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

 Concerning ‘An In-Depth Response to “GerudoKing” Concerning When Christ’s Existence Began (Part Two)’ Part 3

This feels like a good time to talk about “divinity.” This is not an explicit response to Aaron’s article, so I guess he can ignore it if he’d like – though I’m sure, with his theory considered, he may need this same admonition. And, it will tie in shortly. Considering the fact that Christ is called “a God,” in John 1:1, and it’s clarified that He has been in the “form of God” in Phil. 2:7, and considering He is the Son of God, the direct seed of God, planted into a virgin, you would think that Christ is divine in spirit??

Apparently not. Here’s a quote from Jason, of Christ Saved Everyone fame, in his video titled, ‘Was–is–always will be–A MAN’–

“I have thoroughly proven that Jesus is a man!”

Congratulations, Jason. Can you see that He is divine?

“And, He is the first of the new creation.”

I assume He’s referring to Col. 1:18, as Christ is called the “Firstborn from among the dead.” Funny thing about that… not three verses prior, the scope pertains to all, as in, “Firstborn of every creature.” So He is not only the Head of the new creation, but the Head of the old creation as well (He is called as much, in Rev. 3:14– ‘God’s creative Original.’ Hard to make something in your Image, as your Original, if that Original isn’t there.

“Jesus, in Matthew 8:20, calls Himself the ‘Son of Mankind.’”

That’s beautiful. Do you know why He is called the Son of Mankind? This is, as Paul clarifies in 1 Cor. 15:45, a title which clarifies His reversal of the curse of Adam, as He inherits all of Adam’s glory, in flesh, as sovereign over every living thing on the earth (Gen. 1:28.)

Now, what of the verses where He is called the Son of the living God? Matt. 16:16? What of the verses where He is called a God in relation to His spirit? John 1:1? John 1:18? John 20:28? Rom. 1:4? What about the part where He is subjecting all, and not just the living things on the earth? 1 Cor. 15:24-27? These passages are completely and utterly ignored by Jason in regard to this topic. It’s the equivalent to looking at one side of a quarter, and presuming it’s the same on the other side. “Oh, well, it’s ‘tails’ here, so it must be ‘tails’ on the other side, too!” You can show them the other side of the coin for hours and, if you let it consume you, you could tear your hair out watching them go, “Nope, no, uh-uh, not true at all, you’re just ignorant to the fact that this side is ‘tails.’”

There are no shortage of verses that call Christ godlike (Phil. 2:6,) that He comes to be in the form of humanity (Phil. 2:7,) and that He holds a divine quality (Matt. 8:27.) These are simple, direct statements in Scripture that hardly need explaining. They are direct. They are not in conflict with each other. When you accept both sides of the coin, that He has been both the form of man, and form of God, that statements like, “He is a Mediator of God and of man,” make complete, and proper, sense.

Now, it may seem as though I’m picking on Jason (and I’m sure the non-preexistence sect will frame it this way so as to dismiss any claim I make and avoid considering the many verses and refutations being provided here,) but you will see shortly that I am indirectly refuting Aaron’s next points concerning the verses considered in this article. Let’s talk about Psalm 33:6, 9–

By the word of Yahweh, the heavens were made, and by the spirit of His mouth, all their host.

For He spoke, and it came to be; He enjoined, and it stood firm.

Concerning these verses, Aaron claims that “He enjoined” is in reference to the earth, and not Christ. This is fair. I can understand that. I prefer Aaron’s understanding with that quote.

That being said, Aaron says:

Or, to put it another way, it was “by the word of Yahweh” that the heavens and the earth were made.

That’s amazing! Now, what was the Bible saying, earlier?

[Christ’s] name is “The Word of God.”

Thanks, God! For clarifying that detail! So now we don’t need to speculate. The Expression of Yahweh, His Image, His Effulgence, His Emblem, is Christ. Clearly, this Expression existed before fleshy Jesus, or God is a liar, because He communicates with Israel before this with an Image (Acts 7:2) and with sound (Gen. 12:1-3, etc.) So, by the Word of God the heavens are made.

As we did with the word “image,” let’s take a look at the word “word” in Hebrew: dabar. The word is comprised of three letters: a ‘dalet,’ a ‘bet,’ and a ‘resh.’ A ‘dalet’ represents a ‘doorway’ (John 10:9-10.) A ‘bet’ represents a ‘dwelling place’ (2 Cor. 5:19.) A ‘resh’ represents a ‘head’ (Col. 1:15, 18.) I wonder what the very construct of ‘word’ in Hebrew – the primary language for the Old Testament – could be referring to! Almost like God is always right or something. Show off.

Anyway, in my original article to Aaron, I said that Aaron was right for debunking the claim that Christ was originally a celestial ‘human being,’ as there is no Scriptural evidence for such a thing. You could, I guess, argue that, if humanity is the copy, and Christ is the creative Original, that He is in some way in the shape of a human, for the sake of the story, but I stand by my agreement with Aaron that ‘celestial human being’ is inferred, not proven, and especially when dealing with something as controversial as this, it is best to stick to ‘proven.’ I reasoned that some Trinitarian must have driven him to write this. Aaron replied:

Contrary to GK’s assumption, it most definitely wasn’t anyone “in the Trinitarian department” who came up with the viewpoint I was debunking (if the reader would like a hint as to his identity, his initials are “MZ”).

Now, when I was responding to Aaron’s articles, I was responding sequentially, so I had not yet read his response to Martin, or even the entirety of Martin’s response to Aaron. In retrospect, I have seen Martin make this claim, and I disagreed with him, both in comments on his videos and in person (at a conference in Arizona back in May 2023.) Martin, I believe, has inferred this view. As I don’t believe it contradicts Col. 1:16, I haven’t commented much on it, but I don’t believe it’s fully accurate to call Christ “only” a human being – it’s the same problem I had with Jason above. Aaron has been saying that we need not assume anything written above the text, and, though he himself is assuming that the text does not mean what it says, I do agree with his general charge against Martin, there.

GK goes on to respond to my comments on 1 Cor. 15:45-47 by reminding the reader that what Paul wrote is “concerning humanity.” He then claims that, by the “same logic” I employed, I “would have to argue that God, being inherently Spirit, would have been second to some physical or soulish body.”

It’s fine that Aaron quotes me on this, but this is a bit of a simplification on what I said. 1 Cor. 15:45-47, in “concerning humanity,” must be viewed in its context, concerning resurrection. It is humanity that will be vivified, and this is only effectual of Christ’s resurrection, in not being fully human (Matt. 16:15-16, 22:41-46.)

But that’s not at all the case. Everything I said is perfectly consistent with the fact that, for humans, the soulish body is first, and then the spiritual.

Sure. But this doesn’t apply to Christ, Who is called “a vivifying Spirit” in the very passages we’re talking about. No mere man could definitively be called this, or Paul’s arguments concerning mankind’s universal justification have a major issue that can’t be rectified (Rom. 5:12.) In contrast, Christ can be called a Vivifying spirit, because: Matt. 8:27, and 16:15-16, clarify that He is not merely ‘man,’ but the Son of the Living God.

If someone is a human, then – according to what Paul affirmed in 1 Cor. 15:45-47 – they didn’t first exist with a spiritual body.

Now, when we are talking about Christ, there is an exception. The figure presented to us in John 1:1-3 is clarified by John 1:10-11. Christ, unlike man, is called “not of the world,” and, in contrast, the “world came into being through Him.” As many who have studied the eons carefully knows, each eon has its corresponding world (Eph. 2:2.) If the world, then, comes into being through Him, then He must have at least existed before this system, this eon, came to be. Aaron is correct that this is not said of man, but it is said of the Son of the living God, which means that He is an exception to the 1 Cor. 15 passage, which is why He can be called “a vivifying Spirit.”

He enters into the world, notice, after the soilish body has been thoroughly presented as sinning. As in, the spiritual, on the stage (1 Cor. 4:9,) came after the soilish, which is why we are even able to be believers today. Paul, in speaking of resurrection, in 1 Cor. 15, is speaking of the terrestrial body being changed, which is why Christ is called “Man” in the passage.

Nonetheless, this doesn’t escape the fact that, in these very verses referenced, Christ is called “a vivifying Spirit,” “the Lord out of heaven,” and, in 15:48, “the Celestial One.” Hmmm. What are we to think concerning the Christ?

Doh, He’s just the seed of David.

Or, to put it another way, no one who is human had a spiritual body first.

Remember what we were saying earlier about “assumptions?” And, moreover, regardless of what Aaron said earlier, context does in fact require our attention, lest we do not correctly cut the word of truth.

Like “the first man, Adam,” Christ began his existence with a soulish body.

And this is just contrary to the verse entirely. Like, his claim is the direct opposite of this verse. The verse itself is contrasting Adam and Christ, not drawing parallels to them! Goodness:

The first man was out of the earth, soilish; the second Man is the Lord out of heaven.

The Lord out of heaven, not ‘the Christ, soilish turned celestial!’ Again, I await Aaron’s Companion Bible with baited breath.

Even if it were the case that Christ wasn’t a human at the time that he had a spiritual body (which is, of course, GK’s view), it would still mean that, for Christ, the spiritual body was first.

Sure. Because humanity is not in view in John 1:1, or Phil. 2:5. Because I have to be careful with my terminology, I wouldn’t even go as far as to say Christ’s body was definitive before His physical birth. All Paul says concerning it is that it was “inherently in the form of God.” This doesn’t limit Christ to a specific shape, then, because God isn’t limited to a specific shape. All John says is that He was the “Word” that became flesh (completing his figure.) So, something tells me this body is not limited to one specific shape, but in that, we get into semantics. It’d be fun to theorize, I guess, but it’s not required for our current study.

Moreover, the context matters, guys! Why is this complicated?? The body of Christ is in view, here. The body of Christ is terrestrial, turned celestial. It must follow, if it is possible for one to go from terrestrial to celestial, that the process must be able to go the other way around, as God is capable of all, and He usually operates symmetrically (Gen. 6:1-4, Rom. 5:12-18, Phil. 2:6.)

GK then appeals to the fact that Paul referred to Christ as “the Lord out of heaven” in 1 Cor. 15:47, and states that this proves that Christ “must stem from celestial allotment.” GK is assuming that Christ was “the Lord out of heaven” before his death and resurrection.

Um, no, I’m assuming that, when Paul calls Christ “the Lord out of heaven,” that He must inherently be “the Lord out of heaven.” As He is out of heaven, not of the world, enters into the world, is dispatched, delegated, and sent, becomes flesh, and His body is adapted to Him. As these are the terms God continually uses to describe His Son’s first arrival, it follows that heaven is what He is out of, like Paul says. I don’t need to “assume” anything. It’s what the text literally says.

That He is the Lord out of heaven is to clarify that, when He is called “the second Man,” it is not in relation to His very existence, but His arrival in the story, because even the circumcision evangel’s highest unfoldings can understand this much (John 1:1, 3:12.)

When we go on to read in 1 Cor. 15:47 that “the second Man is the Lord out of [ek] heaven,” we know that Paul was expressing the following idea: Heaven (rather than earth) is the source of the spiritual body that now composes Christ (and which Christ has had since his resurrection).

Doh. The part where Aaron says, “Heaven (rather than earth) is the source…” that part hits me right in the feels. The part where He limits this to, ‘the spiritual body that now composes Christ,’ that’s the part that requires exhortation. This is the nth time that Aaron has added to the text, because Paul doesn’t say, ‘Christ is now the Lord out of heaven.’ God doesn’t say, ‘Christ’s source is heaven now.’ He says that with you, sure (2 Cor. 5:1,) but He does not say that about His Son. Christ, during His earthly ministry, says explicitly that He is out of heaven, that He has descended from heaven, that He will ascend to where He was formerly, and Paul confirms this as well (Eph. 4:8-10.)

Just as it would be incorrect to say that Adam (who is “out of the earth”) pre-existed in the earth before he existed with a soulish body – or that Eve (who is “out of the man”) pre-existed in Adam before she existed with a soulish body – so it would be incorrect to say that Christ pre-existed in heaven before he existed with a soulish body.

Hi! So Adam’s creation is described in Genesis 2:7, and Paul quotes it, saying, “Adam became a living soul.” In contrast, Christ’s “source,” as Aaron literally just pointed out, is in heaven, where, for the time being, celestial beings are currently living (Ps. 82:6-7,) especially by the time Paul pops off in 1 Corinthians 15. There’s a reason the spirit of Christ’s very “creation” is not quoted by Paul, and it’s because it’s not found anywhere. If Matt. 1:18 and Luke 1:35 were the absolute say-so on Christ’s existence, Paul surely would have referenced this, no?? But he doesn’t, because those verses are condescending to Israel’s scope.

John 1:1 says He “was” in the beginning, not “He was formed in the beginning.” Whereas Adam’s creation is described, Christ’s creation is before the eons, as the world, and the eons themselves, come into being through Him (John 1:3, Heb. 1:2.) If His source is out of heaven, then (Is. 66:1,) and celestial beings are not currently dying, and He descends (John 6:33, 38, 50, 51, 58, 62,) having been delegated (Gal. 4:4,) and dispatched (John 3:17,) then He must have had some kind of sentience before His physical birth! Per Aaron’s own argument, if Adam is formed upon the second earth’s formation, then Christ would also have to be formed by the heaven’s formation, at minimum. Yet Paul, who speaks for God, is not Aaron, and takes it a step further, pointing out that Christ is in the ‘form of God’ before His physical birth. If that is the case, then Christ exists when God chose to form Him. In our limited understanding of eternity, it follows that Christ was created before the eons (John 1:1,) and had the eons created through Him (Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:2.) Let’s believe God on the matter, please, because if Aaron were correct in his interpretation, then God is a liar, and our Savior pathetic.

We know that Paul was referring to the source of Christ’s spiritual body by his use of the expression “out of heaven” in 1 Cor. 15:47 because, in 2 Cor. 5:1-2, Paul used the exact same expression when referring to the future spiritual body of believers. In these verses Paul described our future immortal body as both “eonian, in the heavens” and as “out of [ek] heaven.”

I tire of falsifications. Here’s 2 Cor. 5:1-2–

For we are aware that, if our terrestrial tabernacle house should be demolished, we have a building of God, a house not made by hands, eonian, in the heavens. For in this also we are groaning, longing to be dressed in our habitation which is out of heaven...

A)  There’s sufficient evidence here that points to the tabernacle house being related to wages (1 Cor. 3:10-15,) an actual location, and not our physical bodies.

B)   Even if it is in relation to physical bodies, it is evident that the source of our habitation is, literally, out of heaven, and we will not receive it on the earth. It is indeed a future expectation, whereas our Lord cannot have been “out of heaven” at a future point in time, or Jesus is, like the Pharisees, a liar, as He would not truly be acquainted with God (John 8:55.)

For some reason, Aaron thinks that this, in a different context, is clarifying Christ Himself. This takes me back to my original rebuke, which Aaron found ‘so confusing,’ concerning 1 Pet. 1:19-20 earlier. We, Aaron, are not crucified on a cross. We, Aaron, are not like Christ. We, Aaron, are not out of heaven, but are called out of the world. Please stop presuming that, if you were the one born 2,000 years ago, then you could have done the same thing. All is not created in you, but in Him. Also, please do not confuse the body with self.

Anyway, let’s hear Romans 5:14–

…death reigns from Adam unto Moses, over those also who do not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him Who is about to be.

In my previous articles, I clarified that there is a difference between the name “Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus.” The Greek switches them when speaking of Christ’s terrestrial and celestial glories.

Contrary to what GK seems to believe (based on his use of the expressions “the terrestrial Jesus Christ” and “the celestial Christ Jesus”), there is no reason whatsoever to think that, when Paul wrote “Christ Jesus” instead of “Jesus Christ” in his letters, he was communicating the idea that Christ pre-existed as a celestial being.

This is not entirely false, but it is a falsification of what I said (this seems to happen a lot when you’re trying not to understand something.) I did not say, “Christ Jesus is in reference to Christ’s prior existence.” I said, “Christ Jesus is in reference to Christ celestial, while Jesus Christ is in reference to Christ terrestrial.” For example, Paul calls Christ “Christ Jesus” in Rom. 1:1, in reference to His celestial position. Paul similarly calls Christ “Christ Jesus” in Phil. 2:5, in reference to His celestial position. Two different aspects of His celestial nature are in view, here, but both put “Christ” first. It is when we are looking at His physical body that “Jesus Christ” is used (usually, as in the case of Rom. 5:14, in relation to His arrival in the terrestrial.)

Now, Aaron uses this to again try and limit Christ to the terrestrial, and uses 2 Tim. 2:8 to try and prove this. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example as to why these titles matter:

Remember Jesus Christ, Who has been roused from among the dead, is of the seed of David, according to my evangel…

See the name Jesus Christ? The terrestrial is indeed considered! Beautiful. Rom. 1:3. As Aaron has misrepresented my view, here (for the nth time,) I find no reason to cover his rebuttal, as it’s not really in line with what I’d initially said. He goes on about how Paul uses “Jesus Christ” in relation to present tense, or active, verbs and nouns. Well, sure, but Abraham, Adam, and David are given active and present tense statements just as well, and these folk are clearly not here today. This makes Aaron’s argument another non-sequitur, as Paul calling Jesus “Lord” is not the same as saying, “Jesus was only ever man and did not exist until His physical birth.” Aaron’s inference is not fact. It is interpretation, which is not infallible.

Moving on, GK goes on to essentially write an entire paragraph expressing his puzzlement as to why I would reference Hebrews 2:14. But I find his puzzlement itself puzzling, since – in the article from which he’s quoting – I went on to explain precisely what I had in mind when I appealed to this verse. Here’s what I wrote:

“Such wording seems to imply the exact opposite of the view that Adam and his flesh-and-blood descendants were “modeled after” a celestial, spiritual Man, or made into a similar version of such a being; rather, these words imply that Christ “copied” (i.e., he was made into a similar version) of Adam and his flesh-and-blood descendants. And after “copying” the original man and his descendants, Christ then became (after being vivified by God) the final, perfected version of Man.”

Well, since he’s just repeated himself, I don’t find his quote any clearer. Here’s Heb. 2:14–

Since, then, the little children have participated in blood and flesh, He also was very nigh by partaking of the same, that, through death, He should be discarding him who has the might of death, that is, the Adversary…

So let me ask you. If Jesus is choosing to partake of the same blood and flesh, making Him like man (Phil. 2:7-8,) how does this “contradict” the understanding that Christ exists before His physical birth?? If anything, this adds more weight to the revelation!! What are we arguing about, here?? Scripture is clear!! This is why I was “puzzled” by Aaron’s citation; it doesn’t “prove” anything except that Christ “partakes” of the same, but it is not stated here that this is related to His conception! Again, Aaron, you must stretch the verses here to make them say what you want them to say!

The Greek elements of the term “partake” are “WITH-HAVE.” This is in contrast to the term “participate,” as the verb that describes the Israelites in the passage above, being “COMMON-BEING.” This lines up perfectly with “Christ empties Himself, taking the form of a slave.” His sufferings perfecting Him for salvation does not mean He did not exist previously. Christ is form of God, not God Himself, so He also is learning. It is the method by which God Himself saves all. The verse above does not say, “Christ became the final, perfected version of Man.” It says, “through His death, Christ can discard the Adversary.” This doesn’t have anything to do with His preexistence, or His nonpreexistence, which is why I don’t know why Aaron’s quoting it at all. Nonetheless, the diction used is precise, in line with the revelations given by Paul.

For a being who pre-existed his life on earth as a celestial being couldn’t be made like other humans “in all things” (since none of the “brethren” that we’re told Christ had to be made like “in all things” are beings who pre-existed their life on earth as celestial beings).

Now what kind of reasoning is this?? Again, Paul explains this statement, in Philippians, which is blatantly ignored by Aaron, here. The response is given by Paul, and stands properly. If I am made “like Christ in all things,” this means I was not previously like Christ in all things. Similarly, if Christ is made “like man in all things,” this means he was not previously like man in all things. Whether you believe He ‘pre-existed’ or not, He’s clearly becoming something He is not originally.

Anyways, Aaron skips over my comment on Gen. 1:26-27 (which I forgot I’d put in here, but now that I’m looking back at it, I see that much of Aaron’s first article runs into some major issues, considering I literally quoted from the Old Testament concerning God operating all through Christ,) and moves on to Rom. 8:28-30.

Now we are aware that God is working all together for the good of those who are loving God, who are called according to the purpose that, whom He foreknew, He designates beforehand, also, to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be Firstborn among many brethren. Now whom He designates beforehand, these He calls also, and whom He calls, these He justifies also; now whom He justifies, these He glorifies also.

Here is, yet again, another passage that doesn’t really have anything to do with Christ’s existence beforehand. The passage concerns us. The only part of this passage that refers to Christ Himself is “Him to be Firstborn among many brethren,” which ties in with Col. 1:18, which states that He is “Firstborn from among the dead.”

On this, Aaron says–

Although GK asserts that I’m trying to “stuff Christ’s nonexistence into” Romans 8:28-30 (and later implies with his closing statement that my intention in quoting this passage was to prove that Christ didn’t pre-exist), the fact is that I wasn’t using Romans 8:28-30 to try and refute the doctrine of Christ’s pre-existence, or to support a negative claim about when Christ did or didn’t exist (e.g., “Christ didn’t exist at some past time, and here’s a passage that proves it”).

And that’s fine, sure, but in this case, don’t quote it at all and move on. There’s no reason to quote something off topic! Now, if he were to say, “this is off topic, but…” then I wouldn’t have said anything. I’m not perfect, and I have the tendency to do that as well. But Aaron presented it in his original article as though it had something to do with Christ existing or not existing beforehand, and not merely as a response to Martin, so I had commented on it.

I think that’s enough for now. In the next articles, we will finally return to Aaron’s reasoning as to why Philippians 2:5-8 and Colossians 1:15-17 do not actually mean what they say.

(to be continued)

- GerudoKing