The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

First, Scripture makes it very clear that He (the person of Jesus Christ) has always been. The name "Jesus" has specific meaning which is "Jehovah Himself saves" (somewhat roughly). "Christ" is basically the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew "messiah" or "annointed one".
Second His (the Son, Jesus Christ) existence before becoming flesh is made clear in John 1 (as JimD has pointed out) as well as in Colossians 1:15-20. BTW, "firstborn" in the greek is a word that points to Jesus' preimmanence over everything and NOT his birth as is clear in the Colossians passage when one considers that all things were created by Him (vs. 16) and all things are held together in Him (vs 17).

The way you've explained the incarnation seems that God the Father has sexual intercourse with Mary. This is NOT what is made plain by Scripture and is a very wrong idea borrowed by the ancient concepts of the gods. Further you are implying distinctions between Jesus and the "Word" which were clearly not held by John who wrote the book you seem to be misinterpreting And misapplying.


Imagination is not the issue here. Correct communication is IMO. Whatever you and your wife wish to believe about Americans is between you and your wife. I suggest you drop the ethno-centric profiling and interact with the content of the valid questions being asked. Your concept of Christ is quite anti-Biblical as you seem to present it.
That the Holy Spirit is distinct and seperate from both God the Father and God the Son is made clear in several passages of Scripture. Seemingly, by your explanation, God the Holy Spirit is the progenitor (or Father) of God the Son. This IMO is not orthodox and quite anti-Biblical thinking.


There are several historical heresies which have either over-emphasized the diety of Christ or over-emphasized the humanity of Christ. It seems you are following the lines set by the latter here. Indeed the Baby suckled by Mary was born in time and his flesh was "new" in some sense. Yet still He was before all things and even gave life to the mother who birthed Him.
John 1:14 points to the amazing revelation that the Word (who IS God according to John 1:1) became flesh (pointing to the weakness of humanity) and took up residence ("became flesh"- literally "tabernacled") with us. This is revealed by the OT prophecy which gives us the term "Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14 & 8:8) which means "God with us" as clearly pointed out in Matthew 1:23.
The "foreverness" of Christ is set forth also in Hebrews 1:8-12 as God the Father speaks to God the Son saying the HE, "Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands." (Hebrews 1:10 NKJV) Hebrews 1:1-4 clearly upholds that God the Son made all things and redeems all things.

It seems from you last statement that you are focusing on what Gabriel said to Mary apart from what the rest of the Scripture reveals to us about him. What you seem to lack is the first century thought that since a son bears his father's qualities, calling a person someone else's "son" was a way of signifying equality. Mary would've had some understanding (though we're not sure how much) that the angel was saying her Son was equal to the "Most High God". Reading Mary's interaction with Elizabeth in Luke 1:39-55 reveals much of that as she and Elizabeth both speak of the unborn Jesus as "My Lord" and "God my Savior."
Zacharias' understanding seems quite clear as well in Luke 1:68-79 where specifically in verse 76 he tells the babe John that he will be the prophet of the "Highest" and go before the "face of the Lord".

_________________
Blessings,
Randy
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Online

You might find it interesting to compare the terms "child" and "son" in Bible usage. See Vine's quotes below.

Teknon a child (akin to tikto, "to beget, bear"), is used in both the natural and the figurative senses.

The Son of God

In this title the word "Son" is used sometimes (a) of relationship, sometimes (b) of the expression of character. "Thus, e.g., when the disciples so addressed Him, Matt 14:33; Matt 16:16; John 1:49, when the centurion so spoke of Him, Matt 27:54, they probably meant that (b) He was a manifestation of God in human form. But in such passages as Luke 1:32, Luke 1:35; Acts 13:33, which refer to the humanity of the Lord Jesus, the word is used in sense (a).

"The Lord Jesus Himself used the full title on occasion, John 5:25; John 9:35 [some mss. have 'the Son of Man'; See RV marg.]; John 11:4, and on the more frequent occasions on which He spoke of Himself as 'the Son,' the words are to be understood as an abbreviation of 'the Son of God,' not of 'the Son of Man'; this latter He always expressed in full; See Luke 10:22; John 5:19, etc.

"John uses both the longer and shorter forms of the title in his Gospel, See John 3:16-John 3:18; John 20:31, e.g., and in his Epistles; cp. Rev 2:18. So does the writer of Hebrews, Heb 1:2; Heb 4:14; Heb 6:6, etc. An eternal relation subsisting between the Son and the Father in the Godhead is to be understood. That is to say, the Son of God, in His eternal relationship with the Father, is not so entitled because He at any time began to derive His being from the Father (in which case He could not be co-eternal with the Father), but because He is and ever has been the expression of what the Father is; cp. John 14:9, 'he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.' The words of Heb 1:3, 'Who being the effulgence of His (God's) glory, and the very image of His (God's) substance' are a definition of what is meant by 'Son of God.' Thus absolute Godhead, not Godhead in a secondary or derived sense, is intended in the title."

Why is it that if I disagree with your poorly thought-out theological musings you think I am having trouble following your thinking, wording, etc. Possibly you should try to improve your writing so that dopey Americans like me don't need to restate clearly what you have previously attempted to convey but did not.

I guess as long as you use words to mean something different than the rest of us mean, you will be consigned to explaining to the rest of us what those words mean to you.So, as to the dictionary definition of "entity", Jesus was not a new entity, He was/is not a "new creation". He brought the world into existence (Colossians 1:16) and so He (Jesus, the Person) must have existed prior to when He became a Man. But maybe that is just my narrow-minded view.
Great observation. Did you think this out yourself?

Regards.

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.

May we start here?

IMO, Who has always been with Father God ... is ... the Word (the Logos) of God (John 1).

The NT gives many titles/names to Him, e.g. Jesus, Christ, Messiah, Son of God, Savior, Lamb, etc. etc.

But, this does not mean that these people-entities-titles-names-etc. existed from the foundation of the earth.
IMO, all of these titles/names just REFER TO the Logos.
God wants humans to RELATE to Him, and one way was to make the Logos more personal.

This is the first thing that I've been trying to explain, but no one seems to understand my English.

I understand your English and explained what your wording seemed to express.

Further, relationship with the Logos (another entity, title, term, etc.) was possible before the term was used by Adam, Seth, Methuselah, Noah, Abraham, and so forth.
Whether or not these titles existed has nothing to do with the person they are applied to. Rather they share a truth about that infinite person which is understandable to us finite beings.

My understanding of Scripture is quite different than what the quote above seems to convey. According to Hebrews 9:26 He appeared for the purpose of putting away sins by the sacrifice of Himself. Of course, through the Sacrifice of Jesus (or Logos, or God the Son, or whatever term preferred) we have a relationship with the triune God.

The triune God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) has alwayse existed. No one has asserted that the "titles" have always existed but the truth they represent has.

It seems to me your argument has changed and is little more than "word-semantics" now IMO.

BTW if you assert that the term "Son" as applied to God had never existed before the incarnation, as well as those other titles, how do you interpret Psalm 2:7

_________________
Blessings,
Randy
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Online

Revelation 19:11-15 . To Whom is this referring? Is it not Jesus, Who, with the Father and the Holy Spirit created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them? The same Word that is being referred to by the same author in John 1:1-4 .

_________________
Until He Returns (Rev. 2:17),
Travis

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ~George Orwell

Jesus is Himself creator of all things, as has been pointed out by others. He himself was/ is not a created being - even though I do note that you distinguish between what you see as applying to Jesus as fully man and Jesus as fully God. And yes, the Incarnated Jesus was a new act of God - but not one of creating a new being, but one of becoming human. If we are to be careful with words, this is one to be very careful. To try and explain the Incarnation in terms of created beings is erroneous, imo.

_________________
Avid Reader

“Lord, in my zeal for love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love.” - Thomas Aquinas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum Code of Conduct
Forum Statement of Beliefs

Thanks, I needed that ... what I've been defending here has always been about semantics.

Elsewhere, I've slipped up and said something like "Jesus was the Creator",
and have been run through the wringer and called all kinds of names for it.

Maybe we can move on to easier topics?

Sorry, but I'm not ready to agree that "what I've been defending here has always been about semantics." In this thread you have stated:

It is not "just semantics"! Semantics is when I say, "London is the capital of England" and you say, "No, I'm sure it is the capital of Great Britain." But when you say, London is the capital of France, it is not a semantic difference, it is an error.

It is not a slip up to refer to Jesus as Creator, for that is what Paul and John both affirm in their writings. Jesus IS the Eternal Word of God, the Great I AM. ("Before Abraham came to be, I AM.") To say that He is a created being who did not exist prior to the incarnation is an error, it is not semantics.

Regards.

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.

while i agree with this stmt, let me caveat it -- it is an error from the Christian perspective

cults can claim it's factual & i'm sure some of them do

this isn't some ancillary doctrine where Christians can safely "agree to disagree" either

Summarizing my Jesus theology ...
-- Father God created "all things" through the Word (the Logos), who is the Second Person of the Triune Godhead
-- this Word/Logos came to earth to become Man, i.e. Jesus
-- the Holy Spirit had to play the "role" of Jesus' "father" so Jesus would not have man's inherited sin nature
-- being the Son of the Holy Spirit (God) proved that Jesus really was "the Son of God"
-- probably while in Mary's womb, Jesus' spirit(man) was filled with the Holy Spirit
-- Scripture gives this Man a ton on names/titles (many are the same as what God is called in the OT)
-- Jesus had several baptisms in the presence of that great locust-eater in the Jordan
(i.e. baptism in water, baptism with the Holy Spirit, and just possibly baptism into the church body)
-- with these baptisms, Jesus was just beginning to demonstrate how we should live our lives
(i.e. praying constantly to Father God for many things, relying on the Holy Spirit's power, etc.)

That's enough for now ... I'm certain you will have fun finding fault with some of this.

Does the Scripture actually state Jesus did not receive our "sin nature" or simply that he did not "sin" and "sin was not found in him"? How does he bear our sinfulness then? And it is a distortion of the text to suggest the Holy Spirit as "fathering" Jesus.

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

No one is having "fun" finding fault. It seems to me that you are the one with attitude and not the reverse.

You bristle when anyone either questions or disagrees with your assertions. If there is error, should others not point it out? To not point out error seems to me to be absurd. Are you a Christian who wishes to grow....or someone who wishes such thoughts to be proposed and simply accepted whether they are correct or not? Again, as a growing Christian the latter of these options seems quite absurd to me.

On that note,
This is quite un-Biblical IMO. You have made the 2nd person of the Trinity the physical product of the 3rd. This thought of yours is against the distinctions within the Trinity drawn by the revelation of God given to us. Your definition of the Holy Spirit here seems to point to His essence being used in making the physical Christ. As Avid Reader pointed out, (Underlining & italics mine) Nothing in Scripture points to the Holy Spirit playing the role of "Father" this is wholly a product of conjecture which is in opposition to the Scripture.

Again you focus on your conjecture and not what Scripture reveals. Nowhere does Scripture affirm Jesus as the "Son of the Holy Spirit". This is in opposition to John 15:26 which shows that the Son has a sort of sending authority over the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit is not the Father (See also John 16:12-15). The proof of his being the Son of God had nothing to do with His physicality but everything to do with His character.

Colossians 1:15 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, Context (NET)

Colossians 1:19 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son Context (NET)

The fact that He reflected the very character of God was proof of His sonship.
Again complete conjecture which over-emphasizes the humanity of Christ IMHO. In mary's womb as in all of eternity He was and is God. God the Son who became subject to the will of the Father and took on flesh for the purpose of redeeming the people of God by taking upon Himself the wrath of the heavenly Father for their sins.

IMHO I see no evidence of these assertions at all. Rather I see His baptism necessary to "fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15 NKJV). Not that His righteousness was in question which is indicated by John the Baptists reaction in Matthew 3:14.

Rather, by that baptism He, God my Savior, identifies Himself with my need for Him.
I, by my baptism, become buried in His likeness (essence if-you-will) that I might live through His being.

Praise His Holy Name!

_________________
Blessings,
Randy
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Online

Which scripture says that?