Was Jesus A Man Before the Incarnation?

[Brandon C. Jones]

Plug

Here, I'll help you out even more: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1556731884/?tag=baptis04-20

There is nothing new with Spirit/Sophia/Wisdom Christology and nothing new with the arguments against it. However, this is the first time I've seen someone use this issue to relate it to other ANE cultures (Armed with Pritchard or the recent "Context of Scripture" volumes?) and plug a website for a completely different issue regarding Genesis and the old earth/young Adam view.

BTW Welcome to the Baptist board

 

[Dick Fischer]

Thanks for the welcome

BTW Welcome to the Baptist board [/QUOTE]

And thanks for the book plug. The old earth/young Adam view hasn't received the attention it deserves in my view. The ASA still has the articles I wrote over ten years ago archived, "in Search of the Historical Adam, Parts I and II." They are on the ASA (American Scientific Affiliation) web site. I think it is entirely possible that Adam had awareness of a triad god relationship similar or even the same as we believe in today.

One other thing, the god, Enki, the Sumerians adopted from the Semitic Akkadians, translates "Lord of the earth," and Enlil, is Lord of the "air," "breath," or "spirit." Note especially the en- prefix meaning "lord" or "king." That's the same prefix in the names of Adam's grandsons, Enoch and Enosh, indicating they likely reigned over cities in Mesopotamia. That suggests Adam is dateable, locateable, and recent relative to Homo sapiens.

 

[El_Guero]

I just gotta ask: Are ya'll discussing mormon or Christian doctrine?

Since you didn't answer: I ask again: Are ya'll discussing mormon or Christian doctrine?

No, it's not about Mormon doctrine! The original is issue is whether Jesus was a man before the incarnation and/or had a physical body before the incarnation.

Please read the thread and you will see the issues - this thread is not that long so it shouldn't take too much time.

Before ya' say it again, I read the first part of the thread, and nowhere does it say whether you are trying to discuss Christian or Mormon doctrine.

 

[Marcia]

Since you didn't answer: I ask again: Are ya'll discussing mormon or Christian doctrine?

Before ya' say it again, I read the first part of the thread, and nowhere does it say whether you are trying to discuss Christian or Mormon doctrine.

I started this thread and had no intention of discussing Mormon doctrine. It arose from a discussion on another thread about Jesus before the incarnation. I wanted some feedback re my statements that Jesus did not have a body before the incarnation.

It seems a few Baptists think God has some kind of a body and/or Jesus had some kind of body before His incarnation.

Even reincarnation has come up! Skypair seemed to assert that but never answered me as to whether that was what he was asserting.

 

[Faith alone]

BTW Welcome to the Baptist board

And thanks for the book plug. The old earth/young Adam view hasn't received the attention it deserves in my view. The ASA still has the articles I wrote over ten years ago archived, "in Search of the Historical Adam, Parts I and II." They are on the ASA (American Scientific Affiliation) web site. I think it is entirely possible that Adam had awareness of a triad god relationship similar or even the same as we believe in today.

One other thing, the god, Enki, the Sumerians adopted from the Semitic Akkadians, translates "Lord of the earth," and Enlil, is Lord of the "air," "breath," or "spirit." Note especially the en- prefix meaning "lord" or "king." That's the same prefix in the names of Adam's grandsons, Enoch and Enosh, indicating they likely reigned over cities in Mesopotamia. That suggests Adam is dateable, locateable, and recent relative to Homo sapiens.

FWIW, there are various views of an old earth-recreation theory. There's the Gap theory, of course. But there's also Dr. Waltke's Pre-creation Chaos theory (all six 24-hour day theories), here's a good link:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=42

Here's a link which has a series of articles by Dr. Waltke:

http://www.regentbookstore.com/radio/speaker_info.php?speakerID=bwaltke

FA

 

[Jarthur001]

Jesus is, has always been, and will always be God. He became flesh - that is, He became a human being at a point-in-time.

John 1:9-14[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was created through Him, yet the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own people did not receive Him. But to all who did receive Him, He gave them the right to be children of God, to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God. The Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We observed His glory, the glory as the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Romans 1:3 [/FONT]concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was a descendant of David according to the flesh
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
How could Jesus be a descendant of David according to the flesh if He always has been man?

Romans 8:3, 4 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]What the law could not do since it was limited by the flesh, God did. He condemned sin in the flesh by sending His own Son in flesh like ours under sin's domain, and as a sin offering, in order that the law's requirement would be accomplished in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

God sent His Son in the flesh. He became flesh IOT accomplish His Father's plan.

Philippians 2:5-8[/FONT]Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage. Instead He emptied Himself by assuming the form of a slave, taking on the likeness of men. And when He had come as a man in His external form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death--even to death on a cross.

Jesus took on the lineness of men. He was not always a man. One last reference, which was implied by the starting post here:

Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Jesus-- made lower than the angels for a short time so that by God's grace He might taste death for everyone--crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death.

Jesus was "made lower than the angels for a short time." That theology is heretical, unbiblical and very dangerous.

FA
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
[/FONT]

What are dealing with here is not If Christ is man. All will agree. It is not if Christ is God. All will agree. When did Christ take on His Body, seems to be the point.

Christ took on the human body when He was born of Mary. Some have disagreed with this, but to say other wise makes salvation volid and has no place in our faith. Understanding the union of the 2 natures of Christ makes it clear.

This was what spilt the church into 3 churches in the 500s. From the beginning, this has been a bigger debate then the A/C dedate. The Church in the West used this wording given back then, which I agree with .... "Hypo Static Union".

Some claimed Christ has only one nature. Eutychanism held to this one nature idea. There was 2 sides on this as well. One side stated if Christ was 100% man...and Christ was 100% God then the 2 can not mix. If you have 100% of something it leaves no room for anything else. If you remove to place in something, it is no longer 100%. This group went on to say that Christ had a mans body, and yet the Spirit was God...and together is one nature. Then the other side of Eutychianism said the union was like oil and water. The oil and water was placed in a jar...what have ya...and the 2 are together and never mix, but is one.

Hypo static union says 2 natures...all man...and all God.

None of these early church views said that Christ took on a human body before He was born.



In Christ..James