# Preexistance?



## Artfuldodger (Jan 31, 2017)

Besides the Trinity, what or who else preexisted in more than Word? Did our souls preexist? Did Mary mother of Jesus preexist?

God chose us before creation. Was this in Word only?
Was Moses chosen to be the mediator of the Covenant before creation? 

The reward of paradise "prepared for you from the foundation of the world." 

Does a  "pre-existence"  necessarily imply a LITERAL, PHYSICAL pre-existence?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 31, 2017)

I think that is is important to understand preexistence or the lack there of to better understand the Bible.

The Messiah was part of the Creator's plan at the inception of the Universe. He actually preexisted in Word. God chose the Elect at the inception of the Universe. We preexisted in Word.

Next we must also understand that God pre-chose Israel as a way to introduce the Messiah. I have no idea why, but it was his preexisting plan. Most of the writers of the Bible were Jews. We must understand with a Jewish mind. 

We understand the Bible with an English interpretation of that Jewish mind. 

There is no doubt about it that Jesus was the Word from the beginning and that we were chosen before time.

Jesus said "before Abraham was born, I am!"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 31, 2017)

I think that because God went through Abraham to deliver Jesus, it added a certain Jewish prospective the we have forgot or never learned.  I don't know much about the Jewish part of Christianity's Jewish historical roots.

Once Paul said the Gentiles were grafted in; well that put an end to learning much about Abraham and David. It was and has always been about grace to the world so why go into the Jewish historical prospective? Right?

I think that in the process, we have missed the prospective of the Jewish writers and relied more on the Greek, Roman, and English.
I feel they were a bit biased or ignorant on the concept of literal pre-existance vs pre-existing in Word.

Melchizedek is a good example. God choosing us or writing our names in the Book of Life is another example. We only existed in Word.

Romans 4:17
As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the presence of God, in whom he believed, the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being what does not yet exist.

"calls into being what does not yet exist."

One more example;

Revelation 13:8
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

Was the Lamb slain at the creation or was it in Word?


----------



## Israel (Feb 1, 2017)

What we call preexistence, might it be true existence?
What we call eternal being, might it be the only true "being".


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 1, 2017)

LOL, since this is Arts thread, God did not create "as he went". He created everything in the seven days. So everything  preexisted  "in word" until times set forth by God. God spoke, and it was so.


----------



## hummerpoo (Feb 1, 2017)

Israel said:


> What we call preexistence, might it be true existence?
> What we call eternal being, might it be the only true "being".



Exactly!

Art, look at man's existence with all that is required to maintain it and the ancillae considered quality of life.
Now look at the infinitesimal picture we have developed from the largely figurative elements (required by our limitations) that has been revealed to us of God's existence.
Which existence seems to fit the descriptor "real".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 1, 2017)

Verses on the Son's literal pre-existance;

	John 17:5 "And now, glorify Thou me together with Thyself, Father, *with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was*."

John 17:24-26 "Father, I desire that they also, whom Thou hast given me, be with me where I am, in order that they may behold my glory, which Thou hast given me; *for Thou didst love me before the foundation of the world*. 25 O righteous Father, although the world has not known Thee,* yet I have known Thee*; and these have known that Thou didst send me; 26 and I have made Thy name known to them, and will make it known; *that the love wherewith Thou didst love Me* may be in them, and I in them."

Jo 1:15 John (the baptizer) bore witness of him, and cried out, saying..."He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, *for he existed before me*." (wasn't John born before Jesus?)

Jo 3:11 Jesus: "we speak that which we know, and bear witness of that *which we have seen*..." v13 "no one has ascended into heaven, but *he who descended from heaven*, even the Son of Man"

Jo 3:16 God *gave* His only begotten Son

Jo 6:62 Jesus: "What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending *where he was before*?"

Jo 8:26 Jesus: "the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world" v28 "I speak these things as the Father taught me." v38 "I speak the things which I have seen *in the presence of my Father* "

Col 1:13-16 His beloved Son... 15 and he is the image of the invisible God, the **first-born of all creation**. 16 For *in him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth**...all things have been created through him and for him. ***

Heb 1:2,3 [God] in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, *through whom also He made the ages*. 3 And he is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature...

1 Jo 4:9 God has *sent His only begotten Son into the world* (surely the Son had to exist out of the world before he could be sent into it)


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 1, 2017)

Could the Son preexist in Heaven, with God, apart from the Trinity?
With God having authority over Jesus? With Jesus creating through the power of God?

Using all of the verses Jesus used while he came to the earth giving all power and authority to his Father?

The son of a father? Begotten? Subordinate? 

Sent into the world from Heaven? Sent by the one with the power? The one true God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 2, 2017)

I posted a long post answering each of these points. But I deleted it. I have stayed away for most of the year, best I could. But I miss discussing the bible.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 3, 2017)

Israel said:


> What we call preexistence, might it be true existence?
> What we call eternal being, might it be the only true "being".



Im with you kind brother.

Maybe our creation is now underway.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 3, 2017)

John 6:40, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

The Father sent the Son. This must be a bad interpretation.
This one looks better;

For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day."

The Father didn't send his Son but the Father has a will.

Unless the Son gave up his glory before coming to the Earth. The Son would have to do this in order for the Father to have the Power to do this. I've always pictured Jesus giving up his power at the incarnation but it would actually have to happen sooner.


----------



## Israel (Feb 4, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> John 6:40, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”
> 
> The Father sent the Son. This must be a bad interpretation.
> This one looks better;
> ...


Upon what have you concluded the red?

Several times Jesus testifies of being sent.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 4, 2017)

Israel said:


> Upon what have you concluded the red?



It was pertaining to an interpretation of “And this is the will of him that sent me"

From a truly Trinitarian view, the Father could not send the Son as the Son has an equal power with the Father.
The Son would send himself. The Son's mission would be just as much the Son's plan as it was the plan and will of his Father.
The Father would have no authority or power over the Son from the beginning of time. Unless the Son gave up his 1/3 of the Godhead equality & power earlier than the incarnation.
Most Trinitarians believe Jesus gave up his power at the incarnation. I'm saying the Son would have to have gave up his equality earlier with this interpretation. 

I gave a better Trinitarian interpretation that didn't have the Father sending the Son.


----------



## Israel (Feb 5, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> It was pertaining to an interpretation of “And this is the will of him that sent me"
> 
> From a truly Trinitarian view, the Father could not send the Son as the Son has an equal power with the Father.
> The Son would send himself. The Son's mission would be just as much the Son's plan as it was the plan and will of his Father.
> ...


For purposes of clarification (perhaps disclosure) neither the word trinity nor trinitarian mean anything to me. Therefore I am under no influence or compulsion to  view things according to those words; that is, to try and make anything square according to any understanding of them.
If they are useful to others, then, they are.

But you say some things, perhaps in that "trying to square" a relationship found "in God" that press upon me.
If you can bear with me in this, you will be helping a brother in that pressing.

Do we admit we come from the place of ignorance of mind in all these matters? That is, whatever is discerned, come as enlightenments, revelations, are to a thing (our mind) that is less than complete in understanding? In the sense, at least, that we are all open to revision? And that, perhaps of all men we must know this as God's work in us? 

When I once said on this forum, in regards to the working of faith "my faith is always showing me I am wrong" that is what I meant, and I am glad at least one brother asked for explanation. God is _always_ greater. 

No matter my present understanding and walking according to anything I may have (or to another, perhaps, may _not _have) received, the Light that is revealed at any particular time relative to that "present" always reveals a present/prior ignorance. 

I think we all know this to some extent, no? The light goes on (so to speak) and we all (do we all?) have that sudden seeing that engenders "wow! I didn't know that at all!" Wow, this is way different than I thought...and surely different (and always better!) than I "thought I knew!". So, it is in that sense I cannot help but confess to a wrongness (in ignorance) that faith is a "help" toward. 

It costs me nothing to admit it, for that light comes with nothing of shame. Indeed, I am just (at best) a babe being taught "how things are". A Father does not teach a baby, help a baby, in its attempts to walk because he is ashamed at its crawling, and a grown baby (called a man) may do well to remember from where he has come. And also, perhaps, how. (And babies have mothers, too) As do men.

It appears to me in the _how things are_ that I discover of my own mind a duality of thought. Perhaps better said, of processing, of discerning among what appear as _hows and whys of things._ It seems one part easily wants to jump to "becauses" and I have found (over time, and experience) that this way is always willing to fill in the blanks of itself. Others may not have this at all, I really don't know, some may have a more singular vision, and understanding. But in one sense, this discussion "presses" upon me the distinction, and presence of both types of processing.

The second, or other type of appeal in processing, is quite different. It recognizes, or seeks to, totally apart from "becauses"...it dispenses with "this must be this way...because..." and instead is made ready to accept (or seems to be, at times, for it is not rare for it to be troubled by the "because" part) simply "this is how things are".

And here is the point at which this discussion and your words in particular have highlighted (so to speak) for me, what is a clear distinction between "what is" and "what is...because".

Is there anything more than our common faith that thrusts us into considerations (does it thrust to anything else?) of the things we call power, authority, submission, and obedience? I'm simply asking, not asserting that there may not be other considerations. But these matters, might we admit(?) become for us, appear to us, as something being "squared out" very palpably "in us"?

We cite these words often in our discussions either directly or by implication "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father"...or

"I and the Father are one" 

spoken by Jesus whom we believe is Christ. 

The "because" of why we may do this is for each who does so to explore himself before our God. But the matter being spoken is far greater than any of the because (I believe) we may be able to give as to the "why" we may quote it. It is Jesus' proclamation of being, though at times we may see it "because" (he spoke this _because_ we should know Jesus is God!)
Do you see the difference, sense it...feel it?

Now for us...all those "becauses" are not without benefit. No, not at all...that is not what I am seeing. But there is a moving in a disciple (is there? correct me if I am wrong) from the needing of _his own sense of things_ to a sense totally different (and _always_ greater).

So to matters mentioned, of those things (but not limited to, except for now as found salient in your mention)



> the Father could not send the Son as the Son has an equal power with the Father.
> 
> The Father would have no authority or power over the Son from the beginning of time.



Power and authority. (It was I who added submission and obedience.)

(And I realize you have already born with me in much if you have gotten this far)

Do we see submission and obedience in Jesus Christ? Do we see a humility we find in nothing or anyone else? Can we at anytime nullify His words "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father?" Please think on this. Not for any trying of mine to bring about an agreement between us, but that my admission here may be no different than any man's. And that is this "I have difficulty 'squaring' _my understanding_ of power and authority with my understanding of _obedience and submission_ yet I cannot deny I see them in the Christ who tells me "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father". (That I cannot deny...he tells_ me_)


Here is where the simple acceptance of "what is" fights the battle of "is because..." (and vice versa). My mind would say (on one hand) "he only became obedient to show obedience to a rebellious creation" That is the "because". It's almost as if I am saying the obedience/submission (humility) was a temporary necessity "because" man is/was disobedient. Well, certainly this is shown so...in the light of Jesus' obedience. Isn't the rebelliousness (and tendency thereto) made plain both in scripture and the light of Christ's obedience? Have we not even discerned its remnants...in our own thinking?

You might see that "the above" thinking draws a firm line between "power and authority" on the one hand, and a thing like "submission and obedience" on the other. It's as if, in that mind, they can only exist antithetically. Yet, I am still faced with Jesus' words "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father"...and I cannot (for the life of me, nor do I find any reasonableness) in dismissing the very manifest "obedience and submission" I see there. (And if I told you the "why" of "for the life of me"...suffice it to say I know of a man who was so enthralled of "authority and power" as to dismiss "obedience and submission" as lesser things, and I could fill reams discussing his scars...and those not "to life"...except by a mercy inexplicable) Yes to that "because" mind...many blanks were filled in...quite painfully in consequence.


----------



## Israel (Feb 5, 2017)

But, I cannot revile the "because" mind...(anymore than I would be right to think "I was born walking, I'm the baby that never crawled!")

And even the scriptures say this:
Forasmuch (read "because") then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

No, there is a need for our "becauses"...at least for a time. (and that is so much of grace that is again, inexplicable)


But Jesus takes us to "what is", does He not? So I then begin to ask...if obedience/submission (humility) are antithetical to power and authority (in a particular mind)...and I say "God is all power and authority"...but I cannot deny how much of obedience and submission I see in Christ (which it is not unworthy to say in the most emphatic way possible..."saves me"!) there must be a coming to grips with an understanding (in salvation) that denies neither.

And this has led to the (or at least, my) understanding that what is true in spirit does conquer what is untenable of a certain mind. (the mind that sees power/authority only in opposition to and contradictory to humility...obedience and submission)

And this is where I have to admit my own "because" may be seen to be working. It was not "because" we were rebellious that humility and obedience had to be shown ( conceded thus as a temporary "thing" in God) but "because" a mind at work to divorce them, to bring man to a place where he could not "square"...believe...accept that in God all these are already perfectly harmonized, and reject then, by notion of opposition, that that is precisely "who" God is...all power and authority and all humility and submission. As I believe it was Gordon who said the seeing of God, as servant to man.
Now, this does not in any way diminish "power and authority" but yet it does not impinge upon the Father helping his child to walk either, without shame. For the power and authority is touched, depending upon circumstance...just as the humility and obedience are touched, in a certain circumstance. But all is touched, simultaneously and fully, in Jesus Christ.


If we believe Christ, and that His word is unbreakable and true, and we find that He says "I only speak what I am given from the Father...these words are not my own..." might we ask...who is speaking here?

"Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”…

Can it be the Father speaking? The One we call (by some distinction) the real boss of all bosses, the supreme being, the God above all gods...the ultimate (in any and every sense...even if we still see some semblance of divison of "Jesus...and...God")


Is that HIM? "Meek and lowly, and humble of heart"? The one in whom is all being...and power and authority?

Why does this almost sound too strange to believe? Except it is said...by the very One in whom we have trusted as truth and life? Is this "really" the truth?


I think we may admit that to the extent this is "hard" to believe, hard to accept, hard to acknowledge (even though it be _of Christ_)...is the extent to which an "old" mind is still at work in whatever manner of opposition to the new man and His mind.
Where power and authority are only seen opposing meekness and humility...not perfectly harmonious in it. And it may be we are not unfamiliar with the working of a mind that enjoys all grasping at "power and authority" while quite disdainful of obedience and submission. But there is no "separating off" of "parts" of God...to try and "take them" individually is the lie, and we find that "grasping" at a part....was never really God at all.
The true power and authority are always "with" the true submission and humility...so much a "stew", no man could rightly even discern the potato from the carrot if he thought he could just think he wanted the one.


Its like the question "wanting" God...or Jesus? Or "I believe in God, but I don't believe in Jesus" sort of thing. It simply doesn't exist...in what is.


We could get into matters of distinction between "obedience and submission" that there might be something there that seems equivocal and it might end up being less (as in better) than a camel and gnat buffet. But we cannot be submitted without an obedience, even if it be less than a _seemingly _direct obedience.

Submit to one another in the fear of the Lord.

The brothers were submitted to their punishment at the hands of those who charged them to "speak no more in that name"...but they surely didn't obey them. No reviling of them came out of them, either. They simply had a higher obedience that delivered them from the hands of men, and was more than ample to their joy. And perhaps even some of the beaters of those men...came to their own "because..."

"They had an interest in their salvation."


But....salvation IS, what Is.


And if we be pressed to a "because" it may not be unworthy in the least to say 
"Because God IS love"

And love has no "because".

But may be given of mercy and grace to what knows only that it needs it, still perhaps thinking it can somehow fathom the why.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 5, 2017)

quote
"Can it be the Father speaking? The One we call (by some distinction) the real boss of all bosses, the supreme being, the God above all gods...the ultimate (in any and every sense...even if we still see some semblance of divison of "Jesus...and...God")"quote

That's the picture of God in my mind. The one that sent his Son to die for our sins. That's the picture of God I have. I see God and his Son. The Son that his Father sent. Perhaps the Son has always existed literally or in God's word only matters not in how I still view the Father. 
I still see a dominant Father having all authority over the Son. I can't explain it any better than one tries to explain their Trinity view. 
It's just as hard for me as it is for them. The more we try, the muddier it gets. 

Even though I see this "semblance of division," so do Trinitarians. Oneness believers don't. They always see only one at a time.
We all see unity, Oneness, and division to a certain extent.

God is so much a part of his Son that Jesus said, "if you see me, you see my Father." God sent his Son. One must believe that God sent his Son in order to have God. The unity is so close that you can't have God any other way. You can't deny the Son and have the Father. You can't have the Father and not the Son.

In that respect I want both. I believe in both. Regardless of how we as individuals separate God and Jesus, you can't have one without the other. Their unity is too close for an individual to do that.


----------



## Israel (Feb 5, 2017)

I think the shortest cut possible, that the world (and the old mind) cannot receive is that there is no "power tripping" in our One God.


----------



## Israel (Feb 5, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> quote
> "Can it be the Father speaking? The One we call (by some distinction) the real boss of all bosses, the supreme being, the God above all gods...the ultimate (in any and every sense...even if we still see some semblance of divison of "Jesus...and...God")"quote
> 
> That's the picture of God in my mind. The one that sent his Son to die for our sins. That's the picture of God I have. I see God and his Son. The Son that his Father sent. Perhaps the Son has always existed literally or in God's word only matters not in how I still view the Father.
> ...


What if that thing in red, though we might discover in prevalence, to be precisely not at all true in Christ? At least as a mind might phrase it (even to itself)?


I have heard and understood, very well understood in the most candid of conversations (and only in candid conversations) over the years that for those who admitted to it there was for them a seeming gulf between their perception of Father and Son. The confession took the basic form of "I believe Jesus loves me, and I can understand that, but to be honest I get a little hung up in seeing the Father that way" Usually then, the conversation would proceed as to what was believed to be the "whys"...like "I guess it's because my (or in some cases when discussed more openly, we) had Fathers that were inconsistent, or hard, or whatever, whatever, whatever. It's not the first time dominant/dominance (does it not have a taste, that word?) in form and consideration probably enters our own conversations here. 

All is matter of relationship, all our being is relationship dependent. And in certain ways the entrance into further sight and light is born in the suffering we endure under what we presently believe we see and understand. A pressing toward...clarity. We are in the "hungry and thirsty" Way. Can we deny it? Who could ever choose this way for themselves? But it is the way of the blessed.

Streams we may camp at slowly dry up, worms eat the plant from which we took pleasure of shade...to a further confrontation of face to face, heart, to heart. Even toward the end of days, when a breast upon which we once lay our head, and from there a seemingly tireless life of service has sprung; when the reality of that breast's owner appears...we might yet fall as one dead, as though we had never seen much, really, at all.

What remains inexplicable...has been made ours to know. I think that's why I have such an affinity for this song.

Visitations of unknowings. Revelations


"how do I work this?"


----------

