Did Jesus have a BEGGINING?

by gumby 58 Replies latest jw friends

  • gumby
    gumby

    In a thread called" Can any JW answer this" by Jerome, Alan F had stated that the term
    EVERLASTING TO EVERLASTING applied only to the God of Israel. He could find no scripture in which this term applied to Jesus.

    I found some good info. on this:

    Micah 5:2 says of Jesus; " who's origins are from old, from ancient times".
    What does this mean?

    Charles c. Ryrie, a notable theologian states that the words, "FROM OF OLD" is the same translated word used of God and his eternity in Hab.1:12.

    Also John 8:58 uses the word "I AM" of Jesus, and in EX:3:14, it is used of Jehovah.
    When Jesus claimed to be "I AM", the Jews picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

    Here are other notable statements from A bible dictionary about Jesus:

    Other passages, too, explicitly name Jesus as God. Romans 9:5 speaks of "Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!" Grammatical rules permit rending 2 Thessalonians 1:12 as " the grace of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ." The same holds true of Titus 2:13 ("our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ") and 2 Peter 1:1 ("our God and Savior Jesus Christ"). Hebrews 1:8 calls the Son God; 1 John 5:20 says of Jesus, "He is the true God and eternal life." Such texts confirm the impression given indirectly in other places that Jesus merits the name "God" by virtue of his mastery over wind and sea (Mark 4:41), personification of God's kingdom (Luke 11:20), ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:7), and intimacy with the invisible Father by which, enemies charged, he presumed to be "equal with God" (John 5:18). They could not accept that this was not effrontery but his due and possession (Php 2:6) from all eternity (John 17:24). It can be concluded that belief in Jesus' essential divinity (along with his obvious full humanity) extends to all levels of early Christian confession.

    Any thoughts on this would help.

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    Because a verse can be read two ways, does not mean that your preferred way is correct. Reading in context, who was Jesus praying to? Why pray for not his will, but God’s will to be done if, in fact it is his will? In Romans 1:1 Jesus is called the High Priest and Apostle of God. Why call God an Apostle, who does God follow? Jesus is also called the “Only Begotten,” of God.

    I agree with the book, “The Christian Doctrine of God” (page 226) “...The Trinity, proclaimed by the Church....from the fifth and six centuries onwards, is a pseudo mystery, which sprang out of an aberration of theological thought from the lines laid down in the Bible, and not from the Biblical doctrine itself.”

    Another good book is “When Jesus Became God” shows the history of how this mistake took hold in the Church, and it was not pretty (on the penalty of death you must submit!).

    Read the writings of the second to forth Century Post Apostolic Fathers, and it is clear that Jesus and God was looked on as two different persons (Polycarp and others used the term: “May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.........” many times).

    Jesus is Divine, it is the extent of his divinity that is misunderstood.

  • LizardSnot
    LizardSnot

    Through Jesus...all things were made *note: All Things

    Lizard

  • Carmel
    Carmel

    "All things" may not be an absolute term, but relative. Recall when Apostle Paul indicated the gospel had been preached to the "whole world" when in fact it was actually only disseminated around the Middle East. Another example of literalizing language.

    carme.

  • plmkrzy
    plmkrzy

    Micah 5:2 says of Jesus; " who's origins are from old, from ancient times".
    What does this mean?

    there is also a scripture somewhere that refers to the Devil in the same way. So if Jesus is god based on that the so is the Devil.Or Bealzabubbbb.

    http://ourworld.cs.com/pwmkwzy/home.html

  • Moxy
    Moxy
    So if Jesus is god based on that then so is the Devil.Or Bealzabubbbb.

    WAIT! are you saying that god is actually ... is ... is the DEVIL???!?

    plmkrzy: no, I'm not saying that all. I'm just saying if you--

    BLASHEMY! DIE YOU DEVIL WORSHIPPER!! DIE!!

    (fanatics are funny)

    mox

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    gumby said:

    : In a thread called" Can any JW answer this" by Jerome, Alan F had stated that
    the term EVERLASTING TO EVERLASTING applied only to the God of Israel. He could
    find no scripture in which this term applied to Jesus.

    : I found some good info. on this:

    : Micah 5:2 says of Jesus; " who's origins are from old, from ancient times".
    What does this mean?

    : Charles c. Ryrie, a notable theologian states that the words, "FROM OF OLD"
    is the same translated word used of God and his eternity in Hab.1:12.

    Ryrie is right about the word being there, but if he's implying that there's
    a necessary connection between the usages in these passages, he's wrong.
    I looked up these and a number of other passages using various online
    resources and found a Strong's Lexicon here: http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html
    Strong's gives the exact words used for "of old" and "everlasting, and in the
    passages below I put the numbered reference to the word in Strong's in square
    brackets, like this: everlasting [5760].

    In the NIV Micah 5:2 reads:

    "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah,
    out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins
    are from of old [6924], from ancient times [5769]."

    In the KJV Micah 5:2 reads:

    "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of
    Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in
    Israel; whose goings forth [have been] from of old [6924], from everlasting [5769].

    So the expression "from of old" is from Strong's reference 6924 in the Hebrew
    section.

    In the NIV and KJV Habakkuk 1:12 reads, respectively:

    "O Lord , are you not from everlasting [6924]?"

    "[Art] thou not from everlasting [6924], O LORD ...?"

    So these two translations render the same Hebrew word quedem (Strong's 6924)
    as "from of old" and "everlasting". Note also that the Hebrew word `owlam
    (Strong's 5769) is rendered as "ancient times" and "everlasting".

    The question now arises whether these words can be used in other ways than
    to mean "everlasting". Naturally, the answer is Yes. Consider the following
    passages from the KJV:

    Genesis 6:4:
    "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the
    sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them,
    the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old [5769], men of renown."

    Deuteronomy 32:7:
    "Remember the days of old [5769], consider the years of many generations."
    Micah 7:14:
    "Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which dwell
    solitarily [in] the wood in the midst of Carmel: let them feed [in] Bashan and
    Gilead, as in the days of old [5769]."

    So here we find that the Bible uses "of old" to mean "ancient times" as well
    as "everlasting". The same can be shown of quedem (Strong's 6924) as
    the passages below show.

    Genesis 49:26:

    NIV: "Your father's blessings are greater than the blessings of the ancient
    mountains, than the bounty of the age-old [5769] hills."

    KJV: "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my
    progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting [5769] hills."

    Exodus 40:15:

    NIV: "Anoint them just as you anointed their father, so they may serve me
    as priests. Their anointing will be to a priesthood that will continue [5769]
    for all generations to come."

    KJV: "And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father that they
    may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely
    be an everlasting [5769] priesthood throughout their generations."

    Leviticus 16 34:
    NIV: "This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made
    once a year for all the sins of the Israelites."

    KJV: "And this shall be an everlasting [5769] statute unto you, to make an
    atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year."

    Habakkuk 3:6 is particularly interesting because it uses both of these words,
    as well as a third one to express similar concepts of great age:

    NIV: "He stood, and shook the earth; he looked, and made the nations tremble.
    The ancient [5703] mountains crumbled and the age-old [5769] hills
    collapsed. His ways are eternal [5769]."

    KJV: "He stood and measured the earth he beheld, and drove asunder the nations;
    and the everlasting [5703] mountains were scattered the perpetual [5769]
    hills did bow: his ways [are] everlasting [5769]."

    For completeness, here are the definitions for the above three words given
    at the online Strong's: http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

    5769 `owlam o-lawm' or lolam {o-lawm'}; from 5956; properly, concealed, i.e.
    the vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e.
    (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with
    prepositional prefix) always:--alway(-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance,
    eternal, (for, (n-))ever(-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time),
    (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end).
    Compare 5331, 5703.

    5703 `ad ad from 5710; properly, a (peremptory) terminus, i.e. (by implication)
    duration, in the sense of advance or perpetuity (substantially as a noun, either
    with or without a preposition):--eternity, ever(- lasting, -more), old,
    perpetually, + world without end.

    6924 qedem keh'-dem or qedmah {kayd'-maw}; from 6923; the front, of place
    (absolutely, the fore part, relatively the East) or time (antiquity); often
    used adverbially (before, anciently, eastward):--aforetime, ancient (time),
    before, east (end, part, side, -ward), eternal, X ever(-lasting), forward,
    old, past. Compare 6926.

    Here are similar definitions from the same website, but this time from
    the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon:

    05769 `owlam {o-lawm'} or `olam {o-lawm'} from 05956; TWOT - 1631a;
    n m
    AV - ever 272, everlasting 63, old 22, perpetual 22, evermore 15,
    never 13, time 6, ancient 5, world 4, always 3, alway 2, long 2,
    more 2, never + 0408 2, misc 6; 439
    1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting,
    evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world
    1a) ancient time, long time (of past)
    1b) (of future)
    1b1) for ever, always
    1b2) continuous existence, perpetual
    1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

    05703 `ad {ad} from 05710; TWOT - 1565a;
    n m
    AV - ever 41, everlasting 2, end 1, eternity 1, ever + 05769 1,
    evermore 1, old 1, perpetually 1; 49
    1) perpetuity, for ever, continuing future
    1a) ancient (of past time)
    1b) for ever (of future time)
    1b1) of continuous existence
    1c) for ever (of God's existence)

    06924 qedem {keh'-dem} or qedmah {kayd'-maw} from 06923; TWOT - 1988a;
    AV - east 32, old 17, eastward 11, ancient 6, east side 5, before 3,
    east part 2, ancient time 2, aforetime 1, eternal 1, misc 7; 87
    n m
    1) east, antiquity, front, that which is before, aforetime
    1a) front, from the front or east, in front, mount of the East
    1b) ancient time, aforetime, ancient, from of old, earliest time
    1c) anciently, of old (adverb)
    1d) beginning
    1e) east
    adv
    2) eastward, to or toward the East

    It pays to do some research before blithely accepting the word of even
    supposedly good scholars, because all of them have biases and agendas.

    : Also John 8:58 uses the word "I AM" of Jesus, and in EX:3:14, it is used of Jehovah.
    : When Jesus claimed to be "I AM", the Jews picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy.

    Nonsense. This is an ancient and very common claim, but it is easy to see
    why it is completely nonsensical. First note the exchange between Jesus and
    the Jews. He implied that he saw Abraham, which would make him older than
    Abraham. John 8:57 has the Jews exclaiming, "You are not yet fifty years old,
    and you have seen Abraham!" In effect they said, "You can't possibly be that old!"
    Jesus answered by telling them that he was indeed that old:

    From the New Living Translation:
    "Jesus answered, `The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!' "

    From the Worldwide English New Testament:
    "Jesus answered, `I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was born.' "

    There are a number of other decent Bible translations that render the passage
    similarly. Why do they render it this way, and not as the NIV, KJV and many
    others do? First note that the latter have adopted the spurious ancient claim
    that the simple statement "I am" refers back to an ancient formula given in
    Exodus 3:14. This claim is merely an assumption and cannot be proved; indeed,
    there is good evidence that there is no connection.

    First, Exodus 3:14 can be translated in ways other than "I am", and plenty of
    good translations do so. I don't have online access to enough translations to
    show this, so you can look them up for yourself. The general idea is that
    "I will be what I will be" is a perfectly reasonable rendering.

    Second, the Jews in essence asked Jesus how old he was, and he answered
    in kind: "I'm really, really old." Why would he answer such a question with
    a recitation of an ancient formula? Look at the following sequence and tell
    me which makes more sense:

    Jews: How old are you?
    Jesus: Before Abraham was born I am.

    OR:

    Jews: How old are you?
    Jesus: Before Abraham was born I was.

    OR:

    Jews: How old are you?
    Jesus: Before Abraham was born I existed.

    It is obvious which of these is nonsensical, when context is taken
    into account.

    The Greek phrase for "I am" is ego eimi. Here eimi is in the
    present tense. However, in Greek, as in many languages such as French, a
    present tense is often used as a past tense. For example, a French speaker
    might want to say:

    "I went there ten years ago."

    He would say:

    "Je suis alle la il y a dix ans."

    Literally:

    "I am gone there it there has ten years."

    The word for "am" is "suis" and is in the present tense. But by standard
    usage, the past tense is almost always rendered by two constructions that
    are something like "I am gone" or "I have gone" in English.

    Because the Greek word for "to be" and "to exist" is eimi, and the
    past tense is sometimes rendered by a present tense, the phrase ego eimi
    can properly be rendered as "I am" or "I was" or "I exist" or "I existed".
    Context tells the reader which is meant.

    In the NT there are many examples where an apparently present tense really is
    the past tense by this usage, including phrases like "ego eimi", if I remember
    right. So claims that the present tense is required for ego eimi
    in John 8:58 are spurious. At best the argument remains unresolved.

    : Here are other notable statements from A bible dictionary about Jesus:

    All of the passages you cite have been disputed by scholars. They remain
    ambiguous and what appears in a given translation is the opinion of
    the translators.

    AlanF

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    Alan F: Well stated.......

  • DakotaRed
    DakotaRed

    Gumby, a book I can recommend to you is "The Doctrine of the Trinity, Christianity's Self Inflicted Wound," By Anthony Buzzard. They also have a web site at Restoration Fellowship.

    The book delves with most all of the dual scriptures, the ones that can be interpreted two ways and most always are interpreted to support the trinity. Since I have never believed in the trinity, even before getting involved with the JWs, I found the book very refreshing. Anthony Buzzard was never a JW, either.

    However, there are a couple scriptures I find in all Bibles that dispell the trinity, completely, to me and are not subject to interpretation.

    RSV 1 Corinthians 15:24-27
    24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
    25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
    26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
    27 "For God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection under him," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him.
    28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.

    RSV John 17:3.
    3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

    If Jesus declares the Father, God, to be "The Only True God," I will not argue. I'll take his word over any scholar or translator. So far, I have not found a copy of the Bible that doesn't state the above. All other so called "trinity proof" scriptures can be translated in various ways and I find ones as John 8:58 almost laughable. The context is not whether or not Jesus is God but whether or not Jesus existed before Abraham.

    However, even though JWs don't accept the trinity either, I do find the average rank and file JW woefully ill-prepared to explain why there is no trinity. The Watchtower has done a poor job educating them as to why.

    If God's Spirit is filling a Kingdom Hall, how is it that Satan can manuever the ones within that Kingdom Hall at the same time?

  • Moxy
    Moxy

    alanF*ddlest*cks, i see you have again stooped to the use of cheap 'ad hominem' attacks by your use of the words 'blithely' and 'nonsense.' there is no reasoning with you when you clearly take such a vulgar approach to bible discussions. youre an idiot. oops, i shouldnt really use that word, but you started it! so im justified! i am completely in my right to dismiss the balance of your argument since you are obviously only interested in an orgy of name-calling and mud-slinging! your failure to acquiesce in the face of clear passages from gods own word can only be attributed to direct demonic influence. BLASPHEMY!

    mox

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit