The Pre-Existence of Jesus Christ

[Guest]

I am in agreement with Derek, so what is it you think I am believing that would not agree with Derek? In your way of thinking, it seems, you cannot come to the appreciation that God is Spirit comprised of 3, in total, personages but still only one God.

Allyn, if you agree with Derek, then I express my regrets for stating otherwise. It's just that what you wrote about "Christ as God" and Christ being the only God, are the things which I have read by believers in Oneness, rather than Trinitarians, and there is a distinct difference between the two views. I have, in the past, encountered several Oneness people who thought they were Trinitarians. Not knowing you well, I am not in a position to assess whether or not you are in that position. So again, I am sorry that I negated your statement of agreement with Derek with insufficient evidence for making such a statement.

Can I explain how this works in consideration of the Holy Spirit and Christ the Son? No, not with human eyes and only partly with my spiritual eyes. I am not afraid to take Gods greatness and personages by faith. Simply put, God shows Himself to us with explanations that a human can accept, even though many do not accept the explanation.

Yes, that's where Trinitarianism always ends. It is incomprehensible, and so it is relegated to the realm of the mysterious. It is not that the "many" to which you refer do not accept the Trinitarian explanation. There is nothing intelligible to accept.


Derek, there is no doubt that Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5 which speak of Christ being the first-born (prōtotokos) from the dead, refer to His ressurection. There is a great difference between being born and being begotten (gennaō). I realize that the latter word is sometimes translated as "born" as in John 3 "You must be 'born' again". However, if it were translated that way in Matthew 1:2 we would have "Abraham gave birth to Isaac; and Isaac gave birth to Jacob, etc."

First, you were begotten (or "generated") and about 9 months later you were born. So it is with our spiritual regeneration. We are generated when we submit to Christ and given the new life, and later when Christ comes, and we are "raised as a spiritual body", we are "born" into the new immortal life. Thus Christ is called "the first born of many brethren".

As for Psalm 2, I think it gives the whole ministry of the Messiah from his having been begotten by the Father before all ages, to His appearance on earth and the "kings of the earth coming against Him" to the time when He makes the nations and the ends of the earth His possession."

[Guest]

Paidion,

Derek, there is no doubt that Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5 which speak of Christ being the first-born (prōtotokos) from the dead, refer to His ressurection. There is a great difference between being born and being begotten (gennaō). I realize that the latter word is sometimes translated as "born" as in John 3 "You must be 'born' again".

Sorry. I thought I looked that up useing the Strongs number. I guess it was just the English word "begotten". You are correct.

First, you were begotten (or "generated") and about 9 months later you were born.

Though Jesus pre-existed, He was, in fact, "begotten" when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and was born, (presumably) around nine months later. Again, that the incarnate Christ is said to be begotten does not mean that it happened "before the ages".

As for Psalm 2, I think it give the whole ministry of the Messiah from his having been begotten by the Father before all ages, to His appearance on earth and the "kings of the earth coming against Him" to the time when He makes the nations and the ends of the earth His possession."

I don't know. It seems to make more sense to understand Psalm 2 as speaking of the resurection, but in Acts it seems more like the incarnation. Really, I could see it both ways. I'm undecided as of now. I realize, of course, that you disagree with both interpretations.

I do not see the doctrine that Christ was begotten before the ages taught anywhere in scripture, though it is an ancient belief. I respectfully disagree.

God bless,

[Guest]

Paidion - sorry for the continued confusion but I sincerely believe that God is one but in three persons.
Jesus is God - not a god
The Father is God - not a god
The Holy Spirit is God - not a god.

This I believe Derek is saying also but is not speaking in these same words. There are not three Gods but One in three.

I believe it was you who said back in 2006 that Jesus is a god in which I fully disagree with you to the point of disfellowship with you. This is how serious it remains for me.

see thread http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... c&start=15

and I quote: "The Son is just as divine as the Father. He is a different "God" from the Father only in the sense that He is a different divine Individual."

Jesus in no sense of the word is a different God but one in the same as God the Father as I have illustrated in previous posts in this thread.

[Guest]

Allyn quoting Paidion:

"The Son is just as divine as the Father. He is a different "God" from the Father only in the sense that He is a different divine Individual."

I believe it was you who said back in 2006 that Jesus is a god in which I fully disagree with you to the point of disfellowship with you. This is how serious it remains for me.

I am sorry to hear that, Allyn. Will you maintain that disfellowship in the next life?

[Guest]

You can yuk it up if you wish, Paidion, but actually I said to the point of disfellowship - not including disfellowship. You have not yet crossed that point of no return but you are very close. I really wonder if you know how serious this is? There are many things Christians may disagree on but the Oneness of God, which is clearly shown in many passages, is fact and must not be denied. You have stated Jesus as another "God". Untrue and dangerous to say.

[Guest]

and I quote: "The Son is just as divine as the Father. He is a different "God" from the Father only in the sense that He is a different divine Individual."

I could be completely wrong in my perception of what Paidion believes, but I don't get the same thing from this quote as you seem to be getting, Allyn.

I think that Trinitarians would say something similar... "God the Son is God, but He is a separate personage or individual from God the Father"

Paidion would say something like, "The Son is Diety, but He is a separate personage or individual from The Father."

I personally don't see much difference in the two statements.

I could be completely wrong though!

[Guest]

There are many things Christians may disagree on but the Oneness of God, which is clearly shown in many passages, is fact and must not be denied.

Just wondering how the Oneness of God, this "fact" which "must not be denied" squares with the the following facts:

1.The Hebrew "elohim" in Hebrew is a plural word meaning "gods" and is found in Genesis 35:2

So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, "Put away the foreign gods (elohim)which are among you, and purify yourselves and change your garments..

2. The same Hebrew word "elohim" is used in Genesis 1:1 for the Gods who created the earth.

In the beginning Gods created the heaven and the earth.

3. In Genesis 1:26 plural pronouns are used as well:

Then Gods said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."

If you think the word "Elohim" can be singular as well, and can mean "God", then to whom was God speaking?

4. In Genesis 11:6,7, Yahweh (singular) said, "Come, let us go down and there confuse their language..."

And Yahweh said, "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech."

If Yahweh was a singular Individual, to whom was goind to help Him confound their language?

5. Why does Genesis 19:24 refer to TWO Individuals each of whom is called "Yahweh"?

Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.

Contextually, the "angel" which remained behind to talk to Abraham (when the other two went ahead) was addressed by Abraham as "Yahweh". Abraham tried to persuade Yahweh not to destroy Sodom, but there were not enough righteous persons in the city. At the end of their conversation (Genesis 18:33), we read:

And Yahweh went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.

Where had Yahweh gone? To Sodom to destroy the city. But He received the power from Yahweh in heaven. So it is written in Gen 19:24.

[Guest]

Paidion, I suppose if one wants to bad enough, he can make it read what he wants it to say, but it is a stretch, in your example of say, Genesis 1:1, to say Gods and not God. Even in the literal translation of Genesis 1:1 from the Hebrew it cannot be written as plural by saying Gods as you have added.

The literal translation of Gen. 1:1 is:
"In the beginning | created | God | the heavens | and | the earth."
(Elohim [English form "God"]), the first of the names of Deity, is a plural noun in form, as you described, but is singular in meaning when it refers to the true God. Emphasis in Gen. 1:26 is on the plurality in Deity; in verse 27, on the unity of the divine Substance, (Gen. 3:22.)
You simply cannot apply the word Gods in Genesis 1:1 and yet accept the NT that credits Christ alone as the Creator of the universe and all things seen and unseen.

[Guest]

Paidion spoke that I might be a follower of modalism but I do not accept that. A far closer understanding of my position in analogy might be to say that I am one man of one substance, and yet - within myself - I have three "persons" of 1. Intellect. 2. Emotions. and 3. Conscience. There is a sense in which my emotions 'speak to me' as does my conscience, so there is a certain 'separateness' and yet none of those things can ever be wholly separated from myself. The similarity could be taken even further: a friend could say, "I met Allyn today and he gave me a message; the message was certainly from his conscience." Another friend might say, "Allyn emailed me but his emotions were speaking!" Jesus was able to pray to the Father, modalism could never make sense of that, but in my example I could say that my conscience "pleaded" with my intellect, or will, for the means/logistics/intellectual back-up to take a certain decent path or route. Like all such analogies this falls well short of the actual Holy Trinity, but this has better shape to it than modalism.

The Thomas Aquinas explanation of the Trinity was to say that although there is only one "substance" of God, making it forever true that God is entirely One, within the 'One' there are three subsistent relations; however, apart from this 'relations' aspect, there are no other distinctions in God. So the Father begets (paternity), the Son is begotten (filiation), and the Holy Spirit proceeds (spiration). This might seem pretty accurate as far as it goes, but the logical and philosophical conclusions of men can only take us so far, and this still leaves many questions. Ultimately, there can be no denying that the Holy Trinity is a mystery to human flesh. This, of course, should hardly surprise us, for, in a similar manner, how much can a young child understand of the mature and loving relationship of his or her father and mother, including the interaction between the components of love, intellect, psyche and soul within their personalities? A small child would not be able to grasp such things, and is not God even higher above us than the parents of a small child are above that child? Therefore it really should not surprise us that the Trinity can never be fully comprehended by men and women while 'in the flesh.'

The requirement is faith so as to be dependent upon the completness of God in His three persons and not intellect for the purpose of presenting a hollow arguement.

[Guest]

Paidion, I suppose if one wants to bad enough, he can make it read what he wants it to say, but it is a stretch, in your example of say, Genesis 1:1, to say Gods and not God. Even in the literal translation of Genesis 1:1 from the Hebrew it cannot be written as plural by saying Gods as you have added.

Why would I want to make it read some other way? I have no desire to intercalate what I want to believe into the Bible. For many decades I have continually searched for truth and reality. It's just that I will accept the truth, as I understand it, even if it varies from the accepted understanding.

Paidion spoke that I might be a follower of modalism but I do not accept that. A far closer understanding of my position in analogy might be to say that I am one man of one substance, and yet - within myself - I have three "persons" of 1. Intellect. 2. Emotions. and 3. Conscience. There is a sense in which my emotions 'speak to me' as does my conscience, so there is a certain 'separateness' and yet none of those things can ever be wholly separated from myself.

I don't wish to impose upon you the label "Modalist", Alllyn. However, my UPC friend, a believer in "The Oneness of God" gave me a similar analogy. He also said that one part of him could "talk" to the other. He also does not wish to accept the Modalist label. But he knows he is not a Trinitarian and in no way accepts the Trinitarian understanding of God.