Jesus the Man Before John !

[LeviR]

Nope, never tells us that.

Deu 18:15 - “The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear,

Deu 18:16 - “according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’

Deu 18:17 - “And the LORD said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good.

Deu 18:18 - ‘I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.

Deu 18:19 - ‘And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.

You see, the words Jesus the prophet speaks are the words of His Father. And he is one of their brethren.

The words he speaks are by the Spirit of the Father given to him. Therefore we recognize the third person speech as that of the Spirit and words of God.

 

[Free]

Deu 18:15 - “The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear,

Deu 18:16 - “according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’

Deu 18:17 - “And the LORD said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good.

Deu 18:18 - ‘I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.

Deu 18:19 - ‘And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.

You see, the words Jesus the prophet speaks are the words of His Father. And he is one of their brethren.

The words he speaks are by the Spirit of the Father given to him. Therefore we recognize the third person speech as that of the Spirit and words of God.

I have no idea how that supports this: "the Spirit through Jesus is telling us that the Father is the only true God." You're simply fallaciously begging the question.

 

[LeviR]

I have no idea how that supports this: "the Spirit through Jesus is telling us that the Father is the only true God." You're simply fallaciously begging the question.

How is it begging the question. The third person speech of Jesus indicates the Spirit speaking through him.
And the Spirit speaking through him tells us the Father ONLY is the one true God.

 

[Free]

How is it begging the question.

Because you're beginning with the premise that Jesus isn't also truly God and reading that into those verses in order to come to that very conclusion.

The third person speech of Jesus indicates the Spirit speaking through him.

This, too, is begging the question. It indicates nothing of the sort. You have to read that into it in order to come to that conclusion.

And the Spirit speaking through him tells us the Father ONLY is the one true God.

No, that isn't the teaching of the NT.

 

[Hopeful 2]

I disagree

Do you see the Word and the "before", (John 1:1), and see Jesus as the "after" (John 1:14) ?
Or do you see it in a different manner ?

 

[LeviR]

Because you're beginning with the premise that Jesus isn't also truly God and reading that into those verses in order to come to that very conclusion.


This, too, is begging the question. It indicates nothing of the sort. You have to read that into it in order to come to that conclusion.


No, that isn't the teaching of the NT.

God doesn’t have brothers. Jesus does. God has sons. The son has brothers.

 

[LeviR]

Heb 2:12 - Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

Heb 2:13 - And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children whichGod hath given me.

God gives His children to His son. His son and the other children are brethren.
God has children. The son has brethren. God doesn’t have brethren.

Now you know what it means to be son of God. As if you hade to ask.

 

[Hopeful 2]

I'm not suggesting we address Jesus as "the Word." For example, I don't pray, Father, bless your name, in the "Word's" name, Amen.

Jesus is the Word's name now.

We identify Jesus as God's Word in terms of his being a literal expression of who God is from God's own mouth.

I don't.
I see the Word having always stood beside God, until He put on flesh and was born of a woman.
Then the Word became Jesus.

Jesus' human personality is a literal expression of Divine Personality in the form of a man. God's Word is His ability to communicate this, or to verbalize something He wishes to express.

You are talking about two differing (W)words.
One, spoken by talkers, and the other who was in the beginning and with God

I did not say other than this. Where did I claim the Word hasn't always been with God? It's like saying that God has always had the capacity for communication. Of course He does!

You are talking about two differing (W)words.
One, spoken by talkers, and the other who was in the beginning and with God

What "issues" from this communication is the product of the revelation, and as such, a part of the revelation. The product is one with the media through which God communicated it. The Son is one with the Word that issued from God as the Source of this communication.

The Son WAS the Word, before taking on skin and bones.

John 1. Jesus was the Word with God in the beginning and also is the Word when he became "flesh" as a man.

Jesus was the Word, and was with God from the beginning.
The Word took on flesh and became the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[RandyK]

Jesus is the Word's name now.

I don't.
I see the Word having always stood beside God, until He put on flesh and was born of a woman.
Then the Word became Jesus.

You are talking about two differing (W)words.
One, spoken by talkers, and the other who was in the beginning and with God

You are talking about two differing (W)words.
One, spoken by talkers, and the other who was in the beginning and with God

The Son WAS the Word, before taking on skin and bones.

Jesus was the Word, and was with God from the beginning.
The Word took on flesh and became the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes, I think I understand where you're coming from. I've heard it before in this very context. I disagree, but I respect it.

The reason I reject it is because it doesn't make sense to my mind. I understand God and His Word being a relationship of who God is as the mouth piece and what His Word is as an expression He makes. As God, what He says can create realities, and one of those realities was an expression of His own personality in the form of Jesus.

That's the best my mind can make of it. The reason the Word was "with God" in the beginning, or from eternity, is because God has always been the source of His expressions, and His expressions have always existed with Him in the form of His Word.

It is not, in my opinion, because the Word was some kind of pre-human entity named "the Word" before the Incarnation. If the Word was a pre-human entity at all, it in no way resembled a human person, because humans did not exist in eternity before the creation of Man.

My view is more rational from my perspective. Your view attempts to be biblical, without any sense of explainlng it rationally. I have an intense need to understand, rationally, what I declare I believe. Otherwise, I have no business declaring it.

Again, I respect your opinion--I'm just explaining to you why I disagree with it, if indeed I understand your position properly? We both agree that the Bible teaches the Word was *with* God in the beginning. The nature of that Word appears to be what we're disagreeing on?

 

[brightfame52]

Was Jesus Christ Created ?2


Now when was Jesus Christ[The Mediator] Created and why ? The Lord Jesus Christ was Created before the World began, in order to partake in the Creation of the World, for again, it was made by Him and for Him Col 1:16.

We find that Jesus Christ was Created here Prov 8:22

22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

First I will say that this is Christ the Wisdom of God speaking 1 Cor 1:24

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

And He says the Lord possessed Him in the beginning of His Way, the word possessed here giving us the first hint of Him being a Creation, for its the hebrew word qanah :

get, acquire, create, buy, possess
A.
(Qal)
i.
to get, acquire, obtain
a.
of God originating, creating, redeeming His people

The NIV reads:

"The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old;

Thats quite similar to Him being the Firstborn of Creation Col 1:15 where the word firstborn is made up of two greek words, one being tiktō which means:

I.to bring forth, bear, produce (fruit from the seed)
A.
of a woman giving birth

B.
of the earth bringing forth its fruits

C.
metaph. to bear, bring forth

The Holman Christian Standard Bible reads:

The LORD made me at the beginning of His creation, before His works of long ago.

The ISV reads:

"The LORD made me as he began his planning, before his ancient activity commenced.

The NET reads:

The LORD created me as the beginning of his works, before his deeds of long ago.

The Aramaic Bible in Plain English reads:

“Lord Jehovah created me at the beginning of his creation and from before all of his works.”

The Septuagint reads :

The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works.

This is crucial because it establishes the fact that He was Created before all Things to assist in the Work of Creation !

Now I am going to make this point clear, this Character of Jesus Christ being Created, was not His Deity as God, I repeat this has nothing to do with His Being as the Uncreated Word of God Jn 1:1 which is His Deity as God, but this only has to do with His Begotten Sonship and the Mediator Man 1 Tim 2:5 and as the Last Adam and the Head of His Body the Church 1 Cor 15:45-47

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

In this character He was Created with His Bride the Church in Him Col 1:18

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.

And that is why when He Created Adam in His Image and Likeness, Adam was Created with His Bride in him, which was Eve, and called their Name Adam Gen 5:1-2

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Thats why Adam was the Head of his wife, even so as it pictured that Christ in Heaven was Created as the Head of His Wife the Church and called Christ !

Hence as there was No Adam without Eve in him, Neither was there No Christ without the Church, His Eve in Him !

I already know this is a Truth that will not be received by the natural man, for it cannot be !

 

[Randy]

It means Mediator for Christ 1 Tim 2:5

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Christ Jesus the Man Mediator was in existence before Adam existed, In fact He was Adams Mediator between him and God, do you dispute that ?

The identity of the mediator is given as the Son of Man, Christ Jesus. That has nothing to do however with the nature of the Son who was before the world began and is in the form of God not man in any sense of the meaning of the word man. The logos became flesh. The Son of Man.

 

[Randy]

Yes, I think I understand where you're coming from. I've heard it before in this very context. I disagree, but I respect it.

The reason I reject it is because it doesn't make sense to my mind. I understand God and His Word being a relationship of who God is as the mouth piece and what His Word is as an expression He makes. As God, what He says can create realities, and one of those realities was an expression of His own personality in the form of Jesus.

That's the best my mind can make of it. The reason the Word was "with God" in the beginning, or from eternity, is because God has always been the source of His expressions, and His expressions have always existed with Him in the form of His Word.

It is not, in my opinion, because the Word was some kind of pre-human entity named "the Word" before the Incarnation. If the Word was a pre-human entity at all, it in no way resembled a human person, because humans did not exist in eternity before the creation of Man.

My view is more rational from my perspective. Your view attempts to be biblical, without any sense of explainlng it rationally. I have an intense need to understand, rationally, what I declare I believe. Otherwise, I have no business declaring it.

Again, I respect your opinion--I'm just explaining to you why I disagree with it, if indeed I understand your position properly? We both agree that the Bible teaches the Word was *with* God in the beginning. The nature of that Word appears to be what we're disagreeing on?

You couldn't state Jesus was with God in the beginning because the Son of Man didn't exist then. The Logos became flesh when He was born into this world as a man. John refers to the Son who was as the Word; the Word of life; the eternal life with the Father in the beginning. Jesus is the Word of God. (The Father) Those words given are Spirit and life.

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

 

[RandyK]

You couldn't state Jesus was with God in the beginning because the Son of Man didn't exist then. The Logos became flesh when He was born into this world as a man. John refers to the Son who was as the Word; the Word of life; the eternal life with the Father in the beginning. Jesus is the Word of God. (The Father) Those words given are Spirit and life.

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

I agree that the Son of Man did not exist as the Son of Man with God in the beginning. But as the Word of God he did exist with God in the beginning.

Neither can we say that Jesus ever was the Father, since by definition the Father is distinct from His Word even though He and His Word are of the same Divine essence, or substance. Jesus is ever "the Father of Eternity" revealed in time, and not the pre-existent Father. God is referred to as the "Father of Jesus" only at the point where Jesus is incarnated as a man.

When we say that God, as a Person, has expressed Himself in the form of a distinct human person it would be confusing to say that the Father who sent the Son and the Son who was sent are the same person! That's why it is an orthodox stipulation that we say the Word, or the Son, was "with God" in the beginning at the same time we say that they are both the same transcendent Being, or Father of Eternity (Isa 9.6).

It indicates that even though we are talking about the one and the same divine Person we are also talking about His ability to express Himself as a distinct human person and reveal Himself in various ways without contradiction. The One who reveals Himself as distinct Persons is distinct from the Persons who He reveals.

I personally avoid saying what you said, that "Jesus is the Word of God. (The Father)." Scripturally we do know that Jesus was and is the Word of God. And we know the Word was and is God. But affixing names like "Father" and "Son" is the language we use to distinguish them, even though they are of one divine substance. I prefer to use the Scriptural formula....

John 1.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

We are here speaking of transcendent realities and cannot get past that. So when we speak of the Father and the Son we speak of two distinct persons, made possible by the Incarnation. But prior to the Incarnation we speak of them as identified with Deity and avoid the language of "Father and Son." We speak of them as having been "together," or "with each other."

 

[brightfame52]

The identity of the mediator is given as the Son of Man, Christ Jesus. That has nothing to do however with the nature of the Son who was before the world began and is in the form of God not man in any sense of the meaning of the word man. The logos became flesh. The Son of Man.

The Mediator for Men is the Man Christ Jesus 1 Tim 2:5

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Do you deny Adam/Man in the Garden in Gen 2 had a Mediator ?

 

[Hopeful 2]

Yes, I think I understand where you're coming from. I've heard it before in this very context. I disagree, but I respect it.

The reason I reject it is because it doesn't make sense to my mind. I understand God and His Word being a relationship of who God is as the mouth piece and what His Word is as an expression He makes. As God, what He says can create realities, and one of those realities was an expression of His own personality in the form of Jesus.

That's the best my mind can make of it. The reason the Word was "with God" in the beginning, or from eternity, is because God has always been the source of His expressions, and His expressions have always existed with Him in the form of His Word.

It is not, in my opinion, because the Word was some kind of pre-human entity named "the Word" before the Incarnation. If the Word was a pre-human entity at all, it in no way resembled a human person, because humans did not exist in eternity before the creation of Man.

God and the Word made man in their own image.
As God is a spirit, it must fall to the one who looked like a human to set the pattern.
The Word was an entity with form and will.

My view is more rational from my perspective. Your view attempts to be biblical, without any sense of explainlng it rationally. I have an intense need to understand, rationally, what I declare I believe. Otherwise, I have no business declaring it.

Again, I respect your opinion--I'm just explaining to you why I disagree with it, if indeed I understand your position properly? We both agree that the Bible teaches the Word was *with* God in the beginning. The nature of that Word appears to be what we're disagreeing on?

You are conflating the spoken word with the Word who was with God and was God.

 

[RandyK]

God and the Word made man in their own image.
As God is a spirit, it must fall to the one who looked like a human to set the pattern.
The Word was an entity with form and will.

I don't think so. I think the Word is simply the revelation that God is and potentially is, with respect to revealing who He is to whoever He chooses to reveal it, including Himself. If that is a form, then it must be a form indicating a limitless number of forms, since God's revelations are infinite.

You are conflating the spoken word with the Word who was with God and was God.

Not really. I'm saying God's Word *is* God's spoken Word, and is not conflated with any other kind of "Word."

 

[Hopeful 2]

I don't think so. I think the Word is simply the revelation that God is and potentially is, with respect to revealing who He is to whoever He chooses to reveal it, including Himself. If that is a form, then it must be a form indicating a limitless number of forms, since God's revelations are infinite.

Not really. I'm saying God's Word *is* God's spoken Word, and is not conflated with any other kind of "Word."

Then we see things differently.
"His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." (Rev 19:12-13)

The Word is a man in this scripture, and not a revelation.

 

[Free]

God doesn’t have brothers. Jesus does. God has sons. The son has brothers.

Heb 2:12 - Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

Heb 2:13 - And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children whichGod hath given me.

God gives His children to His son. His son and the other children are brethren.
God has children. The son has brethren. God doesn’t have brethren.

Now you know what it means to be son of God. As if you hade to ask.

Please don't tell me you're arguing that because God doesn't have brothers but Jesus does, that he therefore cannot be God. That's as bad as Jesus can't be God since God can't be tempted and Jesus was tempted in the wilderness. It's really poor reasoning.

It would help if you capitalize "Son" when referring to Christ. God has one and only one unique Son. Every other child of God is a child by adoption. That is not the case for the Son of God.

 

[brightfame52]

Hopeful 2

As God is a spirit, it must fall to the one who looked like a human to set the pattern

It was the GodMan Mediator Christ Jesus who had that human pattern that Adam was made in.

 

[Runningman]

I believe man was made in the image and likeness of God when he was formed from the ground. Then God breathed into man the breath of life.

Gen 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

What did God form from the dust of the ground?

What became a living soul with the breath of life?

What is made in the image and likeness of God?

The living soul became in the image and likeness of God. It for sure was not the human body.

Being like God is something we are called to be, not in knowledge, but in nature.

Ephesians 4
24And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.