Did Jesus Christ really come down from heaven?

[FWI]

And, if he didn't; then he also didn't preexist…

There are basically four views of who Jesus Christ is:

* The first is that Jesus is God and existed eternally. He also came to earth in human form. This is a simple explanation of the Christ, in the Trinity doctrine.

* The second view is that there were two Gods, who existed eternally. Then, one of these Gods agreed to give up its divinity and take the form of a human being. This divine being is considered to be the God of the O.T.

* Thirdly, there are those who believe that Jesus Christ preexisted as a powerful angel. Then, he was born a human being.

* The last view is that the Christ didn't preexist, he isn't God and he didn't come down from heaven (as many believe). But, (now) the Christ is a god or a being having greater power than any being that exists (except his Father) and will eventually be subject to his Father. Where, the Christ was born of a physical woman and received his human nature from this woman. He also received his Godly nature from his Father or God. This is the position that I take…

Therefore, all four of these positions can't be correct! So, what rebuttals (with support) can you present to challenge the positions listed? It would also be helpful, but not necessary, if support for your position is included…

[Difflugia]

* The first is that Jesus is God and existed eternally. He also came to earth in human form. This is a simple explanation of the Christ, in the Trinity doctrine.

This is the theology of John's Gospel. Jesus was embodiment of the Logos, the preexistent, divine creative force.

* The last view is that the Christ didn't preexist, he isn't God and he didn't come down from heaven (as many believe). But, (now) the Christ is a god or a being having greater power than any being that exists (except his Father) and will eventually be subject to his Father. Where, the Christ was born of a physical woman and received his human nature from this woman. He also received his Godly nature from his Father or God. This is the position that I take…

This is the view of Matthew and Luke. Jesus was essentially a demigod, being both divine and human from the moment of his conception or birth, but not having existed prior to the beginning of Mary's pregnancy.

You missed, though, what I think is Mark's view. Jesus was born fully human with a human mother and father. The Holy Spirit (in the Old Testament sense of the Power of God) entered into Jesus at the baptism, marking his elevation to divinity and his anointing by God. His time in the wilderness (1:12-13) marks the Job-style testing by Satan, which Jesus passed, allowing him to begin his ministry as God's anointed king, priest, and prophet.

Even if we ignore my opinion of Mark, do you think that John's Gospel supports your (and Matthew's and Luke's) view of Jesus' divinity, or do you think that John was wrong?

[FWI]

This is the theology of John's Gospel. Jesus was embodiment of the Logos, the preexistent, divine creative force.

Yes, I agree that this is what's presented by the Trinity Doctrine and those who support such a doctrine. But, this doesn't seem to be the intent of the fourth gospel.

You missed, though, what I think is Mark's view. Jesus was born fully human with a human mother and father.

In Mark 1:1, it is stated by the author that his book or gospel is of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, which clearly claims that the Christ's Father was God…Additional verses that state or imply the same thing are located in 1:11, 3:11, 5:7, 9:7, 13:32, 14:61-62 and 15:39. Since, this claim spans the entire book, it (the gospel) can't be used to imply that the Christ had a biological human father…Where, there isn't even any reference to the Christ's step-father (by Jewish law) in Mark. Even, those that support such an idea can't supply biblical verses that state this. It is only claimed by opinion.

The Holy Spirit (in the Old Testament sense of the Power of God) entered into Jesus at the baptism, marking his elevation to divinity and his anointing by God.

Sorry, but it doesn't really record this in Mark…In verse 1:10 it states that the Spirit or Power of God was upon the Christ, not inside of him. I stated that the Christ had the nature of God, not the Spirit of God within himself. So, what is the nature of God? It is the characteristics of God and His will, including the ways of thinking, feeling and acting. Which, is opposite of human nature…So, if one had the power of God within them, they would be God! This is pretty much the way the Trinity is introduced. However, having the Spirit or Power of God upon oneself is quite different. This would allow the Christ the ability to ask of his Father (just about anything) and have the confidence that his request would be granted. The Christ clearly states that the Son can do nothing of himself (John 5:19, 30 and 8:30).

It is recorded that at about 12 years of age the Christ was about his Father's business (Luke 2:49). And, in Luke 2:46-47 the Christ is sitting among the teachers, both listening and asking questions, where those involved were astonished by his answers and understandings. Then, later in life (after baptism) the same type of occurrence happened (Matthew 7:28-29). So, it seems clear that the Christ's abilities of wisdom were evident way before he was baptized.

Even if we ignore my opinion of Mark, do you think that John's Gospel supports your (and Matthew's and Luke's) view of Jesus' divinity, or do you think that John was wrong?

How, the secular world defines divine, divinity and demigod is not the way I understand the concept of God creating human beings and life, in general. Therefore, I do not support that Matthew, Luke or my own views agree with the concept you seem to be suggesting. As far as, John is concerned it isn't really about the writings being right or wrong! It's about the interpretation or what certain groups determines what the book says, which needs to be reviewed and debated…

So, it would be helpful if you were to supply biblical references, related to your position.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by FWI]

The Jehovah's Witnesses are different from most nominal Christians in that we hold the position that all four gospels are part of a whole ie that if something is in one gospel it is part of the word of God and doesn't need to be repeated in all four to be true. Thus whatever is in the gospel of John (which is after all some 90% unique in content) we JWs hold to be just as much a part of Gods thoughts for mankind as any other passage in scripture.

So to answer the question, yes, according to scripture Jesus did indeed have a prehuman existence.

JEHOVAHS WITNESS




MIRACLES

- JC refusing
- JC walking on water

[Difflugia]

This is the theology of John's Gospel. Jesus was embodiment of the Logos, the preexistent, divine creative force.

Yes, I agree that this is what's presented by the Trinity Doctrine and those who support such a doctrine. But, this doesn't seem to be the intent of the fourth gospel.

Trinitarian or not, I don't see how that conclusion can be avoided. The Logos was preexistent (John 1:1), was divine (1:1-2), and was the creative force (1:3). The Logos was the light and the life (1:4) and John bore witness to it (1:6-7). This same light and life was Jesus (1:15, 29-30). Whether any other part of the Trinity doctrine is satisfied, those elements are the basis for the rest of the Gospel.

In Mark 1:1, it is stated by the author that his book or gospel is of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, which clearly claims that the Christ's Father was God…

I agree as far as this goes, but I think Mark intended God to be Jesus' adoptive father, rather than biological. Matthew and Luke used the virgin birth to turn God into a biological father as well, but I don't see any indication of that in Mark.

Additional verses that state or imply the same thing are located in 1:11, 3:11, 5:7, 9:7, 13:32, 14:61-62 and 15:39.

None of these qualify "father" in any way. I agree that Mark treats Jesus as "Son of God," but he became so during the theophany at the baptism. That's why God has to tell him so ("You are my beloved son, in you I am well pleased."). The very fact that it can be read that way (even if it's not what Mark meant) is why Matthew felt the need to change it ("This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.").

Since, this claim spans the entire book, it (the gospel) can't be used to imply that the Christ had a biological human father…

Nor can it be used to imply that he didn't have one.

Where, there isn't even any reference to the Christ's step-father (by Jewish law) in Mark. Even, those that support such an idea can't supply biblical verses that state this. It is only claimed by opinion.

Demigod stories generally explain the details of the conception and at least include the circumstances behind how the hero's mother became impregnated by the god. Both Matthew and Luke include angelic annunciations, Matthew's to Joseph (Mt 1:18-21) and Luke's to Mary (Lk 1:26-35). Mark includes none such, so any argument that Jesus lacked a biological father must come from Matthew or Luke. Mark was written first, though, and so the argument would have to claim that the absence of such detail was legitimately an oversight by Mark. The argument that Mark intended Jesus to lack a biological father has to add something to Mark that simply isn't there.

The Holy Spirit (in the Old Testament sense of the Power of God) entered into Jesus at the baptism, marking his elevation to divinity and his anointing by God.

Sorry, but it doesn't really record this in Mark…In verse 1:10 it states that the Spirit or Power of God was upon the Christ, not inside of him.

Not in Greek. The straightforward translation of Mark 1:10 is that the Spirit entered into Jesus:

...καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ὡς πε�ιστε�ὰν καταβαῖνον εἰς α�τόν·

means

...and the spirit as [a] dove descended into him.

While the bolded Greek word εἰς has a somewhat broader meaning than the English into, that's how it's generally translated unless there's a reason to think it means something else. The word implies motion to or toward something. It is slightly ambiguous whether actual entrance is meant (i.e. the difference between one travelling to or into a city), but it certainly doesn't mean upon exclusively. The reason that it's ever translated as upon is part harmonization, part historical accident. Matthew and Luke both changed Mark's εἰς to �πʼ, which does mean upon, because in their Christologies, Jesus was already indwelt by the Spirit at his miraculous birth. Its appearance during the baptism theophany was therefore an outward symbol rather than marking its union with Jesus as the Christ, as in Mark. I say it's a historical accident because in the text used to translate the KJV, a scribe had replaced εἰς with �πʼ to harmonize with Matthew and Luke. Modern Greek texts all have εἰς in Mark 1:10, but translators are still reluctant to use a different translation than what appears in Matthew and Luke.

I stated that the Christ had the nature of God, not the Spirit of God within himself. So, what is the nature of God? It is the characteristics of God and His will, including the ways of thinking, feeling and acting. Which, is opposite of human nature…So, if one had the power of God within them, they would be God! This is pretty much the way the Trinity is introduced. However, having the Spirit or Power of God upon oneself is quite different. This would allow the Christ the ability to ask of his Father (just about anything) and have the confidence that his request would be granted. The Christ clearly states that the Son can do nothing of himself (John 5:19, 30 and 8:30).

I don't really have a problem with this interpretation. Standing on its own, I'm pretty sure that John's Christology was influenced by Philo and the orthodox construction of the Trinity is close enough to Philo's philosophy that it's probably what John essentially had in mind. The Logos and Spirit are hypostases of God. That seems to mean to Philo that they are attributes of God, therefore are something different than God Himself, but in order to be attributes of God, they must also in some sense be God. That would mean that other attributes of God (Wisdom, for example) would also be included as members of the club and it would no longer properly be a "trinity," but the important part in John is that Jesus as Logos is the only member of the hypostatic union to have become human.

Of course, there's no hint of any of this in the Synoptics, so a harmonization would necessarily diverge a bit.

It is recorded that at about 12 years of age the Christ was about his Father's business (Luke 2:49). And, in Luke 2:46-47 the Christ is sitting among the teachers, both listening and asking questions, where those involved were astonished by his answers and understandings. Then, later in life (after baptism) the same type of occurrence happened (Matthew 7:28-29). So, it seems clear that the Christ's abilities of wisdom were evident way before he was baptized.

I don't think that the Gospels need to be harmonized with one another (i.e. each author is allowed to have his own ideas about Jesus, his relationship with God, and historical events), but that fits with Matthew's and Luke's ideas of Jesus being divine from birth.

How, the secular world defines divine, divinity and demigod is not the way I understand the concept of God creating human beings and life, in general. Therefore, I do not support that Matthew, Luke or my own views agree with the concept you seem to be suggesting. As far as, John is concerned it isn't really about the writings being right or wrong! It's about the interpretation or what certain groups determines what the book says, which needs to be reviewed and debated…

So, it would be helpful if you were to supply biblical references, related to your position.

Do you think I missed anything? I'm not necessarily asking if you find it convincing, but do you think I wrote something that I didn't justify?

[FWI]

[Replying to post 4 by JehovahsWitness]

The Jehovah's Witness are different from most nominal Christians in that we hold the position that all four gospels are part of a whole ie that if something is in one gospel it is part of the word of God and doesn't need to be repeated in all four to be true. Thus whatever is in the gospel of John (which is after all some 90% unique in content) we JWs hold to be just as much a part of Gods thoughts for mankind as any other passage in scripture.

There are positions that the Jehovah's Witnesses claim to support, which I can (generally) agree with. Such as, the one above.

So to answer the question, yes, according to scripture Jesus did indeed have a pre-human existence.

However, I don't agree with this one…This is why: The bible has sayings that can be literal or figurative. Thus, the bible reader must be able to determine, which understanding is intended or there can be a false impression given. Thus, when it comes to the book of John, there are several statements that must be determined if they are literal or figurative…For instance: I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me (6:38). So, we would need to determine if this verse is literal or figurative. But, we just can't jump to conclusions. There must be undeniable proof and not just a belief or opinion…In 6:53, the Christ makes another astonishing claim:

Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you (NKJV). So, is this verse: figurative or literal?

The Jews wondered (6:52) saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Yet, the Christ also included drinking his blood (6:53).

In John 1:6, it is claimed that there was a man sent from God, whose name was John (the Baptist). So, is this verse literal or figurative? If, literal: what proof is there to support such a claim?

There is a famous hymn which some people sing at harvest time. The chorus begins, all good gifts around us are sent from heaven above. These words are taken from (James 1:17). Which, says that every good gift is from above, coming down from the Father. Yet, when farmers sing this hymn, they do not imagine that their crops literally come down "from heaven above." They simply mean that God gives them the blessings of their labors.

In (John 17:5) it is recorded: Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory which I had with you before the world was made.

What are we to make of verses like this? Are they literal or figurative? Did Jesus really live with God in heaven before the world was made? Or do the words carry some deeper meaning than this?

To be continued…

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 1 by FWI]

The Jehovah's Witnesses are different from most nominal Christians in that we hold the position that all four gospels are part of a whole ie that if something is in one gospel it is part of the word of God and doesn't need to be repeated in all four to be true. Thus whatever is in the gospel of John (which is after all some 90% unique in content) we JWs hold to be just as much a part of Gods thoughts for mankind as any other passage in scripture.

So to answer the question, yes, according to scripture Jesus did indeed have a prehuman existence.

JEHOVAHS WITNESS




MIRACLES

- JC refusing
- JC walking on water

Would you say the OP third view best fits/is the JW view? (even if too brie f)

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by FWI]

The Jehovah's Witnesses are different from most nominal Christians in that we hold the position that all four gospels are part of a whole ie that if something is in one gospel it is part of the word of God and doesn't need to be repeated in all four to be true. Thus whatever is in the gospel of John (which is after all some 90% unique in content) we JWs hold to be just as much a part of Gods thoughts for mankind as any other passage in scripture.

So to answer the question, yes, according to scripture Jesus did indeed have a prehuman existence.

JEHOVAHS WITNESS

Would you say the OP third view best fits/is the JW view? (even if too brief)

Yes, that about fits what we believe. Id say powerful SPIRIT CREATURE rather than "angel" (which better reflects his high rank and position ) but yes, on the whole #3 is correct.



JW

[FWI]

Yes, that about fits what we believe. I'd say powerful SPIRIT CREATURE rather than "angel" (which better reflects his high rank and position) but yes, on the whole #3 is correct.

Since, you believe that a powerful Spirit Creature existed before Genesis 1:2 or earlier: Was this powerful Spirit Creature created? Also, was this Spirit Creature sent to earth and housed or enclosed in a fleshly body, then called the Son of God and the Christ?

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes, that about fits what we believe. I'd say powerful SPIRIT CREATURE rather than "angel" (which better reflects his high rank and position) but yes, on the whole #3 is correct.

Since, you believe that a powerful Spirit Creature existed before Genesis 1:2 or earlier: Was this powerful Spirit Creature created? Also, was this Spirit Creature sent to earth and housed or enclosed in a fleshly body, then called the Son of God and the Christ?

Yes and yes.

Yes: Jesus (THE WORD) was a created being, Gods first creative act in fact.

Yes: He was sent forth. I wouldnt say "housed or enclosed in a fleshly body" which implies to me he was still a spirit with "casing", like a materialized spirit "wearing" a human exterior. No, Jesus' life was transfered into the womb of a woman (Mary) and developed from a ferilized egg as we all do, to be born 100% human. But yes, the same person was born as a flesh and blood human