GROUP 2B - 9,219 / 9,220 (99.98%) users invited back [last: jdotr] Discuss

God @ MindSay


The Devil, Prince and Me

I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord: who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen

The Methodist version of  The Apostles Creed 


As I knelt in front of the altar reciting this in my pristine white dress with my hair freshly permed, (permenantly straightened) I remember feeling a sense of accomplishment.  I was getting confirmed -- I was going to become a member of the United Methodist Church in my own right.  I did well in my confirmation classes. I memorized three creeds, The Apostles Creed (which I still remember), the Nicene Creed and another creed which of I've forgotten the name. I learned the history of the Methodist Church and of its liturgies and at 11 years old, I couldn't have been more proud of myself.


However, I had a dark secret - something I felt so ashamed of that I prayed to God and asked him deliver me from my sinful nature.  I wanted to be a good girl and a good Methodist.  What was my dark secret?  I liked -- no LOVED Prince. In the 80's and much like it is now, I suppose, artists and our tastes in music defined who we were to our peers.  There were many rivalries between artists in the 80's and most of them were instigated by the fans. Amongst black girls in the 1980s, two performers had the most impact in defining who we were to each other -- Prince and Michael Jackson.  Prince was the bad boy. He oozed sex. Every song he sang and every performance he did was wrapped in a blanket of sexual suggestion.  He licked and humped his guitar and he caressed his body while staring directly at some lucky woman in the audience. His falsetto voice sounded like he was constantly on the edge or orgasm and it didn't help that he had and still has a nice, firm, perfectly formed posterior.  Michael Jackson, on the other hand was the boy next door. He was the guy you wanted to take home to mom and dad. You could imagine going steady with him and receiving that precious first kiss on the day he asked you to be his girl. His falsetto voice was as sweet as honey and when he sang a ballad women would drop like flies. Before his unfortunate plastic surgeries and his penchant for grabbing his crotch, he seriously was a force to be reckoned with.  So, if you were a Prince fan, you were a bad girl and if you were a Michael Jackson fan, you were a good girl. Of course, it was absolutely possible to like both--and I did -- however, during those days no respectable church girl would ever admit to liking Prince.  He was just the Devil! This really slammed into my psyche when my cousin Felicia, who is the daughter of a Baptist preacher told me one day,


            "I can't believe anyone could like Prince. He's so nasty! He's bad and he needs to be saved."


I felt so guilty that I decided not to even look at a magazine if I saw Prince's picture in it.  This was extremely hard to do. Not only was he in every teen magazine on the newsstands, he was too damned sexy not to at least spare a glance .  One day, my dad brought home the 1999 album. In it there was a picture of Prince drawing in a bed of purple satin sheets.  The covers were pulled down to  show the top half of that magnificent deriere.  I remember staring at it feeling hot and flushed. On top of that, my tummy started to feel funny.  I had to face the facts.  I liked Prince and I was going to fry in hell for it! It was inevitable. 


In all honesty,  most of the content of his songs were things I didn't understand.  For instance, he had a song called "Head" on a previous album.  I thought the man was saying "hey".  Even though the content matter was something I wasn't able to comprehend, the way the song was sung just gave you the impression that it was something naughty. On the 1999 album he had a song called "International Lover" in which he compared himself to an airplane ride.  He moaned and sang so breathlessly that I refused to listen to it. 


In an attempt to forget my feelings for "His Royal Badness", I decided to replace him with Michael Jackson.  It wasn't too hard because at the time Michael came out with Thriller which was a bad assed album.  The Thriller video was and still is the livest mean tightest video ever made. Then came Purple Rain. For almost two years I had been able to fight my love for Prince, but the song "Let's Go Crazy" hit the air waves and I went nuts my damned self!   When he released "When Doves Cry" my resolve weakened and I found myself wanting -- no NEEDING that album!  I didn't dare ask for it for my birthday and I definitely didn't pray for it.  Once again, my father acting as Satan's helper came home with the album.  When I listened to the album I realized "Computer Blue", "The Beautiful Ones" and "Darling Nikki" had to be the sexiest songs I'd ever heard! I was doomed.  I once again prayed for deliverance from my sinful nature.  I was glad that I was too young to see the movie Purple Rain in theaters. 


Because my dad is an engineer and a gadget-o-holic, we were always one of the first people in the neighborhood to have the latest inventions.  We were pleased as punch when he bought home our first VCR.  It was the size of a stereo and the remotes came with wires that attatched to the cassette player.  When you pressed a button at the top of the VCR, the tape bed would pop up! People would come over and watch movies at our house all the time.  One day, Daddy, who I felt at the times was probably prompted by Beelzebub again, came home with none other than the movie Purple Rain on video. How could I resist?  How was I supposed to fight the pull of lust when I knew Prince would be riding around Minnesota in tight pants on motorcycle?  I decided to give up.  I couldn't fight it anymore.  I loved him damn it and I didn't care who knew.  I called my cousin Felicia that night and confessed that I liked Prince and saw Purple Rain.  She replied, "Cool Cuz. That video for "When Doves Cry" is all the way live!" (Cousin Felicia eventually started rapping and singing under the stage name Lee-Lee). My mother soon after confessed that she liked Prince's song "Count Your Blessings."  We later figured out she meant the song "Controversy". She thought he was saying "count your blessings".  Daddy said he liked Prince because he thought Prince was a musical genius.  When I thought about it, I knew he had a point.  The man wrote and produced his own songs. It was said that he played about 17 different instruments and he came up with a very distinct sound of his own. He was a good performer and he had catchy tunes. No wonder I liked him! 


I find it funny that the more I prayed for God to deliver me from my lust for Prince, the more I was exposed to Prince.  I no longer think my dad was a tool of Satan, but rather a voice of reason.  We are both music lovers and I was (am) a musician. It took my dad's explanation of why he liked Prince to make me realize how trivial I was being. Sure the man was sexual, so were a lot of performers. But, because I found myself aroused by him I felt like I was embracing sin.  If I had thought Prince was a crappy artist, I wouldn't have felt anything for him at all. It also helped me accept who I was and to not let other people define me.  Duality exists in just about everyone. 


So who was it for you?


Prince                                                    Michael



*the term catholic spelled with a lower case C comes from a Greek word meaning "universal" or "general"


Time and god
So I'm currently in this philosophy of religion class and we are discussing various things the most reacent of which is Gods relationship to time.

It's quite the undertaking an I don't think it's possible to come up with a good solid arguement for His being seperate from or bound to time. At least not doing so while keeping key attributes such as omnipotence and omnitence. I have generaly been of the opinion that god is seperate from time since I don't see how God could know the future if he were just as stuck in the present as I am. But this causes some problems becasue see now I had a begining [or so I think] and at some point I imagine I will go to heaven but I will have to arive there and WHEN do I arive in a state of timelessness.

I have come closer to the conclusion that I am in fact clinicly depressed. It's hard for me to believe, being a psych major and all. But I supose that doesn't really make me impervious to depression it just makes me perfectly equipt to rationalize away the symptomes for a lot longer than most. But I have to face it that I have issolated myself I prety much have one friend that I talk to regularly and I'm even starting to feel like she doesn't like me. I don't feel like what I have done in my  life is anything to be proud of, I don't really think I give people a reason to like me, for a long time now I've had a hard time looking to the future and making any sort of plans because I feel like there's not much point in it . A strange symptom I've recently noticed is one minute I'm feeling like everyone around me is inferior and I'm smarter, better looking, more succcessfull than everyone around me and then a little later I'll feel completely and utterly worthless and inadequate. I guess I'm feeling down and inconsistent. I've almost completley stopped writting, it's down to just the blog post here and there and those are so rare anymore I deleted all but two accounts. I don't have much interest in trying to paint anymore and I used to be very motivated to learn. I don't want to be around people but when I'm by myself I'm lonely- a lot of the time I'm lonely with people too. I don't like to talk to my family on the phone anymore becasue I'm afraid I'll eithor be a downer or dissapoint them. They'rae allyways saying how proud they are of me and I wish they would stop because is feels like a lie. I don't like to shop in public by myself because I feel like people stare at me. I'd like to just sort of retreat somewhere but I know that will probably  just make it worse. I don't have any particular person who looks forward to seeing me and that makes me feel like a looser. I think then "well find someone to make friends with- meet people" but then I get this pointless sense that anyone worth knowing already has friends and they don't have time for me. I feel like things have kind of gotten off track.

So yeah. That's something isn't it.

*Almost 10 years later*
I'm looking at this almost 10 years later and I'll tell you it got worse before it got better, for sure! I never sought "professional help". I sort of counseled myself and made strategies for when things got "too hard". And then when it got really too hard and the thought of driving into on coming traffic or imagining shooting myself in the head became too frequent and too comforting a thought: I ran away. I moved home. And that was right. Sometimes I think it was a bit of a failure to have moved back home but there's nothing wrong with taking care of yourself and changing course.  And I only lived at home for a short time. I'm on my own again. I never fully explained to my family why I came home... sometimes I wonder if they sort of knew. They were definitely concerned about me at the time.
I'm a lot better now I would say but I'm very cognizant of where I've been emotionally and where I'm going.


Talk It Out
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
-1 Corinthians 14:26-28

That's a somewhat humorous, but also sobering, reference, given the situation.

(I'm not claiming to have the gift of speaking in tongues. Just that I know this passage, and it sheds light on another issue.)

We had a new guy at study last night. Knowledgeable person, experienced with the community we're part of, about ten years older than me - I was on one of my EXCITED! nights, and spoke

I hadn't really thought about it, until the second time he said, "Okay, I heard what you said but I didn't understand it," and realized later the number of times I've heard, "I know that was English, but I have no idea what you just said." At the time, I'd offered an off-the-cuff remark about Jewel being able to translate.

But I hadn't thought about how,
I speak quickly (years of Gilmore Girls at an early age)
With a mixed accent (born in NY, grew up in Midwest, lot of British tv, year in WY, couple of good friends are Texan - my sisters and I have a peculiar accent that we're unaware of but people recognize between us and nowhere else)
An unnecessarily-extensive vocabulary (I'm largely unaware of this, until someone points it out. Combination of my mother's verbosity and my bibliophilic lifestyle)
An intimate knowledge of grammatical rules, paired with a callous disregard for rules in general
A dry, whimsical sense of humor (I will often bury the point I'm making in the middle of two other things, just because it amuses me to do so)
...the list goes on. I don't really think of any of these, they're just all part of how I speak...but last night brought home to me that my pattern of communicating actually impedes communication.

I've been reading through the tail-end of Exodus this week. Good night, is there a lot of detail about the making of the tabernacle (the sacred tent this nomadic people had in place of a temple, to worship). This time around, though, something hit me; there are all these precious items being used in the making of the tabernacle, things beautiful, carefully wrought, and very valuable. (Rightly so, if you view your god as being beautiful and valuable, or if you want to make it clear that you value your god and want to give the best you have.) But I started thinking, somehow, about the ARRANGEMENT of all these things.

See, this is a very bloody religion - there's a LOT of animal sacrifices going on, and there's very clear detail about what sacrifice is appropriate for which situation, and there's also clear instruction about how to PREPARE the sacrifice - how it's killed, which parts are burned, which parts are thrown away, whether something gets incense sprinkled on it, which parts are offered as sacrifices and given to the priests to eat...lot of detail. By investing effort into getting all the details right, you showed that this matter was important to you. (I've long held a theory that that was Cain's issue - both Cain and Abel offered sacrifices, but I kind of have the impression that Cain wanted to offer a sacrifice according to the way HE wanted to present it, and Abel thought it was very important to know how GOD wanted it presented).

I started thinking about how all these precious items to make the tabernacle were given by the people - so much was given, in fact, that Moses had to tell them, "Okay, we have more than enough to do this, it's time to stop giving." But just the giving of precious things wouldn't honor God. You could just pile the beautiful fabric, the dyed rams' skins, the silver and bronze and oil, and it would be a mess. Yeah, you gave up something precious, but for what purpose? How is that mess honoring God?

And that's running very close to how I give to God. I'm not a very intentional person, and previously I held that as sort of a merit: "I'm a free spirit!" That celebrates me, maybe - but looking at the way I give to God, in that light...I have NOT been intentional. Opposite, really - it took a long time before I realized that I had anything God would value, but once I understood His giving nature, His love and that He delighted to give things to His children, I started to see what He had given me that I might be able to give back to Him.
But it's been fairly haphazard. "Oh! I have THIS. THIS is a good thing!" And then in my eagerness, I hurl it in God's general direction, or in the general direction of His people.

One of the other oddball skills all three of us have is a sort of chameleon-talent. I use it in a choir setting - listening, I can listen to the people on either side of me, and sort of average out their tone/pitch/vowels into a third supporting voice - that doesn't sound like a third. It sounds like those two just got stronger and blended. I love doing that, and no one noticing that's what I'm doing. (There are a LOT of things I like doing because they're a good thing to do, and I get a sort of thrill when I can pull it off without anyone realizing I'm the one who did it.) Butterfly uses this socially - she'll listen and figure out what people value, and craft a conversation that brings people closer without clashing (she's probably the most elite of the three of us with this). Starfish uses it to hide - she'll adapt her personality to whatever the general personality of the group is, so she doesn't stand out or attract attention (good luck with that - she has the most striking looks of the three of us).

Now I'm looking at each of these talents, thinking, "Huh. Can this be better used, somehow?" I've basically been using language to impede communication - that wasn't my intention, but that was the result. In a group, I would probably do very well to sit and listen a great deal, and follow the speech patterns to figure out what THIS group thinks is English, and then match that.

Because, without Jewel or Nike around, no one's going to be able to interpret.

YAHSHUA: DID HE PRE-EXIST? An Explanation Of Our Views By Voy Wilks 10/23/90 Did the Messiah pre-exist in some form before he was conceived of Mary, the Jewish woman? Many people believe he did, while many believe he did not. Most if not all of these people seem to rely on the same source of information - the Bible, so why isn't there complete agreement, since all read from the same source? There are several reasons for non-conformity, some of which are as follows: * Background. A person whose church teaches the pre-existence is not likely to question whether this is true or false. Instead, it is accepted as fact. This is true of most religious views. Generally, it is only those doctrines which seem to be "new" which are examined to determine if they are true or false. * Bias. A preference for or against a doctrine can sometimes prevent a correct analysis of Scripture. This can be caused by a person's background, or by some other consideration. Example: Anti Semitism (hatred of the Jews) can prevent a correct understanding of which is the true day of worship * Failure. Failure, for whatever reason, to understand the message in Scripture. * Translation. There is the possibility, in some cases, that the religious views of the translators have influenced their translation. There are a number of Scriptures which seem to promote the pre-existence of the Messiah. Surely the most powerful of these is Hebrews 1:2. Hebrews 1:1 & 2 "In many and various ways Yahweh spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he created the world" (RSV). This indicates the heavenly Father is supreme. (1) As most English versions read, he authorized the Son, Yahshua, to do the actual work in creating the heavens and the earth and all things in them. (2) Many believe that Yahshua, in a pre-existent state, was Yahweh's spokesman; a Son spoke for him and did Yahweh's work for him, such as creating the world. If either of the statements are true - if Yahshua spoke the world into existence - then certainly the Messiah existed before the world existed. Let us now examine Hebrews 1:1,2. What is a spokesman? "One who speaks in the name and on behalf of another or others" (Readers Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1975). Reviewing Heb 1:1 we see that Yahshua was not Yahweh's spokesman. Instead, the prophets were his spokesmen. Yahweh "spoke to our fathers by the prophets." Therefore, even if Yahshua pre-existed, he was not the spokesman who contacted "our fathers." It was, evidently, only in "these last days" that Yahweh "spoke to us by his Son" (Heb 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:20). Yahshua the Heir "... but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed HEIR OF ALL THINGS, ..." (Heb. 1:2). What does this say? Yahweh appointed his Son (Yahshua) to be his heir - to inherit "all things." Please keep in mind: A son does not inherit property which he, himself, has worked for. No. He owns that already. This indicates that Yahshua did not, after all, create the world, since he is the heir to his Father's property. Does this agree with other Scriptures? Indeed, yes. Please note the following evidence: "Hear another parable. There was a householder who planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and dug a wine press in it, and built a tower, and let it out to tenants, and went into a far country. When the season of fruit drew near. he sent his servants to the tenants, to get his fruit; and the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first; and they did the same to them. AFTERWARD he SENT HIS SON to them, saying, they will respect my son. But when the tenants saw the son they said to themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him and have his INHERITANCE. And they took him and cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?" (Mt 21:33-40 Mk. 12:1-7; Lk. 20:9-16). The following points are clear: * The Father (Yahweh) was the householder. * The Father (Yahweh) planted the vineyard. * The Father (Yahweh) set the hedge, built the tower, and dug the winepress. * The Father (Yahweh) made the contract with the tenants; that is Israel (Isa. 5:1-7; Ps. 80:8-19). * The Father (Yahweh) sent his servants (the prophets). * The Father (Yahweh) sent his son (Yahshua). * The son (Yahshua) was the heir of his Father's property (the vineyard with all its improvements). * The Son (Yahshua) was cast out and killed. Obviously, Yahshua is both the Son and the Heir; not the owner, nor the householder. True, this is a parable, but in order to teach truth, a parable must agree with prevailing conditions. Other Scriptures - Other Scriptures which are not parables - agree with Hebrews 1:2 that Yahshua is the heir of Father Yahweh's property. "For all who are lead by the spirit of Yahweh are sons of Yahweh. ... and if children, then heirs, heirs of Yahweh and FELLOW HEIRS WITH the Messiah, ..." (Rom. 8:14,17). "... for in Messiah Yahshua you are all sons of Yahweh, through faith. For as many as were baptized into the Messiah have put on the Messiah. ... And if you are the Messiah's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:26,27,29). So through Yahweh you are no longer a slave but a son and if a son then an heir" (Gal. 4:7). We inherit the promise made to Abraham: the kingdom (the world, the vineyard), and everlasting life, because Yahshua is the chief heir. By baptism in his name we, and the ancients, become fellow heirs with the Messiah (Gal. 3:16-19; Titus 3:7; Heb 11:7-10; Acts 20:32; 7:5,6; Rom. 4:13; Eph. 1:3-23; 1 Peter 1:3,4; Rev. 21:5-7). Remember the mother of James and John? She asked the Savior to grant that her two sons will set, one on Yahshua's right and one on his left in the Kingdom of Yahweh. Yahshua's reply: (the heavenly Father), being the Creator, is owner of all, while Yahshua (his Son) is the heir. "I will tell of the decrees of Yahweh: He said to me, 'You are my son, today I [Yahweh] have begotten you. Ask of me and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession" (Ps. 2:7-9; Heb. 5:5). Again, this shows Yahweh as both Father and Creator, and Yahshua as both Son and the Heir. Ephesians 1:3-23 also shows Yahweh to be the Creator, the Father, and the owner of the inheritance. One day Yahshua will receive this inheritance, and make us (the saints, (Jew and Gentile) joint heirs with himself. Again, the following quotation reveals Yahweh as the provider and owner of the inheritance. Yahshua extends to us a share as joint heirs. "For every house is builded by someone; but he that built all things is Yahweh" (Heb. 3:4 Bethel Edition). These Scriptures are more than enough to confirm Yahweh as Creator and Yahshua his Son will one day inherit his Father's property - his Father's creation. By Whom He Made The Worlds "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, BY WHOM also he made the worlds; ..." (Heb. 1:2 KJV). The RSV reads, "... through whom he created the world." This very clearly states the world was created By the Son of Yahweh. This Son is Yahshua, of course. However, Scriptural evidence noted above indicates Yahweh did the creating, not Yahshua. Are we to believe the apostles and the Gospel writers wrote two ways, sometimes reporting that Yahweh is Creator, and at other times reporting that his Son is Creator? Indeed no. More than 100 Scriptures state clearly that Yahweh is Creator and Maker of heaven and earth (Ex. 20:11). Some of these indicate that no other deity exist (Isa. 44:6). No other deity helped him in his creating acts (Neh. 9:6). Except for the angels, he was alone in the creation (Isa. 45:5-18). These are stated clearly - as clearly as Hebrews 1:2 states that Yahshua made the world." What shall we do? Do we cancel (erase, throw out) more than 100 Scriptures so that we can accept Hebrews 1:2 instead? Since this Scripture does not in most English versions agree with the 100, we should carefully examine Hebrews 1:2 and, hopefully, discover why it does not agree. The Word "By" Yahweh created the world "by" (through) the Son (Heb. 1:2 KJV). The Diaglott says Yahweh created the world "on account of" the Son. Any one of the three ("by," "through," or "on account of") is, technically, a correct translation of the Greek word Di' or Dia. Dia is in the KJV translated several ways, but usually is translated as follows: By - 243 times; through - 100 times; for - 106 times; because - 24 times; because of - 29 times; for the sake of - 32 times; etc. The King's Men did not translate the WORD di' incorrectly in Heb. 1:2. By or through is a correct translation of the WORD, but ONLY IF THE MESSAGE in the sentence agrees, or allows it. But alas, in this case the message of the sentence will not allow this translation. Reason #1. Heb 1:2a reveals Yahshua to be the heir of what was created. Reason #2. More than 100 Scriptures show it was Yahweh (not Yahshua) who created the heavens and the earth. Heb. 1:2 must agree with the 100 other Scriptures. For a list of these [ask for] our paper, "Who Is the Creator?" For these reasons, the sentence in Heb. 1:2b must have originally read like the Diaglott reads today, Yahweh "... in the last of these days spoke to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, ON ACCOUNT OF whom also he constituted the ages; ..." Another acceptable translation would be, "... a Son, FOR whom he created the world." Many times the King James Version as well as more modern versions translate dia as "for," "because of," "therefore" (meaning "for this reason"). For a more detailed layout of the word di' (dia), [see] for our [study], "Hebrews 1:2 - Berry." This is not to say the the King's Men purposely mistranslated, nor is this to say they were dishonest. Not at all. On the contrary, they no doubt delivered what they believed to be the correct translation of Heb. 1:2. We must realize, however, that all of the King's Men believed the doctrine of the Trinity (one is three, and three are one). Believing this, they saw no contradiction between this Scripture (as they translated it) and the 100 Scriptures which show that Yahweh the Father is truly and personally the Creator of the heaven and earth. There are at least two other Scriptures in which di' should have been translated for, or on account of. These are Col. 1:16-17 and John 1:10. Let us review these Scriptures, then return to our study in the book of Hebrews. Colossians 1:16,17 "For by him [*Yahshua] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, ... all things were created by him and for him" (Col. 1:16,17 KJV). * Webmasters note: I believe that this also could be in reference to Father Yahweh and not to His son Yahshua. The same I believe can also apply in Yahchanan [John] 1:3. Just as in Heb. 1:2, di' can be translated for, and on account of, as well as by or through. As indicated above, either way is technically correct for this WORD. However, the MESSAGE in this text must decide which is the proper translation. The same is true of the Greek word en (= the English in). Since Yahweh is the Creator (Heb. 3:4; Ex. 20:11; Mt. 21:33; Mk. 12:7; Lk. 20:14), and Yahshua is the heir, then Col. 1:16,17 SHOULD TELL THE SAME STORY. Dozens of Scriptures in both Testaments tell us plainly that Yahweh is the Creator, and there is no other El but but him. He alone is the only true El, Eloah, Elohim, and Creator. Yahshua and the New Testament writers proved everything by Old Testament Scriptures, therefore New Testament Scriptures should (and originally did) agree with Old Testament Scriptures. The New Testament Scriptures are based on the older ones. This being true, it seems that a more exact reading of Col. 1:16,17, and one which is agreeable to the Greek text, is as follows: "For in [en = in, to, unto, as well as by] him were all things created, that are in [en] heaven, and that are on earth, ... all things were created on account of [di'] him and for him." John 1:10 "He [the Light, Yahshua] was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not" (KJV). As we have discovered above, to agree with other Scriptures, and with the context of the message, a more acceptable reading is as follows: "He was in the world and the world was made for {di'} [on account of, because of] him, and the world knew him not." Look back to the book of Hebrews. Hebrews 1:8-10 "But unto the Son he sayeth, Thy throne, O G-d, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore G-d, even thy G-d, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And thou, L-rd, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands" (KJV). As the KJV and the RSV read, this certainly indicates the Son (Yahshua) is the Creator of heaven and earth, which means he not only existed at the time of creation, but was also Deity. Once again, however, the translators evidently did not grasp the true message because they were sold on the doctrine of the Trinity. This translation will not stand the test of other Scriptures. The Moffatt Translation reads as follows: "He [Yahweh, verse 5] says of the Son, 'G-d [the Father, Yahweh] is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal septre is the septre of equity: thou [the Son] hast loved justice and hated lawlessness, therefore G-d, the G-d, has consecrated thee with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades' - and, 'Thou [Yahweh] didst found the earth at the beginning, O L-rd [Yahweh], and the heavens are the work of thy hands; ...'" (Heb. 1:8-10, Moffatt). Two quotations from the Psalms are included in these verses. "Your divine throne endures for ever and ever. You royal sceptre is a sceptre of equity; you love righteousness and hate wickedness. Therefore G-d, your G-d has anointed you with the oil of gladness above thy fellows; ..." (Ps. 45:6,7 RSV). It is interesting to read the footnote in the RSV: "Your throne is a throne of God, ..." (verse 6). Now for the other quotation. "Of Old thou (Yahweh, Verses 1, 12, 18] didst lay the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the work of they hands. They [the heavens and the earth] will perish, but thou dost endure; they will all wear out like a garment. Thou changest them like raiment, and they pass away; but thou [Yahweh] art the same, and thy years have no end" (Ps. 102:25-27 RSV). As indicated above [with brackets], these verses speak of Yahweh as Creator - not Yahshua. Yahshua's years did, indeed, come to an end. Not so those of the Father, Yahweh. His years never end. He lives forever; past; present, and future. Usually overlooked are the following points: Hebrews Chapter Two * The writer of the letter of Hebrews was not only concerned about the creation of the past. He also spoke "of the world to come" - the inheritance of the Saints which is yet future (Heb. 2:5). * Man (mankind) was for a little while made a little lower than the angels (Heb. 2:6,7; Ps. 8:4-8). Yahshua too (the same as other men, was for a little while made lower than the angels (Heb. 2:9). * Everything was originally put in subjection to mankind except the plan of salvation, which was only later developed through Yahshua, the Messiah (Heb. 2:8,9). * Yahshua "tasted death" for everyone, thus witnessing the grace of Yahweh toward all men (Heb. 2:9). * "For it was fitting that he [Yahweh], for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make [ Yahshua] the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he [Yahshua] who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all ONE ORIGIN. That is why he [Yahshua] is not ashamed to call them brethern, saying, I will proclaim thy name [Yahweh's name] to my brethern, in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee" (Heb. 2:10-12; Ps. 22:22 RSV). Do I detect here a statement showing that Yahshua had the same origin as other men? I believe so. About half of the English versions read this way. The word "origin" is not in the Greek, but is implied evidently. This agrees with other statements made in the verses below. * The children (mankind) share in flesh and blood. Yahshua is likewise of the same nature. This was so he could free his brethern who through fear of death were (are) in lifelong bondage (Heb. 2:14,15). * It is not with angels that Yahweh is concerned, but with the descendants of Abraham, therefore he (Yahshua) had to be made like his brethern IN EVERY RESPECT, so that he might become a merciful high priest (Heb. 2:16,17). Another Scripture speaking of Yahshua, reveals that the spiritual body does not come first (as in a pre-existence). No. The PHYSICAL body comes FIRST, and only later comes the SPIRITUAL body (1 Cor. 15:45,46). * He was tempted in everything as we are (Heb. 2:18). If Yahshua had been Deity while on earth, he would have had no temptations. Yahshua was even more faithful in Yahweh's house than Moses was. Every house has a builder. The builder of all things is Yahweh (Heb.3:1-6). To understand all of the book of Hebrews requires careful study. The one who wrote it admits it is difficult to understand (Heb. 5:11). Did Yahshua Pre-exist As An Angel? "For to what angel did Yahweh say, 'Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee?'" (Heb. 1:5). The answer is obvious, never at any time, has Yahweh ever said to an angel, "You are my son." This is emphatically stated, not only here, but in verse 13 as well, "But to what angel has He [Yahweh] ever said, 'Sit at my righthand till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet?'" "For Yahweh never said to an angel, Thou art my Son; today I have begotten thee, ..." (Heb. 1:5, New English Bible). Review If Yahshua pre-existed, he would have necessity have been a spiritual (spirit) being. This creates a problem, however, as a spiritual being can not die. It is an impossibility (Lk. 20:30-35; Deut. 32:40). Scriptures tell us Yahshua was flesh as we are flesh (2 Jn. 7). He had the same origin as his brethern (Heb 2:12 RSV). He really and truly died - ceased to live (Heb. 2:14; Acts 2:23; Eph. 1:20). This is powerful evidence that Yahshua did not pre-exist; that he did not live in a former life." To accept the pre-existence of Yahshua is to accept reincarnation; a superstition of the heathen which is unacceptable to our heavenly Father. * Since Yahweh is the Creator and Yahshua is the heir of that which is created; * Since the physical body comes first and only later the spiritual body; * Since a Spiritual body cannot die; * Since Yahshua was never an angel; * Since Yahshua has the same origin as his brethern; * Since Yahshua was subject to death; It seems reasonable to believe that Yahshua pre-existed neither ** Before the foundation of the world, nor ** Before his conception within Mary. He did exist in Yahweh's glorious PLAN from before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:5,9-11; John 17:24 RSV). Did Our Savior Pre-exist? From The Everlasting Good News of Yahweh website. ( For thousands of years, from the days of ancient Babylon, men have believed in a triune god. This concept of a triad of deities is a universally recognized doctrine. Whether speaking of Hindooism, Taoism, Buddhism or Christianity, all believe in a trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity states that all three gods are co-eternal. In order for Christianity to continue to support such a belief they had to show that the Messiah, who in their mind is the second god of the trinity, always existed. Since there could never be a time when one of the three gods existed without the other two, the doctrine of the savior's pre-existence came about. Almighty Yahweh has been calling many people out of Babylon, out of false Babylonian teachings, into the true faith. Many of His people have started out the door, however their foot seems to be caught on the pre-existence doctrine. The purpose of this study is to open the door of truth wider by revealing the correct understanding and translation of those scriptures used to support the pre-existence. Yahweh Sent His Son The New Testament uses several phrases that would suggest that our Savior existed as a being in heaven prior to his earthly birth. Among those phrases are; "sent His Son," "sent into the world," "not of this world," "came into the world," and "came down from heaven." Let's examine "sent His Son" and "sent into the world" first, since both phrases appear in 1 Jn.4:9,10; "In this was manifested the love of Yahweh toward us, because that Yahweh sent his only begotten Son into the world , that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved Yahweh, but that he loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." A superficial reading would lead one to believe that Yahshua was at Yahweh's side somewhere out of this world and eventually was commanded by Yahweh to come to our planet which he obediently did. In Ps.78:45 it says Yahweh sent flies upon the Egyptians prior to the exodus of Israel. Are we to believe that these flies were living in heaven prior to their arrival in Egypt? Jn.1:6 tells us that John the Baptist was also "sent from Yahweh." Surely none believe that John pre-existed at Yahweh's side. Notice this verse does not say "sent by Yahweh," but "from Yahweh." A word study of how "sent" was used in Scripture will reveal how Yahweh sent many earthly messengers and prophets to do His will. None of them, however, pre-existed in heaven. Jn.17:18 helps us to understand the phrase "sent into the world." It reads, "As thou hast sent me into the world , even so have I also sent them into the world. " Obviously, the disciples were not living outside of this world prior to Yahshua sending them into the world. Neither should we believe that Yahshua existed in some other world before being sent by Yahweh into this world. "Came into the world" is used in 1 Tim.1:15; "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Messiah Yahshua came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." The same phrase is used of all men when they are born. Jn.1:9 reads, "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. " And again in 1 Tim.6:7; "For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." So when Heb. 1:6 says, "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of Yahweh worship him," it is talking about the Messiah's earthly birth. In Jn.8:23, Yahshua said, "Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." This certainly seems to indicate an existence in another world before coming to this world. This verse is to be understood the same way we are to understand Jn.15:19; "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world , but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." Yahshua chose his disciples out of the world, therefore, they were not of this world. Yahshua said similar words in Jn.17:14; "I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world , even as I am not of the world." Yahshua is not of this world because Yahweh chose Him out of the world. Yahshua Came Down From Heaven The phrase "came down from heaven" is difficult for many to understand. The Jews did not understand either as we read in Jn. 6:42; "And they said, Is not this Yahshua, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" There is no doubt that Yahshua was emphasizing his heavenly and paternal origin, but in what sense was he declaring this? We have already seen that the phrase "sent from Yahweh" does not necessarily mean to exist side by side with and then leave Yahweh's presence. Neither does "came down from" mean something similar. Was Yahshua a pre-existent spirit being living side by side with Yahweh that was transformed into an embryo placed in Miriam's womb or was he actually inside Yahweh, "in His loins" as it were, and later united with Miriam's egg through the power of the Holy Spirit? Jn.17:8 teaches the latter. It reads, "For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee , and they have believed that thou didst send me." The Greek word "exerchomai" translated "came out" specifically means to go out of something that you were inside of. In this case, Yahshua existed inside of Yahweh in the same sense that Levi existed inside the "loins of his father" before he was born (Heb. 7:5-10). Yahshua declared this truth in Jn.16:27-30 as well. "For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from Yahweh . I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from Yahweh." Yahshua could not come from Yahweh's side and from inside of Yahweh at the same time. Only one can be true. A verse that goes hand in hand with the phrase "came down from heaven" is Jn.6:62; "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" Yahshua's origin is not in question here. Those who reject the pre-existence doctrine should not reject Yahshua's heavenly origin or that his father was Yahweh. Yahshua was, at one time, in heaven. He existed in the loins of His Father Yahweh until the appointed time of his earthly birth. Through Yahweh's miraculous Holy Spirit power He then impregnated Miriam's egg with the seed that dwelt inside of Him. The belief that Yahshua was a spirit being that was miniaturized and placed directly into Miriam's womb without uniting with her egg is unscriptural. If that were true, Miriam would merely be a surrogate mother and Yahshua would not be from the blood line of David. John's Predecessor? Jn.1:15 certainly suggests a pre-existence as it appears in the KJV; "John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me." First, the idea of preference is not found in the Greek. The word translated "preferred" is the Greek "ginomai". Of the 678 times it was used in the New Testament, it was translated "preferred" three times, once here and in verses 27 & 30 where the same verse is repeated. The word should have been translated "come to be"; "He that cometh after me has come to be before me." As for the latter part of the verse, the word "before" is from the Greek "protos". Of the 105 times this word was used, it was never translated "before". The most common rendering is "first," however, based on the context, it should be translated as the Emphatic Diaglott has it, "for he is my Superior." "Protos" was also translated "chief" nine times in the New Testament. Yahweh's Foreordained Plan A favorite verse of pre-existence proponents is Jn.17:24. It reads, "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world ." It would seem that the Father and the Son had a loving relationship before the earth was created. Understanding this verse in that way leads to complications in understanding Eph. 1:3,4. Paul says, "Blessed be the Mighty One and Father of our Master Yahshua Messiah, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Messiah: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world , that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:" Using the same line of thinking as in Jn.17:24 we would be led to believe that all believers were chosen back in the days when they pre-existed before the earth was created. Both of these verses pertain to Yahweh's foreordained plan, not to pre-existent beings. 1Pe.1:20 says, "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world , but was manifest in these last times for you." Why wasn't the "pre-existent Yahshua" made manifest back in Old Testament times? Because he didn't exist at that time except in the foreordained plans of Yahweh. Other references such as Rev.13:8 and 17:8 reveal Yahweh's plan as well. Old Glory One of the most often used proof verses for the pre-existence doctrine is Jn.17:5; "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." The KJV translation makes this a very convincing proof text. Unfortunately it, too, is questionably translated. Was Yahshua a glorified being before the earth was created? If that is true, then he is asking for his glory to be returned to him in verse 5. What glory, then, does he already have in verses 22 and 24? They read, "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:" and "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me : for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." John 17 is one long prayer. How can Yahshua ask for glory that Yahweh had already given him? This is where our first error in translation appears. The word "had" is the imperfect tense of the Greek word "echo." The following definition of the imperfect is given in Syntax and Synon. of the Greek Testament, pg.87; "The imperfect denotes an incomplete action, one that is in its course, and is not yet brought to its intended accomplishment. It implies that a certain thing was going on at a specified time, but excludes the assertion that the end of the action was attained." In other words, Yahshua was in the process of being glorified. Instead of reading, "the glory which I had," it should read, "the glory which I am having." Yahshua was being glorified and showing forth his glory throughout his earthly ministry (Jn.1:14; 2:11; 11:4; 13:31; Heb.2:9). He was "having glory." The question would then be asked, how can Yahshua be having glory before the world was? This brings us to the second error in translation. The word "was" is the present infinitive of the Greek word "eimi." The most common translation of this tense is "to be." That is how it appears in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures and The Emphatic Diaglott. Jn.17:5 should read, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I am having with thee before the world to be (or to come)." Yahshua was experiencing glory at the time of his prayer. He wanted to experience that glory side by side with his Father before the creation of the new heavens and the new earth. Seeing The Father Jn.6:46 states Yahshua saw his Father Yahweh. He said, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of Yahweh, he hath seen the Father ." Does this mean Yahshua physically saw Yahweh with his eyes or can it be understood a different way? Yahshua spoke the following words to two disciples, Thomas and Philip, in Jn.14:7-9; "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him . Philip saith unto him, Master, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Yahshua saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" The disciples saw Father Yahweh because they saw Yahshua who is one with Yahweh (not a oneness of being, but a oneness of character, will, Spirit). They had only to look upon Yahshua and see his character to have it said of them, "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father." Yahshua had only to look at himself, his character, his determination to carry out Yahweh's will, etc., to see his Father in himself. The disciples did not have to pre-exist in order to see the Father and neither did Yahshua. The Greek word translated "seen" in Jn.6:46 is #3708 in Strong's Concordance, meaning "to discern clearly (physically or mentally )." In both of these cases, it was not a physical sighting of the Father, but a mental perception of His character that they were seeing. Several names and titles have been used in reference to the being that spoke to men in the Old Testament. Among them are Spokesman, Dabar, and Metatron. We are led to believe that they are all references to the pre-existent Son of Yahweh. This, of course, is only an assumption since the Scriptures only identify that being as "the Angel of Yahweh." If the Angel of Yahweh was Yahshua, then Yahshua pre-existed as an angel. This would contradict Heb. 1:1,2,5,7,8,13. Heb.1:1,2 implies that the Son did not speak "in times past unto the fathers." The remaining verses imply that none of the angels were exalted as Yahshua was. Verses 7 & 8 make a clear distinction between Yahshua and angels; the angels were made ministering spirits, but the Son was made King of Yahweh's Kingdom. It is interesting to note all the different ideas as to who Yahshua pre-existed as in times past. Pre-existence proponents have a hard time deciding between the Angel of Yahweh, the Captain of the Host, a second Yahweh, Michael, Melchizidek, and even the Heavenly Father Himself! What about Daniel's account of the sighting of "the Son of God" in Dan.3:25 (KJV)? It reads, "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." The Revised Version rightfully translates the Hebrew "a son of the Gods." The article "the" is not in the Hebrew. This was an angel sent by Yahweh as revealed in verse 28. What knowledge would this pagan king have of the "form" of Yahweh's Son even if he did pre-exist? In his mind it could only be the form of any divine being. The Wisdom of Yahweh Prov.8:22-36 have been used quite often to prove the pre-existence. One need only read verses 1-12 to realize that a pre-existent Son is not speaking in verses 22-36. The Scriptures declare the speaker to be wisdom. The glorious wisdom Yahweh possessed before He created all things is personified in these verses. Notice, also, that wisdom is personified as a female, not a male. Pr.8:1 reads, "Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?" And Pr.9:1 says, "Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars." If Yahshua pre-existed as the epitomy of wisdom, why does Rev.5:12 say he is worthy to receive wisdom? Surely an all-wise pre-existent being has no need of further wisdom. 1 Cor.1:30 says, "But of him are ye in Messiah Yahshua, who of Yahweh is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:" This verse declares that Yahshua was "made unto us wisdom." It does not say he existed as wisdom in the past. Ps.104:24 says, "O Yahweh, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches." Yahweh used His great wisdom in the creation of all things. It was like a workman at His side. Yahweh's Firstborn Two scriptures are often used to show that Yahshua was the very first act of creation by Yahweh. Everything else is said to have been created by, or with the help of, Yahshua. Those scriptures are Col.1:15 and Rev.3:14. Let's look at Col.1:15 first. "Who is the image of the invisible Elohim, the firstborn of every creature :" What does the latter part of this verse mean? Does "every creature" include the angels that rejoiced at creation? To understand this verse, you must first understand that Yahweh is in the process of creating a new world; "the world to come" as Heb.2:5 puts it. Is.65:17,18 speaks of "new heavens and a new earth." Those that will rule in the new earth are those that will be resurrected or "born from above" (Jn.3:7). Ps.102:18-20 puts it very clearly; "This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise Yahweh. For He hath looked down from the height of His sanctuary; from heaven did Yahweh behold the earth; To hear the groaning of the prisoner; to loose those that are appointed to death;" These people will be created , or born, at the resurrection. To clarify even further, we read the following in Ps.104:29,30; "Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created : and thou renewest the face of the earth." Yahweh will resurrect the dead through the power of His Holy Spirit. It is said of those that are resurrected that they are "created ." The first person to be created, or born again from above, was Yahshua. Therefore, he is called the "firstborn." Since there are many that will be born again at the resurrection, he is the "firstborn of every creature (that will be resurrected)." Col. 1:18 elaborates further by telling us what Yahshua is the firstborn of; the dead. This takes place at the resurrection. It is also said of Yahshua that he is "the beginning" (Col.1:18). This is the same term used in Rev.3:14 which reads, "And unto the angel of the assembly of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of Yahweh; " Does this beginning refer to a time before the angels were created or does it refer to the new creation? Some would argue that the word "new" is not in the text. Yahweh has shown us, however, that He does not always use the word "new" in describing this new creation. Notice Is.65:17,18; "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy." This is speaking of New Jerusalem, yet the word "New" is not used by Yahweh. Continuing in Colossians to verse 17 we read, "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." As a result of this translation, we are led to believe that Yahshua existed prior to anything else, including the angels. The same Greek phrase, "before all things," is also found in Ja.5:12 and 1 Pe.4:8. Both of those texts read "above all things." That is because the Greek word "pro," translated "before," also carries the meaning of superiority or pre-eminence. Since Col.1:15-18 proclaims the pre-eminence of Yahshua in all things (vs.18), translating verse 17 as "above all things" would fit the context. It is said that the phrase "according to the flesh," in Rom.1:3, proves Yahshua's pre-existence. It reads, "Concerning his Son Yahshua Messiah our Master, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" It is implied from this that Yahshua existed as a spirit being before he was born according to the flesh, for why else would Paul say this? The simple reason is because Yahshua did not have an earthly father. Therefore, whether he was true flesh and blood and David's seed would come into question. Paul adds "according to the flesh" for the same reason he adds "was made of the seed of David." Even though Yahshua did not have a flesh and blood father, he is still flesh through Miriam. He is not a spirit being or an angel that appeared in the flesh as did those who appeared to Abraham in Gen.18:2; 19:1. Yahweh's Son The Trinity doctrine states the Son is coeternal with the Father. Others believe the Son was the first being Yahweh created. Either view believes the "Son" pre-existed prior to his earthly birth. If that is true, how are we to understand the following words Yahweh commanded Nathan to give to David? "When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be My son." (2 Sam. 7:12-14) Although these words primarily applied to Solomon (1 Chr.28:6), ultimately the reference is to Yahshua the Messiah, the "Son of David" (Lu.1:32,33; Heb.1:5). Heb.1:5 reads, " For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" Since the New Testament clearly links the words, "I will be his father, and he shall be My son" to Yahshua, note well the future tense used. If Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh's coeternal Son or as Yahweh's first act of creation, the words "I am his Father," and "he is my son," should have been used. Therefore, this prophetic reference to Yahshua clearly teaches that he became Yahweh's Son at a specific time in history. He did not always exist as Yahweh's Son as the Trinity doctrine teaches. Nor could he have existed as the first act of creation since 2 Sam.7:14 places his becoming the Son at a time that was in David's future. The Form of Elohim This brings us to the most difficult passage of Scripture to understand. The key to understanding it lies in your stand concerning the pre-existence doctrine as a whole. If you reject what has been written up to this point and continue to hold unto a belief in the pre-existence, you will most likely fail to comprehend this last passage as well. Those that are not locked into a preconceived idea will grasp its meaning much easier.The passage in question, Ph.2:5-9, reads as follows; "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Messiah Yahshua: Who, being in the form of Elohim, thought it not robbery to be equal with Yahweh: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore Yahweh also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:" (KJV) To begin with, what does verse 5 mean? Does it mean that we should have the same mind as Messiah Yahshua before or after his earthly birth? Paul is telling the Philippians to have the same mind as Messiah Yahshua . If Yahshua pre-existed, he certainly did not carry the name Messiah Yahshua. That name can only be applied to the historical Yahshua, not the being who supposedly pre-existed as "the Word." Yahshua did not officially become "the Anointed" or "the Messiah" until he was baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38). As a child, Yahshua "waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of Yahweh was upon him" (Lu.2:40). Even at that time Yahshua knew who he was, knew who his Father was (Lu.2:49), and knew what he had to do. By the time of his baptism he was so filled with wisdom, knowledge, Spirit, and power that Paul says he was "in the form (or likeness) of Elohim." Yet, Yahshua did not allow that power and wisdom to corrupt him. Nor did he, for one moment, consider himself Yahweh's equal. He knew his Father was greater than himself (Jn.10:29; 13:16; 14:28). The RSV and many other versions correctly translate Ph.2:6 as follows; "Who, though he was in the form of [Elohim], did not count equality with [Yahweh] a thing to be grasped." Yahshua did not strip himself of any pre-existent power or glory. He simply humbled himself and made himself of no reputation even though he was far more knowledgeable and powerful than any of his contemporaries. Instead of glorifying himself and expecting others to serve him, he chose to become a servant. He became like most men, common and unassuming as compared to the politically powerful and famous. In addition to not exalting himself in the eyes of man, he further humbled himself by becoming totally obedient to the laws and will of His Father Yahweh. As a reward for his obedience, Yahweh has highly exalted him. A future exaltation will be the reward of all true believers if they, too, will humble themselves as Yahshua did. This study has only touched upon certain aspects of the pre-existence doctrine. For additional information, please see the study entitled "Yahshua is not Yahweh - Parts 1 and 2." That study will explain many other verses used to support the pre-existence. Among the verses discussed are; Ge.1:26; 19:24; Ps.110:5; Ze.12:10; Mi.5:2; Jn.1:1,10; 8:58; 12:37-41; Acts 20:28; 1 Cor.8:6; 10:4; Eph.3:9; Col.1:16; 1 Tim.3:16; and Heb.1:2. The study also explains such terms as Elohim and echad. The Hebrew Word 'Echad' - Is It Singular Or Plural ("Compound Unity")? And Yahweh turned a very strong west wind, which lifted the locusts and drove them into the Red Sea; not a single (Echad) locust was left in all the country of Egypt (Exodus 10:19). For the Yahweh had said to Moshe, "Say to the people of Yisryl, `You are a stiff-necked people; if for a single moment (Echad) I should go up among you, I would consume you.” (Exodus 36:5). ... and her two sons, of whom the name of the one (Echad) was Gershom.” (Exodus 18:3). "…..Take one (Echad) young bull and two rams without blemish” (Exodus 29:1). "Then you shall take one (Echad) of the rams, and Aaron and his sons shall…” (Exodus 29:15). One (Echad) lamb you shall offer in the morning, and…” (Exodus 29:39). one (Echad) young bull, one (Echad) ram, one (Echad) male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; 16: one (Echad) male goat for a sin offering; (Numbers 7:15). "A single (Echad) witness shall not prevail against a man for any crime…” (Deuteronomy 19:15). So Yahweh caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one (Echad) of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; (Genesis 2:21). And Lamech took two wives; the name of the one (Eahad) was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah (Genesis 4:19). To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one (Echad) was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother's name was Joktan (Genesis 10:25). We are all sons of one (Echad) man, we are honest men, your servants are not spies." (Genesis 42:11). And they said, "We, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of one (Echad) man in the land of Canaan; and behold, the youngest is this day with our father, and one (Echad) is no more." (Genesis 42:13). ... if you are honest men, let one (Echad) of your brothers (Genesis 42:19). ... we are twelve brothers, sons of our father; one (Echad) is no more, and the youngest is this day with our father in the land of Canaan.' (Genesis 42:32). And the priest shall take one (Echad) of the male lambs, and offer it for a guilt offering (Leviticaus 14:12). … then he shall take one (Echad) male lamb for a guilt offering to be waved (Leviticus 14:21). ... also two turtledoves or two young pigeons,..the one (Echad) shall be a sin offering and the other a burnt offering (Leviticus 14:22). And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one (Echad) ram for a burnt offering (Leviticus 16:5). And you shall offer one (Echad) male goat for a sin offering, and two male lambs a year old as a sacrifice of peace offerings Leviticus 23:19). ... and he shall offer his gift to Yahweh, one (Echad) male lamb a year old without blemish for a burnt offering, and one (Echad) ewe lamb a year old without blemish as a sin offering, and one (Echad) ram without blemish as a peace offering, (Numbers 6:14). For Yahweh had said to Moshe, "Say to the people of Yisryl,`You are a stiff-necked people; if for a single moment (Echad) I should go up among you, I would consume you.” (Exodus 33:5). "A single (Echad) witness shall not prevail against a man for any crime…” (Deuteronomy 19:15).

Elohim: Singular Or Plural?

Comment Made: I am curious though, isn't "Elohim", plural. G*d said, "let us make man in OUR Image"? I'll follow the Truth wherever it leads me, and I've been trying to figure out the Trinity thing for years. Honestly, I'm not trying to persuade you either way (we both agree that Yeshua is the Messiah). I want to find Truth, and its good to see others do as well. My Responce: Please note the hyperlinks within my post (indicated on mouse-over). I am glad to see that you are of open mind and subject to reproof and correction. As to "reproof and correction", I would ask that you go to and type into the 'Phrase/Search Concordance' query the word 'repoof' and go over the Scritural references there where this word occurs. These are some of my favorite Scriptural passages. Also note that Scripture encourages us to study to show ourselves approved (2 Timothy 2:15) and that the Berean brethern were more noble minded than those in Thessalonica in that they searched the Scriptures daily to find out if what they had been taught was truth or not.

It's reality, fuck it, it's everything but me...
What drove me here today is an image posted on Facebook by a former teacher at our school. Another one of my friends posted the same picture. Usually I don't politic on the Facebook, but I couldn't help myself as it made me so upset. It was an image of a t-shirt that read:

Why do you allow so much violence in our schools?
a concerned student

I'm not allowed in schools.

To which I responded: To suggest that what happened in Newtown was because of the absence of God in our schools is absurd and spiteful. We cannot take belief or disbelief out of schools. Last time I checked, we don't live in Old Testament times. Frogs and world floods don't fall out of the sky anymore. It's ironic that God only gets thanked for happy shit, but immediately after something unexplainable happens, it is birdbrained to blame it all on the lack of God. That shit belongs to the disillusioned, and I hope you'd never teach that to your kid. If you think God had his hands in this out of spite, then I hope he also puts his fists in your face. So instead, think about invoking the name of God to help people cope, which is one of the primary reasons for religion, instead of using it to explain violence on kids.

Safe to say she deleted me within hours with no rebuttal or comment. And all I have to say is: pathetic.

A teacher of all people. A teacher.

Anyway, students asked me today what I think of it all, because they had been talking about the shooting in all of their other classes. I did not address it on Monday or Tuesday. They asked me today if teachers should have guns. I only responded with that's ridiculous and a terrible idea. Another student chimed in and that was that. I decided not to talk about it. I will, however, discuss it tomorrow. I find it important to give the tragedy some time. Out of respect for the kids and adults who died, and the others who survived, whom I imagine would detest anyone who wore that shirt.

I'm sure my students will ask many of those questions, to which I will reply with my opinions if they wish to hear them. I've thought about it, and I think they can handle one of my opinions, all of which I keep to myself. In my classroom I play devil's advocate, challenging all, because students most of the time don't have the evidence or logos to back their arguments. Sadly, most adults don't either. But I do feel like people have their minds set on one issue when they are really more involved. Gun control, mental health care, and culture all play a role.

I've always been an advocate of spreading the word on what happened in Beslan School One on September 1st, 2004. It was only a matter of time before something even close to that scale happened here. It has that same feeling to it. That tragedy was one of the reasons I became a teacher to begin with.

Sadly, the problem here, more than gun control, more than mental healthcare, more than culture, is ourselves. We, as people, need to realize that all we are is human. Anyone is capable of committing terrible acts of violence because we are human. I think this tragedy is a time for introspection rather than outer judgement and public debate. These are the times to ask ourselves who we are as people? Are we capable of doing things like this? How can we prevent ourselves from ever acting out in such a way, then ask how we can prevent others from doing that? Sure, many acts of extreme violence have been committed by "people off their rocker." But look up statistics of violent crime and the interviews of their neighbors. "He was normal. She was sweet. They'd never do something like this."

These people are human, just like you and me. What can truly prevent this?


I know.

Of course.

It is everything but me.

"You know who will inherit the earth? Gun dealers. The rest of us are too busy killing each other. That's the secret to survival. Never go to war, especially with yourself."

We enable ourselves and each other by thinking about what ourselves would do or would not do. But unfortunately the world is bigger than us. People kill. And semi-automatics (or the euphemistic Modern Sporting Rifles) make it easier. We cannot accept the fact that mental and behavioral disorders are impossible to fix. If we do, why would we try to fix anything else about society (and ourselves)? It's about time we think about what is really important. If violence meets children, something has to change.

People think because they own a gun they're safer when in fact they themselves can be the danger. We try to convince ourselves otherwise by using words like sane, Christian, and American.

I've never spoke out for or against gun control. It took me years or hearing arguments to come to my own conclusion. Ridding ourselves of guns completely won't work. It wouldn't work for drugs or nuclear weapons.

Regardless of what we think, we need to think about those kids. And what we can do to make it as difficult and reasonable as possible to prevent this from happening again because what we are doing now, clearly isn't good enough.

That being said. Here is a puppy.


Showing 1 - 5.   [ Next ]
Latest Comment
Re: "so it goes" - and thank you for the kind thoughts :) i appreciate them


My Account Inbox
Account Settings
Lost Password?
Blog Publish New Entry
Edit Old Entries
Customize Design
Community Inbox
Your Profile
MindSay Tags
Inside MindSay About MindSay
MindSay and RSS
© 2003- MindSay Interactive LLC
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy

41 unique logged-in users yesterday
39 unique logged-in last 24 hours (updated hourly)