jehovah’s Witnesses who leave the organization in search of a new group to associate with. Not wanting to join a group that believes in the Trinity, they are often drawn to nontrinitarian churches, some of which teach this doctrine. How do such groups explain away the scriptures we’ve just read?
They attempt to do that with something called “notional or conceptual existence”. They will claim that when Jesus asked the Father to glorify him with the glory he had before the world existed, he wasn’t referring to actually being a conscious entity and enjoying glory with God. Instead, he is referring to the notion or concept of the Christ that was in God’s mind. The glory he had before existing on earth was in the mind of God only, and now he wanted to have the glory God had envisioned for him back then to be granted to him as a living, conscious being. In other words, “God you envisioned before I was born that I would enjoy this glory, so now please give me the reward you have preserved for me all this time.”
There are many problems with this particular theology, but before we get into any of them, I want to focus on the core issue, which is that the word of God is granted to babes, infants, and little children, but is denied to wise, intellectual, and learned men. That doesn’t mean that a smart and well-educated human cannot understand that truth. What Jesus was referring to was the proud heart attitude of the learned men of his day which clouded their minds to the simple truth of God’s word.
For example, if you were explaining to a child that Jesus had existed before being born a human, you would use the language that we’ve already read. If, however, he wanted to tell that child that Jesus was never alive before being born a human, but that he did exist as a concept in God’s mind, you wouldn’t word it that way at all, would you? That would be very misleading to a child, would it not? If you were trying to explain the idea of notional existence, then you would have to find simple words and concepts to communicate that to the childlike mind. God is very capable of doing that, yet he didn’t. What does that tell us?
If we accept Socinianism, we must accept that God gave his children the wrong idea and it took 1,500 years before a couple of wise and intellectual Italian scholars came up with the true meaning.
Either God is a terrible communicator, or Leo and Fausto Sozzini were acting as wise, well educated and intellectual men often do, by getting a little too full of themselves. That is what motivated the super-apostles of Paul’s day.
You see the basic problem? If you need somebody who is more learned, more intelligent and more intellectual than you to explain something basic from Scripture, then you’re probably falling prey to the same attitude that Paul condemned in the members of the Corinthian congregation.
As you probably know if you’ve been watching this channel, I don’t believe in the Trinity. However, you don’t defeat the Trinity teaching with other false teachings. Jehovah’s Witnesses try to do that with their false teaching that Jesus is just an angel, the archangel Michael. Socinians try to counter the Trinity by teaching that Jesus did not pre-exist. If he only came into existence as a human, then he could not be part of the Trinity.
The arguments used to support this teaching require us to ignore several facts. For example, Socinians will refer to Jeremiah 1:5 which reads “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
Here we find Jehovah God had already purposed what Jeremiah was to be and do, even before he was conceived. The argument Socinians are trying to make is that when Jehovah purposes to do something it is as good as done. So, the idea in God’s mind and the reality of its realization are equivalent. Thus, Jeremiah existed before he was born.
Accepting that reasoning requires us to accept that Jeremiah and Jesus are notionally or conceptually equivalent. They have to be for this to work. In fact, Socinians will have us accept that this idea was widely known and accepted not only by first century Christians, but by the Jews as well who recognized the concept of notional existence.
Granted, anyone reading Scripture would recognize the fact that God can foreknow a person, but it’s a huge leap to say that foreknowing something is equivalent to existence. Existence is defined as “the fact or state of living [of living] or having objective [objective] reality”. Existing in God’s mind is at best subjective reality. You are not alive. You are real from God’s point of view. That is subjective—something outside of you. However, objective reality comes when you yourself perceive reality. As Descartes famously stated: “I think therefore I am”.
When Jesus said at John 8:58, “Before Abraham was born, I am!” He was not speaking about a notion in God’s mind. “I think, therefore I am”. He was talking about his own consciousness. That the Jews understood him to mean just that is evident by their own words: “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” (John 8:57)
A notion or concept in the mind of God cannot see anything. It would take a conscious mind, a living being to have “seen Abraham”.
If you are still persuaded by the Socinian argument of notional existence, let’s take it to its logical conclusion. As we do so, please bear in mind that the more intellectual hoops one has to jump through to make a teaching work only carries us farther and farther from the idea of truth that is revealed to babes and little children and more and more toward truth being denied to the wise and learned.
Let’s start with John 1:1-3.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.” (John 1:1-3 BSB)
Now I know the translation of the first verse is hotly disputed and that grammatically, alternate translations are acceptable. I don’t want to get into a discussion of the Trinity at this stage, but to be fair, here are two alternate renderings: “
“and the Word was a god” – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958)
“So the Word was divine” – The Original New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, 1985.
Whether you believe the Logos was divine, God himself, or a god apart from God the father of us all—an only begotten god as John 1:18 puts it in some manuscripts—you are still stuck with interpreting this as a Socinian. Somehow the concept of Jesus in the mind of God in the beginning was either a god or godlike while existing only in the mind of God. Then there is verse 2 which complicates things further by stating that this concept was with God. In the interlinear, pros ton refers to something “in proximity to or facing, or moving towards” God. That hardly fits with a notion inside of God’s mind.
Additionally, all things were made by this notion, for this notion, and through this notion.
Now think about that. Wrap your mind around that. We are not talking about a being begotten before all other things were made, through whom all other things were made, and for whom all other things were made. “All other things” would include all the millions of spirit beings in heaven, but more than that, all the billions of galaxies with their billions of stars.
Okay, now look at all this through the eyes of a Socinian. The notion of Jesus Christ as a human who would live and die for us to be redeemed from the original sin must have existed in God’s mind as a concept long before anything was created. Therefore, all the stars were created for, by, and through this concept with the sole goal of redeeming sinful humans who had yet to be created. All the evil of the thousands of years of human history cannot really be blamed on humans, nor can we really blame Satan for creating this mess. Why? Because Jehovah God conceived of this notion of Jesus the redeemer long before the universe came into existence. He planned the whole thing from the start.
Doesn’t this rank as one of the most human egocentric, God dishonoring doctrines of all time?
Colossians speaks of Jesus as the firstborn of all creation. I’m going to do a little textual emendation to put this passage in line with Socinian thought.
[The notion of Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, [this concept of Jesus] is the firstborn over all creation. For in [the Jesus notion] all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through [the notion of Jesus] and for [the notion of Jesus].
We have to agree that “firstborn” is the first one in a family. For instance. I am the firstborn. I have a younger sister. However, I have friends who are older than I. Yet, I am still the firstborn, because those friends are not part of my family. So in the family of creation, which includes things in heaven and things on earth, visible and invisible, thrones and dominions and rulers, all these things were made not for a being that pre-existed all of creation, but for a concept that was only going to come into existence billions of years afterwards for the sole purpose of fixing the problems that God preordained to happen. Whether they want to admit it or not, Socinians must subscribe to Calvinist predestination. You can’t have one without the other.
Approaching this final scripture of today’s discussion with a childlike mind, what do you understand it to mean?
“Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, yes, the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2:5-8 World English Bible)
If you gave this scripture to an eight-year-old, and asked her to explain it, I doubt she would have any problem. After all, a child knows what it means to grasp at something. The lesson the Apostle Paul is giving is self evident: We should be like Jesus who had it all, but gave it up without a moment’s thought and humbly assumed the form of a mere servant so that he could save us all, even though he had to die a painful death to do so.
A notion or a concept has not consciousness. It is not alive. It is not sentient. How can a notion or concept in the mind of God consider equality with God to be something worth grasping at? How can a notion in God’s mind empty itself? How can that notion humble itself?
Paul uses this example to instruct us about humility, the humility of the Christ. But Jesus started out life only as a human, then what did he give up. What reason would he have for humility? Where is the humility in being the only human begotten directly by God? Where is the humility in being the chosen of God, the only perfect, sinless human every to die faithfully? If Jesus never existed in heaven, his birth under those circumstances made him the greatest human that ever lived. He is in fact the greatest human who ever lived, but Philippians 2:5-8 still makes sense because Jesus was something far, far greater. Even being the greatest human who ever lived is nothing compared to what was before, the greatest of all God’s creations. But if he never existed in heaven before descending to earth to become a mere human, then this whole passage is nonsense.
Well, there you have it. The evidence is before you. Let me close with this one last thought. John 17:3 from the Contemporary English Version reads: “Eternal life is to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, the one you sent.”
One way to read this is that the purpose of life itself is coming to know our heavenly Father, and more, the one whom he sent, Jesus Christ. But if we start out on the wrong footing, with a false understanding of Christ’s true nature, then how can we fulfill those words. In my opinion, that is in part the reason that John also tells us,
“For many deceivers have gone out into the world, refusing to confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.” (2 John 7 BSB)
The New Living Translation renders this, “I say this because many deceivers have gone out into the world. They deny that Jesus Christ came in a real body. Such a person is a deceiver and an antichrist.”
You and I were born human. We have a real body. We are flesh. But we did not come in the flesh. People will ask you when you were born, but they will never ask you when did you come in the flesh, because that would me you were elsewhere and in a different form. Now the people John is referring to did not deny that Jesus existed. How could they? There were still thousands of people alive who had seen him in the flesh. No, these people were denying the nature of Jesus. Jesus was a spirit, the only begotten God, as John calls him at John 1:18, who became flesh, fully human. That is what they were denying. How serious is it to deny that true nature of Jesus?
John continues: “Watch yourselves, so that you do not lose what we have worked for, but that you may be fully rewarded. Anyone who runs ahead without remaining in the teaching of Christ does not have God. Whoever remains in His teaching has both the Father and the Son.”
“If anyone comes to you but does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your home or even greet him. Whoever greets such a person shares in his evil deeds.” (2 John 8-11 BSB)
As Christians, we may differ on some understandings. For instance, is the 144,000 a literal number or a symbolic one? We can agree to disagree and still be brothers and sisters. However, there are some issues where such tolerance if not possible, not if we are to obey the inspired word. Promoting a teaching that denies the true nature of Christ would seem to be in that category. I do not say this to disparage anyone, but only to clearly state how serious this issue is. Of course, each one must act according to his or her own conscience. Still, the correct course of action is vital. As John said in verse 8, “Watch yourselves, so that you do not lose what we have worked for, but that you may be fully rewarded.” We most definitely want to be fully rewarded.
Watch yourselves, so that you do not lose what we have worked for, but that you may be fully rewarded. Anyone who runs ahead without remaining in the teaching of Christ does not have God. Whoever remains in His teaching has both the Father and the Son.”
“If anyone comes to you but does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your home or even greet him. Whoever greets such a person shares in his evil deeds.” (2 John 1:7-11 BSB)
Nevertheless, we apply the LIMITATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION WITH NO FEAR THAT FREEDOM TO BE INTELLIGENTLY AND SPIRITUALLY DIVERSE OR EVEN CONTRARY WILL DISINTEGRATE THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION. . . . freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. THAT WOULD BE A MERE SHADOW OF FREEDOM. THE TEST OF ITS SUBSTANCE IS THE RIGHT TO DIFFER AS TO THINGS THAT TOUCH THE HEART OF THE EXISTING ORDER.
Ray Franz CoC page…..123
How would you factor in 2 John 6-11 into this reasoning?
About this forum states…..TRUE CHRISTIAN FREEDOM COMES FROM UNDERSTANDING ALL THE TRUTH, AND THAT IS THE RESULT OF GOD’S SPIRIT OPERATING IN THE HEART OF THE DISCIPLE.(John 16:13) The sense of this particular topic is to make others including myself get to understand all truth with the help of God’s holy spirit operating in our heart. This is where I am headed “TRUE CHRISTIAN FREEDOM”. The post you responded to states “freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. that would be a mere shadow of freedom. the test of its substance is the right… Read more »
The Gnostics that John wrote about also believed that Jesus existed in the flesh. It would be hard to deny that since there was ample evidence firsthand that he had existed. But they did not believe he came in the flesh in a way that the Bible describes. Those who accept the Socinian teaching may say they believe he came in the flesh because, after all, the Bible says he did. But they are playing with words. What they really believe is that he was born in the flesh just as you and I are born in the flesh. When… Read more »
You wrote…….. “THOSE WHO ACCEPT THE SOCINIAN TEACHING MAY SAY THEY BELIEVE HE CAME IN THE FLESH”…… Is it a case “they may say they believe” or “they believe”? 2. You added “THEY ARE PLAYING WITH WORDS”…. while I myself can see it as part of THEY being INTELLIGENTLY and SPIRITUALLY DIVERSE. 1 John 4: 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the… Read more »
I have stated my reasoning, and you have stated yours. “Let the reader use discernment.”
In summary, then, even as I am convinced that the one true religion is Christianity itself, not some religious system claiming to represent and exemplify it, I also believe that the truth is found in the Scriptures, not in any particular set of interpretations that men have developed or may yet develop. THAT TRUTH IS NOT ONLY IN THE WORDS THEMSELVES BUT ALSO IN THE REVELATION THEY BRING TO US OF GOD AND OF HIS SON. WE WILL ALMOST INEVITABLY DIFFER IN OUR UNDERSTANDING ON SOME POINTS BUT, IF GOVERNED BY GOD’S SPIRIT, SHOULD HAVE NO GREAT DIFFICULTY IN AGREEING… Read more »
Your alias is most appropriate to this discussion. Where do we draw the line to differentiate tolerance from licentiousness? If someone were to come in and promote child sacrifice as part of worship, we would have no issue with showing the individual to the door. John’s counsel in his second letter is quite strong and unambiguous.
but SANCTIFY CHRIST AS LORD IN YOUR HEARTS, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, but with gentleness and respect; 16 and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who disparage your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. Copying Paul Paul’s words in Philippians 1:15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I… Read more »
We have good editing tools available for commenters, such as boldface, italics and underlining. I would recommend you use these for emphasis where called for. Prefer not to use ALL CAPS as that is viewed by the online community as YELLING. 🙂
Will see how I can get to make use of tools mentioned above. Perhaps my device is not able to support all features available here.
This teaching would not go well with my understanding of Genesis 1:26-27, where God said “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness (…)”. After I started studying with JWs, I came to see that “our image” and “our likeness” refers to the relationship between Jehovah and Jesus. Adam and Eve were to have a similar relationship to reflect the loyal love and unity that marks the relationship between Father and Son, Jehovah and Jesus. To reflect something, that thing needs to exist in reality first for another thing to be according to it’s “likeness”, according to… Read more »
Very good argument, Ad_Lang. So far I have used this verse as proof that there were two at the beginning of creation – the Father and the Son. You have shown me other dimension of this verse. Thank you.
Frankie
For the Old Testament writers “the word of God” is the self-expression of God or a quality of God. So when John 1:1 says that “the word was with God” it doesn’t mean that a person was with God. In the Old Testament qualities of God, things belonging to God are said to be “with Him” — His reward/salvation in Isaiah 40:10; 62:11; His purpose/plan in Job 10:13; 14:5; 23:14; 27:11; wisdom and strength in Job 12:13, 16; mercy in Psalm 130:7. (See also Gal. 2:5: “the truth of the Gospel would remain with you.”) And the famous passage in… Read more »
We’ve talked about this before, thehumanjesus.org. All you’re offering in your opening paragraph is an unsubstantiated opinion which will not even buy me a coffee at Starbucks.
Are you suggesting that living beings cannot be said to be “with God”? I mean this is hardly proof of your belief. Also, Jesus is clearly shown to be the Word (Logos) of God in Revelation 19:11-16.
In every other place, except in John 13:3; 16:28; 20.17, the Greek words are translated “ascend” or “to go”!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ymHsk0N9VU
Not quite true. Here is how the NASB renders the words. John 13:3 hupagó get (2), go (45), go their way (1), go away (3), goes (5), going (20), going away (1), going back (1), went (1). John 16:28 poreuomai accompany* (1), am on my way (1), depart (1), departed (1), departure (1), following (3), go (69), go on their way (1), go away (1), goes (7), going (15), going away (2), gone (3), indulge (1), journey (1), journeying (2), leave (1), proceed (1), proceeded (2), pursued a course (1), sets (1), started (3), traveling (3), walking (1), way (6),… Read more »
Is the 1 time the NASB renders hupagó as “going back” John 13:3?
And thanks for the rest of the list that shows the clear, biased mistranslation “returning” or “going back” in John 16.28; 20.17.
God: “I am love!”
Socinian: “You predestined the horrors of this world!”
Adam it appears that maybe you have not examined the varying different viewpoints of how Yahweh can have foreknowledge of things and the consequences that would have for our free will. It is a complicated subject for sure and really is outside of and has larger implications than any “Logos” discussion. Here is a general overview of the common views: God’s foreknowledge does not cause you to act, rather he foreknows something because you are going to do it (Origen) Divine Timelessness: God is timeless. He timelessly exists. Any kind of change is impossible for God. God is outside of time. His knowledge is… Read more »
Thank you for sharing that with us, bereanthinker1.
The point that you are missing is that none of these can be applied to relieve God of culpability under a Socinian scenario. Even number 5 which is like the reverse of the common science fiction time travel plot element: Go back in time and change the future. In this one it would be change the present and so change the past. Adam didn’t sin, so the past is changed and God never preordained a messiah.
So how would you describe the Incarnation of the pre-human “god,” i.e., metamorphosis, ceasing to exist?
I try not to engage in personal interpretation. I find that those who dismiss a teaching because they can’t figure out how it would work are acting out of arrogance. I think of God’s words to Job when he got a little to high on the horse.
And which of the two creator Gods do you think those words in Job came from? The Father or the Logos who “in all things were created”?
What words of Job are you referring to? I’m seeing your comment in isolation, so I don’t recalled if I brought Job up. How does your question work to prove Socinian belief?
You made reference to Gods responses to Job, so I would imagine you had Job 38 in mind.
Also Im not working to prove a non pre-existing view, it has some texts which seem a stretch to surmount. However the logos view which I have held largely since leaving the org, leaves me with difficult questions as well.
That’s why I also asked you earlier, what your view is on when consciousness of the logos entered the human Jesus?
I believe you asked me this earlier in a different comment, but the issue is that I don’t know. The life that the logos enjoyed in heaven was given up when he emptied himself to take on the form of human. That would be at the moment of conception when the embryo came to be. That is my belief, but I can hardly prove it from Scripture. We’re taking about a process that God knows, but man does not. However, the logos had to be fully human and that means that he didn’t bring any of his past memories with… Read more »
Hi Eric, I think so, Jesus was aware of his Father in heaven from his birth only (Luke 2:48). But the things changed at the moment of being anointed by the Holy Spirit, I think. Luke 24:48 comes to my mind: “And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” Jesus sent the Comforter together with “power from on high” on disciples – the power to understand and the power to act. This was the same holy Spirit by which Jesus was anointed.… Read more »
Hi BT1, I’m sorry to interfere in your and Eric’s discussion. But you asked the question interesting for me: “And which of the two creator Gods do you think those words in Job came from? The Father or the Logos who “in all things were created”?”. How to tell someone about something if they don’t even know the concepts I’m talking about (e.g. explaining the principles of TV to medieval men). I would have to use they language and the terms they know. I think, the same the God used. I think we don’t understand at all about “technical” aspects… Read more »
Very nicely explained, Frankie. Thank you.
Very sensible explanation, thanks.
Thank you my brother.
God bless you.
Witam Was Bracia i Soistry. Mam radość pierwszy raz dołączyć do dyskusji. Mam trochę tremę. Logos był stworzony przez zrodzenie. Był bytem mającym swoją świadomość. Nie był ubezwłasnowiony, mimo że Syn był w Ojcu a Ojciec w Synu. Logos aktywnie uczestniczył w stwarzaniu wszystkiego, przez to czuł odpowiedzialność za dzieła stwórcę. Był związany emocjonalnie z ludźmi którym dał życie Jana 1:1-5. Kochał wszystko co stwarzył tak ja jego Ojciec Praprzyczyna wszystkiego. Był najlepszym Bytem we wszechświecie by zrealizować Boski plan odkupienia od grzechu ludzi z zachowaniem Boskich praw. Zejście boskiego syna na poziom syna człowieczego to dla boskich bytów ,,pestka… Read more »
Thanks ZbigniewJan. Here’s a google translation of your comment: Hello, Brothers and Soistry. I am happy to join the discussion for the first time. I have a bit of stage fright. The Logos was made by generation. He was an entity with its own consciousness. He was not incapacitated, even though the Son was in the Father and the Father in the Son. The Logos actively participated in the creation of everything, thus felt responsibility for the creator’s works. He was emotionally attached to the people to whom he gave life John 1: 1-5. He loved everything he had created,… Read more »
Hi all, This topic is very hot and very doctrinal (more than 140 comments up to now). I will not deal with the citation of various scholars, or the complex analysis of texts in terms of grammar. Each side of the dispute over Jesus’ pre-human existence can refer to dozens of scholars, and we can have endless discussions. How to avoid it? I will try again to draw attention to the words of Jesus mentioned in the introduction of the video / article: ”I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the… Read more »
Thanks Frankie for nice Christian rational reasoning.
Those that adhere to socnian dogma could never admit that. I personally subscribe to the dogma that “God is love” but the socinian effective denial of that love really puts into question whether they could be considered as true Christians.
One can see that Socinianism is unscriptural only by taking a frank and honest approach to Paul’s words in Ephesians 4: 7-10. I will quote from NIV (any Bible translation is equally good): “But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says: ‘When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people.’ What does ‘he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill… Read more »
Je crois que Jean 17 : 24 n’a pas été cité (mais la discussion étant longue peut-être je me trompe)
“Père, ceux que vous m’avez donnés, je veux que là où je suis, ils y soient avec moi, afin qu’ils voient la gloire que vous m’avez donnée, parce que VOUS M’AVEZ AIMÉ AVANT LA CRÉATION DU MONDE
Jean 17:24 BCC1923
https://bible.com/bible/504/jhn.17.24.BCC1923
Good point, Nicole. I can’t think of any place in the Bible that speaks of God loving his own ideas. It does speak much about him loving his children but not of him loving the concept of them.
Pour reprendre Philippiens 2 : 5- 8 maintes fois cité dans cette conversation, si Christ n’avait été qu’un humain lors de sa naissance sur terre sans une vie antérieure, en quoi il aurait fait quelque chose d’extraordinaire, d’humble en ne cherchant pas à être l’égal de Dieu ? Tout le monde sait qu’aucun humain, même Christ sur terre, n’a les moyens physiques de rivaliser avec Dieu. Sur terre, il a attribué les miracles à son Père. Encore moins un concept peut chercher à être l’égal de Dieu et se vider de quelque chose ou renoncer à quelque chose. S’il était… Read more »
Excellent reasoning, Nicole. Simple, straightforward, logical. No need to jump through hoops, twisting Scripture to make it fit the human interpretation. Though I don’t speak French, I’ve done my best to translated for the convenience of others. Nicole’s comment: To quote Philippians 2:5-8 many times in this conversation, if Christ had been only a human when he was born on earth without a previous life, in which he would have done something extraordinary, humble, by not seeking to be equal with God? Everyone knows that no human, even Christ on earth, has the physical means to compete with God. On… Read more »
When in doubt people leave Him out, When all things (not all other things) are sure the Word of God is pure.
Psalmbee, (Heb 13:8)
Matthew 1 describes how “the origin (genesis) of Jesus happened” when God begat, i.e., procreated His Son in the womb of Mary. We know this by the use of the Greek word genesis (with 1 n) as opposed to gennesis (with 2 ns), which simply means “birth.” In other words, Matthew is describing not just the “birth” of Jesus but his coming into existence, “origin.” Furthermore, Luke 1:35 describes this very same miracle. This time by the words of the angel of the Lord himself: “The holy spirit will come upon you and the power of The Most High will… Read more »
I find that Socinians take a very binary approach to this question. Either Jesus was fully human with no preexistence, or he had a preexistence and was not fully human. There is no middle ground for them. They cannot conceive of how this could work, and since they cannot conceive how it could work, God obviously could not make it work. I find that attitude to be arrogant. No offence, but who are we to limit God as to what he can do? That Jesus was born fully human in the womb of Mary is something I have always believed… Read more »
I agree it is a binary choice, some notable trini scholars recognize how the one view would cancel out the other. Albert Reville, professor of the history of religion, wrote: “The fact is that the two ideas — preexistence and Virginal birth — cannot be reconciled. A Preexistent person who becomes man reduces himself, if you will, to the state of a human embryo; but he is not conceived by action exterior to himself in the womb of a woman. But conception is the point at which an individual is formed, who did not exist before, at least as an… Read more »
Why do you put such stock in the opinions of men? Did you not read that scripture that says: “The people were amazed at his teaching, for he taught with real authority—quite unlike the teachers of religious law.” (Mark 1:22 NLT)
The scribes loved to quote from great Rabbinical teachers of the past, but Jesus stuck with Scripture.
The Bible isn’t written to explain how but why and what. What has been done and to a lessor extend why it has been done. But how God does it often remains a mystery beyond our understanding.
So why should anyone “put such stuck” in your opinions?
Especially when you accuse those who disagree with your opinions as arrogant.
I’m simply pointing to the contradictory nature of both views by people who also hold to a literal Preexistence view.
They shouldn’t put any stock in my opinions. I’m just one man who is capable of making many mistakes so I would never want anyone to make salvation altering decisions based on my opinions. I like to joke that my opinion is so valuable that if you take it to Starbucks, they’ll give you a coffee for it, as long as you pony up an additional five bucks. How do you feel about the value of your opinions?
What I do want is for people to reason on scripture. and not depend on someone to interpret it for them
Well, you know what they say, it’s like a cow’s opinion….moo. ?
Right. As Joey would say, “It’s a moo point.”
The Bible only reveals 4 categories of being, i.e., God, angels, humans and animals.
Which of these categories was Jesus before he came down out from heaven?
god
Thank you.
According to scripture the word god is a title applied to either good or bad angels or humans.
So where in the OT is this unique category of being to be found please?
I’m a little confused by your question because you are the one who listed “god” as a unique category of being. Why are you asking me where this unique category is to be found if you have already found it?
I have not listed “god” as a category of being other than an angel or a human being. That is what the scriptures reveal.
if you’re referring to God, capital G, that is obviously God the Father. There is only one in that category of being God, Who is the Father, as I’m sure we agree.
Actually, you did. You stated: “The Bible only reveals 4 categories of being, i.e., God, angels, humans and animals.” Now, in Greek there was no capitalization to convert a common noun into a proper noun. I am referring not to status, but to form. There are many angels and many humans, each in their own form. While angels were made in God’s image, they were not made in his form. Likewise, while humans were made in God’s image, they were not made in his form. However, the word was made in his form. While both humans and angels exist in… Read more »
The Greek huparchon is a present active participle with Christ as its antecedent. Yet, many mistranslate the Greek in the past tense (“he was”) because the goal is to read into the text the so-called preexistence of Christ.
It’s clear from both the context of Phil 2 (ethical vs theological) and in particular v. 5 that it is the human, historical “Christ” who Paul had in mind.
Not some preexistent “god” person never heard or seen from in the OT.
You see, that is an excellent example of a human opinion presented as Bible fact. I’m off to Starbucks.
What did you mean by Jehovah “begat the word in his form”?
What scripture are you referring to here?
Well, we know that Jesus is the only begotten God (or Son if you prefer). We know that when a Father begets a child, the child takes the form of the father. A human father will only beget human children. So when we speak of God begetting a Son, it follows that the child would also be in the Father’s form. That explains the wording of Philippians 2:6 which reads: “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (ESV).
Would you agree with that?
It sounds like you’re arguing for the old C.S. Lewis line God begets god.
That’s not what Matthew and Luke describe.
My question was where is God said to beget a word.
So do you hold to a preexistent “word” or “god”?
I do and you don’t seem to be answering any of my points, just throwing more objections at me. I’ve already given you reasoning on Matthew and Luke, which you ignore and then keep repeating the same logic as if I hadn’t shown you the flaws in your reasoning. This is getting nowhere and is now becoming a waste of time.
whilst I won’t look at it until later today… I just noticed Anthony Buzzard has just put up a reply to Eric on YouTube “focus on the Kingdom” channel. https://youtu.be/CtTJx_TOM8Y
I watched Buzzard’s video. He was pretty upset. But in my estimation his rebuttal failed completely as he contradicted himself by saying God did not predestine that all would sin and fall short but he did foresee that it would happen and so wisely had a plan of action already in mind ahead of time for mankind’s salvation. He also makes a false comparison between the I am statement in John 8:58 and Jesus statement in John 4:25 identifying himself as the Messiah. But the Jews question in John chapter 8 was not a question of identity but of age.… Read more »
Yes Jerome, I would tend to agree..
I don’t intend to get drawn into a debate, but I do feel that they one-time rebuttal is necessary. Normally, I wouldn’t even spend the time on that but I’m learning that a significant number of ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses are drawn to Socinianism as an alternative to mainstream Christianity with its Trinity doctrine. There are many logical flaws in the video that Buzzard produced. However, for many people such nuances might escape them. That is my concern.
In the Bible “gods” or “angels” are not begotten and cannot die!
So what other category of being are you ascribing to Jesus?
Where does the OT describe or talk about this pre-human “being” please?
That is incorrect. John 1:18 speaks about the only begotten god.
The reading monogenes theos is a well-known corruption rejected even by trinis.
For example, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says that the reading “corresponds to the weakening of monotheism in Gnosticism.”
Just a cursory search on the internet brings up opposing views to yours. For instance, the footnotes from the NET bible reveals: ” The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός .
Additionally, monogenes theos appears to be the best reading (due to a lectio difficilior potior),
I would suggest that the trinitarian bias of many translators would be the cause of substituting “son” for “god” in this instance.
So given the fact there is much controversy over this verse is there perhaps another to support Jesus had a pre-human existence as a god? It seems to me if this is so clear then there should be several scriptures showing this pre-existence as a god.
Were not the many scriptures in my video enough proof of that?
Specifically I was replying to your statement “That is incorrect. John 1:18 speaks about the only begotten god.”
The scriptures you used from John supported the “from heaven” aspect of your argument but not the “is a god” part of your argument. That was what I was asking about. I know these threads can get a bit confusing. I was looking for more scriptural support of your premise that Jesus pre-existed as a god besides the one questionable scripture in John 1:18.
Let us be clear in one point. The question is whether or not Jesus preexisted, not whether or not he existed in the form of God. If the Bible gives evidence that he preexisted his human life, it really isn’t critical for us to understand the form in which he existed in heaven to believe in that existence. Would you at least agree with that? However, that is not to say that there is no evidence that he existed in the form of god (notice the lowercase G). Let us begin with this Scripture: Philippians 2:5-7 “5Let this mind be… Read more »
I agree there is controversy and ambiguity, to say the least, regarding John 1:18. So why not discuss the clear, unambiguous, uncorrupted evidence such as Mat 1.1, 18 and Luke 1:35; Mat 1:20 that dearly describe the origin and coming into being of the Son? To only use John to the exclusion of the virgin birth account does not make for a good debate. Just to add, when you say in your video that a child can understand phrases like coming from heaven, etc., how would you say a child would understand Jesus other teachings regarding eating his flesh, drinking… Read more »
I’m having trouble understanding the logic. I agree that references to Jesus in Matthew and Luke indicate he was born as a human. But why do you confine yourself to those three books and disregard what other Bible writers have to say on the subject? Is it not because those three books support your theory, while the others do not? Is that not at the core of eisegetical Bible research? You seem to feel that Matthew and Mark and Luke had an obligation to explain the heavenly origins of Jesus, and in failing to do so have set the bar… Read more »
You say..” I agree that references to Jesus in Matthew and Luke indicate he was born as a human” but do you really believe it? If you really believe it, then why do you argue against it? “He was born a human” What does “born mean to you”? What does “originated” mean to you? God’s messenger Gabriel said that you are to name him Jesus. So this Jesus is a human being, born of Mary, born of a woman. In other words, Jesus was never anything else, apart from being in the mindset, purpose, planning of Almighty God the father. The… Read more »
Yes, the virgin birth and scriptures supporting this don’t seem to be hotly debated. Especially amoung Christians. Like you said, they are clear, unambiguous, and uncorrupted. It beats me why some Christians don’t see this. The originality of Jesus. Surely, this should add a lot of weight to people’s thinking. It’s funny that when you ask a Trinitarian which book of the bible you should read first, quite a few of them say..John. Alarm bells!
What baffles me is how Socinians cannot accept Matthew and Luke yet dismiss the enhanced understanding of Christ’s nature that John provides. And let’s not forget the understanding that Paul provides. You call seem to conveniently forget that. In any case, I’ve been tolerant in allowing you to fully express your reasonings and to this point, no one has overturned the Scriptural evidence that I have provided. You all just ignore it, or worse, you dismiss it based on human opinion and interpretation. In any case, you have not been offering anything new, so to allow you to continue using… Read more »
Good thing you taught us not to listen to man’s opinions.
???
It was all for naught, however, because you’re still doing it, aren’t you? Just eating up everything Anthony Buzzard says.
If you spoke the truth I would probably support you but as it stands with this particular doctrine I support Anthony Buzzard. Nothing to do with charisma or scholarship. It’s about what I believe the truth to be
Of course, I understand. Trinitarians would say the same thing. Jehovah’s Witnesses, likewise. It’s up to each one to decide.
That verse is a known problematic verse. Many manuscripts show the word as “son” not “god”. Do you have another verse that is not as suspect? Here is a thorough article https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/john1_18.html and a video explanation https://youtu.be/W_BGX28er9Y and another article https://www.christiandiscipleschurch.org/content/theological-metamorphosis-chapter-10 In other words, some early copyists misread “the only begotten of God” as “the only begotten God”! It is alarming that the decision of a “majority” of the five-member committee has resulted in millions of copies of the Bible being printed with “the only begotten God” rather than “the only begotten of God”. Most Bible readers don’t know the… Read more »
Here is a reference for consideration: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/1-18.htm See the commentary from Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. “the only begotten Son] The question of reading here is very interesting. Most MSS. and versions have ‘the only-begotten Son’ or ‘only-begotten Son.’ But the three oldest and best MSS. and two others of great value have ‘only-begotten God.’ The test of the value of a MS., or group of MSS., on any disputed point, is the extent to which it admits false readings on other points not disputed. Judged by this test the group of MSS. which read ‘only-begotten God’ is very… Read more »
The quote was from the preceding article I linked. The articles I cited have compelling evidence that this single verse has issues. The age is compelling but when you look at the “families” of manuscripts and where they come from you see the ones with the “god” version are from a similar vein. (the article explains it better that I am) Just because it is the oldest manuscript doesn’t make it the most accurate. The other evidence presented is church fathers quoting from scripture and using this very scripture and using the word for “son” not “god”. My point is… Read more »
“Where does the OT describe or talk about this pre-human “being” please?”
Your question assumes that is the OT doesn’t talk about something then it cannot be. False reasoning.
If the scripture doesn’t talk about it then you have a theory, not a fact. Just as WT did with much of it’s theology – i.e.. two-class system, faithful and discrete slave, etc. If we believe something and don’t have scriptures to back it up then we should state it as an opinion or theory IMHO. With all the prophecies about Jesus in the OT and your assertion, he pre-existed as a god shouldn’t we expect to see some evidence in the OT? I don’t think that is unreasonable especially since you assert those with opposing opinions are anti-christ.
Yes, Lori, according to Eric, I am the anti-christ because I happen to believe that Jesus originated in Mary’s womb. I might have to re-check Luke and Matthew’s account again and see what they’re really telling us. I may have missed something out?
I’ve already explained repeatedly by your reasoning on Matthew and Luke is flawed, but instead of addressing that reasoning, you must keep regurgitating the same old mantra.
Quite true, Lori Jane, but the Scriptures do talk about it. You know that to be true, because you have seen my video. There are many Bible books that do not talk about it, but are we to reject any belief because it is not taught in every book? I don’t understand this reasoning. Matthew, Mark, and Luke don’t talk about it, so it cannot be true? John and Paul do talk about it, but they don’t mean what they say. We have to reinterpret their words.
Just to confirm, it sounds like you are saying the Son did not say or do anything recorded in the OT?
No, I’m not saying that it all. I’m attacking your logic only. Rather than concentrate on inferential evidence, why don’t we look at Philippians 2:5-7 which seems to be one of the strongest Scriptures in support of a preexistent Jesus?
“If Jesus was born human with no pre existence, then he didn’t come in the flesh anymore than you or I came in the flesh by being born.” — I am mostly trying to observe in this thread but on this point Eric, I feel you surely must know this is very strange emphasis on a word that is not the point of the passage. Johns point is Jesus was not a spirit masquerading as a human. That aside, yes you very much DID come in the flesh when you were born, the same as I cannot wait for the… Read more »
Hi Bereanthinker1. I have noticed some thoughts in your comment that probably relate to the verses in John’s letters. I’d like to write you my thoughts about the meaning of the words “to come”, “to send” and “the flesh” in John’s scriptures 1 John 4:2, 2 John 1:7, John 16:28 and in Paul’s Galatians 4:4 with respect to Jesus’ pre-human existence. Maybe some thoughts will be useful (in order to save space, verses are not shown.). To come, to send, to leave, to go ————————————— In 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 1:7 the following words are used for “to… Read more »
Thank you for this reasoning, Frankie.
Again a weird emphasis on the part of a passage that is not the subject of the sentence. He’s speaking to his disciples about his leaving them, but shortly thereafter would be able to approach the Father directly themselves, through his name. “I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.” (John 16:28) Did you not come from your father? You clearly weren’t somewhere else first. This says nothing about pre-existence. Again it does not mean that there is not a strong case for pre-existence, but its not here(in this verse). That is simply taking… Read more »
.What nonsense you write. If anyone says that they came from someone and that they are going back to that person, we would understand it to be literal. We would not think they are talking about being a concept in the mind of that person. This bunk that that is how the Hebrews thought has no support in Scripture. It is not quite evident to me that this is an invention like the overlapping generations to try to sustain an unsupportable doctrine. Your playing word games when you substitute a person for a quality like wisdom or a state like… Read more »
In John 13:3, 16:28 and 20:17 Jesus says he “ascends/go to” the Father. The Greek has been mistranslated as “going back/return” by NIV.
And I asked you this before but don’t remember an answer. If anyone says “eat my flesh” or “drink my blood” how would any child understand that?
“In John 13:3, 16:28 and 20:17 Jesus says he “ascends/go to” the Father. The Greek has been mistranslated as “going back/return” by NIV.” How should it be translated? Please give references. You seem to be missing the meaning of Jesus words about revealing things to children and hiding them from wise and intellectual ones. Allow me to explain. This account actually is an excellent example of the meeting of his words. Most people upon hearing this speech were repulsed and left. They had the wrong attitude. They thought they were wise and could discern what Jesus was saying and came… Read more »
Do you know NT Koine Greek? If not I would recommend you and your readers check any good, standard Greek lexicon for the words mistranslated by some as “returning” or “going back to God” in John 13.3; 16.28; 20.17. (Since any opinion of mine will be mooooo.) LOL In your video you kept saying how any child would easily understand the “coming down from heaven” “coming into the world” language. I don’t remember you mentioning the need for a parent to explain what those words might have meant to a child. Hence, my question of how would a child today… Read more »
Do you know NT Koine Greek? If not, then why the condescending tone? If so, then why the fear of sharing proof for your assertions to prove they are not just personal opinion? I explained in my video and in my previous comment what I meant by “child”, yet you continue to create a strawman argument and try to redefine my meaning. If you wish to engage in intelligent and respectful discussion in which each side makes assertions and then provides solid proof to back them up, and where each side is willing to answer the questions put to them… Read more »
The reason I asked about your knowledge of the Greek was because I didn’t just want to offer my opinions.
So my apologies if that came across as condescending.
Please check the following references.
The word mistranslated “going back” by the NIV in John 16:28 is the same Greek word in Mat 4.11, 20, 22 simply translated as “left” or “leave.”
And John 13:3 is the only place where the Greek is mistranslated as “going back” instead of simply “go” (John 3:8; 11:31; 12:35, etc.).
Hope these help.
I worked as a professional translator for years. You can only call something a mistranslation if it conveys a meaning that is different from what was intended by the original speaker or writer. For your statement to be true, you would need to furnish proof that the first part of that clause “he had come from God” was metaphorical and that the last part “and was returning to God” was literal. What proof do you have that?
Good, then you would know that there are perfectly good Greek words for “returning” or “going back,” which John did not use in these verses.
PS who did you work for? where did you get your language degrees from?
It took me a little while to find this comment thread, because i was sure you were avoiding my question. I finally found it. I wrote: “I worked as a professional translator for years. You can only call something a mistranslation if it conveys a meaning that is different from what was intended by the original speaker or writer. For your statement to be true, you would need to furnish proof that the first part of that clause “he had come from God” was metaphorical and that the last part “and was returning to God” was literal. What proof do… Read more »
“You can only call something a mistranslation if it conveys a meaning that is different from what was intended by the original speaker or writer.”
Yes, I agree, “go back” conveys a different meaning than “go.”
Thats the “proof.”
If John understood the first clause “came from God” as you do, then John would’ve used “go back.”
You are making an assumption. Luke uses the same word at Acts 19:21 when he is returning to Jerusalem. The NIV doesn’t say “go back” but simply “go to Jerusalem”. Based on your logic, since we know Paul had come from Jerusalem, Luke would have used a different wording since Paul was going back to a place he had been before. Your assumptions (or mine for that matter) about what phrasing the original writer would or would not have used are of no real value. If we get our readers to accept what we teach based on our opinions and… Read more »
You’re right, the NIV is right to translate poreuomai in Acts 19.21 simply as “to go” not “go back.”
And yes, Jesus condemns false Pharisaic teachers that’s why in the same chapter he promised to send true teachers, Mat 23.34!
As far as I understand it, both Arians and Socinians believe Jesus came from the Father. You, that the begotten Logos god was moved into a human body by the Father, and ,they, that Jesus was begotten by the holy spirit in Marys womb by the Father. Both would suggest, to me at least, that Jesus was speaking of the source he emanated from, not a place, which would require a presupposition. This presupposition seems to be tied to people quoting him going “back”, this is not in any of the interlinear I checked. I played no word games, I… Read more »
BT1: “Can I ask at what point do you believe that the consciousness of the Logos was put into the body of Jesus?”
No, you cannot ask me that, because you haven’t answered me question.
You make an absolute claim that three key verses from John are mistranslated, but offer no proof, just your opinion.
Please provide the proof there was a mistranslation, or at the very least admit that you were merely offering a personal opinion.
I think you may be mixing me up with another commenter, you asked me no question in your reply.
You’re right. Sorry about that. I got mixed up handling so many threads at oncee.
Agree Eric, playing with words. Thank you, you answered some things instead of me.
Frankie.
Hi bereanthinker1,
Please see Eric’s answer below, I agree with him. This 1 Cor 15 I can explain to a child without problems using simple words, explaining what words are figurative and why. Using such plain words the child understands that I did not come from my father when I was born and other things. No problem.
Please, be more a child when reading Bible and please, keep in mind Jesus’ words in Matt 11:25. There is beauty in simplicity.
Peace and love my brother.
Frankie
Whoa Whoa, you don’t think you came from your father and mother?? Perhaps a typo? If not where in the world do you think you came from? Are you reincarnated? A spirit entity stuck inside a human being? Maybe Marshall Applewhite returned for the rest of his followers? lol trying to add some humor here 😉
Yes dear BT1, I am cheerful person, and that’s true. The point is, I would explain the word “come” in the relevant verse to the child in the basic sense. Come on foot, by car, by plane, etc. So in this case of basic meaning of word “come” I really didn’t come from my parents. I clearly wrote: “This 1 Cor 15 I can explain to a child without problems using simple words, explaining what words are figurative and why. OK? I say to you, be more child and less scholar, please. Are you always so ironic, or only when… Read more »
Dear picketers, I would like to say a few words about this whole discussion. But first, I would explain how I would proceed with example given by brother Nightingale. It refers to a presumable discrepancy in verses John 20:20 and Acts 2:31. Whether a child is confused will depend on the Bible from which I read verse Acts 2:31. If it is NIV, the child will not be confused, because there, as in most Bibles, the word “decay” is used (in other Bibles, the word “rot” may be used). Jesus did not remain in the tomb, so his body did… Read more »
CORRECTION: I made mistake, sorry. There should be no quotation marks in the last paragraph – there should be words important things without quotation marks.
Frankie
My brothers and sisters, With respect to red minus under my correction I’d like to explain these quotes. I believe in Jesus’ pre-human existence, and also I believe that he had the glory that Jehovah gave him (John 17: 5), that his Father loved him before the foundation of the world (John 17:24) and that he participated in creation of the universe (John 1: 3,10) and that had and has special position in Universe as the only begotten Son before the beginning of time. But there’s more. Jehovah’s love for his Son is absolute, and it was so when He… Read more »
Let’s make a little experiment and try this “every child would understand this language” -argument from another angle and see if it works. Let’s say a child continues to read the gospel of John and then reads about Jesus being resurrected. Then he or she reads in John 20:20: “After he said this he showed them both his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced at seeing the Lord.” How would a child understand that? He or she would naturally conclude that it’s the same person who is alive again. He even had those holes in his hands and… Read more »
And when that child learned that Jesus vanished into thin air, what would he believe? And when the child learned that Jesus appeared to two disciples in a different form, and then abruptly disappeared from sight, what would he believe? When the child saw Jesus ascending into heaven and then disappear, what would he believe? When that child was told that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of the heavens, what would he believe? And when I child was told that a fleshly body dies but a spiritual body is raised, what would he believe?
With regards to Philippians 2:5, Jesus who like Adam was made in the image (Tese-lem, morphe) of God did not try to be like God as Adam tried to! Jesus humbled himself unto death and we are encouraged to have similar humility.
Having this view of imitating the Christ in humility; how can one be charged with pride and arrogance?
I notified Anthony Buzzard about Eric’s video. Here is the reply https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtTJx_TOM8Y&t=621s Love Anthony’s reasoning. So simple a child could understand it
Alithia, I just posted a link regarding Anthony Buzzard’s reply to Eric’s video. I’m not sure if it’s going to be censored or not because, well, it’s a link. I thought you might be interested in it if the last post I sent you has been discarded
There are many flaws in Buzzard’s reasoning which I will endeavour to point out in due time.
We look forward to your response and would like to invite you to an online debate, anytime.
carlos@thehumanjesus.org
It is too easy to muddle the truth in live debates. I prefer to produce a video which allows both parties to do thorough research to back up their claims and provide references for viewers to look up for themselves.
Has anyone taken the time to compare Genesis 1:26 where it says God made man in his image? see the following from the Hebrew word used for image. tseh’-lem From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure, especially an idol: – image, vain shew. and see the Greek as would appear in the Septuagint; LSJ Gloss: εἰκών a likeness, image, portrait Dodson: εἰκών an image, likeness, bust. Strong’s: εἰκών a likeness, i.e. (literally) statue, profile, or (figuratively) representation, resemblance Derivation: from G1503; KJV Usage: image. G1503 TBESG: εἰκών image G:N-F… Read more »
Here is a list of Scriptures that I think everyone should consider to grasp and understand Jewish idiom. With regards to the idea of ascending and descending from heaven this does not strictly mean spatial travel from heaven to earth or from earth to heaven. Please be patient and humble enough to read God’s word, which in Eric’s “framework” should be presented in a manner that an infant would understand. Deuteronomy chapter 30 verse 11 and 12 says; for this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in… Read more »
Alithia, well said, good points. Jewish idioms really need to be understood when reading the bible. Jewish culture, Jewish writings, Jewish people, Jewish mindset. John was a Jew, Paul was a Jew, Jesus was a Jew
Dear Meleti, Modern day Unitarian Christians lead by the 21st Century Reformation movement started by sir Anthony Buzzard himself are the modern day Socinianism teachers. They teach that Jesus Christ did not exist before he was born as a human being on the earth. His friend Pastor Dan Gil even released the youtube video teaching that Jesus did not exist in heaven. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XsDoS_lYPM Much like you said, the movement started out as a good cause, to prove trinity is false, but sadly the pendulum swung in the opposite direction and they began teaching that Jesus did not exist in heaven.… Read more »
For one the scriptures in Proverbs only apply to “wisdom” as named in Proverbs in the very same context. Wisdom that resided with God.
With regard to the list of scriptures you quote later it should not surprise you most of them are used by trinitarians too.
But thanks for the list anyway. The point is, are they applied correctly with understanding?
Vous dites : D’une part, les écritures des Proverbes ne s’appliquent qu’à la «sagesse» telle qu’elle est nommée dans les Proverbes dans le même contexte. Sagesse qui résidait avec Dieu. Comment peut on appliquer à une qualité ces expressions : ” J’étais un ARTISAN QUALIFIE [f] à côté de Lui. J’ÉTAIS SON PLAISIR chaque jour, me RÉJOUISSANT TOUJOURS DEVANT LUI. 31 JE ME REJOUISSAIS DANS SON MONDE HABITE me REJOUISSANT DE LA RACE HUMAINE.” Comment une qualité peut se réjouir ? ”L’Éternel m’a fait au commencement de sa création, ” La sagesse n’a pas eu besoin d’être créée, elle existait… Read more »
Well reasoned Nicole. It’s funny how Socinians choose to ignore these facts. Perhaps not funny at all, but expected. Eisegesis requires one to dismiss anything that would counter one’s preconceptions.
Exactly Alithia, Proverbs 8 is all about “lady wisdom” the personification of wisdom. it’s funny how Trinitarians and others see this as the pre-existent Jesus. Hebrews 1:1,2 The Hebrews writer differentiates who God used in the OT and now. (The son) through whom he made the ages. Not the universe, not the physical world. The ages. That spiritual rock he referred to as seeing is just as Abraham saw it (Jesus day) John 8:56. Oh, dear. There’s more to add but I need to go nigh nighs. God bless
Dear Alithia and all, 21st Century reformation movement leads you to believe that this proverb talks about wisdom only. Even some so called Bible Scholars and commentators say that this is only about wisdom. Notice I said some. Many Bible commentators disagree that this only applies to wisdom. Here is the link to Bible Commentary: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/8-22.htm Notice what Elliot’s commentary for the English Readers says regarding Hebrews 8:22: “(22) The Lord “possessed me” in the beginning of his way.—The Hebrew word translated” possessed” in this passage (qānah) seems originally to have signified to” set up” or “establish,” and is applied (1)… Read more »
Thank you for contributing this thoughtful analysis.
CORRECTION: Sir Anthony Buzzard did not start the 21st Century Reformation movement. That is a ministry started by the Gills 21stcr.org.
Non-trinis have been around for far longer than that.
I suggest you read Williams, The Radical Reformation.
Just a thought I would like to add. Jehovah condemned the “spirits” that forsook their proper place and took the form of humans. Jehovah destroyed the wicked Nephilim who were a hybrid product of spirit and flesh.
Tell me, on the fact that Jah never changes and hold true always; why would God approve of such a thing when it came to the Messiah? Is Jesus a hybrid product of spirit and flesh?
That understanding sounds God and Jesus dishonoring to me!
Dieu a envoyé des anges qui se sont faits hommes selon sa volonté. Des anges matérialisés dans la chair ont parlé et étaient vus par Sarah,Abraham,Lot…et envoyés par Dieu. Christ lui même s’est matérialisé après sa résurrection. Il n’y a aucune contradiction. Dieu a condamné les anges qui se sont faits hommes du temps du déluge car leurs mobiles étaient immoraux. Ils n’avaient aucune mission divine pour l’avoir fait. Pour la préexistante du Christ,les différentes paroles de Jean citées par Eric me suffisent pour croire ce que le Christ a dit : ”je suis le pain vivant qui est descendu… Read more »
Very good Nicole, very good.
Well put, Nicole
That’s a good point Alithia. One worth chewing over that’s for sure. I’ve given a few points in the Youtube comments. My username is Grant Knott. One of the more recent points I picked up was why on earth would Satan bother to tempt Jesus when surely he would have known that he was some sort of literal mega spirit creature that was in the presence of Jehovah for Trillions (or whatever) of years? What would be the point? A futile exercise if ever there was one. God bless
Oh thanks Grant, I enjoyed your contribution on You Tube. Where on planet earth do you reside? I would love to catch up if in Australia on the Gold Coast.
That would be good Alithia. I’m in Cairns. I’ve been here for nearly two years now. From Tasmania
Agreed. Jesus had to be fully human. That doesn’t preclude the fact he existed before. Philippians tells us he emptied himself. Therefore, while he was a god before, he left that form and took on the form of a human. He had to be a corresponding ransom, the last Adam. I hope that helps clear up your confusion.
Eric, do you ever ask yourself what happened to that “whatever” Jesus supposedly was? This God creature? Did it die? Does the bible touch on it? Did it just vanish or take cover? Seriously if Jesus was something else before he existed, wouldn’t you think the bible would touch on it. It mentions angels and their names. The book of Enoch mentions many others in extra-biblical work but none that just happened to unite with the spirit of the most high into Mary. Many Trinitarians use eisegesis into Philippians 2:6-11. They imagine things into the text and then arrive as… Read more »
Swaffi, your reasoning sounds a lot like “I can’t see how this would work, so it must be wrong.” If such things really concern you and keep you from seeing the truth of Jesus nature, perhaps you could gain some insight into Paul’s words to some Corinthians. It seems that some of them were using similar reasoning to try to undermine the resurrection hope. “But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?” You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you… Read more »
I can agree with you when you said….I can’t see how this would work, so it must be wrong.” type of reasoning. The same could be said about querying or even mocking God’s power when he touches on his plan, his purpose that the great architect had in (and still does of course)him before things were manifest before our eyes. One such scripture that I left out for some reason is Revelation 4:11. This is a scripture that JW’s and ex JW’s are very familiar with, and yet, few seem to get it. I was one of them. Granted, some translations… Read more »
Hi Meleti, Thank you for your examination and your tireless work in behalf of the body of Christ. In my opinion, several of the texts you referenced could be attributed to notional existence along with the application of the common Jewish idiom of personification without causing significant dissonance. That being said, however, there do seem to be other passages where the most obvious reading implies that Jesus pre-existed his fleshly sojourn. On this matter, I’m inclined to agree with you. Nevertheless, I wanted to push back a little on you regarding your application of 2 Jn. 1:7ff. Although we don’t… Read more »
The socian implication that our heavenly Father planned the horrors of this world cannot be correct because “God is love”! This implication is what always distressed me when various ones tried to convince me of socinian thought. A child can understand that God is love. To try to take away my faith in God by persuading me that he planned the horrors of this world and is therefore unloving I regard as the dog of an act. I have had it done to me and found it very painful that someone would try to attack the root of my faith… Read more »
For goodness sakes Adam! Your response is such a passionate one! Can I ask you though, what is the connection between the “Socinian” view whether Jesus had a pre-existence and the heavenly father having planned the horrors of this world? And how does this attack the root of your faith in a loving father? Another question is with regards to your view that people who do not believe in the pre-existing Jesus can be dogmatic. Has it not occurred to you that they could be fully convinced and have good reason for being so? I for one am of that… Read more »
Hi Alithia, I hold the same belief as you. You are definitely not on your own. Eric and I butted heads throughout that youtube video. He took one of my posts down. I’m not even sure which one. He does not like things thrown back at him. He commented that he does not want to fellowship with me anymore. All because I disagree with his doctrine. Who does that remind you of?
It reminds me of the apostle John who tells us. For many deceivers have gone out into the world, refusing to confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8Watch yourselves, so that you do not lose what we have worked for,a but that you may be fully rewarded. 9Anyone who runs ahead without remaining in the teaching of Christ does not have God. Whoever remains in His teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you but does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your… Read more »
Hello Eric I am a bit puzzled about your application of 2. John 7. I think you are overemphasizing the word “come” there. And here is why. Notice how it speaks about “persons not confessing Jesus Christ coming in the flesh.” It does NOT say “persons not confessing the son of God coming in the flesh”. If it did say that, then your application might make some sense: first Jesus was in heaven as the son of God as a spirit being and then he came in the flesh to Earth and became the Christ – and everybody refusing to… Read more »
John’s words were given to counter the growing influence of Gnosticism in the Christian congregation. Gnostics believed the spirit was pure, but the flesh was corrupt. They could not accept that a spirit became flesh, as to them that would be to corrupt the spirit. So they believed essentially in a God man long before Trinitarians picked up on the idea. The real Jesus, to them, existed as a spirit and the flesh was a convenience to interact with humans, but being fleshly and corrupt, the Christ could not be only flesh, fully human. John 17:3 tells us that knowing… Read more »
John’s words were given to counter the growing influence of Gnosticism in the Christian congregation. . .The real Jesus, to them, existed as a spirit and the flesh was a convenience to interact with humans, but being fleshly and corrupt, the Christ could not be only flesh, fully human. I hope I’m not the only one who sees the glaring irony here?? The above is essentially the Arian position, as well, although it would not be corrupt. Which is why I have been struggling with it. I’m sorry, but taking a divine life source (unnamed mind you, unless one believes… Read more »
What the Bible teaches us is that Jesus came from the heavens, that he was known as the word, that he was divine or a god, that he gave it all up and became fully human. How that is possible, the mechanics of the process, need not concern us. I can pick up a phone and call someone on the other side of the earth. Do I need to know how that is possible. I can, because that is human technology, but I do not need to know to benefit from the technology. Well, in the case of transferring the… Read more »
Hi Eric. This your replay reminds me a view of purpose of the Bible as a letter from God – “The main purpose of the Bible is not to answer the question “HOW”, but to answer the question “WHY”. You are right. We don’t know at all what energies, information fields or whatever other entities form the heaven. We now nothing about substance of God or on what principles God uses the holy Spirit. Obviously, we do not have a conceptual apparatus to understand all processes in heaven. We are like Neanderthals sitting in front of the TV. The role… Read more »
Those “scriptures” you refer to are full of Jewish idiom. You cannot as a serious biblical scholar rest on a simple black letter reading of these verses as a year 2021 Westerner and claim you are doing justice to the rendering or understanding of them as was intended by the writers some 2000 years ago writing in Greek and with a Jewish mind set. Only a couple of presentations ago you were espousing this very ideal to make a point but you seem selectively not to do so in this presentation. Why is that?
Is your understanding that everything the translators render cannot be understood as written, but that we need to reinterpret it? Because that seems like an excuse to support your interpretation.
Hi Alithia, please tell me if I’m overstaying my presence replying to your comments. I won’t be offended. It’s just that we all need encouragement and support at times. I absolutely agree with what you said. We all need to look at scripture with the Jewish mindset. There is a real Jewish element of time-shifting going on sometimes in scripture as well. I really do think people fall into the Western trap of reading scriptures. So that being said, yes, a child could understand those scriptures from John that Eric cited. A Jewish child or a child that understood Jewish… Read more »
If it is as a fire in your belly then it may be the “spirit” of God within you prompting you to speak! Who am I to stop you. Please continue , you are welcome. I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR EXPRESSIONS WITHOUT CENSORSHIP.
Love to all from Alithia.
Speaking about censorship Alithia, I just sent you another reply but after I hit “post comment” It shows…”Waiting for approval” That never happened before!
Similar to me I have a lengthy post in waiting land for a couple of days. Nothing rude, nothing unscriptual just pointing out logical fallacies is all???
It was put in the queue for the same reason. Two many links. This is done as a protection. What if someone decided to provide links to porno sites. Some will say that is censorship. Yes, it is. Some feel that all censorship is bad. I do not share that view. I will censor things I consider to be lies. Even Twitter and facebook have come to see the need for that, albeit way too late. I am okay with someone publishing a comment I know to be false if I feel they are open to reasonable debate and if… Read more »
To answer your question, “Why is that?” I would point out that the reason I was, as you put it, “espousing this very ideal just a couple of presentations ago” was that accepting a “black letter reading” in that instance created a contradiction with other texts. Since I don’t accept that the Bible can contradict itself, I realized we had to go deeper into the text to determine exactly what was meant. However, in this instance no such contradiction exists and therefore there is no reason to look for a meaning beyond what is clearly stated. In fact, the Socinian… Read more »
This passage is a simple lesson in humility. The mental attitude that Jesus had was one Paul encouraged us to have. One of humility, unlike Adam who found himself in “Gods form” (image of God, Greek morphe) and sought to be like God, Jesus humbled himself unto death. We should be like minded. This is the lesson. With regards to pre-existence this concept has a home amongst the Gnostics and the ancient philosophical Greeks such as Plato etc that scripture, Jesus and you paradoxically rail against. To “empty oneself” is a Jewish term of selflessness. We say similar things today… Read more »
The word “form”, morphe, appears in only three places in the Christian Scriptures and it does not translate as “image” (Greek, eikón) as you would lead us to believe. From your comments, I know you are intelligent enough and learned enough to know that, so I have to wonder why you would equate it to “image”. We know that men are created in God’s image, but they are not created in his form. Morphe in the Christian Scriptures is only used in reference to Jesus. The first reference is found at Mark 16:12 where we read: “After this, Jesus appeared in a different… Read more »
You wrote: Here, the form of God (spirit) is contrasted with the form of a servant (human flesh).
Without any added explanations these verses talk about two forms: form of God and form of a slave or servant. One could ask why doesn’t it say “form of a man” if the point is to make a contrast between a spirit being and human? Now it sounds more like it’s talking about someone’s status.
“without any added explanations”? What about the added explanation from the verse itself?
“taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.”
You’re going to discount it because it doesn’t use a phrase you think it should use but instead uses “being made in human likeness”. Perhaps you would prefer the BSB version: “And being found in appearance as a man”
Hi Nightingale. I would like to respond to your comment. Eric mentioned in the introduction 8 very good quotes from the mouth of Jesus Himself that He came from heaven. I see another interesting situation there. The fact that Jesus Himself said that He came “from above”, from heaven, to Earth is evident from His conversation with the Jews, which is in John 10: 24-33. You wrote correctly that “Jews had waited for the Messiah/Christ for centuries “to come” and he eventually did – in the flesh, as a human, “from among their brothers”, as David’s descendant, as the woman’s… Read more »
Hello Frank I get your point – but doesn’t all these terms apply to true Christians as well? They are not of this world, born from above, born from God, one with Jesus and God? John 17, 1Jo 5:1 Stephen for example obviously was one with them, he even saw God and Jesus – and was stoned right there. Those Jews saw him in the same category than Jesus even though he didn’t literally say the same words than Jesus did. Jesus is the firstborn among many brothers. Would the big brother be “from above” in some other way than… Read more »
Very interesting conversation, y’all. One quick thought on Nightingale’s response to Frankie. My first thought was yes, certain terms could be applied to Jesus differently than they would be applied to other Christians. Namely, they would be applied to Jesus as describing who he is, as uniquely the Son of God, perhaps either expressing his divine nature or his pre-existence, whereas when applied to Christians, they would express what we are not by our own nature, but what we are by way of our participation in Christ, as expressed in 2 Peter 1.
Hi Nightingale,
Jesus has no siblings, He is “the only begotten [Strong 3439] of the Father” (John 1:14,18; 3:16). He is the firstborn among many spiritual brothers (Romans 8:29). He is from above.
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me” (John 6:38) – come down – sent me. Let’s leave words to their true meaning.
Adapting the meaning of words to some doctrine – this is a typical feature of WT.
Hello Frank Absolutely we should consider what the terms really mean. That is what I am trying to do here and don’t quite understand what you meant. If Jesus has many spiritual brothers, how come he has no siblings? What are Jesus’ brothers to him if not siblings? If Jesus is the son of God and Christians are children of God, wouldn’t they be siblings then? I understand Jesus is and always will be the firstborn but how can he be the “only” begotten permanently – if that’s what you meant? That would mean God didn’t beget spiritually anyone else… Read more »
Some of the oldest manuscripts render John 1:18 as “the only begotten God”. This is somewhat inconvenient for Trinitarians and Socinians alike. For Trinitarians, because they can accept Jesus as the son, while still being God, but only begotten god doesn’t work, because God (Capital G) cannot be begotten. On the other hand, “only begotten son” works for Socinians, because they believe it applies to Jesus, the only human procreated by God, but since he was never a spirit in heaven, how can he be the only begotten god? If we reject Trinitarianism and Socinianism, we have no problem understanding… Read more »
I think John 1:18 is a problematic verse to base teachings on it because there is no way to know for sure whether it originally said “God” or “Son”. Here is a good brief video about the verse and early manuscripts. https://youtu.be/W_BGX28er9Y
Hi Nightingale, I try to explain it with our human life analogy. Let’ say that I am the only son of my parents. I don’t have a sister, so I am the only begotten. I have no true, genetic siblings. But you, and many other Christians, are my spiritual brothers, so I have many spiritual siblings. Jesus has no true, genetic siblings with respect to his origin as the only begotten of the Father in heaven. Angles are not his true siblings, because he created them. Christians are not his true siblings; they are only his spiritual siblings because… Read more »
Very nicely put, Frankie. Thank you for contributing these thoughts.
Well said Nightingale
Did I ever refuse to say that Christ came in the flesh? Did I ever say or imply that Christ did not come in the flesh? If anyone is implying that he didn’t it is you. I continually say throughout my comments on Youtube that Jesus the man originated (born) in the womb of Mary. Where do I deviate from that? He came in the flesh. This does not mean that he decided to leave the presence of the father, traverse down from outer space into the womb of Mary, does it? Luke 1:31-35 tells us no such thing. Neither… Read more »
I’ve already explained that in the video. If you were to watch it all the way through, we could avoid these misunderstandings.
But that doesn’t hide the fact that you’ve thrown comments at me and imply that I’m the antichrist. This is what I’m referring to. I’m not referring to the video. Surely you must know that
If Jesus was born human with no pre existence, then he didn’t come in the flesh anymore than you or I came in the flesh by being born.
Too bad my friend. The apostle Paul was an anathema to the Jews, yet he was welcome in the Jewish synagogues where he would preach and teach often. The early apostles also spent much of the time teaching in the temple as did Jesus.
The apostles and Jesus did not withdraw from a spiritual discussion, it was those who could not hold their own. And to answer your question directly it seems like the old JWs organisation.
Nevertheless, he knew when he had reached his limit.
“. . .But after they kept on opposing him and speaking abusively, he shook out his garments and said to them: “Let your blood be on your own heads. I am clean. From now on I will go to people of the nations.”” (Acts 18:6)
Hi John, you said: “I do not think that it naturally follows that God planned or approves of any of the horrors in the world currently.” Please note the following sections of Eric’s video: “Okay, now look at all this through the eyes of a Socinian. The notion of Jesus Christ as a human who would live and die for us to be redeemed from the original sin must have existed in God’s mind as a concept long before anything was created. Therefore, all the stars were created for, by, and through this concept with the sole goal of redeeming… Read more »
Thank you Eric for very good and clear scriptural reasoning. I like your reference to Matt 11: 25-29 and how you worked with it. Indeed, the principal truths in Jesus’ teaching are so plain and simple, that even children can understand them. These strong truths are intended for parents to pass it to their little ones without problems. I think your article is very useful especially for our brothers and sisters leaving Organization. They will follow various paths where there can be many traps. But there is only one way – Jesus. This way is safe. I fully agree with… Read more »
Thank you Frankie.