[ttruscott]

JOHN'S BEGINNING

For another take on John's understanding of pre-existance...

This category has to do with the apostle John's use of the word "beginning" in his first letter:

1 John 1:1 - That which was from the beginning… the Word of life.

This introduction is very similar to the one John used in his gospel, which begins with: “In the beginning was the Word.” I believe that both refer to the same time, and that this time is synonymous with the time in Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning. Thus these three references refer to the time before (or at the front of) the six days of the (re?)creation of the world.

1 John 2:7 - I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

I can not help but think that John was alluding to Isaiah 40:21 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded?. If he is not alluding to Isaiah, he certainly is referring to the same truth in my opinion.

1 John 2:14 - I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him that is from the beginning.

It probably is not necessary, but for the last time, “that is” is not in the Greek text. Therefore, in Greek, it reads, “known Him from the beginning.”

1 John 2:24 - Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

It should be noted that in the Bible, “the beginning” usually refers to all the time and events that happened before Genesis 1:2, viz., the time when the angels were created and the rebellion in Paradise took place.

1 John 3:8 - for the devil sinneth from the beginning.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's commentary(#27) says: “sinneth from the beginning - from the time that sin began; from the time that he became what he is, the devil.” This must be around the same time as ‘In the beginning’ of Genesis 1:1. At least, it can not be much after.

1 John 3:11 - For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

I believe that John is referring to the loving purpose GOD has for each of us. 1 John 3:23 - And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment.
According to 2:7, we heard this commandment “from the beginning.”

Conclusion for John's Beginning.

When the word “beginning” has to do with Jesus or the devil, it means around the same time as Genesis 1:1 , that is, before or at the beginning of the six day creation (depending how one translates the “was - became” in Genesis 1:2).

Are we really warranted in redefining it whenever it refers to us? I know that it has been redefined to fit in with the traditional presuppositions (ie bias), regarding the creation of our spirit, but does this not constitute a twisting or taking Scripture out of context?

According to preconception theology, each of these references, by the same author, in the same letter, has the same meaning.

To my mind, this is much superior to two definitions of the same word, in the same letter, by the same author.

Why did John not use two different words if he meant two different times? I do not think that John was mixed up. In fact, I think he knew very well exactly what he was saying. He seems to be very good at saying it over, and over, and over, and over…

Peace, Ted

[Lazy afternoon]

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally Posted by Lazy afternoon

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

So what! He referred to Himself in the third person quite often. He frequently veiled who He was when speaking to the Jewish leaders. When will you come up with an explicit statement that denies that Jesus is God?

We have the word of the Father Himself whom you say is your God, Hebrews 1:8-10.

Try again.

[Nang]

Originally Posted by ttruscott

JOHN'S BEGINNING

For another take on John's understanding of pre-existance...

This category has to do with the apostle John's use of the word "beginning" in his first letter:

1 John 1:1 - That which was from the beginning… the Word of life.

This introduction is very similar to the one John used in his gospel, which begins with: “In the beginning was the Word.” I believe that both refer to the same time, and that this time is synonymous with the time in Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning. Thus these three references refer to the time before (or at the front of) the six days of the (re?)creation of the world.

1 John 2:7 - I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

I can not help but think that John was alluding to Isaiah 40:21 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded?. If he is not alluding to Isaiah, he certainly is referring to the same truth in my opinion.

1 John 2:14 - I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him that is from the beginning.

It probably is not necessary, but for the last time, “that is” is not in the Greek text. Therefore, in Greek, it reads, “known Him from the beginning.”

1 John 2:24 - Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

It should be noted that in the Bible, “the beginning” usually refers to all the time and events that happened before Genesis 1:2, viz., the time when the angels were created and the rebellion in Paradise took place.

1 John 3:8 - for the devil sinneth from the beginning.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's commentary(#27) says: “sinneth from the beginning - from the time that sin began; from the time that he became what he is, the devil.” This must be around the same time as ‘In the beginning’ of Genesis 1:1. At least, it can not be much after.

1 John 3:11 - For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

I believe that John is referring to the loving purpose GOD has for each of us. 1 John 3:23 - And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment.
According to 2:7, we heard this commandment “from the beginning.”

Conclusion for John's Beginning.

When the word “beginning” has to do with Jesus or the devil, it means around the same time as Genesis 1:1 , that is, before or at the beginning of the six day creation (depending how one translates the “was - became” in Genesis 1:2).

Are we really warranted in redefining it whenever it refers to us? I know that it has been redefined to fit in with the traditional presuppositions (ie bias), regarding the creation of our spirit, but does this not constitute a twisting or taking Scripture out of context?

According to preconception theology, each of these references, by the same author, in the same letter, has the same meaning.

To my mind, this is much superior to two definitions of the same word, in the same letter, by the same author.

Why did John not use two different words if he meant two different times? I do not think that John was mixed up. In fact, I think he knew very well exactly what he was saying. He seems to be very good at saying it over, and over, and over, and over…

Peace, Ted

This is a terrible abuse of Holy Scripture.

Apologetics for such nonsense should not be allowed on an "Exclusively Christian Forum."

This is not a Christian teaching at all; let alone representative of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I formally oppose and give warning against this assault of false teaching called "PCE" that has recently invaded TOL.



Nang

[ttruscott]

Well, before you kick me out, would you please answer my questions outstanding about Calvinism which have not been aswered yet?

Shall we ask an Arminian to judge your Calvinism?

Is the abuse as bad as the Pharisees accused our Lord for not keeping the law? Is the abuse as bad as the revelation about the resurrection of the faithful which the Sadducees attacked? Jesus and Paul sure abused the scriptures, didn't they?

And, If I may ask,
would you interupt your scurrilous attacks on PCE long enough to actually explain how you interpret the meaning of the word "beginning" in these verses? And why you think the same word means two different things in the same letter by the same man...

Let the reader compare???

As for being a Christian in good faith, I deny that you can find one instance in all that I have written in 375 posts where I break with traditional (even Calvinistic) definitions of Christ, salvation, redemption, grace, faith, the necessity of works or any other test you can improvise.

Peace to you or back to me,

Ted

[glorydaz]

Originally Posted by ttruscott

JOHN'S BEGINNING

For another take on John's understanding of pre-existance...

This category has to do with the apostle John's use of the word "beginning" in his first letter:

1 John 1:1 - That which was from the beginning… the Word of life.

This introduction is very similar to the one John used in his gospel, which begins with: “In the beginning was the Word.” I believe that both refer to the same time, and that this time is synonymous with the time in Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning. Thus these three references refer to the time before (or at the front of) the six days of the (re?)creation of the world.

1 John 2:7 - I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

I can not help but think that John was alluding to Isaiah 40:21 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded?. If he is not alluding to Isaiah, he certainly is referring to the same truth in my opinion.

1 John 2:14 - I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him that is from the beginning.

It probably is not necessary, but for the last time, “that is” is not in the Greek text. Therefore, in Greek, it reads, “known Him from the beginning.”

1 John 2:24 - Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

It should be noted that in the Bible, “the beginning” usually refers to all the time and events that happened before Genesis 1:2, viz., the time when the angels were created and the rebellion in Paradise took place.

1 John 3:8 - for the devil sinneth from the beginning.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's commentary(#27) says: “sinneth from the beginning - from the time that sin began; from the time that he became what he is, the devil.” This must be around the same time as ‘In the beginning’ of Genesis 1:1. At least, it can not be much after.

1 John 3:11 - For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

I believe that John is referring to the loving purpose GOD has for each of us. 1 John 3:23 - And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment.
According to 2:7, we heard this commandment “from the beginning.”

Conclusion for John's Beginning.

When the word “beginning” has to do with Jesus or the devil, it means around the same time as Genesis 1:1 , that is, before or at the beginning of the six day creation (depending how one translates the “was - became” in Genesis 1:2).

Are we really warranted in redefining it whenever it refers to us? I know that it has been redefined to fit in with the traditional presuppositions (ie bias), regarding the creation of our spirit, but does this not constitute a twisting or taking Scripture out of context?

According to preconception theology, each of these references, by the same author, in the same letter, has the same meaning.

To my mind, this is much superior to two definitions of the same word, in the same letter, by the same author.

Why did John not use two different words if he meant two different times? I do not think that John was mixed up. In fact, I think he knew very well exactly what he was saying. He seems to be very good at saying it over, and over, and over, and over…

Peace, Ted

I must confess...I don't know what you're trying to say here. You reference Isaiah which speaks of our Lord coming to dwell among us...He who was from the beginning God.

Isaiah 40:3
The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

I agree the beginning is at Creation....all things were created by the Word who was God in the beginning. So, what do you mean by this pre-creation stuff? God has no beginning, so what else besides the creation of the heavens and the earth?

[ttruscott]

Originally Posted by glorydaz

I must confess...I don't know what you're trying to say here. You reference Isaiah which speaks of our Lord coming to dwell among us...He who was from the beginning God.

Isaiah 40:3
The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

I agree the beginning is at Creation....all things were created by the Word who was God in the beginning. So, what do you mean by this pre-creation stuff? God has no beginning, so what else besides the creation of the heavens and the earth?

Isaiah 40:21 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded?

implies that we were there and everyone did learn of HIS divinity and power (as per Rom. 1:20) at that time.

So, what do you mean by this pre-creation stuff? I refer to my belief that GOD created all the spirits in HIS image before HE created the physical universe.

The angelic fall and the fall of HIS elect into sin all happened while we were in a state of ingenuous innocence pre-earth which ended by HIS revelation of HIS divininty.

So here on earth we do not have true free will anymore but an ordinary, teachable, decision making process predetermined to bring us to redemption in Christ, and sanctification by the Holy Spirit.

Peace, Ted

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally Posted by ttruscott

Isaiah 40:21 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded?

implies that we were there and everyone did learn of HIS divinity and power (as per Rom. 1:20) at that time.

The Hebrew word for "earth" is "eretz" and should have been translated "land" and not "earth." It is talking about the founding of the land of Israel and not the whole globe. They were there for the founding of Israel but not for the creation of the globe.

[RevTestament]

Originally Posted by Wile E. Coyote

The Hebrew word for "earth" is "eretz" and should have been translated "land" and not "earth." It is talking about the founding of the land of Israel and not the whole globe. They were there for the founding of Israel but not for the creation of the globe.

Isaiah's time was just a little late for the founding of Israel, Wile. More like the end of Israel - all that was left was Judah. The context shows God was talking about the whole earth - the nations etc.

15 Behold, the nations are as a drop in a bucket,
And are counted as the small dust on the scales;
Look, He lifts up the isles as a very little thing.
16 And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn,
Nor its beasts sufficient for a burnt offering.
17 All nations before Him are as nothing,
And they are counted by Him less than nothing and worthless.

further:
22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,

Context shows you are wrong. Sorry

[ttruscott]

Originally Posted by Wile E. Coyote

...

The Hebrew word for "earth" is "eretz" and should have been translated "land" and not "earth." It is talking about the founding of the land of Israel and not the whole globe. They were there for the founding of Israel but not for the creation of the globe.
...

Well, before your icon busts a gut, I know what my Hebrew teacher taught me what eretz means and I agree with Strong's H776 - 'erets
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) land, earth
a) earth
1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
3) earth (inhabitants)

that Isa 40:21 can have this translation. I dissagree with your interpretation offered as the only truth.

peace, Ted

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally Posted by ttruscott

Well, before your icon busts a gut, I know what my Hebrew teacher taught me what eretz means and I agree with Strong's H776 - 'erets
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) land, earth
a) earth
1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
3) earth (inhabitants)
that Isa 40:21 can have this translation. I dissagree with your interpretation offered as the only truth.

peace, Ted

Uh, you did not cite all of Strong's.

H776

earth
country
field
ground
land

Your interpretation is ridiculous! Man was created on the sixth day. Man was not present at the creation of the earth. They were present at the establishment of Israel. Therefore, only "country" or "land" can apply.

Why do you pick and choose from what Strong said?

[OMEGA]

John 1:1 shows us that there were 2 Gods, God and Logos

Who later became Father and Jesus.

Who made Billions of angels and fashioned Stars out of Hydrogen gas that was floating around and filling the Universe.

So, God the Father is a Gas Being.

===============================

[tomlapalm]

Ted, I think you have to introduce PCE without the Calvinism angle. It confuses your position because they go to traditional arguments or positions of Calvinism/Arminian and miss the significance of PCE which you have presented so well in the past. I sense and share your frustrations because you know it is my favorite subject

[Nang]

Originally Posted by tomlapalm

Ted, I think you have to introduce PCE without the Calvinism angle. It confuses your position because they go to traditional arguments or positions of Calvinism/Arminian and miss the significance of PCE which you have presented so well in the past.

All you weird PCE false teachers showed up on TOL at the same time.

Go away . . .

Nang

[ttruscott]

Originally Posted by Nang

All you weird PCE false teachers showed up on TOL at the same time.

Go away . . .

Nang

Well so much for scholastic rebuttal...

Tom and I met on another forum which shut down. We do not agree on much (he's much more mystical than I, ) except pce.

I found this by google, I don't know about him, so there was no collusion.

Your emotional reaction is the most extreme I've faced yet... lets leave ad hominems and get back to doctrine and the meaning of the word "beginning" as John uses it in his first letter.

Peace, Ted