did Jesus EVEN Exist Before the Incarnation?

[David Lamb]

Now don't take offense to what I say next. But those of us from French descent can pick up on those things better than the english.

I've just called myself daft, so I am not offended at all. :laugh:

But having thought about the than-then business, I think it has more to do with the way Americans pronounce those words. "Then" and "Than" seem to be pronounced almost identically by Americans, but they are quite different in British English. I must stop before I take this thread off track.

 

[glfredrick]

was that by Jesus, or by God the Son/Word Though?
Not splitting hairs here, but wasn't the Humanity of the Son of God who Jesus was/is?

that the second person of trinity was the Son/Word before he became jesus in the Incarnation?

This thought is drifting toward heresy.

These very early heresies of the church should help to inform on the subject (all were sourced from A Short Guide to Ancient Heresies, Kenneth D. Whitehead)

Adoptionism. Adoptionism held that Jesus was not really God but merely a man to whom special graces had been given and who achieved a kind of divine status at his baptism. This idea that Christ as a man was only the "adopted" son of God proved to be a persistent heresy. It was condemned by Pope St. Victor 1, who excommunicated Theodotus of Byzantium for Adoptionism. The same heresy was condemned in 785 and again in 794 by Pope Adrian 1. Revived by Peter Abelard in the twelfth century, Adoptionism was again condemned by Pope Alexander III in 1177.

Anomeanism. A radical variant of Arianism (see below), Anomeanism held that the Son was "unlike" (Greek: animoios) the Father.

Apollinarianism. This heretical doctrine of Apollinaris (310-390), bishop of Laodicea in Asia Minor, held that Christ had a human body but only a sensitive soul-and no rational human mind or human free will, these having been replaced in Christ by the divine Logos, or Word of God. This theory was condemned by Roman synods in 377 and 381 and by the ecumenical Council of Constantinople in the latter year.

Arianism. A major heresy that arose in the fourth century and denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. First effectively advanced by Arius (256-336), a priest of Alexandria, who denied that there were three distinct divine Persons in God. For Arius, there was only one Person, the Father. According to Arian theory, the Son was created ("There was a time when he was not"). Christ was thus a son of God, not by nature, but only by grace and adoption. This theory logically evacuates the doctrine of the Incarnation of God in Christ of all meaning: if God did not become man, then the world has not been redeemed and the faith itself eventually dissolves. Arianism was formally condemned in 325 by the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea, which formulated and promulgated the original version of the Nicene Creed; but Arianism and Semi-Arianism (see below) nevertheless continued to prevail in its original form in many areas for more than a century. Arianism was combated by the great St. Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373) among others; but the heresy nevertheless persisted, especially among the barbarians, for several centuries.

Nestorianism. A fifth-century heresy claiming that there are two distinct Persons in the Incarnate Christ, one human and one divine. The Church teaches that Christ was and is a divine person who took on a human nature. According to Nestorianism, it is unthinkable that God was born, crucified, and died; nor could Mary really have been the mother of God, but only the mother of a human being conjoined to God. Nestorianism, which took its name from Nestorius, a bishop of Constantinople (d. ca. 451), was condemned by the ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431. Overemphasizing the humanity of Christ, Nestorianism is the opposite heresy from Monophysitism (see above), which overemphasized Christ's divinity.

 

[convicted1]

if no...

How can he be 'the same yesterday,today, and forever?"

To answer the OP in word word, "YEP"!!!

 

[JesusFan]

This thought is drifting toward heresy.

These very early heresies of the church should help to inform on the subject (all were sourced from A Short Guide to Ancient Heresies, Kenneth D. Whitehead)

Well..
believe that Jesus was/is FULLY both God/man...

just was asking IF it is the deal that Jesus was born at a certain time in history, at that moment God took on a Human flesh body and dwelt among us, and that is the very form the Second person in trinity will always have...

BUT
before coming and becoming Jesus, was "just" known as God the Son/Word of God, as he had not come to earth yet as Jesus?

that His humanity started 2000 years ago, when he came and was called Jesus, but before that he was "just " God?

 

[glfredrick]

Well..
believe that Jesus was/is FULLY both God/man...

just was asking IF it is the deal that Jesus was born at a certain time in history, at that moment God took on a Human flesh body and dwelt among us, and that is the very form the Second person in trinity will always have...

BUT
before coming and becoming Jesus, was "just" known as God the Son/Word of God, as he had not come to earth yet as Jesus?

that His humanity started 2000 years ago, when he came and was called Jesus, but before that he was "just " God?

I understand... The reason I posted what I did is that, historically, when people take up this particular question, they end up resorting to human logic to solve the equation and human logic fails every time resulting in the above mentioned heresies. Not saying you are going there, just mentioning that the line of thought seems to lead people there time after time.

And, here is one reason why that is... We end up in a position were we have to say, "I think..." and then prognosticate about what we really don't know for sure. Yes, there are theophanies in the OT, where Christ appeared (or so the context leads) in bodily form before His incarnation, and yes, there are post ascension appearances (to Paul and John in some form or fashion) where Christ is still corporeal. It is difficult to explain those instances away without doing harm to the text, but it is also difficult to rationalize how a pre-existing adult Messiah could be born as an infant and grow in all ways human -- stature, mind, emotions, etc. -- yet that is exactly what the Scriptures present!

If I had to "think" about this and take a stance, I might be inclined to say that Christ has always had a corporeal glorified body, and that He set that aside to be born as a man in all respects human. He returned to that body when He finished His work. But I cannot back that up with any scholarship, nor can I do more than (perhaps) proof-text the idea, so take it with a grain of salt and add it to the list of things that you want to discover for certain when you meet Him face-to-face. :laugh:

 

[webdog]

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

 

[convicted1]

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

This verse, I am thinking, was the very first thing that came to mind, when I saw this thread started.

 

[glfredrick]

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

That is a great verse (aren't they all?) but it does not specifically speak to a corporeal body, just a state of glory, which is why I said that we have to start invoking the term "I think..." when we speak of this issue.

 

[webdog]

That is a great verse (aren't they all?) but it does not specifically speak to a corporeal body, just a state of glory, which is why I said that we have to start invoking the term "I think..." when we speak of this issue.

True, but He did ascend in a glorified body. Coupled with the christphanies in the OT, I think its safe to assume the body He ascended in was the same He had prior to the incarnation. God is timeless.

 

[JesusFan]

True, but He did ascend in a glorified body. Coupled with the christphanies in the OT, I think its safe to assume the body He ascended in was the same He had prior to the incarnation. God is timeless.

Something happened though in the Incarnation to God, as he never was on earth in a form of being an actual flesh and blood Hu,man being...

THAT same body he was born in was raisd up from the grave, and bodily returned to the father...

he was indeed 'changed and different' as God was now in person of His Son jesus both God/man!

 

[glfredrick]

True, but He did ascend in a glorified body. Coupled with the christphanies in the OT, I think its safe to assume the body He ascended in was the same He had prior to the incarnation. God is timeless.

I note that you use both "I think..." and "assume" in your explantion. Isn't that just about what I wrote above? :laugh:

 

[percho]

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

What does this verse mean relative to the OP?
Did he exist as one called Jesus?
Did he exist as one known as the Son of God?
Did he exist as the Word of God?

How good of a word is person to speak of God?
The Word was made flesh and when born of Mary was called Jesus and is said to be the only begotten of the Father, a person yet that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit, a person.
Just who is the Father?

If we are spoken of as being begotten of God, the Father. In what manner is Jesus the only begotten?

Questions, questions, questions?

 

[JesusFan]

What does this verse mean relative to the OP?
Did he exist as one called Jesus?
Did he exist as one known as the Son of God?
Did he exist as the Word of God?

How good of a word is person to speak of God?
The Word was made flesh and when born of Mary was called Jesus and is said to be the only begotten of the Father, a person yet that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit, a person.
Just who is the Father?

If we are spoken of as being begotten of God, the Father. In what manner is Jesus the only begotten?

Questions, questions, questions?

He is the Second person of the Holy trinity...
before He came to earth in form of Human being Jesus, he was Word/God the Son...

the Word became Flesh, Jesus...

Now forever more God and Man in 1 Being Fully God/Fully Man

So God the Som always has existed, just took on the Human nature/ side when He became Jesus Christ!

 

[percho]

Phil 2:6 who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God,

but did empty himself,

form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross,

I understand servant would be even more correct as slave or bond
slave.
It is stated elsewhere the first man Adam was the figure of him to come, the Word made flesh. Elsewhere it also says he was made a living soul. Was the one who came in his figure also a living soul? Where does the life of a living soul come from? Was the soul of Jesus resurrected from Hades?
Who's slave? Who was he obedient to?

I would say from John 17:5 he did empty himself of glory. What all makes up glory? What is inclusive in the glory of God? Is life itself inclusive in the word glory? It is stated that before the beginning of time God who cannot lie promised the hope of eternal life. Who before the beginning of time would be promising to whom the hope of eternal life. At that point in time, wait that was before time, Who existed in the beginning and was with God and was God? What he become?

It is stated the last Adam was made a quicking spirit. Next verse says this: Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. After what that which is spiritual?

 

[webdog]

I note that you use both "I think..." and "assume" in your explantion. Isn't that just about what I wrote above? :laugh:

...and your point? You made no mention of Christ's glorified body, which our bodies will be like (real, physical bodies)

 

[glfredrick]

...and your point? You made no mention of Christ's glorified body, which our bodies will be like (real, physical bodies)

My point is that glory is mentioned, but not "body." You are assuming body.

 

[percho]

I understand... The reason I posted what I did is that, historically, when people take up this particular question, they end up resorting to human logic to solve the equation and human logic fails every time resulting in the above mentioned heresies. Not saying you are going there, just mentioning that the line of thought seems to lead people there time after time.

And, here is one reason why that is... We end up in a position were we have to say, "I think..." and then prognosticate about what we really don't know for sure. Yes, there are theophanies in the OT, where Christ appeared (or so the context leads) in bodily form before His incarnation, and yes, there are post ascension appearances (to Paul and John in some form or fashion) where Christ is still corporeal. It is difficult to explain those instances away without doing harm to the text, but it is also difficult to rationalize how a pre-existing adult Messiah could be born as an infant and grow in all ways human -- stature, mind, emotions, etc. -- yet that is exactly what the Scriptures present!

If I had to "think" about this and take a stance, I might be inclined to say that Christ has always had a corporeal glorified body, and that He set that aside to be born as a man in all respects human. He returned to that body when He finished His work. But I cannot back that up with any scholarship, nor can I do more than (perhaps) proof-text the idea, so take it with a grain of salt and add it to the list of things that you want to discover for certain when you meet Him face-to-face. :laugh:

I can follow that I "think". I'm not real big on 100% this and 100% that either for if he did empty himself of anything then he could not be 100%.
I believe the scriptures teach that the Word was made flesh. The Word became a man so that sinful man could be made in the image and likeness of God through death, which the first Adam brought fourth for us all, and resurrection to regenerated life. He gave his very existence for us and the Father gave him back his existence. Christ died for us. I believe that to the extreme that if could be believed. It was to him the Word to be made flesh that the hope of eternal life was promised and it was through his faith as a man in that hope that we are saved. By his death and resurrection he became faith the righteousness of God.

For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth (This included the Word made flesh, a man) For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son (the only begotten of the Father) to have life in himself; (By his being the firstborn from the dead, the resurrection to eternal life, the author of eternal salvation)

but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

Did the Christ give his life for man or not?

 

[glfredrick]

I believe that we "know" that the Word (logos) was "made flesh." We see that in the incarnation and in the very human life of Jesus.

What we have to assume, guess, think, etc., is the state or lack thereof of the corporeal body of Jesus prior to His incarnation in flesh. We can make some reasoned implications from the theophanies or christophanies in the OT, but we don't "know" with any sense of certainty about the actual state of the fleshly (or lack) body of Jesus before His birth to Mary.