John 17:5

Question: I've read 100 pages of the Amazing Aims and Claims of Jesus, and it is all very interesting, but I would like to know your explanation of John 17:5 which suggests that Jesus was alive before the world began. I look forward to hearing from you.

Jon

Answer:

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

This verse is interpreted by Trinitarians to mean that literally Jesus existed "before the world was." However, did he literally exist as a person or in God's foreknowledge, "in the mind of God?"  Jesus did not literally exist except in the mind and plan of God the Father.  We can compare this to an architect who can give details of a plan for his building he has designed before one stone is laid on the actual construction site.  In the same way, God the Father, the Architect had a divine plan.  Christ was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8).

God had a plan concerning the Messiah way before his birth where Trinitarian belief would have us believe that Jesus was praying about glory he had with God as though he literally existed before his birth.

Trinitarians fail to see that when Jesus was praying, he was also praying in verses 20-22 for his disciples and future disciples who do not yet exist, but yet Jesus has given future disciple, past tense, this same glory.

"And I have given them the glory which You have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one."

If John 17:5 is to mean that Jesus literally existed before the world was, then all the disciples at the time and future disciples existed before the world was, before they were born, but Trinitarians ignore their own inconsistencies of interpretation.

Jesus was not yet glorified (John 7:39) but is simply praying about his future glorification as if he currently has it.  Jesus was glorified when God raised him from the dead. 

Luke 24:26 says, "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?"

Acts 3:13 says, "The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His son Jesus, whom you delivered up, denying Him in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to let Him go."

1 Corinthians 15:41-45, "There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another.  There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.  So also is the resurrection of the dead.  It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.  If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.  So also it is written, "The first man Adam became a living soul," the last Adam life-giving spirit.

1 John 5:7 and Hebrews 1:8

Question: I am a minister  (Grace christian church) and my basis for believing trinity is 1John 5:7. This verse does not say one God in three persons but it speaks of the unity of the three: The Father, The Son & Holy spirit. Aside from this, Hebrews 1:8 we find the Father calling the Son: thy throne O God....What is your comments on these verses

PB Tanierla (Philippines)

Answer:  Hellp PB, 

Concerning 1 John 5:7, the Greek manuscripts were corrupted much later by a false insertion about the Father, word and spirit.  Though it appeared in the 1611 King James Bible, it has been rejected as a forgery by every modern translation.  It is now regarded as universally false.  You might want to listen to this audio as well concerning the verse and how it came to be inserted.

http://www.dividingword.net/Trinity/Audios/Steve%20Katsaras%20--%201%20John%205.7.mp3

As far as Hebrews 1:8, the text in Hebrews is showing us how Jesus is superior to the angels.  If we are talking about God Almighty, the Father, this should not even be a point worthy of discussion for obvious reasons.

To be the Son of God means that you are not God!  No one in biblical times thought that God could be born!  (Luke 2:11), much less that God could die (Rom. 5:10).  

As Sean Finnegan has well stated concerning the comparison of passages:

Psalm speaks of the Davidic king's marriage to a foreign princess from Tyre.  The court poet sings of God's choice of a king, of his role in establishing God's rule, and of his splendor as he waits for his bring.  The psalmist calls this king (perhaps Solomon) God because he represents God as God's agent to rule over God's people.  The king is not called God in an ultimate sense because, as God, he has a God (see Psalm 45:7 or Hebrews 1:9).  So, this Psalm is being applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8-9 in order to make the point that he is superior to the angels because he is God's representative to rule as an anointed one.  Besides, if one concluded that Hebrews 1:8 means that Jesus is God, then the Davidic King of Psalm 45:6 is also God, which would make a "Quadity" rather than a Trinity.

See also: "Does Jesus Have a God?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL9MHGlkNoo

Does Jesus Have a God?

Jesus Has Two Natures?

Trinitarians and Modalism claim that Christ has two natures and thus claim that Christ is “both fully God and fully man at the same time.” When Christ was on the cross he cried out, “"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46), both Trinitarianism and Modalism will explain it by saying, “That was the human part of Jesus crying out. And when Christ died on the cross, it wasn't God that died, but it was the human body of Christ that died.”

All is a very imaginative, irrational and an absurd claim to try and support a false theory, for there are no passages of scripture that declares or implies that Christ had or has a “dual nature.” All this is nothing but pure philosophy and it's this kind of philosophy we have been warned about. 

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."  Col. 2:8 

Nothing in this world has two natures. If Jesus had both a human nature and a God nature then he must simultaneously have perfect knowledge and limited knowledge. This is an impossible and contradictory position. This is not to mention that to speak of anything as having a nature is a contradiction of terms. For instance, people will talk about “sinful nature” and that we are born with it. To say one has a 'sinful nature' really means nothing. If one has a ‘sinful nature,’ where is it? Is it in your mind? Is it in your body? If you could take that ‘sinful nature’ out, would you still have a nature?

"Nature” is a singular concept “Nature” is defined as: "The essence, essential qualities or attributes of a thing, which constitute it what it is…”

“Nature” is similar to the word “definition.” We can look at material things and define it. But where is the definition? Where would we find it?

One cannot be fully one thing and fully another. Jesus was/is fully a living breathing human being, and is still a man who is now immortal, for God raised him from the dead.

To say that Christ has two natures, i.e., that he is God Almighty and a human being, that would make Christ two beings! One being cannot consist of two beings.

God Robed in a Body of Flesh?

Modalist and Trinitarians claim that God dwells within Christ and therefore is God Himself, and "Christ" ends up simply as "God robed in a body of flesh."

The scriptures speak of the special abiding presence within the anointed one, the Messiah, the Son of God.  Nowhere does it say Christ is God Himself or that Christ is God in a particular form, such as "robed in a body of flesh."

Because Christ was filled with the fullness of God does not make him God Himself no more than it would make us God who are "filled with all the fullness of God" (Eph. 3:19).  Since Christ is a "living human being" like us, in whom God dwells, that does not make Christ or us God.  If Christ were God, that would make TWO beings who are God.

And if Trinitarians and Oneness Pentecostals want to say "Christ" was simply "God in a body of flesh," or "robed in flesh," then "Christ" is not a being but a "THING."  If "Christ" is a "Thing" (simply a body, not a person) in whom God dwells, then he, or rather "IT," is not a living being.

The scriptures show Christ with all the characteristics of a living human being, who was just that, a living human being!

The Son of God Came Into Existence at His Begetting in Mary's Womb

PRE-HUMAN EXISTENCE CONTRADICTS LUKE

 Luke makes it very clear that “the Son of God” was brought into existence in Mary’s womb when Gabriel told her:

 “…for that reason (Gk dio kai) [the creative miracle in Mary] what is born (aorist of gennao = “brought into existence”) will be called holy, God’s Son” (Luke 1:35).

The Greek dio kai means “precisely for that reason.”’ It does not mean ‘for that reason also’ as mistakenly entered in the NWT and KJV. Protestant theologian Wolfhart Pannenburg states that:

In Luke the divine Sonship is established by the almighty activity of the divine Spirit upon Mary (Luke 1:35)… Jesus’ divine Sonship is explicitly established by his miraculous birth…Jesus’ virgin birth stands in an irreconcilable contradiction to the christology of the incarnation of a pre- existent Son of God.   Jesus God and Man (pp. 120, 143).

In volume 1, (p. 105) of his History of Dogma Professor Adolf Harnack also notes that: “The miraculous genesis of Christ in the virgin and a real pre-existence of Christ are of course mutually exclusive.” 

THE EXISTENCE OF THE SON OF GOD WAS CAUSED BY HOLY SPIRIT

Holy spirit at Jesus’ conception was the cause of his becoming God’s Son. Therefore Jesus was never God’s Son at any time prior to his birth. Because Jesus came into existence as the Son of God when he was conceived in Mary’s womb he could not have already been in existence as the Son of God! As Gabriel states:

“This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High” (Luke 1:32). 

Matthew 5:9 and Luke 6:35 demonstrate that “will be called sons of God” means exactly the same as “will be sons of the Most High.” In Luke 6:35 Christians “will be sons of the Most High” and yet they did not pre-exist. Furthermore, this one was going to be great. This means that if he had pre- existed his birth he certainly would not have been great. That goes completely against the idea of him having previously been an archangel or “a god.”

PRE-HUMAN EXISTENCE CONTRADICTS MATTHEW

1.  The Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT), under its Greek text of Matthew chapter one, makes it clear that Jesus' very beginning or origin was when he was begotten by God in Mary's womb.  This is right at that beginning of Matthew's description:

“The book of the history (“origin” in KIT. Gk geneseoos from genesis) of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1).

"...the birth ("origin" in KIT. Gk. geneseoos) of Jesus Christ was...Mary...was found to be pregnant by holy spirit" (Matt. 1:18)

In his detailed birth narrative Matthew uses the word genesis in 1:1 and 1:18. In Bauer’s Greek- English Lexicon genesis is defined as: “One’s coming into being at a specific moment, birth."  Also "state of being - existence" and "of ancestry as point of origin."

However, one’s actual origin — one’s genesis — implies the event of one’s coming into existence and so refers to the time of one’s conception in the womb and not to the event of one’s birth. According to all Greek-English lexicons the usual Greek word for “birth” is gennesis and not genesis, although this can also mean “birth.” However, “birth” is not the right meaning in the context of Matthew 1:18 because the next thing stated in verse 18 of Matthew’s account is that “Mary…was found to be pregnant by holy spirit.” So the word genesis, as used in 1:18, does not concern Jesus’ birth but his begetting i.e. his point of coming into existence — his beginning. So because the Greek of Matthew 1:18 has the word genesis and not gennesis it should never have been translated as “…the birth of Jesus Christ was ...” but as: “The origin of Jesus Christ was…” or “The beginning of Jesus Christ was…” Also Matthew 1:1 is best translated as “The book of the origin” of Jesus Christ…” or “The book of the beginning of Jesus Christ…” This shows that Jesus ‘originated’ in a line from Abraham, and so Darby’s translation reads: “Book of the generation of Jesus Christ.” In fact, Associate Professor of Religious Studies Dr. Bart Ehrman states that: “the earliest and best manuscripts agree in introducing the passage with the words: ‘The beginning of Jesus Christ happened this way.’ The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, p. 75.

Also Dr Hagner in the Word Biblical Commentary understands that Matthew 1:18: “Picks up the genesoos, ‘origin’ of 1:1 and suggests that the Biblos genesoos, ‘record of origin,’ now reaches its goal.” So although Matthew 1:1 involves Jesus’ ancestry — his origin because of his line of descent from Abraham through David, yet logically it “reaches its goal” when Jesus comes into actual existence at the end of that line i.e. his begetting as stated in verse 20.

2.  Furthermore, the Kingdom Interlinear Translation makes it clear that Jesus - the Son of God by his begetting by holy spirit in Mary's womb according to Luke 1:35 - did not come into existence until he was 'fathered,' 'generated,' or 'begotten' by God in Mary.

 “… for that which has been begotten (“generated” in KIT. Gk gennethen from gennao) in her is by holy spirit” (Matt. 1:20). 

This Greek word egennesen (from gennao) meaning “fathered,” “was begotten,” “generated,” or “brought into existence” is used for the more than 40 individuals in Matthew’s genealogical list of Jesus’ ancestors who were ‘fathered’ i.e. brought into existence at conception. The rather dated word “begat,” as used in the KJV etc., gives the accurate meaning of gennethen but the New Jerusalem Bible expresses it accurately in modern terms as, for instance: “Abraham fathered Isaac.” Yet none of these 40 individuals had a pre-human existence. So also with reference to Jesus, the word gennethen does not allow for any pre-human existence for him i.e. he did not exist as a person prior to his begetting in Mary’s womb. Matthew’s account in chapter one alone demonstrates that Jesus was not in existence at any time prior to his begetting by holy spirit.

Therefore, at no time do the Matthew or Luke accounts indicate that Jesus was only coming into existence as a human, as though he was first alive and then merely passed through Mary rather than originating in her as Matthew 1:20 states. If these two accounts given by Luke and Matthew under inspiration are taken seriously, they negate all attempts to give Jesus an origin before his conception, which is why Matthew and Luke appear first in the Christian Greek Scriptures. They state that God ‘fathered’ or “brought Jesus into existence’ by miracle at that time and therefore that must, in all logic, be when Jesus became the Son of God as is stated by Luke. In fact, a person is what he is according to his origin and does not change from one species to another — not from angel or any spirit creature to human.  

By By Raymond C. Faircloth

For full detail click here

Jesus Went To Hell?

In the Old Testament we find the word “Sheol,” and in the New Testament we find the equivalent word “hades.” These words are related to the word “death,” “grave” or “gravedom.” We will find them translated as “grave,” “pit,” or “hell.” These two words (Sheol and Hades) have nothing to do with the supposed endless torture in a raging hell-fire, but with “gravedom.”

When Peter made his confession of who Jesus is, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the GATES OF HELL shall not prevail against it.” (Mat 16:17-18)

There are many who think that when Christ died, that he suffered and burned in hell, but God didn’t let him stay there to suffer like that. This is incorrect.

The “hell” mentioned in Matt.16 has nothing to do with hell-fire. Most translations have “hades.” This simply has to do with “death,” “grave” or “gravedom.”

Jesus abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (2 Tim. 1:10) Jesus was not talking about “hell” as in hell-fire, but about death. Jesus is building a church where DEATH HAS NO POWER. The CEV translation states:

“So I will call you Peter, which means ‘a rock’. On this rock I will build my church, and DEATH ITSELF will not have any power over it.”

What is that rock? The revelation of knowing who Christ is (v.16), believing the gospel he preached.  Jesus didn't go to hell, but to the grave and three days later God raised him from the dead!  Death had no power.

So what Jesus said had nothing to do with the gates of hell as in hell-fire, (which there will be where everything and evil doers will be destroyed), but about death.  He certainly knew about the "gates of death."

“Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?” Job 38:17

“Be gracious to me, O LORD! See my affliction from those who hate me, O you who lift me up from the gates of death…” Ps. 9:13

“…they loathed any kind of food, and they drew near to the gates of death. Ps. 107:18