The Pre-Existence of Christ

Fact? or Superstition?

Did Jesus Christ exist as a member of the divine Godhead

before His human birth? Or is this teaching mere tradition

and superstition? What is the truth? In recent times a

revolutionary new theology has gained ground which says

that Jesus Christ had no existence prior to conception in the

womb of Mary His mother. Some claim the New Testa-

ment documents are often unreliable and untrustworthy --

especially the gospel of John. Its time you knew what is

going on "behind the scenes" in modern theological circles

-- and the modern assault on the Bible and the divinity of

Christ -- and the architect behind this furious attack!

William F. Dankenbring

Recently, a friend sent me an article written by Anthony Buzzard entitled, "The Preexistence of Christ -- Truth Or Tradition?" published by the extremely liberal Foundation For Biblical Research, as well as another article along similar lines. In his letter he remarked, "I hope you'll have time to read and consider them before you write your article refuting them. Some points shouldn't be ignored!"

I suppose I could humanly take offense at that remark; apparently he thinks I might just dash off a quick response which will leave many questions unanswered and leave him feeling empty or uncertain.

Frankly, I must admit I am somewhat "tired" of hearing about Anthony Buzzard's new heresy (which I suppose isn't really new). I read his booklet entitled "Who Is Jesus?" and his dissertation a year ago, and wrote an article entitled "Who Was Jesus Before His Human Birth?" in response to it.

The Abuse of Scripture

When the devil came to Christ with specious interpretations of Scripture, Jesus didn't have someone else to appeal to to answer his arguments. He Himself used Scripture (Matt.4:1-10; Luke 4:1-13). He knew God's Word well enough to defeat the devil; and He set us an example for doing battle with the adversary and all his henchmen, including the likes of Anthony Buzzard.

I know Buzzard from Ambassador College days. We entered as freshmen the same year (1959). He was the son of a British admiral, and consequently Herbert Armstrong appointed him freshman class president. I had no office, but I knew my Bible better than anyone else in the class (scoring 99% on the first Bible test in freshman Bible to the disbelief of Roderick Meredith the teacher). At any rate, Anthony had adustment problems, and eventually left college, let his hair grow long, left the Church, had a nervous breakdown (he was apparently under much pressure to "succeed" at college besides persecution from his family for his affililation with the "American" Church). Eventually he rejoined the Church, then left again; now he teaches at a Bible college and has a masters degree, for which he wrote his thesis denying the pre-existence of Christ. Interestingly, while still at Ambassador, he dated the woman who was to become my wife. On one of their dates he remarked to her, "You really know God, don't you?" Obviously he did not.

Charles Hunting, former evangelist, and a distinctly NON-scholarly type, has joined with Buzzard in this belief. Jim Tabor, professor at North Carolina University in Charlotte, who himself once came to Ambassador after attending a Bible college in the midwest, and who briefly taught Hebrew at Ambassador (he was my Hebrew teacher one semester), has also adopted a similar view. His story is also unique; after being let go from Ambassador, he later joined the faculty at Notre Dame, then William and Mary, and last year University of North Carolina. During this sojourn he lost his faith in God and Christianity, and became a secularist and agnostic, as he himself relates, but apparently recaptured his faith in God through the study of Judaism and the Old Testament Scriptures. Now he believes only the "Old Testament" is inspired Scripture, as such, and the New Testament is not. Particularly, he would throw out or relegate to "second place," whatever that means, the gospel of John and his epistles. This, of course, makes it easier for him to deny the pre-existence of Christ, as John's gospel is the key element in explaining the purpose and plan behind God's sending the Messiah, and how it all came about.

Attack on the New Testament

Tabor writes in "Restoring Abrahamic Faith," a recent publication of his, "In other words, the New Testament, as it has comes (sic) to us, in multiple manuscripts, Greek translation, with interpolations and editorial expansions, is a mixture of 'wheat and tares' as he himself predicted" (p.45). Did Jesus really predict that His Word would become a mixture of "wheat and tares"? Nonsense (John 10:35; 17:17). Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but MY WORDS WILL NEVER PASS AWAY" (Matt.24:35).

Tabor claims the New Testament is not Scripture. But the apostle Peter said it was! He wrote, specifically about Paul's writings, "Paul also wrote you with the wisdom GOD gave him. He writes the same way in ALL his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and UNSTABLE people distort, AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, to their own destruction" (II Pet.3:15-16).

Tabor, probably well-meaning and sincere, nevertheless claims much of the New Testament is uninspired and seems to think it is the responbility of people -- scholars, and so forth -- to sit down and determine how to choose between the correct sayings of Jesus and the incorrect, uninspired passages. Nevertheless, he claims only the Old Testament is "Scripture" as such.

Doesn't that same strange? Consider! Only the New Testament witnesses to the life and sayings of the Messiah Himself! It interprets the OLD TESTAMENT. It brings us the NEW COVENANT to replace the Old Covenant. How could it be less than inspired Scripture?

Are books dealing with the "first Moses" more important, and Scripture, but books dealing with the "second Moses," the Messiah, LESS IMPORTANT, and NOT "Scripture"? Apparently it offends Tabor that most of the New Testament was written originally in GREEK, not Hebrew! But why should this make any difference? Greek was the "lingua franca" of that time -- the common spoken language throughout the Mediterranean world. God PRESERVED the New Testament through the Greek Orthodox Church which copied manuscripts faithfully through the centuries. Tabor is wrong to conclude we have no reliable New Testament documents, and must resurrect what we can out of the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and from fragments of old parchments lost in desert caves! What a low opinion he must have of God's ability to PRESERVE AND PROTECT His own "witness" to the Messiah!

Tabor seems to like the synoptic gospels -- Matthew, Mark and Luke. He writes, "These show every evidence of authenticity, particularly those from Luke, or from what scholars call the Q source (contained now in Matthew and Luke). But there are other statements in the Gospels, particularly in the Gospel of John, which seem to contradict Torah faith [or his interpretation of it!]. What are we to make of this? MY APPROACH [is there any vanity here?] is to go with the clear,

central, multiple-attested tradition of the Synoptic Gospels. John, who reflects more of his own style (compare 1,2,3 John), and a HELLENIZING, QUASI-GNOSTIC THEOLOGIZING, is always secondary."

Isn't that interesting? Tabor, like Buzzard, rejects the divinity and pre-existence of Christ. It helps his case to just do away with the entire Gospel of John and relegate it to "Hellenizing [pagan], quasi-Gnostic" influences which, of course, are dubious, suspicious, untrustworthy, and not to be considered inspired Scripture! I have always felt (I read the New Testament through many times before reading the Old Testament as a teenager), personally, that the key to understanding the New Testament is to look at Matthew, Mark and Luke as virtual "newspaper reporters" of their day, who were simply trying to give the "facts, just the facts," about the actions, deeds, and words of Christ -- like a fascinating biography, from birth to death, essentially chronological and written simply as factual reporting. The gospel of John, however, goes far beyond such "reporting." It gives us penetrating depth and analysis missing in the other gospels. John gives us an inner glimpse into the PLAN AND PURPOSE of God, WHY Christ was sent, and over and over explains that He came down from Heaven, previously abode with the Father, and gave up His divinity to become flesh (John 1:1-4, 14). John testifies that Christ is greater than Moses (John 1:17), and plainly writes, "No one has ever seen God [the Father], but GOD THE ONE AND ONLY, who is at the Father's side, has made him known" (v.18).

The Gospel of John

In John 3, we read, "The one who comes from above is above all. . . The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard . . ." (John 3:31-32). John plainly states, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven -- the Son of Man" (John 3:13).

In John 5, we read that the Jews tried to KILL Jesus because they perceived by His words that He claimed to be divine. "For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL WITH GOD" (verse 18).

In John 6, Jesus repeatedly referred to the simple fact (it seems so simple when we read it, if we will just believe what Jesus says, and not what some men try to make Him say by their twisting and distorting and misinterpreting His words!) that he is "the bread of God" who "comes down from heaven and gives his life to the world" (v.33), "I have come down from heaven" (v.38), "I am the bread that came down from heaven" (v.41), "I came down from heaven" (v.42), "No one has SEEN the Father except the one who is FROM GOD, only he has seen the Father" (v.46), "But here is the bread that came down from heaven"

(v.50), "I am the living bread that came down from heaven" (v.51), "This is the bread that came down from heaven" (v.58).

Jesus went on to state that nobody could really believe this essential truth unless they are specially enabled to do so by the Father (verse 65). You cannot approach the Son of God and understand Him by coming to Him via the avenue of human scholarship, or Jewish study of the Torah, or the misguided Churches of mainstream Christianity, or the various sects and cults. Does this explain why so-called "scholars" are unable to understand basic, fundamental truths of Scripture?

How To Understand the Bible

The only way to approach God, and to learn the truth about the Son of God, is on one's knees before the Father, praying for truth, revelation, mercy and divine guidance and understanding. Only those who truly have God's Spirit leading and guiding them will ever understand!

As Paul wrote, "But God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. . . The man without the Spirit does NOT ACCEPT the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment. 'For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?' But WE have the mind of Christ" (I Cor.2:10-16). Only those who truly are converted (Acts 5:32; 2:38) and who have the MIND of Christ dwelling in them (Rom.8:9-10) can understand these things.

Frankly, my heart goes out to men such as Anthony Buzzard and Jim Tabor, who seem to have lost their way spiritually, and who think they have found their way "back" into the fold, but who haven't. Their writings convince me that they are still groping blindly for the true faith. In some respects they appear to have made shipwreck of the faith; their faith capsized in tumultuous oceans of doubt and sea-fogs, blinding their vision. However scholarly and intelligent they may be, humanly (and there are many much more intelligent than they are, who also reject the faith of God's Word), I must lump them together with those of whom Paul writes in I Corinthians:

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are

perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the POWER OF

GOD. For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise

[so-called scholars!]; the intelligence of the intelligent I will

frustrate.' Where is the wise man? Where is the SCHOLAR?

Where is the philosopher of this age? Has God not made foolish

the wisdom of the world? . . . Jews demand miraculous signs

and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a

stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those

whom God has CALLED, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the

power of God and the wisdom of God" (I Cor.1:18-24).

Here Paul calls Christ "the power of God." Isn't that one more evidence that He is divine? Luke wrote the words of Gabriel to Mary about the conception of Christ: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the POWER OF THE MOST HIGH will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). The Holy Spirit, which is also divine, is also the "power" of God (Acts 1:8).

Yet these modern nay-sayers seem to seek to diminish both the love of the Father and the power of the Son. They seek to minimize both the sacrifice of the Father and the sacrifice of the Son. To my mind, one of the most amazing and mind-boggling truths of all time is that One who was VERY GOD was willing to GIVE UP His divinity, and become a mere human being! THAT is the essence of TRUE LOVE!

It is as if a commander-in-chief of the armed forces of a nation, such as General Colin Powell, were willing to strip himself of all his rank and power, and become a mere buck private in the army, and go through basic training, being yelled at by sergeants and corporals, forced to take long marches under full pack, and to peel spuds and do latrine duty -- ALL WILLINGLY -- and then forced to DIE a horrible death, killed for TREASON by his own fellow soldiers, even though he was innocent of any wrong-doing!

The Concept of True Love

The concept that Jesus was a mere man, and did not pre-exist with God the Father, is mind-boggling. Consider, for example, what the apostle Paul had to say to the Phillippians, concerning the nature and prerogatives of Christ. Paul wrote:

"For he, who had always been God by nature, did not cling to

his prerogatives as God's equal, but stripped himself of all privilege

by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born as mortal man.

And, having become man, he humbled himself by living a life of

utter obedience, even to the extent of dying, and the death he died

was the death of a common criminal" (Phil.2:6-7, Phillips).

"Though he were divine by nature, he did not set store upon equality

with God, but EMPTIED himself by taking the nature of a servant;

born in human guise and appearing in human form, he humbly

stooped in his obedience even to die, and to die upon the cross"

(Moffatt).

"Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of

God [possessing the fulness of the attributes which make God God],

did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped

or retained; but stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity]

so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that he became like

men and was born a human being. And after He had appeared in

human form He abased and humbled Himself [still further] and

carried His obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of [the]

cross!" (Amplified).

Tabor, Buzzard, and others seem to think that Jewish people will not "accept" a Jesus who is divine. That is not true at all. There are many Jewish converts, today, who accept the divinity of Christ and worship Him as the Son of God. The Jewish New Testament has no problem with Christ's divinity. Translated by David Stern, it declares:

"Let your attitude toward one another be governed by your being

in union with the Messiah Yeshua: Though he was in the form of

God, he did not regard equality with God something to be possessed

by force. On the contrary, he emptied himself, in that he took the form

of a slave by becoming like human beings are. And when he appeared

as a human being, he humbled himself still more by becoming obedient

even to death -- death on a stake as a criminal!" (Jewish New Testament).

I have also found that Buzzard and others, despite their many words and much writing, tend to do two things which appall me: First, they tend to only recite for the reader those verses which they desire to emphasize and make commentary on. The other verses, which would tend to weaken or even invalidate their arguments, they generally ignore, or if they admit their existence, only refer to them obliquely, in passing, with a footnote, or a cursory reference -- and then tend to "explain them away" without spending adequate time or energy discussing them. Is this approach really HONEST? I don't think so.

Yet it is a very familiar tactic, often employed by the devil, to deceive and to delude the unwary and unwatchful (II Cor.2:11). I can only hope and pray that these people will "come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will" (II Tim.2:26).

We have all read John 3:16 -- "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" (John 3:16-18).

John goes on: "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Every one who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God" (John 3:19-21).

These new "infidels," if I may call them that, deny the real heart and core of this basic passage. If Christ were merely a human being, with no pre-existence, in what sense would He have truly been a "Son of God"? How could He have been "sent into the world"?

Is Christ the "Son" of God merely because the Holy Spirit conceived Him in Mary's womb by uniting with an egg? Or doesn't the Father-Son relationship go back into the aeons of time, while Father and His (created) Son co-ruled the Universe? If Christ were only human, how is He really God's Son any more than the rest of us, and why would He be called "the ONLY begotten son" of God? Are we not also "begotten" of God? Oh, but He, unlike us, was begotten at conception! But so what?

The idea that Christ was merely human, but was supernaturally conceived, poses three basic difficulties: 1) that makes God the Father a respecter of persons, showing favoritism, because He gave Christ advantages over the rest of us! Yet there is no respect of persons or favoritism with God (Rom.2:11). Why didn't God just conceive all of us the same way? Then we could all have lived perfect lives, and theoretically, there would have been no need for a Saviour at all! Then we could all sit at God's right hand! If Christ were merely human, but had this one advantage over the rest of us humans, then why didn't God make us all the same way -- and give us all the "same chance"?

Secondly, 2) if Christ were merely human, does this not diminish to virtually nothing the sacrifice the Father made in giving up His only begotten Son (or should I say "son," small "s")? If Christ were merely human, like the rest of us, with NO pre-existence with the Father, during which time they were together for aeons, and worked together, and loved each other incredibly, then when "he" died on the stake, what did the Father really give up?

Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac, a type of Christ, his only son, the son of promise, whom he had lived with for some 15-16 years, and whom he loved dearly. But if Christ were only a human being born 2,000 years ago, who "became" the "Son of God," doesn't that take away from the awesome love the Father had for mankind? Then He only sacrificed a human being -- not a truly "divine" Son with whom He had shared a family life for aeons of time! Such an idea relegates the idea of "divine love" to virtually nothing more than great human love -- a slap in the Face to the Father!

As a husband and wife live together, and go through trials and experiences together, their love is forged and grows stronger and deeper and broader and higher. The furnace of affliction and sharing sufferings and delights nurtures and nourishes love. This takes TIME. But if Christ only existed a few years, and then died, that picture subtracts from the deep, awesome ETERNAL LOVE which the Father and the Son shared from the beginning of TIME!

Thirdly, 3) if Christ were merely human, and lived a perfect life, dying for sins, how many of the rest of us could his perfect life atone for? Even though He had God's Spirit, these people argue that he was merely a human being. Then his life would atone for ONE HUMAN BEING'S SIN! In order, logically, for his DEATH to atone for the sins of billions of human beings, His life would have to be worth MORE THAN all their lives put together!

But if Christ is the original Creator of mankind -- in Genesis we read, "Let US make man in OUR image" (Gen.1:26) -- this fact would solve the problem completely. As Paul writes in Colossians, "For by him were all things created" (Col.1:16). The life of the CREATOR would be worth more than the lives of all His created subjects put together!

The Writings of Paul

Let us also look at the writings of Paul in this regard. Jim Tabor dismisses the writings of Paul by simply saying that he writes things "hard to be understood," and claims that Paul's writings are "less of a problem than many imagine. He has been mistranslated, misinterpreted, and maligned almost beyond recognition" (p.45-46 of "Restoring Abrahamic Faith"). Of course, Tabor is here referring to the epistles of Paul themselves! Is he not overstating his belief? He presents NO evidence or examples of such "mistranslation, misinterpretation, or maligning beyond recognition." Therefore his statement begs the question. He presents no case whatsoever. A judge would therefore have to declare a "mistrial" and throw his case out the window even before hearing it -- for he offers no evidence!

Tabor goes so far as to claim, "As for the New Testament, it should not be forgotten that no one in the early Church had one. In fact, that would be true for everyone in the entire Biblical tradition, from Enoch to Ezra, and from Yeshua to Paul." That is true, of course. Abraham didn't have a "Torah," either. Nor did Moses for most of his life! And none of them ever had the Writings or the Prophets. Therefore, Tabor's statement above is meaningless. However, he continues: "The GREAT ERROR is to equate the documents of the New Testament with what those documents themselves, and everyone mentioned in them, call The Holy Scriptures." Tabor only accepts the Tanakh, consisting of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, as Scripture.

"The New Testament documents do not even claim to be Scripture," he asserts. He goes on, "They are in Greek, not Hebrew. They do not reflect the style or either the Torah or Prophets . . . In other words Luke is far more reliable than Mark, or certainly than John." Tabor concludes, "The New Testament documents should be interpreted in the light of the Holy Scriptures, not the other way around" (p.47).

Isn't that statement shocking? Isn't such a conclusion startling?

For a professing believer in Jesus, or Yeshua, to boldly make such claims is very shocking to me. I would have to regard those statements as categorically untrue and self-defeating. Certainly, Satan the devil has stolen a march on scholars and intellectuals who dismiss the New Testament so cavalierly. It seems incredible to me that such people would think for one minute that God cannot inspire HOLY SCRIPTURE IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE as well as in Hebrew! Furthermore, I find it amazing that they would conclude that God would inspire Scripture to be written detailing the Law, Writings and Prophets, but when the GREATER than Moses came along, the very

Messiah, that God would not inspire NEW SCRIPTURES to be written detailing His life and sayings!!!

The very idea is preposterous, and frankly elevates Moses far above Christ. Furthermore, such a belief turns the New Testament into a riddle, and a soupy mush, without divine inspiration, begging the question, What can we believe? Which verses reflect the true sayings of the Messiah? Which are not accurate, and why? And how can you prove it? And what about the people who lived hundreds of years ago who thought the New Testament was inspired? Did God just allow millions to be deceived on this point? If the New Testament is not inspired by God, THEN HOW CAN WE BELIEVE -- HAVE FAITH IN -- THE MESSIAHSHIP OF JESUS?

Satan's End-Time ASSAULT on the Bible

Thus Satan the devil has launched his final end-time assault -- a new ASSAULT ON THE BIBLE! This time he has focused his energy on the New Testament, in order to destroy faith in Jesus Christ, the Messiah! Truly, he knows that his time is short. He is furious (Rev.12:12), and therefore he is going straight for the jugular!

But since Tabor seems to think Paul's writings are easily handled to disprove the pre-existence of Christ, let us look at the book of Hebrews, which is generally credited to Paul. Let's read the Jewish New Testament here:

"In days gone by, God spoke in many and varied ways to the

Fathers through the prophets. But now, in the acharit-hayamim

[End Times], he has spoken to us through his Son, to whom he

has given ownership of everything and through whom he CREATED

THE UNIVERSE. This Son is the radiance of the Sh'khinah [God's

manifest glory], the very expression of God's essence, upholding all

that exists by his powerful word; and after he had, through himself,

made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of HaG'dulah

BaM'romim' [the Power Above].

"So he has become much better than angels, and the name God has

given him is superior to theirs. For to which of the angels did God

ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father'?

"Also, God never said of any angel, 'I will be his Father, and he

will be my Son.' And again, when God brings his Firstborn into

the world, he says, 'Let ALL GOD'S ANGELS WORSHIP HIM.'

"Indeed, when speaking of angels, he says, '. . . who makes his

angels winds and his servants fiery flames;' but to the Son, he says,

'YOUR THRONE, O GOD, WILL LAST FOREVER AND EVER;

you rule your Kingdom with a scepter of equity; you have loved

righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore, O GOD, your

God has anointed you with the oil of joy in preference to your

companions;' and, 'In the beginning, Lord, YOU laid the foundations

of the earth; heaven is the work of YOUR hands. They will vanish,

but you will remain; like clothing, they will all grow old; and you will

fold them up like a coat. Yes, they will be changed like clothing, but

YOU REMAIN THE SAME, your years never end' " (Heb.1:1-12).

Clearly, the Jewish New Testament proclaims the divinity and pre-existence of Christ with power and authority! There is no indecision, waffling, or demurring here. This is straight from the shoulder, pulling no punches. Paul plainly calls Christ GOD, and quotes Old Testament Scriptures as referring to Christ as very GOD! See Psalm 45:6-7 for the Old Testament PROOF that Christ the Messiah is also GOD!

The Real "Anti-Christs" of Our Day

Frankly, I believe the New Testament Scriptures are very clear. The ones who are misinterpreting Paul's words, and mistranslating and misrepresenting his words and theology, are the very ones who are maligning the divinity of Christ! They are the real "ANTICHRISTS" who were especially prophesied to come into the world, particularly during these "End Times" or "Last Days" (I John 2:18). Isn't it interesting that John says of these "antichrists," prophetically speaking, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us" (verse 19). This prophecy has LITERALLY come to pass!

Anthony Buzzard begins his paper by stating as if it were commonly accepted fact, "The very commonly held idea that Jesus was alive before His conception raises a number of questions about the nature of the Messiah." He then goes right on to ask such a question -- namely, "Can one indeed be a human being in any meaningful sense if one does not originate in the womb of one's mother?"

Now think about it. Isn't that a strange questions? Buzzard does not address the issue openly and objectively. Rather, circumlocuitously, he sneaks up via the back door, hiding in the underbrush, and attempts to ambush ignorant and naive Christians, by the subtle approach the Devil used on Eve in the garden. He also used the "question" approach! He said to Eve, "Did God really say . . .?" (Gen.3:1).

Buzzard (I feel he is aptly named -- God somehow sees to it that people are named what they are! And like a buzzard or vulture, he picks the bones of the dead and near-dying, attacking the weak and those unable to defend themselves from his attacks) begins his paper with a subtle question. These kinds of questions are meant to implant the seeds of DOUBT. They could produce a nasty harvest of poisonous weeds, if allowed to remain in the soil! Buzzard asks, O so innocently, "Can one indeed be a human being in any meaningful sense if one does not originate int he womb of one's mother?"

"Can one indeed. . .?"

Can you not see the spirit of Satan in that vicious question, just like in the garden of Eden? "Did God really say the Messiah pre-existed?" "Is it really true that . . .?" Well, let's face this question head-on. Using Buzzard's reasoning, then Adam and Eve could not have been human -- for neither one originated in the womb of a woman! How about that?

Furthermore, if you READ Matthew 1:18-21 and Luke 1:30-35, dealing with the birth of Christ, you will find out that JESUS WAS CONCEIVED IN THE WOMB OF HIS MOTHER! The only "difference" between Him and other human beings is that His Father was a Spirit Being -- or, putting it another way, the male sperm which united with Mary's ovum was THE LOGOS, the second member of the Godhead, who had transformed Himself into a human male reproductive cell! What is so hard to believe about that? Even today medical science can take male sperm and inject them into infertile women to help conception along, or even take a human egg and sperm from a woman and a man and let them "fertilize" outside the womb, in a special solution, and then re-implant the fertilized egg in a woman's uterus. What "science" can do God can do better.

With God all things are possible (Matt.19:26). Who are we to question the ability and power of God?

Buzzard then says, "Surely an angel differs from a human being precisely because he has an origin outside the system of

human procreation." Analyze that statement. What really makes angels different from humans? Buzzard is totally off base here. The difference has nothing to do with their point of origin -- God could create humans ANYWHERE HE CHOSE! By Buzzard's reasoning, since Adam and Eve arose "outside the human reproductive system," Adam and Eve were not human! Need I go on?

Buzzard then presents us with another doubt-ridden question. Satan is not only persuasive, but persistent. The third question -- "If . . ." Did you catch that? The third question begins "IF." Did not the tempter come to Jesus and begin his temptation by saying, "IF you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread"? (Matt.4:3). Buzzard challenges the reader, saying, "IF Jesus was really a being who changes Himself (or is changed by God) in order to enter the human race through Mary, he is clearly a being vastly different from the rest of humanity."

Why would that be so "clearly" obvious or true? The statement is not true at all. Although the source of the "cell" that united with Mary's ovum was divine, why would that make Jesus any different from other men or human beings? Only the source or origin of that "cell" was different. But that "cell" BECAME FULLY HUMAN! That is what the Scriptures state unequivocally -- but Buzzard avoids these Scriptures with a 100-foot pole!

Notice!

"Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their

humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds

the power of death -- that is, the devil -- and free those who all

their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. . . For this

reason he had to be MADE LIKE HIS BROTHERS IN EVERY

WAY, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high

priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the

sins of the people. Because he himself SUFFERED when he was

tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted" (Heb.2:

14-18).

Paul further declares about the humanity of Christ:

"During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and

petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him

from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.

Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered

and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation

for all who obey him . . ." (Heb.5:7-9).

Plainly, Jesus Christ was obviously FULLY HUMAN, just like you and I are -- but He also was "divine" in the sense of His origin on His Father's side!

Setting the Stage for Failure

Buzzard then states, categorically, "We maintain that the idea [of pre-existence of Christ] has to be held prior to an investigation of the scriptural evidence and then read into the Bible" (emphasis his). He adds, "There is also a strong bias in our translations, due to the preconceptions of 'orthodox' theologians, which encourages this process of 'reading-in.'

Notice how clever this is. Buzzard offers no proof whatsoever. He expects us to take his word for this "strong bias." He offers no proof -- he merely "accuses." Now I ask you -- who is the "accuser of the brethren"? The apostle John declares, "For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down" (Rev.12:10). Satan is the accuser! By falsely accusing unnamed "'orthodox' theologians," without offering any proof, Buzzard follows faithfully in the tradition of Satan the devil, who is also "a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44).

Thus, after prejudicing the mind of the reader against the concept that Jesus had a literal pre-existence, Buzzard goes on to construct his case. He begins by building upon the fact that Matthew, Mark and Luke -- the synoptic gospels -- do not mention any such pre-existence. He quotes various scholars to attest to this fact, which is really completely unnecessary -- appealing to worldly scholars proves nothing of itself, but it shows a tendency and a trend in Buzzard's thinking. Anyone who will read the synoptic gospels will see that the pre-existence of Christ is nowhere discussed there.

The question becomes, then, why not? Could it be that they were not concerned with such "theological" matters, because they were merely writing short "biographies" of the life of Christ, revealing His statements, actions, and miracles -- like any fair-minded, judicial, investigative reporter worth his salary? The three synoptic gospels do not concern themselves with questions of why. Rather, like true reporters, they deal primarily with "facts -- just the facts." There is no explanation or theologizing in them -- that duty is, as it

were, left up to John to tackle in his gospel.

John is the apostle whom God chose to write about the mystery of Christ's pre-existence, and His having come down from heaven, and His statements which indicated He was "very God."

Although Buzzard builds his case on the fact that the pre-existence of Christ is not mentioned in the three synoptic gospels, that is irrelevant and proves nothing. The absense of proof does not constitute proof of the opposite!

Buzzard claims that this absence has "embarrassed" many orthodox theologians. Pray tell, why? It doesn't embarrass me. I find it interesting, but not unusual, considering the purpose for which God inspired the three synoptic gospels to be written -- as basically factual reporting of the birth, life and death of the Messiah, the one known as Jesus. Yet, Buzzard continues to prejudice the case by saying, "It is a very remarkable fact that traditional C