PreExistence

Bookey

Hello Everyone, Another major bible topic that is often misunderstood is the allged preexistence of the Messiah. The Messiah's mother, Miriam, or Mary as the Greeks say, would beg to differ about the origin of her son's life. She would be the first to say (if she were not a pile of bones somewhere in a tomb) that the her son was a human being who she raised on her lap. This is the first existence of the Messiah ever. He was born from his mother, and fulfilled prophecy about himself being from the seed of David, as the scripture teaches us. Holy spirit begat what was in her womb, and for that reason, the child was called "the son of God" (Luke 1:32,35) Now, the Witnesses will have us believing that the Messiah was an angel named Michael that transmutated himself into the womb of Mary (something forbidden by angels according to what the angels in Genesis 6 did) to become a human being. This is neo platonism. It is Greek philosophy. Not the truth. The witnesses (Russel) picked up on this false idea and made it doctrine. Comments anyone? Before commenting, keeping in mind one major factor about the bible. IT speaks in parables. Jeremiah was alleged to be "known by YHWH before the womb" according to Jeremiah 1:5, and Deuteronomy 18:15,18 teach us that the Messiah was definitely from the tribes of Israel. Boo

Narkissos

The implicit assumption of your post is that somehow the New Testament has to be consistent and that either "it teaches" pre-existence or it does not.

I'd submit, rather, that some NT texts (e.g. Luke) do not imply pre-existence while others (Paul, John) do. In the latter there is clearly a heavenly Son of God sent in the likeliness of mankind.

peacefulpete

Another implicit assumption is that Christians all believed that the Christ was born as a human.

zeroday

Now, the Witnesses will have us believing that the Messiah was an angel named Michael that transmutated himself into the womb of Mary

And you would have us believe the Bible is credible and true. When in fact it is nothing but folklore and myth.

JosephMalik

Another major bible topic that is often misunderstood is the allged preexistence of the Messiah. . . It is Greek philosophy. Not the truth. . . Before commenting, keeping in mind one major factor about the bible. IT speaks in parables.

Bookey.

Not everyone spoke in parables and it makes no difference what Greek’s believed. Is not some truth also found in such philosophies? On what basis then does this discredit such a truth other than to imply something bad about it? I have given this topic some attention recently and have updated “Beyond Trinitarianism” found on my web page http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/ to include a section on this very thought. In the process I found more of such silly proofs against pre-existence. Take the “it” argument for example. Anyone with a good bible program can simply activate their Strong’s concordance numbers and do a search for “it” and its use. The argument goes away when we see this is proper use of “autos.” Then again not every apostle wrote a Gospel or even a letter that made its way into the Bible Cannon. And not every apostle or disciple that did had the visions that John, Peter, and Paul had to explain such things. Many if not most of them still believed in the Law as a means of salvation as did James in Jerusalem for over 40 years. This was a major struggle and test of the faith in such early years. Anyone that studies such Gospels can see that John for one filled in material not adequately covered in the others. He wrote mainly between the lines but still followed the outlines of the others. Where Matthew, and Luke contained the human chronology of Jesus, John provided the non-human chronology in his first chapter very much the way they did. And we also learn that it was the “life” of the pre-existent one not the “person” that was transferred into the womb of Mary. So if you have any real proof for your views then now is a good time to offer them to us all.

Joseph

Star Moore

Hello there:

I just got done studying the subject of pre-existance of the Christ. I have come to the conclusion that,

1. That 'Michael' was the 1st born of all creation. The 'word' was in the beginning with God.. And did infact help with the creation of the universe.

2. Also, believe, that the sperm of Joseph and the egg of Mary, was put together by God, to make a virgin birth. And therefore, Jesus really did come from the line of David and Abraham on both sides.

3. Also think that the 'spirit' of Jesus was put into the body in the womb.

4. Also that Christ was in the fallen flesh, like his brothers and mother and father.

I think we all have a physical body and a spirit body. And so did the Christ. I don't believe anymore that or 'spirit' is just an impersonal force of energy, but carries with it our 'soul' with our characteristics. But that's just me.. could be wrong.

sinis

Hello there:
I just got done studying the subject of pre-existance of the Christ. I have come to the conclusion that,
1. That 'Michael' was the 1st born of all creation. The 'word' was in the beginning with God.. And did infact help with the creation of the universe.
2. Also, believe, that the sperm of Joseph and the egg of Mary, was put together by God, to make a virgin birth. And therefore, Jesus really did come from the line of David and Abraham on both sides.
3. Also think that the 'spirit' of Jesus was put into the body in the womb.
4. Also that Christ was in the fallen flesh, like his brothers and mother and father.
I think we all have a physical body and a spirit body. And so did the Christ. I don't believe anymore that or 'spirit' is just an impersonal force of energy, but carries with it our 'soul' with our characteristics. But that's just me.. could be wrong.

1). According to Daniel Micheal is ONE of the chief princes, indicating that there are others with the SAME status. Bible indicates that not one of the angels has god called son. Also, the book of Enoch as well as others clearly indicate that Micheal and other angels (Gabriel, etc.) are chief angels but Micheal is NOT the son of god.

2). How could Joseph have had relations with Mary since he at first wanted to dismiss her? That indicates that he thought she became prgnant from another man.

3). No probs there.

4). Don't understand what you are trying to say?