Responding to Aaron Welch Again (Preexistence Response, Part III)

So, Aaron continues with the ‘begotten’ thing. Here we’ll cover his three-point argument concerning Matt. 1:20, and Luke 1:35. Before we do, however, I’d like to clarify that, we do not have a single verse that says, “Christ did not descend from heaven,” or “Do not take ‘His descent’ literally,” or “Christ did not exist before His physical birth.”

Neither do we have one verse from our apostle being considered here. This has all been prioritizing the circumcision evangel first – his original articles did this as well. The core of this issue, I’ve found, is prioritizing and heeding the limited revelations of the circumcision evangel before Paul. What I’m also finding is that the relative perspective is being ignored, leading to a misapprehension of God’s “heading up all in the Christ, both that in the heavens and on earth.” It’s very hard, again, for a Being that is only man to somehow reconcile the heavens, and it’s because we are focusing on relative statements in the circumcision and treating them as absolute that the grand truth unveiled in the prison epistles is being ignored.

Here’s Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35–

Now at [Joseph’s] brooding over [Mary’s pregnancy,] lo! A messenger of the Lord appeared to him in a trance, saying, “Joseph, son of David, you may not be afraid to accept Miriam, your wife, for that which is being generated in her is of holy spirit.

And answering, the messenger said to [Miriam,] “Holy spirit shall be coming on you, and the power of the Most High shall be overshadowing you; wherefore also the Holy One Who is being generated shall be called the Son of God.”

Here’s Aaron’s argument:

1. The word gennaō in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 refers to the event by which a father brings his child into existence and thus becomes the father of his child (Matt. 1:1-16).

And, again, this is only a part of the picture. Not only does God reveal what happens here, beyond these two verses quoted (John 1:14, Phil. 2:7,) but this actively ignores that God proclaims that His Expression is Christ (Unv. 19:13.) Please do not drive such a wedge between Father and Son. It would be like saying your Father is not actually dwelling in you right now.

Now, clearly, parents aren’t typically inside their children, are they, Aaron?? Last I checked, they are very much two separate things! And yet you and your Father are one. And yet God, Who is the Father of this Child, is in Christ during His earthly ministry. Isn’t that weird, how sonship with God works differently than man’s sonship? Would you propose that sonship must only hold the same dynamic with God as it does with man? Sounds kinda… self-indulgent, if you ask me, and yet that’s what we’re doing – limiting God to the way man must operate.

I can see, then, why this idea is so appealing to some of our brothers. But here, I can confirm that yes, there is a difference in the use of “begotten” in its relation to man, and its relation to God. Here’s John 1:12-13–

…Whoever obtained [Christ,] to them He gives the right to become children of God, to those who are believing in His name, who were begotten, not of bloods, neither of the will of the flesh, neither of the will of a man, but of God.

Necessary distinction, here. Being begotten by God is in direct contrast with being begotten by man. Begettal from God, as we’ve seen with verses like Heb. 1:5, does not require “non-existence” in order for something to “BECOME,” per its contextual use.

2. Jesus was generated/begotten by God at the time when Jesus’ mother became pregnant with him.

John 1:14. Begettal is not solely “created,” but to “become” something. He “becomes” flesh.

3. God brought his Son, Jesus, into existence (and thus became the Father of Jesus) when Jesus’ mother became pregnant with him.

Wait. So now Jesus is not the Son if He existed beforehand? On what grounds? I feel like the goalposts are being shifted, here. So why don’t we stop playing word games and accept the simple fact that Christ is always Son of God, and there’s never a time where He is not. His soul (I clarify: His soul, being in sheol, but not His spirit, nor His flesh, per Acts 2:25-31,) came out of existence for a short period of time, during His obedience unto the death of the cross, but Christ is the Son of God. He is always the Son of God. He will never not be the Son of God.

That some in Christ deny this is mind-boggling to me. I’m not quite arguing Aaron on that, because I think he understands that Christ is always the Son of God, irrespective of Him living or dying. But the things I’ve heard from some people in order to adhere to this non-preexistence thing has been nothing short of inconsistent and confusing, which is the spirit of religion that we have grown up in (and I think of Norman LaBelle’s comments as an example – that He becomes Son of God only when His ministry begins. What kind of nonsense–?) – not the spirit of our Father, Who is making known to us the secret of His will (Eph. 1:9.) The secrets are ours, and we would be foolish to ignore them.

Anyways, that was a tangent. A bit therapeutic, I’ll admit. What was Aaron saying? He didn’t really prove anything, with those three points. Just kinda… made some statements, I guess.

Against this conclusion…

(Of which, there was not one, but an incomplete picture,)

GK later claims that Jesus (or rather, the pre-existent celestial being who he believes was given the name “Jesus”) simply “became human” when the event in view in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 occurred. Aside from the fact that gennaó doesn’t mean “became human” (more on this point later), this view implies that it was merely Jesus’ human body – and not the actual, living person who was later named Jesus – that was “generated” or “begotten” when Jesus’ mother became pregnant with him.

And again, no claim is made that “begettal,” or “generated,” means “became human,” but “BECOME.” The contextual usage of the word, with its simple definition, is what takes precedent. This isn’t complicated, but it is crucial. We are not speaking of a guy that becomes Son of God by supernatural means, lest the random man be unable to do the “heavens” part of reconciling “heavens and earth.” The term “BECOME” is contextualized by that nasty verse that the nonpreexistence sect doesn’t like talking about, being John 1:14’s, “The Word became flesh.” Here, also, is a great example of this from Heb. 10:5–

Wherefore, entering into the world, [Christ] is saying, Sacrifice and approach present Thou dost not will, Yet a body dost Thou adapt to Me.

Well then. In the words of Gabe Christ: “So a body was adapted to Christ, who was dispatched into the world (John 3:17, Gal. 4:4,) and when He was here He constantly referenced where He was before (John 6:33, 38, 50, 51, 58, 62,) never acts like a normal human (Rom. 1:4, Matt. 8:27,) commits no sins (2 Cor. 5:21,) says He was before Abraham (John 8:58,) Paul and John say He was the Origin of all things from the beginning of the eons (Col. 1:15-17, Unv. 22:13,) and then He Himself declares He is the Alpha and Omega… I mean, what is going on?? This is a real mystery!!”

Look. Aaron can continue on in Luke 1:35. He can continue on in Matthew 1:20. But it would be extremely exhausting if, every time Christ is mentioned in Scripture, the text reaffirms that “Yes, He’s not literally a man, but given the external form of one.” It would be like, every time you start an episode of Breaking Bad, the show goes out of its way to recap every story beat from the first episode onward. Who has time for all that? Why do we think God, the Creator of all, should have to repeat Himself in His book??

Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:20 must be viewed in their context. Who is speaking, who is being spoken to, and at what point in time. It is not Miriam’s place to know Pauline truths, nor is it Joseph’s place. Again, His place at the start of creation, as well as His reconciliation, is a secret (Col. 1:26.) It is not for all to properly understand right now, and yes, it has been bastardized by Satan with a Trinity. But forget about religion and trust the text first and foremost, which screams in a number of places (yes, Old Testament included,) that Christ, being the Expression of God, changes throughout the entirety of the eons, and Christ Himself did not merely “come into existence” a few thousand years into human history, because God clearly expressed Himself before then.

Aaron then clarifies the use of “only-begotten.” Check this out:

With regard to Christ’s being the “only-begotten Son of God,” the Greek adjective translated “only-begotten” in the CLNT is monogenēs. This word is derived from the words monos (“only,” “alone”) and genos (“race,” “species” or “kind”). According to the BDAG Greek-English lexicon, the word monogenēs has two primary definitions:

1. ”Pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship”

2. ”Pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind”

When understood with reference to Christ, neither of these definitions of monogenēs requires the view that Christ pre-existed his supernatural conception. What we read in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 concerning how God brought Christ into existence fully justifies the use of the word monogenēs in connection with Christ.

Okay, first, never mind the fact that I did not say, “the term ‘only-begotten’ confirms His preexistence,” but that “the term ‘begotten’ does not deny His preexistence.” Aaron is projecting, here, as he uses “begotten” to try and prove that it absolutely-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt proves that Christ didn’t ‘pre-exist,’ and then tries to use this term ‘only-begotten’ to prove that it’s not required for Him to preexist. And, second, again, I say: if we were only looking at Matthew 1 and Luke 1, then he’d have a case. But looking at those two verses and acting as though they are the absolute truth concerning our Lord, when both accounts are covering Him from a terrestrial perspective and His celestial glories are obviously not directly in view, completely ignores the “pattern of sound words” charge given by Paul to Timothy.

The fact that holy spirit is what has impregnated Miriam, and that the Word became flesh, per John 1:14, which is being pretty carefully ignored at this time, should clarify the true unique, only-begotten, nature of Christ. This is not a matter of “whether or not only-begotten actually concerns His preexistence.” I’d never really considered it that way at all, until Aaron brought it up. And I still wouldn’t use only-begotten as ‘proof’ of His existence prior to His physical birth, because, while it fits perfectly, it does not explicitly state it, as the uncircumcision evangel does, or as John enlightens the circumcision.

Also: Aaron references “only-begotten” in relation to Isaac somehow proving something with Christ. The point made here doesn’t prove that Christ did not preexist, as there are verses that directly point out that He does, and I wasn’t using “begotten” to prove anything, nor does “begotten” deny Colossians 1:15-17.

Now, as for Luke 1:35, Aaron says:

We both agree that God didn’t impregnate Miriam by natural means, and that the generating of Jesus by God was a supernatural act. But this fact doesn’t support GK’s position in the least. It doesn’t change the meaning of gennaō in the context of Matt. 1:20 or Luke 1:35. It doesn’t change the fact that God became the Father of his only-begotten Son when the event referred to in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 took place. Nor does it change the fact that the very reason why Jesus would be “called the Son of God” is because he was generated by God at the time when his mother became pregnant with him (a fact which Gabriel’s use of the word “wherefore” in Luke 1:35 makes clear).

The presumption that ‘begotten,’ which is ‘BECOME,’ and yes, is related to family, somehow disproves Paul, is untrue. And, moreover, the use of “wherefore” by Gabriel is in relation to the fact that it is the holy spirit that is impregnating her; that the power of the Most High is overshadowing her. That is why, in the relative context, the child is, as a result of the Most High overshadowing her, being called the Son of God. Miriam had asked a simple question: “How can I be pregnant if I haven’t had sex yet?” Gabriel must reply with, “The child you’re being given is by holy spirit, so He is not the son of Joseph (cf. John 6:42,) but the Son of God.” This is not a confirmation of His prior nonexistence. It is a confirmation to the frightened woman who is wondering why the hell she’s going to have a baby bump in a few months, that this is a proper event inspired by God.

Now, I said, “Genesis to Acts covers a long revelation to Israel, not celestial revelations of the glories of Christ. They are concerned with a kingdom (Matt. 4:23,) while we are concerned with the celestials (Rom. 1:1.)” Aaron replied:

Actually, we who are in the body of Christ are concerned with a kingdom as well.

Which is nice, but it’s obviously not what I’m talking about. Yes, we are a part of a celestial kingdom in which we are pardoned of sin (Col. 1:13.) But we are ruling the terrestrial kingdom that is in view throughout the four accounts of Jesus’ earthly sojourn, that was promised to Abraham. The celestial kingdom we are promised is a separate allotment, that is, again, rooted in the celestials, which is why I said what I said. This just isn’t the place to go into detail on that, really, because it doesn’t “prove” or “disprove” Christ’s existence before His physical birth. However, it is crucial to point out, that, in Matthew and Luke, the terrestrial kingdom is in view, which is why, when speaking of Jesus’ birth, God isn’t going to use Gabriel to clarify that His Son was with Him at creation, like He does in other places (1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16, John 1:1-3, 1:10, Heb. 1:8-10.)

The truth concerning Christ that’s distinct to Paul’s letters does not pertain to how and when Christ was brought into existence by God (and how and when God became the Father of his Son).

Well! I sure hope Aaron can disprove “all is created through Him and for Him” this time around.

For whatever reason, GK seems to believe that, if Christ was brought into being (i.e., generated) when his mother became pregnant with him, God couldn’t have ensured that Christ be (and remain) sinless.

Yes, because when the non-preexistence sect says stuff like, “Christ did not exist before His physical birth,” it’s clear that they do not believe that Christ is the Image of the invisible God, but that He becomes an Image over time – otherwise, they wouldn’t be fighting so badly to drive this wedge between Christ and God. To quote Peter Meye on the subject:

“I want to make as clear as possible that Jesus is truly one of us… we are glorifying Jesus more by believing this truth, and glorifying God more because we give Him the place He claims in Scripture… We give Jesus His proper glory as a human being who is exalted above everyone. That is the glory Jesus has and deserves.”

Peter said that at the end of the debate with him and myself, and I will showcase it now. This is indeed the heart of the matter, the idea that Jesus is just an exalted human being. This is the logical conclusion of the argument, and the non-preexistence sect has even gone on record saying that Jesus is 100% human, and 0% divine, which completely disregards His place as God’s Son, as He Himself is a God (John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28.)

**Side note – there is another reason that this truth is so disliked by so many in Christ, and it stems from the fact that we are fighting, not with each other, but with the evil celestial powers that be (Eph. 6:12.) These beings do not trust or believe that God’s Image would empty Himself to such a disposition. Please keep in mind, as you go through these articles, that you are reading an entreaty to Aaron, and a biting, satirical criticism against ruling wicked celestials.**

Now, I’m not saying that this is exactly what Aaron was teaching. In fact, there are a few instances throughout my old articles (that Aaron points out,) in which I seem to be “presupposing” or “adding” or “misrepresenting” his view. Of course, that’s not my goal, and I quote him often in order to try and keep him in view. But, while he is a figurehead of the non-preexistence sect, I am responding to various criticisms against Paul in these articles, from the sect as a whole, with Aaron’s articles as a structure. This is why I’m discussing things Aaron may not have said, because, whether Aaron is making that claim or not, does not change the fact that his readers, that is, many of Christ’s brothers, are making this false claim about Him (John 8:55,) which, again, is the same claim the Jews made, in John’s account, which most in the non-preexistence group do not want to discuss (John 6:42, John 8:57.)

…we know from Scripture that Christ was, in fact, brought into existence when his mother became pregnant with him (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35).

His flesh (John 1:14.) I tire of repeating myself, so I won’t, but I’m sure we’re gonna have a lot to talk about when we reach Phil. 2:5-8, that’s for damn sure.

it was not at all difficult for God to bring it about such that Christ be both (a) a descendant of (and thus physically related to) sinful human beings, and (b) sinless (and thus “unaffiliated with sin”).

Yes, but this can only be true if the spirit of Christ is truly divine, because the Deity is not subject to sin, and Christ is the Image of the Deity. If Christ is only human, then He is not grafted into the seed, as Is. 11:1 clarifies with “Scion,” while retaining His own characteristics (Phil. 2:5-8, John 1:14,) but is in all ways directly Adam’s offspring, and last I checked:

Through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners.

If Jesus were a part of this “many,” then Paul would have no One by which to contrast the above quote (Rom. 5:19,) and his argument would fall flat. Christ would have to be constituted a “sinner” in the same way, and thus Paul’s argument for all of mankind being saved becomes false. Yet it is His divinity, by being generated in flesh by holy spirit, that clarifies His special allotment and sanctification.

The fact that God is the Source of the human being who was generated/begotten in the womb of Miriam in no way means that Christ existed in some other location before he was generated/begotten by God. GK is simply importing his own view of when and where Christ’s existence began into the inspired account of how and when God brought his Son into being.

This is not an “imported” view, but a view rooted firmly in the text. The language God uses concerning His Son is very clear. John 1:14–

The Word became flesh…

John 1:18–

The only-begotten God, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He unfolds Him.

John 3:16, 17–

God does not dispatch His Son into the world that He should be judging the world…

John 6:38–

I have descended from heaven…

John 6:46–

Not that the Father has been seen by anyone, except the One Who is from God. This One has seen the Father.

John 16:28–

I came out from the Father and have come into the world.

1 Cor. 8:6–

…for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom [the] all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom [the] all is, and we through Him.

Gal. 4:4–

God delegates His Son, come of a woman, come under law…

And this is a small sample of the verses that proclaim that God did not “create” His Son at Jesus’ conception with Mary, but that the spirit of Christ very much existed before all, and that God did not create, but delegated His Son to come of Mary in flesh. This is where my view that “He must have existed prior if He is the only-begotten Son of God” comes from. It’s that the very diction God uses proclaims this, let alone the fact that Jesus directly confirms it multiple times throughout John, and Paul directly states it in the perfection epistles. Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35 are modified, as it is revealed just how declaratively limited they are in scope. These are not doctrinal teachings, but accounts.

Is this enough, or is the view still “just imported?” Because I could make the same argument, that Aaron is “importing” his view that Jesus Christ did not exist before His physical birth, into passages in Philippians and Colossians, which directly proclaim Christ’s existence beforehand.

God was not Jesus’ Father – and Jesus was not God’s Son – until the supernatural event referred to in Luke 1:35 occurred. God became the Father of his Son when Jesus was generated, or begotten, by God.

If this were the case, then boy does God have some explaining to do. How to “delegate” your Son if your Son isn’t actually your Son? Aaron gets this by limiting his scope to Matthew and Luke, which, sorry to say, is the problem that Christianity has today, by ignoring Paul’s revelations.

The fact that GK thought it necessary to make it clear to his reader that he’s not saying “we existed beforehand” indicates that, in GK’s mind, the truth of Christ’s sonship has been fused together with the additional idea of his having existed beforehand.

And, no, I’ve not once considered that I could have existed before my physical birth. I made it clear that “we didn’t exist beforehand” because I’ve dealt with Jason and Norm and Peter Meye saying, “Oh, you wouldn’t say we existed beforehand, yet you would say Christ existed beforehand??” This is a prevalent logical conclusion in their mind, not my own. I wouldn’t have considered it at all if they hadn’t said it. I mentioned it to shut the door on that (because it is indeed a stupid notion,) not invite considerations about my ego, but I guess I would be judged whether I mentioned it or not.

I think that’s a good note to end the first article on. There’s more technicality on Aaron’s side, but honestly, I think I’ve made my point. By limiting his understanding to Matthew and Luke, two circumcision writings that are only covering two of the aspects of our Lord, and blatantly ignoring the “Son of God” aspect of John, which assuredly covers Him as a Son from the beginning of creation, per John 1:1, Aaron is subjected to the same view as the Jews in John 6– unable to recognize the glory of His Lord, plain and simple. So far, we’ve seen that Christ is most certainly present throughout the Old Testament, being the Image and Word of God, that He has been falsely attributed to being the son of David, like the Jews had claimed (Matt. 22:41-46,) that the circumcision writings have been given precedent in this discussion (Gal. 1:6,) that Christ’s flesh is being prioritized (2 Cor. 5:16,) and thus, the mature unveilings of Paul are being ignored (Eph. 4:13, Phil. 2:5-8, Col. 1:15-17.)

(to be continued)

- GerudoKing