Is Jesus Eternal?

[URAVIP2ME]

I think that I don't know what "I was" before I came to be in this world .. it is hidden from me.

I find Just as Adam had No beginning before he came to be in this world but Adam was formed/fashioned from the earth itself - Genesis 2:7 God was the Potter and Adam was the clay.
Life-less Adam did Not come to life until his God breathed the ' breath of life ' into life-less Adam, and thus through Adam's breath, so to speak, to us.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There are numerous examples today of people claiming to be messiah's with authority, and being imprisoned or sentenced to death..

.... and which one of those claiming 'messiah's' has present-day followers as Jesus (Messiah) has ______________

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You think all souls also didn't have a beginning? I agree we all have no end.

I find in the Bible that Adam became a living soul only after God breathed the ' breath of life' into life-less Adam.
I also find in the Bible that Adam when he died became a dead soul, a life-less soul - Ezekiel 18:4,20
In the Bible I also find that 'angels are mortals' and can be destroyed. Jesus will destroy Satan - Hebrews 2:14 B

 

[Windwalker]

There are numerous examples today of people claiming to be messiah's with authority, and being imprisoned or sentenced to death..

What does what happens today have to do with the story in the gospel of John? You have to look at what happened in that day, and in the story itself that John is telling. It is NOT because Jesus may have claimed to be the messiah. There were lots of people claiming to be the messiah in that day and they were not automatically stoned to death for that.

Claiming to be the messiah was not considered blasphemy. They were hoping to find the messiah to deliver them from the Romans. So why would they automatically put to death anyone claiming to be him?? That would seem a rather self-defeating move, wouldn't it?

No, the story spells out in clear, unequivocal language why they were picking up stones to kill Jesus. Here's the context of the passage, me highlighting the exact reason why they sought to kill him, and it wasn't because he was claiming to be the messiah. They took it to mean something outright blasphemous.

I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
​

That's the reason, spelled out uniquivaolly right there. Now you can just throw the whole gospel of John away because you think it is blasphemous yourself, but you cannot deny that that is what it is teaching.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If you believe Jesus is the Word then yes, John 1 says the Word is God and as God is eternal so must the Word be.

John 1:1 says the Word ( pre-human heavenly Jesus ) was ' with ' God.
And as John continues at John 1:18 that No one can see God and live. People saw Jesus and lived - 1 John 4:12
Yes, I find God is eternal being from and to everlasting at Psalms 90:2 meaning No beginning or end.
Whereas, pre-human heavenly Jesus was " IN " the beginning but Not ' before' the beginning as God/Creator was.
Also, originally the Bible was Not written in King James English.
KJV has No letter 'a' before God at John 1 but KJV inserts the letter 'a' at Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B even though the same Greek grammar rule applies in both verses.
Plus, God and Lord are both titles and Not proper names.
There are two (2) KJV LORD/Lord's mentioned at Psalms 110
The KJV LORD in all Upper-Case letters stands for the Tetragrammaton YHWH for God's name.
The other Lord (in some lower-case letters ) stand for Lord Jesus. -No Tetragrammaton applied to Lord Jesus.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

...................The story spells out in clear, unequivocal language why they were picking up stones to kill Jesus. Here's the context of the passage, highly the exact reason why they sought to kill him, and it wasn't because he was claiming to be the messiah. They took it to mean something outright blasphemous.

I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”​

That's the reason, spelled out uniquivaolly right there. Now you can just throw the whole gospel of John away because you think it is blasphemous yourself, but you cannot deny that that is what it is teaching.

'False charge of blasphemy' because of Jesus reference to God as being his Father.
The 'Jews were claiming' that Jesus claimed to be God or a god.
The Jews were overlooking or ignoring that Jesus is giving the credit to his 'Father' at John 10:29.
Since the Father is 'greater than all' that would include the Father being greater than Jesus.
Notice it is the Jews (Not Jesus) who were saying that Jesus made himself God at John 10:33
Jesus answers at John 10:34-35 by referring to Psalms 82:6
Continuing at John 10:36 Jesus truthfully answers as to who he is to those accusing Jews that he is God's Son.

Please notice in Jesus' prayer at John 17:11 & John 17:21-23 that Jesus prays his followers be one just as he and his Father are one. Surely Jesus was Not praying his followers become God, but like Jesus and his Father they could be one in faith, purpose, will, unity, belief, etc.

 

[muhammad_isa]

To be appropriate, don't use it as a slur. If your intention is to call someone, or a group, ignorant, then go ahead and say what you mean. Or even better, quote your own scritpure and use arabic to insult people.

Ha

No point in using Arabic..
We are talking about the Divinity of Jesus.
Jesus followed the Torah, and the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem.
They then tell us what we must believe about Jesus.

I consider 'goy' to be more appropriate than 'kafir' in this context.
It's only a word .. it is not blasphemous.

 

[Windwalker]

Arian Christians believe that Jesus' highest teachings are contained in the New Testament in Jesus' own words as reported by the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke (The Arian Christian Bible). The namesake of these beliefs, St Arius of Alexandria, rejected the politically generated divinity of Jesus that was imposed by the Council of Nicaea, which was convened at the behest of Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325 AD. The purpose of this Council was to bring the structure of the Christian Church into conformity with the structure of the Roman Empire as the State Religion, that is; one religion, the Catholic (universal) Church; one theology, the Holy Trinity; and one religious leader, the Pope, and to form a basis for the suppression of other brands of Christianity.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Arian-Christian-Bible-Matthew-Mark/dp/1452839557

Is this your source of information as your basis to believe that the prologue to gospel of John is fraudulent, and that John's gospel is only in the Christian canon because the Romans wanted it to be? I think this is the source of your errors right here. Here is the guy who wrote this book you seem to rely upon, some fella from Chicago with no mention of his academic credentials whatsoever...

The Institute for Metaphysical Studies Inc: books, biography, latest update

Clearly, I think there are better sources to be found if you are interested in a balanced perspective on history and truth. That said however, I'm fully willing to look at Arianism in this regard. I'm familiar with the history of it.

Arius himself used the gospel of John. He did not exclude it like your author seems to lead you to believe. We have Arianism today in Christianity, predominantly found in the Jehovah's Witnesses sect. Like Arius himself, they include John in their religious texts. They just interpret it to mean Jesus was subordinate to the Father, just like Arius himself did.

Modern JW's go a step further and mangle the translation of the 3rd clause of John 1 to read, instead of the proper translation of "the word was God", to read and change the meaning to fit their theology, "the word was a god".

They believe Jesus was the first created being, and then through him, all the rest of creation was made, all "other" things were created through him, they insert into the texts unjustifiably in order to support their theology.

But regarding history and Arius' view on the gospel of John, St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his commentary on John 1:2,

The Arians were able to draw out another error from the above. They think that the Son is less than the Father because it says below (14:28): “The Father is greater than I” And they say the Father is greater than the Son both as to eternity and as to divinity of nature. And so to exclude this the Evangelist added: He was in the beginning with God. For Arius admits the first clause, In the beginning was the Word, but he will not admit that principium should be taken for the Father, but rather for the beginning of creatures. So he says that the Word was in the beginning of creatures, and consequently is in no sense coeternal with the Father. But this is excluded, according to Chrysostom, by this clause, He was in the beginning, not of creatures, but in the beginning with God, i.e., whenever God existed. For the Father was never alone without the Son or Word, but He, that is, the Word, was always with God.

Again, Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless inferior to the Father. This is excluded by what follows. For there are two attributes proper to the great God which Arius attributed solely to God the Father, that is, eternity and omnipotence. So in whomever these two attributes are found, he is the great God, than whom none is greater. But the Evangelist attributes these two to the Word. Therefore, the Word is the great God and not inferior. He says the Word is eternal when he states, He was in the beginning with God, i.e., the Word was with God from eternity, and not only in the beginning of creatures (as Arius held) , but with God, receiving being and divinity from him. Further, he attributes omnipotence to the Word when he adds, Through him all things came into being.
​

The point being here, you have no reason to believe John shouldn't be including in the Christian canon, when Arius himself considered it to be scripture. So I see no real reason to bring him into this, other than to say there were other Christians of the day who didn't believe in Tertullian's trinitarian theology. That is in fact the case, but there were also the Sabbelianists who didn't read John as trinitarian either. They were the modalistic monarchians of that day. So what? That doesn't mean they rejected the gospel of John.

I did not .. John 10:36

You did too. You misquoted in saying "a son of God". A son of god, is very different than The Son of God. That verse you quote says what I said, not what you said.

It is just that you interpret "son of God" as meaning God..

No I didn't. You misquoted it as "a son of God", when it says "the Son of God". A son of God is just like any other follower of God, whereas the Son of God, is a special exalted titled. I did not say anything about that title meaning God. I did not interpret that title.

..in any case, the fact that John is a part of the Bible canon,
has no weight .. it was chosen to be in the canon for very good reason. The so-called Arius controversy, happens around the same time .. just coincidence?

Your information is poor. Arius did not reject the gospel of John. If you believe I am wrong, then please provide a better source than some dude in Chicago with only 2 titles to his name and no academic credentials who founded the Institute for Metaphysical Studies Inc, which is probably set up in his garage, or something. The Institute for Metaphysical Studies Inc: books, biography, latest update

..except that the Bible is not claimed to be a direct revelation from God.. It has multiple authors, some anonymous.

I know plenty of Christians who in fact do believe that everything in the Bible is a direct revelation from God. They love to quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Yes "a starting point" .. it makes Jesus into the Creator... implies God.

Thank you for acknowledging that the gospel of John does in fact teach that Jesus is God incarnate. Others try to make it say something different.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, the story spells out in clear, unequivocal language why they were picking up stones to kill Jesus. Here's the context of the passage, me highlighting the exact reason why they sought to kill him, and it wasn't because he was claiming to be the messiah. They took it to mean something outright blasphemous.

We all know that "Jesus is God" in John's Gospel..
..as an "Arian", I will not waste any more time trying to convince you otherwise.

 

[Fool]

Eternal, by definition, is that which lasts forever; without beginning and without end.

Jesus was born. We know this because his birth is celebrated on this day every year by Christians worldwide.

I've also heard it said that Jesus is eternal. Is this possible? If His beginning is celebrated each year, he obviously has a beginning. So how is it possible that Jesus is eternal?

no, a personality isn't eternal. a person is developed and maintained during the earthly experience. it doesn't exist before/after the earthly experience.

it is what the bible calls a beast. in other forms its called an ego.


ecclesiastes 3:18

 

[Windwalker]

'
The 'Jews were claiming' that Jesus claimed to be God or a god.

First, the Jews would not have accused Jesus of making himself a god, because first off Jews didn't believe in any God by one God. They did not believe in "the gods" themselves, nor that Jesus was claiming to be one of those. They wouldn't consider doing that to be blasphemy. They'd just consider that to be pagan, and would not have the authority or the right to put Jesus to death for being a non-Jew, which he would be if he thought he was a god.

But the real point is, they took what he said to mean that he was calling himself God, or equal to God (same thing, since there is only one God). That is the story in John. That is what it explicitly says. Now you can argue that that was an error on their part to believe that's what Jesus meant, but I'd like to point out to you something glarlying missing in the story.

Never once does John have Jesus tell them they were wrong. You would think he would have corrected them, or at least let the readers of John's gospel think that Jesus thought they were wrong. How come that's missing?

'
The Jews were overlooking or ignoring that Jesus is giving the credit to his 'Father' at John 10:29.
Since the Father is 'greater than all' that would include the Father being greater than Jesus.
Notice it is the Jews (Not Jesus) who were saying that Jesus made himself God at John 10:33
Jesus answers at John 10:34-35 by referring to Psalms 82:6
Continuing at John 10:36 Jesus truthfully answers as to who he is to those accusing Jews that he is God's Son.

Funny that John doesn't have Jesus correct them, if they just misunderstood his meaning. You would think if some was looking to kill you or put you in jail because they thought you stole their goat, you would at least try to tell them they were mistaken, wouldn't you? So, no, that's not the way the story reads.

It appear the author was making it clear that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because that is what he was saying, and it upset their religious sensibilities. That's kind of the whole theme of John, isn't it? Not just in that one story?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Is this your source of information as your basis to believe that the prologue to gospel of John is fraudulent, and that John's gospel is only in the Christian canon because the Romans wanted it to be?

No, of course not.
I do not believe that Muhammad is "the ant-Christ".
I do not live in the middle ages.

I'm fully willing to look at Arianism in this regard. I'm familiar with the history of it..

OK .. and many Christians in the first few centuries did not believe that Jesus is God .. and they had never even heard of Arius.
The Romans burnt anything that didn't conform to their wishes, and insisted that Arius was responsible for the divide.
Well, they would wouldn't they .. they wished people to be brainwashed into thinking that Jesus taught that He was God.

Arius himself used the gospel of John. He did not exclude it like your author seems to lead you to believe..

Don't know and don't care.
Arius was not satan, and nether are others who believe that Jesus is not God.

But regarding history and Arius' view on the gospel of John, St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his commentary on John 1:2,

The Arians were able to draw out another error from the above. They think that the Son is less than the Father because it says below (14:28): “The Father is greater than I” And they say the Father is greater than the Son both as to eternity and as to divinity of nature. And so to exclude this the Evangelist added: He was in the beginning with God. For Arius admits the first clause, In the beginning was the Word, but he will not admit that principium should be taken for the Father, but rather for the beginning of creatures. So he says that the Word was in the beginning of creatures, and consequently is in no sense coeternal with the Father. But this is excluded, according to Chrysostom, by this clause, He was in the beginning, not of creatures, but in the beginning with God, i.e., whenever God existed. For the Father was never alone without the Son or Word, but He, that is, the Word, was always with God.

Again, Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless inferior to the Father. This is excluded by what follows. For there are two attributes proper to the great God which Arius attributed solely to God the Father, that is, eternity and omnipotence. So in whomever these two attributes are found, he is the great God, than whom none is greater. But the Evangelist attributes these two to the Word. Therefore, the Word is the great God and not inferior. He says the Word is eternal when he states, He was in the beginning with God, i.e., the Word was with God from eternity, and not only in the beginning of creatures (as Arius held) , but with God, receiving being and divinity from him. Further, he attributes omnipotence to the Word when he adds, Through him all things came into being.
​

The point being here, you have no reason to believe John shouldn't be including in the Christian canon, when Arius himself considered it to be scripture..

You are following the Roman version of history, just like they planned.
Blame it all on Arius .. make it all about Arius.
That's how magic tricks work .. distract the audience.

You did too. You misquoted in saying "a son of God". A son of god, is very different than The Son of God. That verse you quote says what I said, not what you said..

Not really .. Jesus is the Messiah .. so would be THE son of God .. there wouldn't have been any other .. would there?
John the Baptist was a son of God, .. but we all know what happened to him.

Your information is poor. Arius did not reject the gospel of John..

Maybe .. maybe not .. I am an English speaker, and historical writings are based on Roman history.
I wouldn't expect to find reliable historical information on this topic. It is clearly a loaded issue.

The Roman Empire asserted Trintarian belief on so-called Arian nations, by military means.

Thank you for acknowledging that the gospel of John does in fact teach that Jesus is God incarnate. Others try to make it say something different.

That's part of the human condition .. we want things to mean what we want them to mean.

 

[dybmh]

Ha

No point in using Arabic..
We are talking about the Divinity of Jesus.
Jesus followed the Torah, and the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem.
They then tell us what we must believe about Jesus.

I consider 'goy' to be more appropriate than 'kafir' in this context.
It's only a word .. it is not blasphemous.

I guess I'm asking a favor. Using the word goy that way causes problems. I'm asking, please, don't use it that way.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I guess I'm asking a favor. Using the word goy that way causes problems. I'm asking, please, don't use it that way.

OK, I understand your point .. thanks.

.must be a bad habit that I've picked up from Jewish friends..
..it was always said in good humour.

 

[Windwalker]

We all know that "Jesus is God" in John's Gospel..
..as an "Arian", I will not waste any more time trying to convince you otherwise.

So you're not a Muslim then, but a Christian? As far as you wasting your time, you haven't put in any real effort at all. You're just throwing in the towel because all you have is some dude from Chicago's single book, and nothing of any real substance to support your claims with.

But again, thank you for confirming that John teaches that Jesus is God. Tell that to your friends the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Baha'is in this thread who are arguing that it doesn't. You don't have to believe Jesus is God, but at least you are correct that is what John is in fact saying. You just don't like it, and that's a different matter.

If you do have something substantial to offer down the road, and are willing to support your views with something credible, please let me know. I'll be here. I'm always happy to change my mind with good information when I learn of it. Dude in Chicago, doesn't cut if for me.

 

[Windwalker]

No, of course not.
I do not believe that Muhammad is "the ant-Christ".
I do not live in the middle ages.

It says that in that book from the Dude in Chicago? Why on earth would you consider that good source material about Christian history to throw in support of your views then?? I'm interested in real scholars, not some religious nut who self-publishes his conspiracy theories from his garage in Chicago. Why did you even bother to read that? I wouldn't.

OK .. and many Christians in the first few centuries did not believe that Jesus is God .. and they had never even heard of Arius.

Sure. I've already said this. There are lots of different views about God amongst Christians.

The Romans burnt anything that didn't conform to their wishes, and insisted that Arius was responsible for the divide.

So you're a fan of Arius, because you find it more supportive of your views. Kind of like how atheists think Buddhism is okay because they don't teach there is a God? But do you really actually understand Christian church history? Do you really understand what Arius taught and believed?

You claimed the prologue of John is a forgery, yet provided no sources. You claim the gospel of John itself was rejected by Arius, but I've shown that is not true. What basis do you have for these claims? Was it that guy from Chicago's book?

Well, they would wouldn't they .. they wished people to be brainwashed into thinking that Jesus taught that He was God.

Jesus didn't teach that. But the author of the gospel of John did. You admitted this yourself.

Don't know and don't care.

You should care as it directly refutes your bogus claim that the Romans forced the gospel of John in the Christian canon. Arius himself used it! You don't see that as problematic to your claims? I sure do.

Arius was not satan, and nether are others who believe that Jesus is not God.

Did I ever suggest that?

You are following the Roman version of history, just like they planned.

Hahaha. Yes, conspiracy theory. No, I'm following modern scholarship who has done the hard work of actually looking at the context of the day and the different points of view. You actually have no real idea of what it is exactly that I believe. I've never told you that.

The only thing I do believe that I have shared, is that the author of the gospel of John clearly was identifying Jesus with the Divine Logos as the eternal God. That is clear. What I personally believe is another matter.

Blame it all on Arius .. make it all about Arius.

Out of curiously, are you a former Jehovah's Witness who converted to Islam?

That's how magic tricks work .. distract the audience.

Actually, not looking beyond your own biases into the fuller picture of church history, is a form of creating your own illusions about reality. It's how we distract ourselves from not having our cherished beliefs challenged.

Maybe .. maybe not .. I am an English speaker, and historical writings are based on Roman history.
I wouldn't expect to find reliable historical information on this topic. It is clearly a loaded issue.

So you choose arbitrarily to believe in something since no of the information is reliable anyway? Is that what you're claiming? It's just a matter of personal faith that this is what happened?

The Roman Empire asserted Trintarian belief on so-called Arian nations, by military means.

Actually, Constantine didn't personally care how Christians resolved their theology. All he cared about is that they became unified. He wasn't pro-tritiarian, from my understanding. He just threw them into a room and ordered them to come together either way.

That's part of the human condition .. we want things to mean what we want them to mean.

And ignoring data and reliable information that challenges our beliefs is a way we keep ourselves secure.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So you're not a Muslim then, but a Christian?

I was raised as a Christian, and live in a "post-Christian" society.
Secular belief trumps religious belief in the West now, I would say.
When I became a Muslim 45 years ago, I did not consider myself to believe in a different God .. I just had new information, that I previously lacked.

As far as you wasting your time, you haven't put in any real effort at all. You're just throwing in the towel because all you have is some dude from Chicago's single book, and nothing of any real substance to support your claims with..

That's not true. I have explained to you how the illusion of "jesus is God" came to be, by political councils and the Roman Empire, and enforced militarily..

..and just as the Roman Empire quashed their Christian brothers [who were accused of Heresy] by Justinian the Great,( c 527 to 565 ), we see that Muhammad was born in 570CE.

The Qur'an confirms that Arian belief was closer to truth, and the political landscape began to change.

Western (Roman) historical accounts will of course paint "Arians" and "Muhammadens" in a negative light.

If you do have something substantial to offer down the road, and are willing to support your views with something credible, please let me know...

What is it that you specifically want to know?
I can't produce a rabbit out of a hat.

 

[Windwalker]

What is it that you specifically want to know?
I can't produce a rabbit out of a hat.

I've explained that already. Who are your sources that suggest the prologue of the gospel of John was a forgery. What are your sources that say the gospel of John was not used by Christians and was only included in the Christian canon because of the Romans who wanted it there because it said that Jesus was God. Who are your sources, please?

The only source I saw in response to that request was that dude from Chicago's book on Amazon. Is that your only source?

 

[Trailblazer]

John 1 says that the Word incarnated (and the Word was God and the agent of all creation).

John 1 does not use the word 'incarnated.' That is just what some people interpret it to mean.
What John 1 means is subject to many different interpretations and there is no way to prove which if any of them are correct.
Of course that is true of all scripture, it needs to be read and interpreted as we read the verses.

 

[Rival]

John 1 does not use the word 'incarnated.' That is just what some people interpret it to mean.
What John 1 means is subject to many different interpretations and there is no way to prove which if any of them are correct.
Of course that is true of all scripture, it needs to be read and interpreted as we read the verses.

Incarnate literally means 'come in flesh' or 'meat', as in 'carne' - meat. He became flesh, he in 'carne' ted.