Examining Socinianism: The Belief that Jesus Did Not Exist Before His Birth as a Human.

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 16^th and 17^th 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)

Archived Comments

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

Comment by Adam on 2021-01-18 15:44:06
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 in my loving Father.
I have noticed that the believers in socian doctrine can be very dogmatic to the point that of reminding me of Mat 7:6 ISV “Never give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs. Otherwise, they will trample them with their feet and then turn around and attack you.”
- Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-19 00:38:37
  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 view, however I do not think that it naturally follows that God planned or approves of any of the horrors in the world currently!
  And I certainly do not wish to attack anyone's faith in God or Jesus. Rather I would hope that having this view would enhance and deepen the appreciation of God as a loving father who is perfect, and his creation of man and woman in the Garden of Eden as good without defect.
  Also I had a similar view as the one Eric is presenting, for decades. Possibly many decades more than most on this site. However after extensive study, prayer, reflection and humility along with scriptural teaching I came to hold a different view. One that I am willing to defend and offer scriptural defence for.
  
  Simply taking the moral high ground is not an argument. And I can understand the appeal and how seductive it can be. In the face of undeniable evidence when Jesus was performing miracles such as raising the dead, healing Lane people, and expelling demons, the Pharisees and the Sadducees condemned Jesus as being demonic, a drunkard and one who consorts with sinners such as tax collectors and prostitutes!
  This no doubt may have made the Sadducees and the Pharisees feel better about themselves and how they looked to the common people who they sought to influence. However as in your case neither was this a valid argument or a line of reasoning that brings one closer to the truth of matters.
  
  Love to you and all from Alithia.
  - Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-19 02:23:44
    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?
    - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-19 10:51:59
      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 home or even greet him. 11Whoever greets such a person shares in his evil deeds. (2 John 7-11)
      
      I realize that JWs went way overboard on this. I also realize that this is a course of action that each one must take based on their own conscience. It is not a course of action that anyone should impose on the group.
      - Reply by Nightingale on 2021-01-19 12:47:11
        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 believe that all this took place would be a deceiver.
        
        But he didn't say that, instead he talked about the Christ. And we know that Jesus only became the Christ when he was baptized and therefore couldn't have come from heaven as already being such. Do you see what I mean?
        
        Also, if John truly meant what you suppose, wouldn't he have added the word "heaven" in the passage, like "persons not confessing Jesus Christ coming FROM HEAVEN in the flesh"? If the major point he wanted to make was about Jesus' supposed origin or where he supposedly was before or where he supposedly came from, he could have made it clear just by adding that word. But he doesn't say that, that doesn't seem to be the main thing. Confessing Jesus as the human Messiah is.
        
        I simply understand the verse like this: The 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 seed. So it would seem to me that this verse condemns those who didn't believe that he truly was a human being but something else, something only pretending to be flesh. I don't think the main issue here is where he possibly came from or where he was before.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-19 13:37:18
        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 both God and Christ is the key to ever lasting life, or viewed another way, is the goal of everlasting life. If we start out on a false premise, we jeopardize our chances of achieving that goal. Therein lies one danger of this doctrine.
        
        However, if you follow the comments on YouTube by those striving to defend the doctrine, you will see that it depends entirely on rejecting what is plainly stated in the scripture, such as John's words and those of Paul, and accepting instead the reinterpretation of men. John says, "this is the deceiver". He adds, "Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ, does not have God."
        
        I ask people to just go with what it says. Opposers will accuse me of pushing my interpretation. But I am not interpreting. I'm saying, "What does the verse itself say?" If someone then comes along and says, "Well, it may say that, but that isn't what it means. What it means is this.", are they not the ones engaging in interpretation?
        
        For instance, what does this passage say. Don't engage in interpretation, just read it and explain it as you would any passage.
        
        “. . .Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men.” (Philippians 2:5-7)
        
        Now, did did the "mental attitude" exist in a concept in the mind of God, or did it exist in the mind of a conscious being? Don't you need a mind to have a mental attitude? Can a concept exist in God's form? Can a concept think so as to consider grasping at equality with God? Can a concept empty itself and take on a slave's form?
        
        If someone is teaching you a lie and wants you to believe it and then teach it to others, are they not condemning you?
        
        “Outside are the dogs and those who practice spiritism and those who are sexually immoral and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices lying.’” (Revelation 22:15)
        
        Should we tolerate such people, welcome them and say "May God bless you?"
        
        That is John's point.
        Reply by bereanthinker1 on 2021-01-19 16:46:54
        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 Jesus prehuman name was literally Logos) and sticking it into the avatar of a fetus with his billions and billions of years of experience and intelligence, is not what most would call a human.
        Many would probably say he was given the knowledge of his divinity and billions of years of life in the spirit realm at his anointing with spirit, but then what was he before?
        Where was the logos for 30 years? If the Christ himself did not know about his preexistence for the majority of his life why would we be nudging towards making it a salvation/fellowship issue here?
        
        These are the questions that bounce around in my head on the matter. I really don't know where I am on preexistence. But I do know my Lord will be kind to me for not having a clear understanding of what he was before he was ever introduced to us in scripture.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-19 20:06:21
        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 essence – for lack of a better term – of the logos into human form, that technologies way beyond me. But I don't need to understand it to benefit from it. In fact, to deny any part of it because I cannot explain it would be arrogant.
        Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-21 10:28:51
        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 of such a Neanderthal man is to understand the images on the screen that speak to him in his language and in his concepts. The problem arises when such Neanderthal man begins to explain the operation of this TV on the basis of his top technological knowledge, which includes a stone hammer and flake tool.
        
        Just for laugh. Frankie
        Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-19 16:47:57
        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?
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-19 18:39:53
        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.
        Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-19 18:47:00
        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 thought could understand them a lot more accurately. It's a shame that some people just seem to gloss over Matthew and Luke as some sort of Christmas theme and forget about his true origins. God bless
        Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-20 02:35:47
        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.
        Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-20 05:47:59
        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!
        Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-20 07:08:52
        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???
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 08:38:52
        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 there is a chance to help them to realize the truth. However, there are limits, as is the case with all things other than the fruits of the Spirit.
        
        After enough time has passed without being able to help the errant one to a proper understanding of truth, one is forced to recognize that a danger exists. That is in part the warning that John gives us as 2 John. People have a right to believe what they will, but they do not have the right to spread their beliefs anywhere they please.
        Revelation 22:15 tells us that outside are those loving and carrying on a lie. By providing a platform to someone who wishes to promote an agenda of their own that includes teaching lies, we are complicit in the lie.
        
        My goal is not to censor a person. I don't practice shunning. However, I will censor comments which promote false teachings.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-19 19:28:23
        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 doctrine of non-preexistences creates a contradiction. The Bible says that God is love, but a God that predestines all the evil of the world cannot be loving. Hence the contradiction.
        
        When I brought that fact to the attention of one of the commenters on the YouTube channel, he categorically denied accepting predestination. To me, he was merely trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to accept a particular doctrine, but avoid the consequences that such a belief produces.
        
        How could God love and glorify the concept of a Redeemer before the universe was created, and for again his appearance to save humanity from sin, without being the architect of that sin?
        
        That is what your rejection of – as you put it, a black letter reading – the texts I presented results in.
        
        I think the real problem here is that I categorically state that this is an evil doctrine. If I were to say, "This is my understanding, but I could be wrong, and those who promote Socinianism could be right", I don't think I'd get half the flack I'm getting, I certainly wouldn't be seeing the kind of vehemence that has been exhibited in comments on the YouTube channel.
        
        Jesus told Pilate that he came to earth to reveal the truth. Not his version of the truth, but the absolute truth. The worshipers that God seeks are those who worship in spirit and in truth. Truth is objective. If you want to think I'm wrong, go right ahead. I'm not going to get upset. So why do people get upset when I think they are wrong? I'm clearly not that important. My opinion doesn't really matter. If you are content and firm in your belief that you have the truth, then what someone else says or believes would not bother you. You would have no need to engage in ad hominem attacks, insults, snide remarks, and the other cheap tactics of those who cannot support their belief with hard evidence.
        
        As we all know, such tactics are common among Jehovah's Witnesses, because they have no other recourse to silence their critics. Such tactics are used in the hope that they can intimidate others to back to back off.
        
        Please understand that not referring to you specifically Alithea, but answering your comment provides an opportunity to also address these issues for everyone else who might read this.
        
        Jesus said that we should let our light shine. But he also said that those who dwell in darkness hate the light. That's something to think about.
        Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-20 02:33:21
        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 such as a player "left it all on the field today". "I gave my all, there is nothing in the tank".
        
        Sorry for you Eric, you cannot get away that you are ignoring Jewish idiom as did the early Church Fathers, keen to distance the original Jewish custodians from the scriptures and to wrest control and understanding to themselves. You are doing the same thing.
        
        Unfailing love from Alithia to all.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 07:38:43
        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 form (morphe) to two of them as they walked along in the country. - BSB" (In an aside, that helps establish that he wasn't walking around with holes in his hands, feet and side, as some contend and using some mental trick to hide his identity.)
        
        The other two times morphe appears is in Philippians.
        
        "Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,a but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness." (Philippians 2:6, 7 BSB)
        
        Here, the form of God (spirit) is contrasted with the form of a servant (human flesh).
        
        Trying to convince us that this is speaking about being in God's image in the limited sense that we humans are, and not in his actual form seems like a desperate attempt to support your theory of Christ's origin. This is eisegetical methodology, nothing more.
        Reply by Nightingale on 2021-01-20 08:25:56
        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.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 09:15:17
        "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"
        Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-19 17:54:16
        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 seed. "That's true.
        
        Jesus spoke of being "from above", not of this world. And in above-mentioned conversation with the Jews, He told them bluntly - "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). The strong cup of coffee.
        
        How did the Jews react to this?
        "The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. .... It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God." (John 10:31,33)
        
        So the Jews understood very well what Jesus said to them, and they wanted to stone him for blasphemy. The reaction of the Jews confirms what Jesus says about himself - he is from heaven. It was a clear blasphemy in their eyes. If Jesus pretended to be just man-the Messiah, there would be no reason to accuse him of blasphemy, they could simply accuse him of lying and laughing at him. Jesus said He was from above, and the Jews understood what He was saying.
        
        "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world." (John 8:23)
        
        Love to you and all. Frankie
        Reply by Nightingale on 2021-01-20 08:09:35
        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 all his siblings are?
        Reply by Dan Adams on 2021-01-20 10:56:54
        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.
        Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-20 11:24:17
        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.
        Reply by Nightingale on 2021-01-20 14:22:30
        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 then after Jesus. But how can that be when Christians are born from God and born from above? 1Peter 1:3
        
        I am not trying to play with words here or to be difficult but If we take the meaning of these words seriously how else can this be understood?
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 15:08:11
        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 this verse. God, the Father, engendered a son in his likeness and of his nature. This Son was the Word who was with the Father in the beginning, and who himself was a god. Since no other being was engendered this way, directly from the
        Father, the word becomes the only begotten god.
        Reply by Nightingale on 2021-01-20 15:55:12
        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
        Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-21 07:49:56
        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 God spiritually begets every Christian.
        
        My father was human, so I am human as well - I have his human genes. God is Jesus' Father, so Jesus has His genes (whatever this means in heavenly sphere), too. So Jesus, as the only begotten, has absolutely exceptional status from the beginning of Universe. Please, see John 20:28 or John 1:1. That's not Trinitarian reference at all, but with respect what I wrote, there is no need to play with lowercase or uppercase "g" in word God in these verses.
        
        However, the order of importance in the Universe is clear: Jehovah - Jesus - everything else; similar to my life - my father was always higher than I was.
        
        P.S.1 As to your understanding, maybe sometimes I don't express things exactly because my English (not my native language) is not what I would like :-)
        
        P.S.2 I agree with Eric's view.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-21 08:13:01
        Very nicely put, Frankie. Thank you for contributing these thoughts.
        Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-19 18:26:05
        Well said Nightingale
      - Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-19 18:22:48
        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 does the whole first chapter of Matthew and some of the second. Shame on you
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-19 18:37:47
        I've already explained that in the video. If you were to watch it all the way through, we could avoid these misunderstandings.
        Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-20 05:16:42
        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
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 08:59:46
        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.
    - Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-19 23:49:16
      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.
      - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 08:54:42
        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)
  - Reply by Adam on 2021-01-23 15:48:06
    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 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?"
    And:
    "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."
    
    I haven't had a STRAIGHT answer to that Socinian implication that God is a monster.

Comment by Frankie on 2021-01-17 17:05:18
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 your words in conclusion:
"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."

For us, Christians, there are scriptural "red lines" that cannot be crossed. Jesus never done compromises, and there is no hint of "biblical correctness" in the New Testament. No matter who tells us what, let us always look at our Lord, what he has said and done, and let us always follow Him, for He is the way, the truth, and the life.
Frankie
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-18 07:00:49
  Thank you Frankie.

Comment by Vox Ratio on 2021-01-19 20:25:24
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 have a lot of testimony about heresiarchs before the second century, we do have good reason for thinking that the apostle John had a specific individual in mind when he penned his epistolary warnings. Irenaeus and Hippolytus indicate that John was warning against one of his contemporaries – namely, Cerinthus – who resided in Ephesus along with John and taught that Jesus was made of flesh but that Christ was made of spirit. Cerinthus was one of the first, if not the first, proto-gnostic who emphasised the dividing of Jesus the man with Christ the spirit. Hence, it appears that the apostle John was reacting to the nuances of Cerinthus' heresy and was targeting specifically his partitioning of Jesus with the Christ. We can likewise see the same composition in John's earlier warning in his first epistle (cf. 1 Jn. 4:2).

Moreover, I think the grammar also lends support to such a reading. For instance, Jesus and Christ are the direct object of the passage, while flesh (SARKI) is the indirect object. Thus, the stress appears to be on each noun's relevance in response to Cerinthus' claims rather than any particular emphasis being on the verb (ERCHOMENON – coming) or predicate. After all, Cerinthus already believed that Jesus came in the flesh. As such, it is more likely that John was reinforcing the belief that it wasn't just Jesus who came in the flesh, but rather it was the conjunction "Jesus Christ" that came in the flesh.

It is my belief, therefore, that 2 Jn. 1:7ff can't be used to argue against the Christology of Biblical Unitarians since they, as far as I'm aware, all affirm that Jesus cannot be divided from the Christ and that "Jesus Christ" really did come in the "flesh".

Comment by Alithia on 2021-01-20 02:48:50
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!
- Reply by Fani on 2021-01-20 04:42:55
  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 du ciel”
  ”maintenant, Père, glorifie-moi en ta propre présence de la gloire que j'avais auprès de toi avant que le monde n'existe."
  
  Peu importe la signification que vous donnez au "monde" ce verset montre qu'il était glorieux avant sa venue sur terre. Lorsqu'il était sur terre il ne fut pas glorieux. Il parle donc d'une autre époque, forcément antérieure. Pour qu'un concept soit glorieux il faut le matérialiser par quelque chose ou quelqu'un.
  
  Cette gloire il l'avait en la présence du Père et auprès de son Père. Christ le dit très clairement. Point.
  
  Je ne comprends pas autre chose. Je ne vois là aucune idée de "concept".
  
  Ces échanges me paraissent très compliqués où je ne me retrouve pas.
  Les paroles du Christ sont pour moi bien plus simples.
  Merci à Lui.
  
  Amour à tous.
  - Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-20 06:34:31
    Very good Nicole, very good.
  - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 08:57:54
    Well put, Nicole
- Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-20 06:00:16
  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
  - Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-20 06:58:44
    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.
    - Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-21 05:17:01
      That would be good Alithia. I'm in Cairns. I've been here for nearly two years now. From Tasmania
  - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 09:02:04
    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.
    - Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-21 05:33:15
      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 they see fit. Nothing is said about pre-existence in those passages. You talk about eisegesis a lot but seem to ignore it in Philippians 2
      - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-21 08:18:58
        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 sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of [o]something else. But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. (1 Corinthians 15:35-37 NASB)
        
        The rest of that chapter explains it even further, particularly 1 Corinthians 15:44. I hope that helps.
        Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-21 18:25:01
        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 show it a bit clearer than others. ""Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created." NASB (fairly similar to most others). You see, they already existed in God's plan, mind, purpose, then they were created. This scripture adds on to the others I provided in the Youtube comments. Are you starting to see the picture of our father's magnificence, his power and supreme foresight? The great architect

Comment by unitingservantsofmosthighgod on 2021-01-20 02:51:17
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.

I have had a several month discussion with Sir Anthony regarding this very subject and I can tell you this simple truth, no matter how much experience you have in the Bible, once you learn something wrong, it is very difficult to let go of this ideology or a belief. In English we say: "It is hard to teach the old dog new tricks."

To all those Christians who continue to belief in this non biblical belief that Christ did not exist in heaven, this is my reply. This same reply was posted in Dan Gil's video comments:

---------------------------------------------------------
Did Yahshua Messiah Pre-Exist?

This is an important question to answer is it not? For centuries Geek philosophers introduced the false unscriptural concept of Trinity into the Bible and confused generations of Christians. In an effort to prove Trinity concept is false, modern day Christians lead by 21st Century reformation movement swung the pendulum into opposite spectrum of things and claimed Jesus Christ never existed before, but he simply was in Yahweh’s plan before he was born as a human being on this earth.

In order to answer this important question whether Yahshua Messiah existed before or not we need to look no further than the ultimate source of the truth which is the Bible, the word of Yahweh.

In the Bible Proverbs 8:22-30 states:
“22 The LORD made[d] me at the beginning of His creation,[e] before His works of long ago.
23 I was formed before ancient times, from the beginning, before the earth began.
24 I was born when there were no watery depths and no springs filled with water.
25 I was delivered before the mountains and hills were established,
26 before He made the land, the fields, or the first soil on earth.
27 I was there when He established the heavens, when He laid out the horizon on the surface of the ocean,
28 when He placed the skies above, when the fountains of the ocean gushed out,
29 when He set a limit for the sea so that the waters would not violate His command,
when He laid out the foundations of the earth.
30 I was a skilled craftsman[f] beside Him. I was His[g] delight every day,
always rejoicing before Him.
31 I was rejoicing in His inhabited world, delighting in the human race.”

This account in the proverbs is a prophesy written about Yahshua Messiah. It clearly states that the LORD (Yahweh) created Yahshua Messiah at the beginning of his creation before heavens and earth were made. In fact verse 30 calls Yahshua Messiah “a skilled craftsman” (some translations call it a master worker) being besides Yahweh Elohim. This in no way states that Yahshua was in Elohim Yahweh’s plan only until he was born as a human being. Indeed this account clearly shows that Yahshua existed before in heaven albeit in a different role/position as he did on the earth.

Gospel of John vividly describes Yahshua Messiah’s pre-existence in heaven in many verses. Consider the following:
John 1:1 states:
“In the beginning was the Word,[a] and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created.
Here the Greek word for "Word" is "Logos" which is referred to Yahsuah Messiah. Verse 2 shows that Yahsuah was with Yahweh at the beginning and verse 3 further states that Yahshua created all things. Does this look like Yahshua only existed in Yahweh’s plan? No, he was the executioner and the fulfiller of Yahweh’s plan.

John 3:13 states:
“13 No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man.[a]”
In his gospel Apostle John does not beat around the bush. He plainly states that the Son of Man descended from heaven. Does that look like Yahshua only existing in Yahweh’s plan? Far from it. He was alive in heaven.

John 6:38, 62 states:
38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 62 Then what if you were to observe the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
Did Yahshua simply exist in Yahweh’s plan? Far from it. Yahshua directly says that he came down from heaven. Are we going to deny the words of Jesus and claim that he was only in Yahweh’s plan? Is this what the Bible teaches?

John 8:38 states:
“38 I speak what I have seen in the presence of the Father;[a] therefore, you do what you have heard from your father.”
Ask yourself a question, can Yahshua Messiah have seen in the presence of the Father if he never existed in the heaven. Not at all. In fact even contrary, he was alive there in heaven and witnessed many things his father Yahweh had done, and he was speaking about them.

John 17:5 states:
“5 Now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with that glory I had with You before the world existed.”
Now ask yourself a question, can Jesus have said that he had a glory with Yahweh before the world’s existence if Yahshua did not exist in heaven with his father Yahweh? Of course he could not!

Apostle John was not the only apostle who spoke about pre-existence of Yahshua Messiah. Apostle Paul did as well. Consider some of his accounts.

Colossians 1:15-18 states:
“15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.[i]
16 For everything was created by Him, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and by Him all things hold together.”

In this account in Colossians apostle Paul talks about the Yahshua Messiah. Notice that Paul emphasizes that everything was created by Him in heaven and on earth. He further states, “all things have been created through Him and for Him.” This is a direct acknowledgement from Paul that Yahshua Messiah was Yahweh’s master worker and Paul rightfully gives credit to Yahshua for creating everything. This account in no way states that Yahshua was in Elohim Yahweh’s plan only. Indeed, Yahshua Messiah was alive in heaven and had a very important job to do delegated to him by Yahweh. This job was to create all things in heaven and on the earth.

However, was creating things the only responsibility delegated to him by Yahweh Elohim? Far from it. Yahweh used him for many other things.

Yahweh used Yahshua Messiah to lead the nation of Israel out of Egypt into the promised land. Notice what Exodus 23:20-21 state:
20 “I am going to send an angel before you to protect you on the way and bring you to the place I have prepared. 21 Be attentive to him and listen to his voice. Do not defy[i] him, because he will not forgive your acts of rebellion, for My name is in him.”

From this account we can clearly see that Yahweh used an angel to lead nation of Israel out of Egypt and into the promised land. However, how do we know it is referring to Yahshua Messiah? The answer is very simple. The latter part of verse 21 states that “my name is in him.” From the account of Matthew 1:21 we know that Yashua’s name means "Yahweh is Salvation".

In the Galatians 4:14 Apostle Paul refers to Jesus Christ as an Angel of God:

“14 You did not despise or reject me though my physical condition was a trial for you.[d] On the contrary, you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.”

This fact that Yahshua was alive in heaven and he was the one leading the nation of Israel out of Egypt and into the promised land is further confirmed by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4:

“10 Now I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ.”

This account clearly states that “they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ.” This clearly means that Yahweh delegated the responsibility to lead the nation of Israel out of Egypt to promised land to Yashua Messiah. We absolutely cannot simply say that Yahshua was simply in Yahweh’s plan and ignore all the facts given to us in the Bible.

The writer of Hebrews account further acknowledges that Yahshua Messiah existed in heaven and created the universe in Hebrews 1:2:
“2 In these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son. God has appointed Him heir of all things and made the universe[a] through Him.”

Hebrews 1:2 latter part of it clearly states that Yahweh “made the universe[a] through Him” referring to Yahshua Messiah. Nowhere does this verse state that Yahshua Messiah only existed in Yahweh’s plan before he was created as a human being on this earth.

In revelation 3:14 Yahshua Messiah says:
14 “Write to the angel of the church in Laodicea: “The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning[a] of God’s creation says:”

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines the word beginning as Arche (ar-khay) and the primary meaning is beginning of origin. So we see that Yahshua Messiah had a beginning, the first created person in the universe in heaven by his father Yahweh. This directly contradicts the teaching of 21st Century reformation movement that Yeshuah was in Yahweh’s plan only before being born as a human being.

Remember, Yahweh Elohim is Almighty (El Shaddai) Father above all. He created everything including Yahsuah Messiah and called him the only begotten Son. This son and our Lord Yahshua Messiah is a spirit person in the position higher than all other spirit beings (including angels) in the heaven. Yahweh used him to create the entire universe including us. Yahshua's position is at the right hand of Yahweh never equal to him but still the highest position after Yahweh.

We have learned from the above Bible accounts that Yahshua Messiah existed in heaven before. We further learned that Yahshua had a very important role in Yahweh’s plan for mankind’s salvation. He was Yahweh’s word or Logos / spokesman. Yahweh used Yahshua Messiah as his master worker to create everything. He further used Yahshua Messhiah to lead the nation of Israel out of Egypt and into the promised land.

Therefore, as Christians we must make sure that we teach the Bible truths and give credit to our Lord Yahshua Messiah for all his hard work in heaven and earth to bring mankind into salvation.
Show less

REPLY

View 13 replies
- Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-20 17:12:27
  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?
  - Reply by unitingservantsofmosthighgod on 2021-01-24 14:18:15
    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) to the “forming” of the heavens (Genesis 14:19) and the “begetting” of a son, (Deuteronomy 32:6);…”
    
    Did you notice that possessed me refers to Hebrew qānah which Elliot says refers to form in of the heavens and begetting of a son? Rather than blindly follow the 21st Century moment that this only applies to the wisdom, an astute Bible reader will carefully examine the scripture and meditate on this proverb. Specifically, does wisdom apply to animate subject? Please stop and think about this for a second rather than blindly following the crowd. Proverbs 8:22 says: “22 The Lord made[d] me at the beginning of His creation,[e] before His works of long ago.” Can LORD Yahweh make his own wisdom? No, the wisdom is simply an inanimate quality of the person and nothing else. Listen how ridiculous this sounds according to 21st Century Restoration Movement: “The Lord made[d] me, i.e his wisdom at the beginning of His creation. This is utter none sense and those blindly following this teaching are being mislead!
    
    My best to you.
    - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-24 14:26:02
      Thank you for contributing this thoughtful analysis.
  - Reply by Fani on 2021-01-21 02:43:17
    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 depuis toujours puisque Dieu la possède depuis toujours.
    
    Je crois qu'à ce stade tout le monde reste sur ses positions.
    Chacun interprète et retiens les versets qui lui conviennent.
    
    J'espère que ces différences de compréhension ne nous diviseront pas.
    Satan aurait atteint son but.
    
    Aluthia, je ne partage pas votre compréhension sur la non preexistance du Christ mais dans vos arguments bibliques j'ai découvert des idées que je n'avais pas vues.
    J'apprécie très souvent vos commentaires.
    Prions pour que Christ nous éclaire et nous préserve.
    
    Votre sœur Nicole
    - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-21 08:11:12
      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.
  - Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-21 05:13:35
    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
- Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 06:45:01
  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.

Comment by Alithia on 2021-01-20 04:49:27
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 heaven, that you should say, who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?

Here, the Jewish idiom of ascending to heaven, is to have an audience with God and hear his commandments and his word. The writer of Deuteronomy here is saying you need not think of who is going to go up to heaven to hear and bring down is God’s word as we have it right here for ourselves in written form!

Psalms 0ne hundred and 39 verse 6 to 8 says; such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is too high, I cannot attain to it. Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you were there; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, you are there.

Again Jewish idiom, this time with regard to the wonderful knowledge as possessed by our Creator God as being too high! To attain it one would need to ascend to heaven! Jesus did not physically ascend to heaven yet in the Jewish sense and idiom he had access to God and his word that was wonderful and was trying to share it with the Jewish people. Compare Romans chapter 10 verse six and seven. And if you are stuck on the pre-existence of Jesus question, give regard to verse seven carefully. And then consider verse eight and nine. Case closed!

Provewrbs chapter 30 with particular attention to verse four. In verse two it says; surely I am more stupid that any man and I do not have the understanding of a man, neither have I learned wisdom nor do I have the knowledge of the holy one. In verse four he asks; who has ascended into heaven and descended?

Again a Jewish idiom! Who has the knowledge of the holy one he asks? To have this knowledge one must be able to ascend and descend and prove that they have this knowledge!
It is a Jewish idiom considering that God is so far up above us that if we wanted the level of knowledge and understanding and wisdom that God has it is unattainable for us.
And that’s why Jesus was able to say I have ascended and descended from the father! He has the wisdoms and the sayings of Jehovah God the wisdom and knowledge that every Jewish man wished he had but realised it was unattainable because they could not “ascend” to God and have this conversation that they so dearly desired to have. It was simply an expression that every Jew would understand including an infant! But not a 21st-century Westerner infant. Or it would seem a very mature adult!

That’s why John said at John chapter 3 verse 13 that no man has ascended into heaven! He was distinguishing Jesus as the one who had “ascended into heaven” or rather in terms we understand in our Western 2021 minds; had this knowledge and the word of God that we needed to listen to.

There are many many more verses where this Jewish idiom with regard to having access to heavenly knowledge is used; ascending and descending from heaven. Please consider these Scriptures and disregard the notion that a 21st-century Westerner reading of Scripture is sufficient when considering writings that are rich in Jewish idiom.
- Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-20 06:03:55
  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

Comment by Alithia on 2021-01-20 06:14:14
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

εἰκών, -όνος (cf. ἔοικα),

[in LXX chiefly for צֶלֶם ;]

an image, likeness: Refs; opp. to σκιά, Heb.10:1; of man, εἰ. θεοῦ, 1 Co 11:7; of the regenerate, εἰ. τ. θεοῦ Col.3:10 (see Lft., in l.); εἰ. τ. υἱοῦ τ. θεοῦ, Refs; of Christ, εἰ. τ. θεοῦ, Refs.† SYN.: ὁμοίωμα, denoting resemblance, which may however be merely accidental. εἰ. is a derived likeness and like the head on a coin or the parental likeness in a child, implies an archetype. Cf. also εἶδος, appearance, not necessarily based on reality; σκιά, a shadowed resemblance; χαρακτήρ, the impress of a stamp; μόρφη (which see), the form as indicative of the inner being.

(AS)

Thayer:

1) an image, figure, likeness

1a) an image of the things (the heavenly things)

1a1) used of the moral likeness of renewed men to God

1a2) the image of the Son of God, into which true Christians are transformed, is likeness not only to the heavenly body, but also to the most holy and blessed state of mind, which Christ possesses

1b) the image of one

1b1) one in whom the likeness of any one is seen

1b2) applied to man on account of his power of command

1b3) to Christ on account of his divine nature and absolute moral excellence

Trench's New Testament Synonyms

Image

Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

Image

εἰκών

eikōn

i-kone'

From G1503; a likeness, that is, (literally) statue, profile, or (figuratively) representation, resemblance

It would seem from the above our "infant" as portrayed by Eric would have the literacy, literary and academic linguistic skills that encompass ancient Greek, and the ability to translate accurately into contemporary English along with an understanding of the Jewish and Greek uses of the word morphe and tse-lem in a religious spiritual context! I think you have mis-applied the illustration Eric in this case.
And any blind Tom, Dick or Harry (to use another analogy and Western idiom) can see there is more going on here that simply a prima facia reading of the text!

Love to all from Alithia

Comment by Alithia on 2021-01-20 06:14:58
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?
- Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-22 18:27:01
  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
- Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-22 18:32:54
  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
  - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-23 09:27:33
    There are many flaws in Buzzard's reasoning which I will endeavour to point out in due time.
    - Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 06:43:03
      We look forward to your response and would like to invite you to an online debate, anytime.
      
      carlos@thehumanjesus.org
      - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 07:14:47
        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.

Comment by Nightingale on 2021-01-20 06:27:27
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 side to prove that! He is the same man who was brutally murdered a few days ago. So glad that he's back alive now!

Then this child might go on reading and continue to Acts where Peter repeats what happened. In Acts 2:20 he begins to talk about Jesus and how he was killed. However his "flesh resided in hope", "his flesh didn't see corruption" and he was brought back to life: "This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses."

Again a child would make the same conclusion. The same Jesus, "this Jesus" was brought back to life.

But those who support the pre-existence don't agree with this. They say it actually was a spirit who just took form of the human Jesus, who "materialized". Try to explain that to a child and you will see what a confused face looks like. After a while you would likely hear a question: "But didn't he cheat them then? Those holes were not real then?"

So if certain statements about where Jesus supposedly was before or came from are so simple and easy that even a child would understand them, why can't the same be said about verses that talk about Jesus after his resurrection?
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 09:07:18
  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?

Comment by Frankie on 2021-01-20 10:06:45
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 not disintegrate.

If a child has a confused look because I have ESV and the word "corruption" is used there, then it is an opportunity for me to explain how to use the Bible and show him/her the importance of context. In Acts 2: 27,31; 13:35 the word "corruption" is used in the context of the grave where the body is left. And the body, if left in the grave, will decay over time, so it will be corrupted. But since Jesus did not stay in the tomb for a long time, his body was not damaged in this way. And I will show him/her that the whole Bible forms a harmonious whole and that Peter quotes the Psalm 16:10:
"For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption”, where is the same context - leaving in the grave and decay. Any questions, honey?

The issue will be quickly resolved by simple, plain words that are understandable even to child. There is no need to intricately clarify the meaning of Greek word "diaphthoran” (Strong 1312) - Destruction, decay, corruption (in this order). From diaphtheiro; decay. I don't even need to quote a very good comment from the Biblehub:

"To see corruption is to experience it, to be made partakers of it. The Hebrews often expressed the idea of experiencing anything by the use of words pertaining to the senses, as, to taste of death, to see death, etc. Corruption here means putrefaction in the grave. The word which is used in the Psalm, "shachath”, is thus used in Job 17:14, "I have said to corruption, thou art my father," etc. The Greek word used here properly denotes this. Thus, it is used in Acts 13:34-37. This meaning would be properly suggested by the Hebrew word, and thus the ancient versions understood it. The meaning implied in the expression is, that he of whom the Psalm was written should be restored to life again; and this meaning Peter proceeds to show that the words must have.” (Barnes' notes)

Therefore I consider it very important what Eric wrote and what Jesus said:
”I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;” (Matt 11:25, ESV)

Yes, God's things are not revealed to wise scholars, but to little children in simple, plain words that will be passed to them by their parents. Are these words from Jesus' mouth too hard? I don't think so, Jesus is right!

It is possible to list dozens of presumable contradictions in Bible and discuss them endlessly. But it's not productive. Because by constantly discussing and philosophizing about the details, we deprive ourselves of the joy of hope that Jehovah gives us through his beloved Son. So that we don't see the forest because of the trees.

Let's just listen to what Jesus tells us and imitate him. Let us read the Bible as a little child reads it (Matt. 18:3). Let us rejoice in it, we have reason to rejoice (Phil. 4:4). For we already know all the essentials — for we have an anointing from Jehovah and we know everything (1 John 2:20).

I have also spent a lot of time studying the Bible and other related things. And I have had many debates, from predestination to the construction details of Noah's Ark. But the further I delve into the details, the more I come to the profound meaning of Jesus' words in Matt 11:25 (and at the beginning I had reservations about this verse).
Everything takes time. If I don't understand something, I'll put it aside. If it is important to me, I ask Jehovah for wisdom - and most of such issues are resolved now. If I see an error in the Bible, than I see the error in myself. I am not given to understand everything now (John 16:12), but one day I will understand everything (1 Cor 13:12). And I have no problem to say "I don't know".

Well, Alithia believes that Jesus wasn't in heaven before birth. OK. I believe He is from God and literally has seen his Father who sent him to Earth (John 6:46). OK? But I think, I believe, that Alithia and Frankie love each other and we both will have opportunity to personally ask our Lord about this "important issue". I don't think that then, sitting together with Jesus, this issue will be so important :-)

Brothers and sisters, rejoice! And I will rejoice with all of you.
Frankie
- Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-21 06:11:32
  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
  - Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-22 13:20:36
    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 sent him to Earth to save His sinful children. He sent his child, whom he loved from the beginning of creation. Imagine that. Imagine sending your beloved child to save sinners on the other side of the world and watching his torture. How did Jehovah feel? If you have children, you can imagine that. Without Jesus' pre-human existence, we would never fully appreciate this.
    
    Moreover, without Jesus' pre-human existence, the Parable of the Tenants (Matt 21: 33-41), in which Jesus describes his mission, would not make sense. Because the owner of the vineyard sent his son, whom he loved even before his arrival in the vineyard.
    
    If I denied all this now, I would dishonor my beloved Lord, His true nature and His uniqueness and the magnificence of Jehovah's salvation. And I don't want that! That's why the quotes shouldn't have been there, and that's why I'm convinced that Jesus' pre-human existence is important thing.
    However, in God's Kingdom, all doubts, even about this matter, will disappear, and everything will be clear.
    
    And I don't condemn those who have a different state of knowledge than I have. I have no right to do so and I don't even want to.
    Love to all picketers. Frankie

Comment by bereanthinker1 on 2021-01-20 14:26:05
"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 coming of my soon to be child. A parent eagerly awaiting the arrival(coming) of child, the Israelites awaiting the coming of the Messiah, Christians excitedly looking forward to the coming resurrection. These are things in non existence, for now, COMING into existence.
That said your argument on Philippians 2 passage bears much weight for me and I continue to seek the wisdom of my risen Lord on this matter. If I even have to shelf it for a time so be it, however as questions arise for me I may return to this thread from time to time. And so for those who are certain on pre-exsistence please do not think I am throwing "gotcha" questions and vice-versa.
- Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-22 13:32:37
  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 come”:
  Strong 2064 - erchomenon - to come, go; elelythota - to come, go. The basic meaning with these words is dynamic action, moving of some person here and there. This would indicate Jesus' coming to earth from heaven.
  
  To be honest, these words can also be interpreted in sense of action, when something is happened or in figurative way - "the right time will come” or in case of birth "the child came to us” (although the child was brought home from maternity by parents :-) ). But more common understanding is the change of position, form one place to another one, as we see from texts in Matt 3:7, John 1:29 or Heb 6:7 and in many others verses where the same words are used.
  
  In Galatians 4:4 "to send” is used: - Strong 1821 - exapesteilen - to send forth or away. Here it is much more evident that this word means change of place (from -> to), e.g. to send away, or send forth (a person qualified for a task, e.g. messenger or envoy). The same word is used also in Luke 20:11 and in Acts 7:12, 11:22, 22:21 with change of place meaning.
  
  And finally, I think that following verse is the most evident:
  "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)
  
  Here, Jesus tells disciples about His mission. Jesus as a real person speaks of Himself here. I was with the Father (the Father in heaven) and I came to Earth. And now I return to the Father (who is in heaven). I think, here is described the moving of Jesus, as a real person, from one place to another place. But I know about this moving technicalities quite nothing.
  
  The flesh
  -----------
  The word "flesh" also appears in the above verses, and it is likely that John warned (1 John 4: 2, 2 John 1: 7) of heretically dangerous views as you wrote: "Johns point is Jesus was not a spirit masquerading as a human.” Also Vox Ratio wrote below about this and he mentioned Cerinthus. OK.
  But I will try to show another look regarding "things in non existence, for now, COMING into existence" as you responded to Eric.
  
  If a child is born, it is clear to everyone that the child was born "in flesh" as a physical person, but this is not mentioned because it wouldn't make sense. All children are born "in flesh”. If you would say, "My son was born in flesh" - that would be ridiculous, and maybe right away you would get the question: "OK, and in what form was he supposed to be born?".
  
  Nevertheless, John emphasized in his letters that Jesus came in flesh. Why? Was it not because Jesus came from somewhere where he was not in the flesh? This assumption would be consistent with John 16:28 in terms of the moving of a particular person.
  
  God bless you. Frankie
  - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-22 13:45:49
    Thank you for this reasoning, Frankie.
  - Reply by bereanthinker1 on 2021-01-25 20:59:06
    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 a presupposition handed down from the tradition of our former denomination and laying it on top of that verse, in doing so missing the whole "ask and you shall receive."
    
    21For since death came by a man, the resurrection of the dead also came by a man.
    22For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
    23But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then those who are Christ’s, at his coming.
    24Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to his God and Father, after he brings to an end every ruler and all authority and power. -1 Corinthians 15
    
    What kind of whackadoo understanding would develop applying this stretch of the common sense understanding of the word "come" if you did that here?
    
    "If a child is born, it is clear to everyone that the child was born “in flesh” as a physical person, but this is not mentioned because it wouldn’t make sense."
    Absolutely in a normal circumstance, but when John and Paul specifically write things to push back against the gnostic notion that Jesus was an angel or spirit creature "masquerading as a human" them it becomes necessary to point this out. And here is where my cognitive dissonance kicks in. . .
    
    If we believe Jesus was a previously nameless creator God for untold time with the Father prior to his coming to Earth. This IS the gnostic belief with a slight of hand, we would just think his consciousness was trapped in a human avatar of flesh for 33 years (or less depending on when the body of the man Jesus received the Logos consciousness.) And now we are down the first step the Logos theorists took that sent the trinty into development. You have a "God who wrapped himself in flesh" and the beginning of a two natures problem.
    - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 22:40:25
      .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 death. To try to get us to believe that is to assume we are stupid. If I say John came calling you know I'm talking about a literal person. If I say death came calling, you know I'm not talking about a literal person.
      
      You say, "if a child is born, it is clear to everyone that the child was born "in flesh". Yes, but you would never say a child came in the flesh. Because to come in the flesh indicates that he existed somewhere else first because you cannot come unless you are in one place and then move to another.
      
      John and Paul didn't write lies to push back against the Gnostic notion. They spoke plain truth. I think you are so afraid of the Trinity doctrine that you let it get in the way of truth and a real understanding of the nature of Jesus and his real relationship with the father.
      - Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 22:50:22
        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?
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-26 07:25:35
        "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 to the wrong conclusion.
        
        A child will often not understand something, but instead of jumping to his own conclusion will go to his parents for clarification and advice. A child will humbly and readily believe what his mother and father tells him. I'm speaking of young children here because we all know what happens when they reach a certain age and think they know all there is to know about the universe.
        
        The disciples were like the young children in this instance because they stayed with him and waited for clarification of his words.
        Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-26 07:59:16
        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 understand Jesus' other teachings in the same chapter like “unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man"!
        
        The fact is that the ones acting like children are the enemies of Jesus, who take everything literally.
        But you're right, if they had only accepted him as the human, son of man promised Messiah and submitted to his teaching.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-26 08:11:55
        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 fully without changing the subject, altering the thought flow, and engaging in distracting innuendo, then we can continue this discussion. This has not been the case here and you've provided a lovely written record of just why I declined to debate you live.
        Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-26 08:44:28
        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.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-26 09:44:58
        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?
        Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-26 17:59:22
        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?
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-26 22:12:04
        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 you have that?"
        
        Now if your purpose is to arrive at Bible truth in a respectful dialogue, then answer the question. Otherwise, I will take it that you are merely here to bring another teaching of "another Christ".
        Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-26 22:47:11
        “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.”
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-27 05:24:06
        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 interpretation, then we become teachers in the manner that Jesus condemned at Matthew 23:8. On this forum, we don't rely on assumptions and personal interpretations to establish truth.
        
        We're at about 150 comments already. I have given you and your friends ample opportunity to make your case. You haven't been able to do so, and I think we've reached the "flogging a dead horse" stage of the argument.
        
        If you want to preach Socinianism, there are other platforms and forums that will welcome you. I hold you in no ill will.
        Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-27 05:48:14
        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!
      - Reply by bereanthinker1 on 2021-01-26 10:01:32
        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 quoted a series of bible verses that uses come/came/coming the most times in a short period I could find. I offered no interpretation either. . .
        
        Again yes you would absolutely say the Messiah came in the flesh, when others of the time were falsely claiming the Messiah came as a god or angel, and you are specifically refuting that.
        
        Can I ask at what point do you believe that the consciousness of the Logos was put into the body of Jesus?
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-26 11:27:11
        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.
        Reply by bereanthinker1 on 2021-01-26 11:56:26
        I think you may be mixing me up with another commenter, you asked me no question in your reply.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-26 21:52:25
        You're right. Sorry about that. I got mixed up handling so many threads at oncee.
      - Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-26 17:44:05
        Agree Eric, playing with words. Thank you, you answered some things instead of me.
        Frankie.
    - Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-26 17:43:40
      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
      - Reply by bereanthinker1 on 2021-01-29 08:33:35
        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 ;)
        Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-30 16:58:38
        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 you're in a bad mood? I think you are berean thinker and not the master-of-rhetoric thinker. You see, I can be ironic too, but it's not nice at all. And please don't make me angry, because I want to be cheerful :-)
        
        Your brother Frankie.

Comment by Chez on 2021-01-22 18:46:38
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
- Reply by Jerome on 2021-01-23 00:02:46
  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. I hope Eric does not get drawn into a debate with him as it's unnecessary.
  - Reply by Chez on 2021-01-23 04:23:26
    Yes Jerome, I would tend to agree..
  - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-23 09:38:26
    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.
    - Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-23 21:24:15
      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?
      - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-24 10:00:46
        That is incorrect. John 1:18 speaks about the only begotten god.
        Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 06:41:02
        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."
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 07:10:09
        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.
        Reply by Lori Jane on 2021-01-25 07:59:18
        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.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 08:03:21
        Were not the many scriptures in my video enough proof of that?
        Reply by Lori Jane on 2021-01-25 08:45:42
        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.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 09:22:20
        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 in you which was also in Christ Jesus:
        6Who, existing in the form of God,
        did not consider to be equal with God something to be grasped,
        7but emptied Himself,
        having taken the form of a servant,
        having been made in the likeness of men." (BLB)
        
        If I exist in the form of a human, then I am a human. If I were to exist in the form of an angel, then I would be an angel.
        
        Someone tried to play a semantic trick by linking "form" with "image". They are not the same.
        
        For example, both humans and angels are made in the image of God. The logic that produces is pretty straightforward and obvious. For example, if Eve was made in God's image and the angel Gabriel was made in God's image then each one is the image of the other. I.e., if A=B, and A=C, then B=C.
        
        If someone carves an image of me out of butter, and someone else carves an identical image of me out of ivory, both look alike yet they are made of totally different substances.
        
        No one would suggest that humans and angels are the same form of being. Our forms are different. So since Jesus existed in the form of God and emptied himself and took on a new form, the form of a human, then there is evidence that he was made or begotten by God and was of God's nature or form. A truly unique being. The only created or begotten God. All others were created in a different form, be they angels or humans, and while we might refer to humans and angels – indeed the Bible does – as gods, that is obviously in a relative sense. We are not attributing their godhood to their nature but rather to the status they assume or are granted.
        Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 09:04:21
        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 his blood in the same chapter, regarding the same topic/issue?
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 09:33:33
        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 which no one can change. Therefore anything John says, as well as Paul in Philippians, must be disregarded as pointing to anything other than a sole human origin.
        
        The release or revelation of truth is progressive. As we look through the Bible we see that clearly. Jesus talked about the sacred secret which he revealed but which had been hidden for eons. Even now, there are many things hidden from us. Paul speaks of us looking through a fog by means of a metal mirror. Matthew and Mark were written for Jews before the destruction of their city. Luke, it appears, was written for Paul's defense before the court of Rome. Up to that point Christianity was heavily influenced by Judaism.
        
        When John wrote his gospel many years had passed following the eradication of the nation of Israel. Christianity was now largely Gentile. Gentiles did not have a messianic tradition. Likewise Gnosticism was pervasive among the congregations. Paul hated Gnosticism and fought against it. John likewise. So the revelations would be for their new and larger audience and to counter growing demonic influences.
        
        Are you trying to get me to disregard the writings of Paul and John so that I have no argument against your reasoning?
        Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-25 20:39:28
        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 same is said about us Christians
        Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-25 20:55:07
        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!
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 22:26:52
        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 this forum to preach your deceptions would seem to me to be a violation of the very thing I believe John is telling us to avoid. If you feel I am being unfair, you can email me directly at meleti.vivlon@gmail.com
        Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 22:40:21
        Good thing you taught us not to listen to man’s opinions.
        ???
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 22:45:24
        It was all for naught, however, because you're still doing it, aren't you? Just eating up everything Anthony Buzzard says.
        Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-26 00:48:40
        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
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-26 07:13:13
        Of course, I understand. Trinitarians would say the same thing. Jehovah's Witnesses, likewise. It's up to each one to decide.
        Reply by Lori Jane on 2021-01-25 07:18:31
        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 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 story behind this reading.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 07:41:48
        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 strong; while the far larger group of MSS. which have ‘Son’ for ‘God’ is comparatively weak, for the same group of MSS. might be quoted in defence of a multitude of readings which no one would think of adopting. Again, the revised Syriac, which is among the minority of versions that support ‘God,’ is here of special weight, because it agrees with MSS. from which it usually differs. We conclude, therefore, that the very unusual expression ‘only-begotten God’ is the true reading, which has been changed to the usual ‘only-begotten Son,’ a change which in an old Greek MS. would involve the alteration of only a single letter. Both readings can be traced up to the second century, which again is evidence that the Gospel was written in the first century. Such differences take time to spread themselves widely. See on John 1:13 and John 9:35."
        
        You write: "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 story behind this reading."
        
        Having come from a religion where men make categorical statements to be taken as undeniable truth, I think all of us on this web forum are particularly sensitive to similar categorical statements coming from others. I'm not sure about your reference to the five-member committee unless you're referring to the watchtower Bible and tract Society's publication of the New World translation. But that hardly stands alone in supporting this rendering. Here are just a few other Bibles that all render John 1:18 as "only begotten God".
        
        BSB
        NASB 1977
        NASB 1995
        Amplified Bible
        Literal Standard Version
        Reply by Lori Jane on 2021-01-25 08:14:06
        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 since this particular scripture has various expert opinions that could support both positions can't we find another scripture to support your position that Jesus pre-existed as a god? Especially since you feel opposing opinion holders are anti-christ?
      - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-24 10:01:46
        "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.
        Reply by Lori Jane on 2021-01-25 08:17:55
        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.
        Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-25 20:44:15
        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?
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 22:22:05
        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.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-26 22:05:21
        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.
        Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 09:22:48
        Just to confirm, it sounds like you are saying the Son did not say or do anything recorded in the OT?
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 09:35:51
        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?

Comment by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-23 21:19:35
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?
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-24 10:00:14
  god
  - Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 06:34:54
    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?
    - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 06:59:52
      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?
      - Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 08:57:48
        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.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 09:08:20
        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 the same form as their fellows, they do not all shared the same status. Jehovah is unique, but he begat the word in his form.
        
        This is the point being made by Philippians 2:5-7
        
        "5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:
        6Who, existing in the form of God,
        did not consider to be equal with God something to be grasped,
        7but emptied Himself,
        having taken the form of a servant,
        having been made in the likeness of men." (BLB)
        
        Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 10:37:43
        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.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 17:49:12
        You see, that is an excellent example of a human opinion presented as Bible fact. I'm off to Starbucks.
        Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 19:09:48
        What did you mean by Jehovah “begat the word in his form”?
        What scripture are you referring to here?
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 19:48:00
        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?
        Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 19:53:41
        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”?
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 20:02:43
        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.

Comment by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 06:54:11
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 overshadow you. For that reason he who shall be begotten (procreated) in you shall be holy and will be called the Son of God.”

The Apostle John alludes to the virgin birth when he says that “the one begotten (again, procreated) by God” protects the believer in 1 John 5:18!
And of course by John’s repeated reference to Jesus as “the only-begotten Son (monogenes huios).”

These Greek words monogenes, genesis, are related to another Greek word gennao which means “to generate, produce” or simply “to procreate.”
Hence, why we should dispense with the old, antiquated KJ word "begotten" and adopt "procreation" language. Even though in English the dictionary meaning of the word beget still means:
“To cause something to come into existence, primarily through procreation.”

A Jesus who is said to have “noiselessly and gently entered into the Virgin's womb” (John Chrysostom); or that Mary “received...into her virginal and fragrant bridal chamber" (St. Theodosius); is simply "another Jesus" (as Paul warns).

The noted German historian Adolf Harnack rightly asked if preexistence doctrine was “another remnant of the old Gnostic leaven.
We must describe it as the strenuous effort of Stoic Platonism to obtain a supremacy in the theology of the Church.
[A] displacement of the historical [Jesus] by the pre-existent Christ, of the Christ of reality by the Christ of [the CFs’] thought.
When the Logos Christology obtained a complete victory [by force, btw], the traditional view of the Supreme Deity as one person, and, along with this, every thought of the real and complete human personality of the Redeemer was in fact condemned as being intolerable in the Church.
Its place was taken by the nature [of Christ], which without the person is simply a cipher [i.e., a zero, a nothing]."

thehumanjesus.org
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 07:25:18
  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 and continue to believe. However, I see no reason to disbelieve the possibility that God could transform the essence of his only begotten son, logos, from the form he had in heaven into the form of a human, abandoning all his previous form and assuming now a new form. I believe that is exactly what is described at Philippians 2:5-7.
  
  So all the Scriptures that you care to quote in Matthew, Mark and Luke to support the idea Jesus was born as a human through the process of procreation are scriptures I accept. What I don't accept, based on what John tells us in later revelations, is that that was the beginning of the conscious existence of the being we now call Jesus.
  - Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 09:36:52
    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 individual.”
    
    Prince of church history, Adolf Harnack, agrees:
    “The miraculous coming into being of Christ in the virgin through the holy spirit and real preexistence of Christ mutually exclude each other.
    
    Pannenberg:
    “Jesus’ virginal birth stands in irreconcilable contradiction to the Christology of the Incarnation of the preexistent Son of God.”
    I look forward to your commentary regarding the language used by the virgin birth authors I.e., describing the origin, coming into existence of the Son.
    - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 09:51:26
      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.
      - Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 10:22:34
        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.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 17:46:09
        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
        Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 19:02:02
        Well, you know what they say, it’s like a cow’s opinion....moo. ?
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 19:49:15
        Right. As Joey would say, "It's a moo point."

Comment by Psalmbee on 2021-01-25 10:22:32
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)

Comment by Fani on 2021-01-26 06:13:06
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 possible à Christ de rivaliser avec Dieu, c'est qu'il fallait qu'il en ait les moyens donc au moins qu'il soit de la même nature. C'est seulement si il avait la même "Morphé" qu'il aurait pu chercher à être son égal.
Toute autre nature n'a aucun mérite de considérer Dieu comme supérieur parce que c'est une évidence. Il n'y a besoin d'aucune humilité pour un homme de reconnaître que Dieu est supérieur à lui.

Si on honore Christ parce qu'il n'a pas cherché à être l'égal de Dieu c'est parce que en sa nature de Dieu il aurait pu rivaliser lui seul avec Dieu son Père.

Philippiens 2 : 5-8 me paraît n'avoir aucun sens si Christ est juste né sur terre sans vie antérieure, vie semblable à celle du Père.
Ce que dit Paul ne contredit en rien ce que disent Mathieu et Marc.
Paul parle d'autre chose.

Que faire de Jean 6 : 62 (déjà cité dans la vidéo)
[62]Et si vous voyez le Fils de l`homme monter où il était AUPARAVANT ?...
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-26 07:34:31
  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 earth, he attributed miracles to his Father.
  
  Still less can a concept seek to be equal with God and empty itself of something or renounce something.
  
  If it was possible for Christ to compete with God, it was because he had to have the means so at least that he was of the same nature. It was only if he had the same "morphe" that he could have sought to be his equal.
  Any other nature has no merit in considering God as superior because it is obvious. There is no need of any humility for a man to recognize that God is superior to him.
  
  If we honor Christ because he did not seek to be equal with God, it is because in his nature of God he could have rivaled himself alone with God his Father.
  
  Philippians 2:5-8 seems to me to make no sense if Christ was just born on earth without previous life, life like that of the Father. What Paul says does not contradict what Matthew and Mark say. Paul is talking about something else.
  
  What to do with John 6:62 (already mentioned in the video) [62] And if you see the Son of Man going up to where he was BEFORE? ...

Comment by Fani on 2021-01-26 06:29:45
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
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-26 07:40:11
  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.

Comment by DanJW on 2021-01-26 08:25:19
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 the whole universe.”
Of course, a word may have different meanings in different contexts. A king literally reigns on a throne. However, the mere fact that the Bible says that “death reigned from the time of Adam” is not argument to interpret the literal reigning of a king IN LIGHT OF what Romans 5:14 says.
Likewise, the Bible says that the Jews received manna from heaven. Of course, no reasonable man would say that manna literally came down from heaven but understands the expression as a provision from God. However, when Jesus says “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man”, he obviously contrasts a literal ascending to, with a literal descending from heaven. To interpret ascending literally and descending metaphorically is to break the logic of the text.
The same is true with Paul’s words in Ephesians. Paul’s question “What does ‘he ascended’ mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions?” is misleading and has no force at all if Jesus was merely born here on earth, having no pre-existence. I mean, someone can ascend somewhere without necessarily having to descend first. So, Paul’s argument has no logic except he had in mind Jesus pre-existence because he adds: “He who DESCENDED is the very one who ASCENDED higher than all the heavens”. By “ascended” he meant the literal ascension of Jesus to heaven after which he gave the gifts to men. To be consistent, one has to understand “descended” in the same way, that is, Jesus pre-existed and descended from God to live as a human being.

Comment by Frankie on 2021-01-26 13:51:51
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 wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;” (Matt 11:25, ESV)

It is very nice verse. Jesus is saying here that learned wisdom is not needed to understand God's things. As we read the Bible, let us leave words to their natural meaning, whether literal or contextual. Jesus tells us which way to go while reading the Bible. The conclusions follow from the logic of things that can be understood even by a small child.

In the following, I'd like to mention four aspects of Jesus' pre-human existence: time, humility, movement, and body.

Aspect of time and humility
----------------------------------
Philippians 2:5-8 are key verses, and the aspect of humility is important in them. At the beginning of the chapter, Paul encourages Christians to be humble, as humble as Jesus.

Jesus humbled Himself by becoming human at birth. He humbled Himself (v. 8) and emptied Himself [or give up Himself] (v. 7). This humiliation was his own decision, so He had to make this decision before He was born. He took the form of a servant [or slave]", (v. 7). He could not have humbled Himself if He had not been higher before humiliation than after humiliation. Just before birth, He had to be higher in order to humble Himself at birth ("being found in human form," v. 8). So at the time of His birth, He gave up the glory He had with the Father "before the world was" (John 17:5).

Until His death, He was still in a lower (humble) state than before birth (Hebrews 2:9). After fulfilling the Father's will (John 6:38), He asks the Father to restore the previous glory He gave up when He came to earth as a man (John 17:5).

Aspect of time and move
------------------------------
Moreover, without Jesus' pre-human existence, the Parable of the Tenants (Matt 21:33-41), in which Jesus describes His mission, would not make sense.

The vineyard represents the nation of Israel. God was sending His servants to the tenants to get His fruit repeatedly. These servants represent God' prophets. God has been sending them for hundreds of years in the hope of redress. Finally He sent His beloved son to them, this son whom he already loved when He was sending his prophets (John 17:24), just like in this parable.

If this parable represents Jehovah and Jesus, then Jesus had to spend some time of mutual love with His Father before Jesus came to earth at His own decision as God' beloved Son.

I think that following verse is very evident:
"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)

Here, Jesus tells disciples about His mission in first person - I came from, I am leaving. Jesus as a real person speaks of Himself here. I was with my Father I came from (the Father in heaven) and I came to Earth. And now I return to the Father (who is in heaven). For me, here is described the moving of Jesus, as a real person, from one place to another place.

Both in the parable of Matt 21: 33-41 and in verse John 16:28 it is the movement of a particular person.
Came from - came into = FROM (Father) -> TO (Earth)
Leaving - going to = FROM (Earth) -> TO (Father)

The aspect of Jesus' coming in flesh
----------------------------------------------
Consider the words in 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7. Why did John speak of Jesus coming in flesh?
As Vox Ration commented - "Cerinthus taught that Jesus was made of flesh but that Christ was made of spirit.” OK. But John's words speak of the moment of birth, while Cerinthus says, "Christ was made of spirit" about 30 years after the birth of Jesus.

Since John's words refer to the birth of Jesus, and Cerinthus does not say that Jesus was "made of spirit" from the very birth, then I do not think now that John and Cerinthus are at odds with the moment of Jesus' birth.

But why did John say of Jesus that he came in the flesh, when it was clear to everyone that if someone was born, he/she would come in the flesh? It was clear to every Jew. It's ridiculous to say to someone, "My son was born in flesh." And how else?

So why did John emphasize such an obvious thing? I think that's because Jesus wasn't in the flesh before He was born. This was to be especially emphasized for those who did not believe that Jesus existed before in other form. And such people must have been in John's day.

Conclusion
--------------
Socinianism is strong doctrine, because without its acceptance or rejection you cannot join some religious organizations. Our extensive discussion is proof of its seriousness, which is why it is important to talk about it.

Decreasing the significance of Jesus' position before his coming to Earth (JW), and even denying his pre-human existence (socinianism) is a serious assertion. This dishonors Jesus' true nature and His uniqueness and His glory given to Him by His Father before the time existed. And it could happen to us that we deny the very purpose of creation:

"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.” (Colossians 1:16). Everything, absolutely everything, is created through Jesus and for him. It is important.

With respect to Matt 11:25, I love these Jesus' words:
"Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it" (Luke 18:17)
If we read the Bible, let us be as children to grasp simple, clear and strong God's message.
Sorry for long text.
Peace and love.
Frankie
- Reply by Adam on 2021-01-28 22:30:46
  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.

Comment by Adam on 2021-01-27 05:17:42
God: "I am love!"
Socinian: "You predestined the horrors of this world!"
- Reply by bereanthinker1 on 2021-01-27 10:45:01
  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:
  1. God’s foreknowledge does not cause you to act, rather he foreknows something because you are going to do it (Origen)
  2. Divine Timelessness: God is timeless. He timelessly exists. Any kind of change is impossible for God. God is outside of time. His knowledge is timeless as well (Boethius, Thomas Aquinas)
  3. Middle knowledge. God knows all necessary truths (like 2 + 2 = 4). He also knows all contingent truths b/c he knows what people will freely choose in any circumstances. (Luis de Molina, William Lane Craig)
  4. Determinism, no libertarian free will (Calvinism)
  5. Your free will changes past facts and changes God’s knowledge. Causation occurs from the future to the past or from the present to eternity
  6. It’s a mystery. God knows what I’m going to do and yet in the moment, I could have chosen otherwise and have free will. (Arminianism)
  7. The future does not yet exist. God knows everything that can happen and everything in the past and present, and everyone’s inclinations, and everything that he has planned to do. (Open Theism)
  - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-28 09:26:22
    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.
    - Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-28 09:53:29
      So how would you describe the Incarnation of the pre-human "god," i.e., metamorphosis, ceasing to exist?
      - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-28 20:58:56
        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.
        Reply by bereanthinker1 on 2021-01-29 08:24:02
        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"?
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-29 13:37:25
        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?
        Reply by bereanthinker1 on 2021-01-29 17:47:28
        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?
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-29 18:58:45
        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 him, but only that he himself was transformed from the form of God into the form of man.
        Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-30 04:31:17
        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. From then Jesus has been able to do God's will, teach, do miracles, and be fully aware of his pre-human position (John 17:5).
        Frankie
        Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-30 07:40:12
        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 of processes in heaven. So God used the terms we know very well. This is also the case of depicting the essence of Jehovah and his only-begotten Son and their relationship.
        
        I try to outline my understanding. We know terms "father" and "son", their relationship and their position in the family very well. And we know very well that their relationship should be based on sincere love. God tells us that the Father (Jehovah) and the Son (Word) have an ideal, perfect relationship, and their mutual love is perfect. And their mutual position in heaven is as the father and son have in the earthly family. The perfect unity is expressed with "I and Father are one" and "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father". However, the whole NT is full of expressions that could be compressed into one simple statement: "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).
        
        I use the father-son example. Imagine my father is carpenter, he loves me, and one day he comes to me and says, "Let us make a beautiful table and that table will be yours". And I ask: "How would we make it?" And then my father gave me all his instruments, all his knowledge and all his power to make this beautiful table. And I made it. And my father "saw that it was good."
        
        So that table was created through me, and by me, and for me (see Colossians 1:16). And my father made this table by my hands. Let's remember the word "unity".
        
        And now, somebody comes to us and starts to question the quality of created table. Who will answer? I know that my father is greater than me, he has supreme authority over whole household and so it will be right if he answers (except if he allows me to speak). And unless he himself entrusts me with the temporary (1 Cor 15:28) household management (Matt. 28:18), he will always speak.
        
        And now, what about Job?
        I can't list all roles that the Word had then in heaven. But the father-son relationship was preserved - Jesus never said of himself that he was God, that he was Jehovah. So who was talking with Job in Job 38? I think the YHWH (as we read in manuscripts), our heavenly Father, was talking with Job on account of His supremacy.
        
        I think, your alias "bereanthinker” is very fitting.
        God bless you.
        Frankie
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-30 08:52:02
        Very nicely explained, Frankie. Thank you.
        Reply by bereanthinker1 on 2021-01-31 13:24:07
        Very sensible explanation, thanks.
        Reply by Frankie on 2021-02-01 16:22:45
        Thank you my brother.
        God bless you.
        Reply by ZbigniewJan on 2021-01-31 18:05:54
        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 ".
        Pozdrawiam Erica, Frankie i Was wszystkich.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-01 11:04:08
        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, so I loved his father. The cause of everything.
        He was the best Being in the universe to implement God's plan to redeem people from sin in compliance with God's laws. The descent of a divine son to the level of a human son is a piece of cake for divine beings.
        Regards Eric, Frankie and all of you.

Comment by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-27 07:30:14
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
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-28 09:48:37
  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), went (22), went His way (1), went on their way (1), went their way (1).
  
  John 20:17 anabainó
  arise (1), ascend (2), ascended (7), ascending (3), came (7), climbed (1), climbs (1), come (4), comes (2), coming (3), entered (2), go (6), goes (1), going (6), gone (3), got (2), grew (1), grows (1), rises (1), started on our way up (1), went (25).
  - Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-28 11:03:15
    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.

Comment by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-29 13:42:56
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 Proverbs 8-9 describes “wisdom” as a woman beside God, with her companion “prudence.”
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-29 19:06:33
  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.

Comment by Ad_Lang on 2021-01-29 16:55:03
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 what it is. This is proven when looking at Satan's eager attempts to get humans involved in sexual immorality, especially in the context of idolatry. I couldn't think of a better way to insult Jehovah and Jesus alike, mocking the very thing most precious to them.
- Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-30 03:49:55
  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

Comment by safeguardyourheart on 2021-02-06 10:52:25
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 ON THOSE TEACHINGS CLEARLY AND PLAINLY STATED..............Ray Franz ISoCF page 712

Of greater seriousness to me, it illustrates why I cannot sympathize with those who take a JUDGMENTAL ATTITUDE TOWARD OTHERS BECAUSE SUCH ONES’ VIEW DOES NOT COINCIDE WITH THEIR OWN, WITH THOSE ON EACH SIDE OF THE ISSUE CATEGORICALLY DENYING THAT THOSE ON THE OTHER COULD POSSIBLY BE CHRISTIAN. I find it notable that, in contrast to the degree of moderation, caution and balance expressed by the sources already cited, often persons whose academic credentials are immensely inferior are among those most insistently dogmatic and judgmental on these same topics. I have no question that some of the arguments and reasonings they employ would be viewed as completely unworthy of consideration by those same scholarly sources. Whether we are learned or unlearned, I believe we must guard against DOGMATISM and JUDGMENTALISM, as indicative, not of wisdom and discernment, but of both smallness of mind and smallness of spirit and heart........Ray Franz page 712

A guide I use when going into topics that are highly debatable and don't go away easily.
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-06 13:01:30
  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.
  - Reply by safeguardyourheart on 2021-02-07 08:15:07
    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 am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 BUT WHAT DOES IT MATTER? THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT IN EVERY WAY, WHETHER FROM FALSE MOTIVES OR TRUE, CHRIST IS PREACHED. AND BECAUSE OF THIS I REJOICE.
    
    WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE TO DIFFERENTIATE TOLERANCE FROM LICENTIOUSNESS?
    
    It is the DEGREE to which we focus our attention on such things will help. Spiritual balance is key.
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-07 23:11:05
  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. :)
  - Reply by safeguardyourheart on 2021-02-08 14:57:09
    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.

Comment by safeguardyourheart on 2021-02-06 11:48:26
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
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-07 23:12:30
  How would you factor in 2 John 6-11 into this reasoning?
  - Reply by safeguardyourheart on 2021-02-08 15:38:42
    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 to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order"
    
    The heart of the existing order in this case as captured in 2 John 6-11 where your question comes from especially from verse 7,8 which equally relates to the topic has to do with JESUS COMING IN THE FLESH.
    
    Those that have posted comments and leaned towards SOCIANISM which I have read equally believed that CHRIST COME IN THE FLESH. I believed I read their words correctly. Grouping such ones under the CANOPY of ANTICHRIST because you feel they differ on things that touch the heart of the existing order will make they, you and I check and reexamine the the kind of freedom we have in Christ.
    - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-08 16:00:26
      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 you were born no one said you came in the flesh. Because to come in the flesh indicates an arrival from elsewhere. Socinian doctrine denies Jesus's divinity. I cannot see how denying the son of God his divinity can be seen as anything other than blasphemous.
      - Reply by safeguardyourheart on 2021-02-10 15:51:45
        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 antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
        
        The heart of the EXISTING ORDER........
        
        1. Verse 2 ACKNOWLEDGES JESUS COME IN THE FLESH is from God.
        
        2. The Verse 3 states anyone that does not ACKNOWLEDGED JESUS IS NOT FROM GOD.........THIS IS THE SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST.
        
        The question then becomes have those who BELIEVE IN SOCINIANISM states that JESUS IS NOT FROM GOD?
        
        This should not be a case of "they may say" or "playing with words".
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-12 08:21:17
        I have stated my reasoning, and you have stated yours. "Let the reader use discernment."

Examining Socinianism: The Belief that Jesus Did Not Exist Before His Birth as a Human.

Archived Comments

Comment by Adam on 2021-01-18 15:44:06

Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-19 00:38:37

Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-19 02:23:44

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-19 10:51:59

Reply by Nightingale on 2021-01-19 12:47:11

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-19 13:37:18

Reply by bereanthinker1 on 2021-01-19 16:46:54

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-19 20:06:21

Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-21 10:28:51

Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-19 16:47:57

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-19 18:39:53

Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-19 18:47:00

Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-20 02:35:47

Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-20 05:47:59

Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-20 07:08:52

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 08:38:52

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-19 19:28:23

Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-20 02:33:21

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 07:38:43

Reply by Nightingale on 2021-01-20 08:25:56

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 09:15:17

Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-19 17:54:16

Reply by Nightingale on 2021-01-20 08:09:35

Reply by Dan Adams on 2021-01-20 10:56:54

Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-20 11:24:17

Reply by Nightingale on 2021-01-20 14:22:30

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 15:08:11

Reply by Nightingale on 2021-01-20 15:55:12

Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-21 07:49:56

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-21 08:13:01

Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-19 18:26:05

Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-19 18:22:48

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-19 18:37:47

Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-20 05:16:42

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 08:59:46

Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-19 23:49:16

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 08:54:42

Reply by Adam on 2021-01-23 15:48:06

Comment by Frankie on 2021-01-17 17:05:18

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-18 07:00:49

Comment by Vox Ratio on 2021-01-19 20:25:24

Comment by Alithia on 2021-01-20 02:48:50

Reply by Fani on 2021-01-20 04:42:55

Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-20 06:34:31

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 08:57:54

Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-20 06:00:16

Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-20 06:58:44

Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-21 05:17:01

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 09:02:04

Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-21 05:33:15

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-21 08:18:58

Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-21 18:25:01

Comment by unitingservantsofmosthighgod on 2021-01-20 02:51:17

Reply by Alithia on 2021-01-20 17:12:27

Reply by unitingservantsofmosthighgod on 2021-01-24 14:18:15

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-24 14:26:02

Reply by Fani on 2021-01-21 02:43:17

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-21 08:11:12

Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-21 05:13:35

Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 06:45:01

Comment by Alithia on 2021-01-20 04:49:27

Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-20 06:03:55

Comment by Alithia on 2021-01-20 06:14:14

Comment by Alithia on 2021-01-20 06:14:58

Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-22 18:27:01

Reply by swaffi on 2021-01-22 18:32:54

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-23 09:27:33

Reply by thehumanjesus.org on 2021-01-25 06:43:03

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-25 07:14:47

Comment by Nightingale on 2021-01-20 06:27:27

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-20 09:07:18

Comment by Frankie on 2021-01-20 10:06:45

Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-21 06:11:32

Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-22 13:20:36

Comment by bereanthinker1 on 2021-01-20 14:26:05

Reply by Frankie on 2021-01-22 13:32:37

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-22 13:45:49

Reply by bereanthinker1 on 2021-01-25 20:59:06