Jesus insisted that he had lived in heaven before being born as a human

[firedragon]

He won’t answer with credible response as it would speak against him since there is no such rendering.

You maybe right. And honestly I second you. BUT, he could be deriving this from a particular source or translation and I want to know which one it is. If I refute him without anything it will only limit the knowledge I will get from him. Vis a Vis, "which translation". If it's his own translation, that's a whole different matter.

Cheers.

 

[Spice]

Post #53

 

[Soapy]

I use the translation I find more accurate and that's why I use a parallel Greek original text to show it ... like in this case:

John 17:5
καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, __ So now glorify me, you, Father,
παρὰ σεαυτῷ __ at your side
τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον __ with the glory that I had
πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι __ before the world was
παρὰ σοί. __ alongside you.

PS: I am sorry, but I don't even know you, so, I am not your brother. I don't even know if you are one of those who call themselves apes or whatever else. No, we are not brothers.

The EXACT translation of the Greek is not the only consideration… You need to understand that some text HAS BEEN ALTERED by the scripture translators IN THE FIRST INSTANCE therefore it won’t matter how deep you bring STUDY MATERIAL the verses will STILL BE WRONG…

I take it you don’t understand what Jesus stated:

• ‘I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.’ (Rev 22:18)

So you are effectively warned to check all renderings for any such alteration, deletion, of addition to scriptures. An etymology won’t always help if the alteration only APPEARS TO YOU to make sense. And if you believe that YHWH God is almighty then you must also believe that He has put things in place to RECONSTRUCT the true scriptures and teachings…. I can show you how but it’s a sure thing that you won’t believe it!!

 

[Soapy]

You maybe right. And honestly I second you. BUT, he could be deriving this from a particular source or translation and I want to know which one it is. If I refute him without anything it will only limit the knowledge I will get from him. Vis a Vis, "which translation". If it's his own translation, that's a whole different matter.

Cheers.

He answered you with a smiley emoji showing he knew he was wrong!!!

 

[Soapy]

With all due respect Soapy. My question was to him to understand where he is coming from. And that was the pertinent question. Only after his response to it could one respond to him constructively. If you don't know one's source of knowledge, you cannot respond constructively.

Thanks.

I understand your question was to him… I answered from my point of view of your dialogue with him.

You can take his response AND mine at the same time… can’t you?

 

[Eli G]

You maybe right. And honestly I second you. BUT, he could be deriving this from a particular source or translation and I want to know which one it is. If I refute him without anything it will only limit the knowledge I will get from him. Vis a Vis, "which translation". If it's his own translation, that's a whole different matter.

Cheers.

You can use the original text as I do. This way we avoid the pretext of incorrect translations. The person who sees the original words and still does not accept them is just a rebel who is not interested in the truth.

I previously presented the translation of the Greek word πρίν, used in John 8:58 __ post#30. A forum member, whom you second, tried to invent a new meaning ("greater" ) that does not exist anywhere for that Greek word, just to support his interpretation.

You tell me what do you think?

PS: Choose well who you second.

 

[firedragon]

You can use the original text as I do. This way we avoid the pretext of incorrect translations.

So the direct answer that you translate it directly.

How did you translate Ego Amy as "I have been"? It's in the perfect tense. Not past tense. So which scholarly source derive a past tense from a perfect tense? Could you please explain?

 

[firedragon]

He answered you with a smiley emoji showing he knew he was wrong!!!

Ah. I didn't notice that.

 

[Eli G]

So the direct answer that you translate it directly.

How did you translate Ego Amy as "I have been"? It's in the perfect tense. Not past tense. So which scholarly source derive a past tense from a perfect tense? Could you please explain?

I already talked about that, here

I am talking about the dialog Jesus had with the Jews here:

John 8:56
"Abraham YOUR father rejoiced greatly in the prospect of seeing my day, and he saw it and rejoiced.”
57 Therefore the Jews said to him:
“You are not yet fifty years old, and still you have seen Abraham?”
58 Jesus said to them:
“Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

If you understand English language correctly, then you may know what this means:

Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.

The original Greek wording is:

πρὶν __ Before
Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι __ Abraham came to exist
ἐγὼ εἰμί. __ I am

An easy to understand translation of that would be: I DO EXIST BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS BORN.

An interesting question is:
if you had been there, would you have believed him, or would you have acted like the Jews who heard him make that strange statement?

John 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid and went out of the temple.

I guess you need to read the whole thread before asking already answered questions. Meanwhile, I'll take a break to do other things I need to do.

Have a good one.

 

[firedragon]

I already talked about that, here

I guess you need to read the whole thread before asking already answered questions. Meanwhile, I'll take a break to do other things I need to do.

Have a good one.

Well. I cannot read the whole thread. But thanks for responding. Cheers.

The question remains. How did you render perfect tense as a past tense?

 

[firedragon]

You can use the original text as I do. This way we avoid the pretext of incorrect translations. The person who sees the original words and still does not accept them is just a rebel who is not interested in the truth.

I previously presented the translation of the Greek word πρίν, used in John 8:58 __ post#30. A forum member, whom you second, tried to invent a new meaning ("greater" ) that does not exist anywhere for that Greek word, just to support his interpretation.

You tell me what do you think?

PS: Choose well who you second.

I did use the "Original Text".

It's in the perfect tense. Not in the past tense. But your rendering was in the past tense. So how did you do that?

 

[Eli G]

If you knew anything about how translations are done, maybe you wouldn't be asking that. I am not going to lecture on why to translate from Greek to English sometimes you have to change verb forms... or explain why sometimes translations cannot be literal.

I only have time to show everyone the teachings of Jesus Christ. His pre-existence is attested to in dozens of biblical texts, if you are interested in the topic you can read some of them all along this thread.

If the topic doesn't really interest you, and you maybe want to talk about how translations are done, I suppose you'll find an appropriate subforum for that... or ask for it to be created.

I'm still busy with other things. I didn't realize that the break was the time I used to write here to answer you.

 

[Eli G]

One of the most used arguments to demonstrate the pre-existence of Jesus is that the Bible says in many different ways that he participated with his Father when the world we know began to be created.

Heb. 1:2 Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things.

John 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence 4 by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men. (…) 9 The true light that gives light to every sort of man was about to come into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him.

Col. 1:16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,

1 Cor. 8:6 (...) there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.

It is evident that if the Bible says that everything that exists originated through/by means of Jesus, he must have existed at the beginning of the world before that time.

The Bible calls Jesus "the firstborn of all creation" (Col. 1:15) and "the beginning of the creation by God (Rev. 3.14)", that is, he had a special and one-of-a-kind origin, because he was begotten or created directly by the Father, and that is the reason why the Bible repeatedly calls him "God's Only Begotten and his Firstborn. For Jesus to be called in those special ways (that show that he is a special Son for God among all God's sons) he must have existed before the rest of the spirit sons in heavens... a long time before our planet was inhabited by human beings.

 

[dybmh]

I guess you didn't read this post of mine.

Yes, I have not been reading your comments directed to others.

beings in spirit form

When you wrote "real person" it was intended to mean "real person in spirit form"? If so I agree with you. Why did you object to what I wrote? It is the same concept using different words?

 

[dybmh]

@Eli G ,

I see the answer to my Greek translation question in another of your posts. Please disregard my request. The question has been answered.

 

[YoursTrue]

Interesting. A real conscious person? I don't see that in any of the verses which you have brought. The pre-existence is certainly there. The *form* of that existence is not described as a real conscious person.



Here, Jesus is referring to Bnei Adam, the Son-Of-Man. The Son-Of-Man is not described here. All that is written is the yeridah l'ma'an aliyah, the descent for the sake of ascension and it's supremacy over the converse, ascension for the sake of descent. Nothing here indicates the pre-existence is in the form of "a real conscious person".




Again, nothing here is describing a pre-existent "real conscious person". In fact I am asking myself whether an individual lacking any will of their own can be considered "a real conscious person". That is describing an angel, not a real conscious human being.




Notice, there is no contact, conversation, connection between Abraham and Jesus in this passage. The details that are given are:

1) Jesus precedes Abraham
2) Jesus is from a realm which is distinct and above.

That's all. There is still nothing describing the form in which this pre-existence occured.



Here Jesus is requesting a return of "the glory" from the pre-existent state. Nothing here is describing a "real conscious person" pre-existing.

It's interesting that you've brought *only* verses from the Book of John. Does this mean there is only 1 textual witness testifying to Jesus' pre-existence? And. Are these the best examples that, in theory, support the assertion of Jesus pre-existing as a "real conscious person"?



Maybe it would be helpful to explain what it means to be a real conscious person while not being born as a human being?

What does that mean? What is a person which is not human?

Maybe if an emissary came as a representative of a person such as a king, he would not speak of his own will but that of the one who sent him.

 

[dybmh]

Maybe if an emissary came as a representative of a person such as a king, he would not speak of his own will but that of the one who sent him.

Agreed. 100%

 

[YoursTrue]

Agreed. 100%

Glad we agree. Breath of fresh air.

 

[Eli G]

... Here, Jesus is referring to Bnei Adam, the Son-Of-Man. The Son-Of-Man is not described here. All that is written is the yeridah l'ma'an aliyah, the descent for the sake of ascension and it's supremacy over the converse, ascension for the sake of descent. Nothing here indicates the pre-existence is in the form of "a real conscious person".
...

An interesting detail that I want to share about what you said there.

"Bnei Adam" is not the expression here:

Dan. 7:13 “I kept watching in the visions of the night, and look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him up close before that One. 14 And to him there were given rulership, honor, and a kingdom, that the peoples, nations, and language groups should all serve him. His rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed.

That passage was not written in Hebrew, but in Aramaic. The expression is: בַר אֱנָש ( _bar enash). Adam's name is not related to Jesus' origin.
Normally, all humans are Adam's descendants, and to say "human" is used the Hebrew expression "son/daughters of Adam". But Jesus was not a descendant of Adam in the normal sense and the expression used in Aramaic confirm it. It may be not a casualty that Daniel wrote some parts of his book in a different language (Daniel 2:4b -7:28 ).

 

[Soapy]

An interesting detail that I want to share about what you said there.

"Bnei Adam" is not the expression here:

Dan. 7:13 “I kept watching in the visions of the night, and look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him up close before that One. 14 And to him there were given rulership, honor, and a kingdom, that the peoples, nations, and language groups should all serve him. His rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed.

That passage was not written in Hebrew, but in Aramaic. The expression is: בַר אֱנָש ( _bar enash). Adam's name is not related to Jesus' origin.
Normally, all humans are Adam's descendants, and to say "human" is used the Hebrew expression "son/daughters of Adam". But Jesus was not a descendant of Adam in the normal sense and the expression used in Aramaic confirm it. It may be not a casualty that Daniel wrote some parts of his book in a different language (Daniel 2:4b -7:28 ).

Yes, very true. Jesus is not a descendant of Adam.

He is a human Being though.. and that’s a reason that it is prophesied that:

• ‘No one will know where he came from’

referencing the high priest, Melchizedek.

The ‘No one knows…’ thing is from the fact that the Jews were sticklers for their family lineage and so they all knew ‘where they came from’ through their FATHERS.

Obviously, since Joseph was NOT Jesus’ biological Father, his ‘family’ lineage could not be traced. The scriptures does give him a lineage though through his Mother, Mary, and ‘As it was supposed’, Joseph the Carpenter, who took Mary for wife and therefore the child is presumed to be his.

But, with the benefit of hindsight backed up with the. Criptire prophesied, we know that Jesus was a NEW ADAM (the second and the Last, Adam) born in the manner of the first man, from the pure Spirit of God, therefore the child born is sinless, holy, and righteous… a human Son of God… just as Adam was before he sinned!!