Jesus the Man Before John !

[brightfame52]

Since they wrote these books and letters often decades after Jesus was already taken to heaven, they were just speaking in past tense about something that already happened using their updated knowledge of Jesus to refer to him. Acts 13:33 is clear about the prophecy of Jesus being begotten being fulfilled at his resurrection.

So if Jesus was already begotten before this, then how does Acts 13:33 make sense any other way?

You entitled to your opinion, I believe the Man Christ Jesus as Mediator was begotten before the world began. He was both Firstborn/begotten of all Creation Col 1:15 and of the Resurrection of the Dead Col 1:18

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

 

[Randy]

Pre-Creation-Glory Im dont think the Man Christ Jesus had flesh and bones yet, that didnt occur until His Incarnation. A Person doesnt have to be flesh and bones in heaven to exist, do you believe Angels in heaven have flesh and bones ?

He wasn't a man then nor did any man exist before the world began. The testimony is about the Son of Man they saw, heard and touched. The eternal life who was with the Father from the beginning. John referred to Him as the Word and the Word of Life at that point not any man. When the Logos became flesh THEN that's the 2nd man who is from heaven but not one as in form of a man who descended from heaven.
Maybe it's just terminology differences but I don't view the Logos as a man but as a Son who has the Fathers very nature. God was the Logos.

 

[Free]

Again, I said , and you even quoted me saying, “He was first born of a woman as son of God. Called “son of the Highest”, “Son of the living God”

Then you claim that I avoided calling Jesus son of God until his resurrection.

I quoted you. The evidence is there, all in bold, which you also just repeated.

If you read what you quoted me saying you’ll see that when Jesus was born of Mary he is called son of the Highest and son of the living God.

You’re doing it again.

When Paul speaks of him being declared son of God with power by the Spirit who raised him from the dead, he refers to the condition of Jesus after his resurrection.

As I stated previously, Rom 1:4 means that he was declared the Son of God for our benefit, so that we would know without a doubt that he is truly the divine Son of God. It was to confirm that he was who he said he was and to confirm his ministry, including his claim that he would raise his body on the third day (John 2:19-21).

When Jesus was first born of Mary(and called son of God)he was crucified in the weakness of the flesh.
And when he was raised again from the dead, the promise made to the fathers was fulfilled for their children.
IOW, the promise that was made to the fathers God fulfilled by raising Jesus from the dead.
In order for the promise to the fathers be fulfilled, Jesus had to be first to be raised. Because no one could inherit the promises until after Jesus. And will together with him.
So, now Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can be partakers of the promise of inheritance. Along with anyone else who has the faith of Abraham.

Okay.

When you read the entire gospel of John you will notice that Jesus is identifying himself as the Father(God),

No, he never does this. You’re fallaciously begging the question again by beginning with the belief that only the Father is God. Jesus never identifies himself as the Father; he clearly always speaks of the Father as distinct from himself.

but makes it absolutely clear that he is the son of Him.
The fact that Jesus was identifying himself as the Father and only true God, caused many of the Jewish leaders to accuse him of making himself God. But Jesus basically says, No you are wrong, I am the son of God.

No, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, which the Jews rightly understood as a claim to be equal to the Father but not the Father (John 5:17-18; 10:30-39). Claiming to be the Son of God is an implicit claim to deity, to equality with the Father while remaining distinct from him.

Everything I have or can do belongs to the Father, and He gives it to me.

Don’t forget about John 16:15 where Jesus clearly says “All that the Father has is mine.” That would be blasphemous, like other things he said, if he wasn’t equal to the Father.

The idea is that in the son you are complete. This is what is meant by “in him dwells all the fullness of the deity”. Or all the fullness of the word.
Jesus has come to fulfill all the word of God. And that’s why he is called the Word of God. It’s the name he was given and represents all that can be attributed to the Word.

Not at all. He is called the Word because he is the embodiment of the preincarnate Word, the absolute self-expression of God as the preexistent Son of God. Being equal to the Father and the second person of the Trinity is why he can be said to be “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15) and why “in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col 2:9, ESV).

 

[brightfame52]

Randy

He wasn't a man then nor did any man exist before the world began.

I disagree. Eliphaz asked a question

Job 5:17

Art thou the first man that was born? or wast thou made before the hills? Cp

Prov 8:25

Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

Now Prov 8:25 is about Wisdom and 1 Cor 1:24 tells us who Widom is

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

 

[Randy]

Randy


I disagree. Eliphaz asked a question

Job 5:17

Art thou the first man that was born? or wast thou made before the hills? Cp

Prov 8:25

Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

Now Prov 8:25 is about Wisdom and 1 Cor 1:24 tells us who Widom is

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

I believe Adam was the first man. God's Firstborn was not a man. Hebrews 1 about the Son. Yes, God didn't create, bring forth, or form wisdom as the first of His works in regard to proverbs 8. He already had all wisdom and knowledge in Himself. Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God. The Firstborn of all creation. He has that preeminence. In Him, not Him, it did please the fullness to dwell. From the will of another. The Deity in the Son is the Fathers not His own. Jesus is all that the Father is. God is not a man.

 

[Runningman]

You entitled to your opinion, I believe the Man Christ Jesus as Mediator was begotten before the world began. He was both Firstborn/begotten of all Creation Col 1:15 and of the Resurrection of the Dead Col 1:18

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

While it's true that Jesus is spoken of as a man, mediator, firstborn, and begotten I find it a bit problematic he existed as a literal human descended from Adam before the world began. It also is difficult to understand how a human can literally pre-exist in heaven.

While it's true that Jesus said he descended from heaven as the Son of Man (a human) in John 3:13 and John 6:62, who was born in Bethlehem then? Was Jesus the lamb slain before the foundation of the world and, if you say yes, in what sense?

p.s. God speaks of things that are not in literal existence as though they are before bringing them about and there is pretty good precedent for this. I would be happy to talk about it more if you like. It's a little off topic so I have stopped here.

 

[LeviR]

While it's true that Jesus is spoken of as a man, mediator, firstborn, and begotten I find it a bit problematic he existed as a literal human descended from Adam before the world began. It also is difficult to understand how a human can literally pre-exist in heaven.

While it's true that Jesus said he descended from heaven as the Son of Man (a human) in John 3:13 and John 6:62, who was born in Bethlehem then? Was Jesus the lamb slain before the foundation of the world and, if you say yes, in what sense?

p.s. God speaks of things that are not in literal existence as though they are before bringing them about and there is pretty good precedent for this. I would be happy to talk about it more if you like. It's a little off topic so I have stopped here.

How is it Abraham had children before he had children?

 

[brightfame52]

I believe Adam was the first man. God's Firstborn was not a man. Hebrews 1 about the Son. Yes, God didn't create, bring forth, or form wisdom as the first of His works in regard to proverbs 8. He already had all wisdom and knowledge in Himself. Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God. The Firstborn of all creation. He has that preeminence. In Him, not Him, it did please the fullness to dwell. From the will of another. The Deity in the Son is the Fathers not His own. Jesus is all that the Father is. God is not a man.

Christ has the preeminence over Adam

 

[brightfame52]

While it's true that Jesus is spoken of as a man, mediator, firstborn, and begotten I find it a bit problematic he existed as a literal human descended from Adam before the world began. It also is difficult to understand how a human can literally pre-exist in heaven.

While it's true that Jesus said he descended from heaven as the Son of Man (a human) in John 3:13 and John 6:62, who was born in Bethlehem then? Was Jesus the lamb slain before the foundation of the world and, if you say yes, in what sense?

p.s. God speaks of things that are not in literal existence as though they are before bringing them about and there is pretty good precedent for this. I would be happy to talk about it more if you like. It's a little off topic so I have stopped here.

I can't help how you think about it

 

[Runningman]

How is it Abraham had children before he had children?

yep and why did Jesus say "now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was..." if he already had the in the first place?

 

[LeviR]

I quoted you. The evidence is there, all in bold, which you also just repeated.


You’re doing it again.


As I stated previously, Rom 1:4 means that he was declared the Son of God for our benefit, so that we would know without a doubt that he is truly the divine Son of God. It was to confirm that he was who he said he was and to confirm his ministry, including his claim that he would raise his body on the third day (John 2:19-21).


Okay.


No, he never does this. You’re fallaciously begging the question again by beginning with the belief that only the Father is God. Jesus never identifies himself as the Father; he clearly always speaks of the Father as distinct from himself.


No, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, which the Jews rightly understood as a claim to be equal to the Father but not the Father (John 5:17-18; 10:30-39). Claiming to be the Son of God is an implicit claim to deity, to equality with the Father while remaining distinct from him.


Don’t forget about John 16:15 where Jesus clearly says “All that the Father has is mine.” That would be blasphemous, like other things he said, if he wasn’t equal to the Father.


Not at all. He is called the Word because he is the embodiment of the preincarnate Word, the absolute self-expression of God as the preexistent Son of God. Being equal to the Father and the second person of the Trinity is why he can be said to be “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15) and why “in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col 2:9, ESV).

I was curious as to why you claimed I said Jesus was not the son of God until born from the dead because I had clearly said he was.
He was first called son of the living God when he was born of Mary. He was never referred as such before that.
However, we do find the prophecy of his being born in scripture.
When the promised seed had come, he was born of Mary. Born a Jewish man and son of Abraham.
There was the first fulfillment of him when he was born of Mary.
And as Paul says in Acts, there was another fulfillment of the promise when Jesus was born from the dead.

When we read a sentence in either English or Greek, we need to consider the context. We don’t pick out only parts of the sentence and leave the rest as a way to “prove” something.

It seems you ignore the context of the sentence where Paul declares Jesus to be the son of God.

Your claim is that Paul was simply informing us that Jesus was the son of God from all eternity.

But you ignore the rest of what he says. He says that Jesus was declared to be the son of God with power by the spirit of holiness when he was raised from the dead.

Paul is saying that when Jesus was born again from the dead by the Spirit, he was with power.

The power he was with when born again, included such things as power over death and power to bring the other sons of God with him when he returns.
When he was first born of Mary, it was in weakness of the flesh and had no power over death in the sense to give eternal life and to therefore fulfill the promise.

So, it’s very simple. Jesus was first born as son of the Highest when born of Mary in the weakness of the mortal flesh. He was then born from the dead with power of eternal life to give to others and fulfill the promise to all the children of the fathers.

 

[LeviR]

yep and why did Jesus say "now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was..." if he already had the in the first place?

Why does he speak in the third person in John 17?

 

[LeviR]

Runningman
To speak in the third person indicates that someone else is speaking for you.

1Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He [a]should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3And this is eternal life, that they may know You,the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Who is speaking there?

 

[Runningman]

Runningman
To speak in the third person indicates that someone else is speaking for you.

1Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He [a]should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3And this is eternal life, that they may know You,the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Who is speaking there?

This section seems like the author is the one speaking about what Jesus was saying.

 

[LeviR]

This section seems like the author is the one speaking about what Jesus was saying.

Yes, the author was telling us what Jesus said. But what Jesus said was in the third person. They are the actual words Jesus spoke.
Because he speaks in the third person, it sounds as if someone else was speaking for him. And I believe someone else was indeed speaking for him.

We rarely speak in the third person because it sounds funny to do so. But there is a Biblical principle for third person speech which is actually someone else speaking for you.

Jesus had told his disciples that when they were to be dragged into court that they ought not think what they should say because it would be given them what to say by the Spirit of the Father speaking for them.

So here we have the example of someone else actually speaking for the person who would be speaking.

That “person” would be the Spirit of the Father.

So, when Jesus speaks in the third person it is the Spirit of the Father speaking for him John 17:1-5
Unless Jesus was trying to be comedic, and we can just get a chuckle out of it.

 

[LeviR]

Runningman

Jesus knew he could do nothing of himself. He was totally reliant on his God and Father for the words he spoke and the works he did. He often said so.
How someone could think Jesus is equal with his God and Father, simply means they have been deceived. Jesus even said his Father was greater than he. Greater contradicts equal.
The one true God does not completely rely on someone else for the words he speaks and the works he does.

The sense in which Jesus was closely related to his God is in the sense that the Father was in him and he in the Father.
The Spirit of his Father dwelt in him without limit. And therefore they were possessed of the same Spirit connecting them to each other.
Not only in Word but in works.

Some here deny Jesus was identifying himself as the Father, but that is nonsense, because anyone who can read and comprehend can see it.
“He who has seen me has seen the Father”
He shall be called “Everlasting Father” “Mighty God”
He called those to whom the Word was sent, gods.
Just a few.

 

[Randy]

Christ has the preeminence over Adam

He was not the Son of Man at that point in the beginning with the Father. You can call Him a man then and we will disagree. God was the Logos is what I read. He has the preeminence in all things. The creation, the church, the resurrection.

 

[brightfame52]

He was not the Son of Man at that point in the beginning with the Father. You can call Him a man then and we will disagree. God was the Logos is what I read. He has the preeminence in all things. The creation, the church, the resurrection.

But He was a Man[Mediator] before Adam, and a Representative Man before Adam. He became the Son of Man when He became incarnate , as then He became the Son of David and Abraham .

 

[Randy]

But He was a Man[Mediator] before Adam, and a Representative Man before Adam. He became the Son of Man when He became incarnate , as then He became the Son of David and Abraham .

The word man does not mean mediator nor vise versa. In no sense of the use of the word man or Hebrew word for Adam can the meaning be used to define the Son who was in whom dwells all the fullness of the Fathers Deity. We use "God" as He has the Fathers very nature in Him. God was the Logos. The radiance of the Fathers glory and the exact imprint of the Fathers very being. Is God a man? There was no Jesus in the beginning. Yes, He is before Adam and even the Angels of God. He is Firstborn of all things. He is before all things. The Father brought into existence all things that were created through, by and for Him.

 

[Runningman]

I can't help how you think about it

How do you think about it?