Was Jesus fully man before the incarnation?

[Simonline]

Well, that's a two month old post you quoted. I don't really remember what I said; looking back over it, I don't think I was wrong. The hypostasis is distinct from the natures, because they're not to be confounded. Jesus of Nazareth is the Logos, so it wasn't wrong for me to call him Jesus.

The term hypostasis refers to how the Person can simultaneously exist as two natures and therefore is not distinct from the natures at all since it is specifically dealing with the two natures involved in the Incarnation.

You are correct in saying that the natures must not be confounded with each other but you then immediately do just that by declaring that 'Jesus of Nazareth is the Logos'?! The Logos is YHWH (Jn.1:1) Who has also incarnated as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth but to declare that the human creature and the Divine Creator are one and the same (i.e 'Jesus of Nazareth is the Logos') is to confound the two natures into one.

Simonline.

 

[Erose]

The term hypostasis refers to how the Person can simultaneously exist as two natures and therefore is not distinct from the natures at all since it is specifically dealing with the two natures involved in the Incarnation.

You are correct in saying that the natures must not be confounded with each other but you then immediately do just that by declaring that 'Jesus of Nazareth is the Logos'?! The Logos is YHWH (Jn.1:1) Who has also incarnated as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth but to declare that the human creature and the Divine Creator are one and the same (i.e 'Jesus of Nazareth is the Logos') is to confound the two natures into one.

Simonline.

I think you are taking this too far. The Orthodox understanding of the Incarnation is that Jesus is God the Son and the Son of Mary. One person with two natures (Divine and human). Jesus Christ is God and man. He wasn't always like this for He has had His Divine Nature for all of eternity and received His human nature at a specific moment of time at His Incarnation in the womb of Mary over 2000 years ago. To say that Jesus is not God is to separate the person of Christ with His two natures.

This is the reason why one can say that Mary is the Mother of God for the person she gave birth to is God as well as man.

 

[Simonline]

I think you are taking this too far. The Orthodox understanding of the Incarnation is that Jesus is God the Son and the Son of Mary.

I think you're not taking this nearly far enough (as is evident from the metaphysical absurdity of your statements).

The orthodox understanding of the Incarnation is that the Son/Word as the Second Person of the One Infinite-Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH has incarnated as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Mary.

To declare that the human creature Jesus of Nazareth is also the Divine Creator YHWH is facile in the extreme but that is what you have actually declared.

One person with two natures (Divine and human).

No. The Messiah is a single Person existing as (not 'with') two natures, one Divine and the other human.

Jesus Christ is God and man.

Strictly speaking it is the Messiah/Christ Who exists as both Divine Creator and human creature. As Divine Creator the Messiah is YHWH but not Jesus of Nazareth (Jn.10:30) whilst as human creature He is Jesus of Nazareth but not YHWH (Jn.14:28).

He wasn't always like this for He has had His Divine Nature for all of eternity and received His human nature at a specific moment of time at His Incarnation in the womb of Mary over 2000 years ago. To say that Jesus is not God is to separate the person of Christ with His two natures.

Not true. It is the Son/Word Who simultaneously exists as Divine Creator [YHWH] and human creature [Jesus of Nazareth]. Jesus of Nazareth (the human creature) is no more Divine than YHWH (the Divine Creator) is human and any assertion to the contrary is just the height of metaphysical absurdity. If what I am saying is not true then the terms Divine and human are absolutely meaningless since there is then no difference between them?! Only an imbecile would declare that to be true?!

This is the reason why one can say that Mary is the Mother of God for the person she gave birth to is God as well as man.

Nonsense! Mary was called Theotokos ('the God bearer') in order to emphasize the Messiah's Divinity along with His humanity but Mary as a finite human creature is not capable of giving birth to the Infinite Divine Creator (Jn.4:24). Such an understanding is facile in the extreme.

Mary gave birth to the Person of the Son existing as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth. She did NOT give birth to the Person of the Son/Word existing as the Infinite-Personal Divine Creator. In other words, the existence of the Son/Word as Divine Creator is completely different to the existence of the Son/Word as human creature. The two natures are distinct from each other and must NEVER be thought of as 'one and the same'. The Messiah existing as Divine Creator YHWH is NOT the same as the Messiah existing as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth. This is the correct orthodox understanding of the Incarnation.

Simonline.

 

[Erose]

I think you're not taking this nearly far enough (as is evident from the metaphysical absurdity of your statements).

Ok???

The orthodox understanding of the Incarnation is that the Son/Word as the Second Person of the One Infinite-Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH has incarnated as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Mary.

To declare that the human creature Jesus of Nazareth is also the Divine Creator YHWH is facile in the extreme but that is what you have actually declared.

It is not declared that the human creature or nature and the Divine nature are one and the same. Here is the witness of the Ecumenical council of Chalcedon (451AD) concerning the "orthodox" belief of the Incarnation:

We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, perfect God, and perfect Man of a reasonable soul and flesh consisting; begotten before the ages of the Father according to his Divinity, and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, of the same substance with his Father according to his Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his humanity; for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord.

According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.

For we know the theologians make some things of the Evangelical and Apostolic teaching about the Lord common as pertaining to the one person, and other things they divide as to the two natures, and attribute the worthy ones to God on account of the Divinity of Christ, and the lowly ones on account of his humanity [to his humanity].

No. The Messiah is a single Person existing as (not 'with') two natures, one Divine and the other human.

I concede that "with" may have been inappropiate.

Strictly speaking it is the Messiah/Christ Who exists as both Divine Creator and human creature. As Divine Creator the Messiah is YHWH but not Jesus of Nazareth (Jn.10:30) whilst as human creature He is Jesus of Nazareth but not YHWH (Jn.14:28).

I really don't understand where you are trying to do here. The "person" that is Jesus Christ is the same "person" that is God the Son. Correct me if I am misunderstanding you but in the Incarnation there is one Person who is true God and true Man. The name Jesus refers to the Person and not the substance, so the person who is known by us as Jesus by His Divine nature is God the Son and by His human nature the Son of God and the Son of Man.

Not true. It is the Son/Word Who simultaneously exists as Divine Creator [YHWH] and human creature [Jesus of Nazareth]. Jesus of Nazareth (the human creature) is no more Divine than YHWH (the Divine Creator) is human and any assertion to the contrary is just the height of metaphysical absurdity. If what I am saying is not true then the terms Divine and human are absolutely meaningless since there is then no difference between them?! Only an imbecile would declare that to be true?!

The Divine Person who is "God the Son" assumed a human nature through the Incarnation without either giving up or changing his Divine Nature. Now this Divine Person "God the Son" was in time conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary and was given the name "Jesus". (Luke 1:31). This is the reason why when the Virgin Mary visited her aunt Elizabeth the baby "John the Baptist" leaped in his mother womb and St. Elizabeth was filled witht the Holy Spirit and cried out: Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Luke 1:40-43)

Nonsense! Mary was called Theotokos ('the God bearer') in order to emphasize the Messiah's Divinity along with His humanity but Mary as a finite human creature is not capable of giving birth to the Infinite Divine Creator (Jn.4:24). Such an understanding is facile in the extreme.

I think that there is a confusion between "person" and "substance", which I admit is easy to do, but no where is it believed that the full Substance of the Godhead was found in Mary's womb. That is not what Theotokos means. It means that the Person that Mary gave birth to is the same person that is God the Son who became perfectly fully human while remaining fully and perfectly divine.

Mary gave birth to the Person of the Son existing as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth. She did NOT give birth to the Person of the Son/Word existing as the Infinite-Personal Divine Creator. In other words, the existence of the Son/Word as Divine Creator is completely different to the existence of the Son/Word as human creature. The two natures are distinct from each other and must NEVER be thought of as 'one and the same'. The Messiah existing as Divine Creator YHWH is NOT the same as the Messiah existing as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth. This is the correct orthodox understanding of the Incarnation.

Never claimed that the two substances in the person of Jesus is one and the same. Please don't accuse me of heresy without good cause. But we also cannot separate the Person of Jesus into two person's either. Jesus Christ the person is both perfectly God and perfectly Man. Pope St. Leo I wrote against Flavian at the Council of Chalcedon: he (Flavian) should at least have received with heedful attention that general Confession common to all, whereby the whole body of the faithful profess that they believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary. By which three clauses the engines of almost all heretics are shattered. For when God is believed to be both Almighty and Father, it is proved that the Son is everlasting together with himself, differing in nothing from the Father, because he was born as God from God, Almighty from Almighty, Coeternal from Eternal; not later in time, not inferior in power, not unlike him in glory, not divided from him in essence, but the same Only-begotten and Everlasting Son of an Everlasting Parent was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary. This birth in time in no way detracted from, in no way added to, that divine and everlasting birth; but expended itself wholly in the work of restoring man, who had been deceived; so that it might both overcome death, and by its power destroy the devil who had the power of death. For we could not have overcome the author of sin and of death, unless he who could neither be contaminated by sin, nor detained by death, had taken upon himself our nature, and made it his own. For, in fact, he was conceived of the Holy Ghost within the womb of a Virgin Mother, who bore him as she had conceived him, without loss of virginity.

I also want to apologize for anything that I might have said that would have angered you in such a way and as such beg for your forgiveness.

 

[John Zain]

I haven't read through all 43 responses, but has it been made clear yet?

that ...

The term "Son of God" is only a name or title
... because everyone knows that God never had any offspring.

God in the OT, and Jesus in the NT, have many names/titles.
Many of these are identical, which shows that Jesus is God.

 

[Croref]

Prior to the incarnation the Son [the Second Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH] existed as the Divine Creator but NOT as the human creature...in other words, prior to the Incarnation the Son was GOD but He was NOT 'God's Son' (i.e. the human incarnation of God), though He WAS/IS the Son of the Father.


Simonline.

Then He must have had a Divine Mother? Otherwise, God would have had to create Him. . . . as He did the angels. And we know that is not true.

 

[Croref]

I haven't read through all 43 responses, but has it been made clear yet?

that ...

The term "Son of God" is only a name or title
... because everyone knows that God never had any offspring.

God in the OT, and Jesus in the NT, have many names/titles.
Many of these are identical, which shows that Jesus is God.

How do you arrive at that when it was the seed of the "Word of God" that was implanted in Mary, to become the "only 'begotten' of God" which makes Him His only "begotten" Son - - - otherwise how could it ever be said: God manifested Himself in human flesh?

 

[Lamb's Wife]

Jesus, the son of man, began his existence when conceived in Mary.

At thirty, the Eternal Christ was "Christed" (annointed) upon Him. He was Born the Son of God then, As God openly pronounced at that time. That is why Jesus always makes that distinction over and over.

Two became One, then and there.

Only in this is how we can understand God shedding His own blood,

(Act 20:28) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

No "incarnation" lol. That is paganism/eastern philosophy style gnosticism that the unlearned woefully try to cram into scriptures.

(Act 13:33) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

 

[Croref]

Jesus, the son of man, began his existence when conceived in Mary.

So did the Son of God.

At thirty, the Eternal Christ was "Christed" (annointed) upon Him. He was Born the Son of God then, As God openly pronounced at that time. That is why Jesus always makes that distinction over and over.

Huh??

Two became One, then and there.

Sorry that only pertains to marriage, between a man and a woman.

Only in this is how we can understand God shedding His own blood,

No matter how you slice it, God never had blood to shed. It all had to be man's blood of the seed of Adam for it to cancel out Adam's transgression.

(Act 20:28) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Whose "He" mentioned in that verse but the "son of man" who shed His blood?

Jesus was conceived of the seed of God. That made Him the "Son of God". Being that He was born of Mary made Him the "son of man"

Can you see that?

 

[Goinheix]

The doctrine goes that Jesus is fully man and fully God. Even now and forever he will be a physical man...
But, was he physically a man before the virgin birth?

I believe he probably appeared at various times in the Old Testament, as The Angel of the Lord etc. I'm not wanting to get into a debate about them. But they would seem to suggest he was fully man before the virgin birth.

But could we say that in John 1:1, the Word was fully God and fully man even before creation?
Was Jesus, the eternal God, a man too, before he had even created a man (Adam)?

Actually, nowhere in the Bible we read that Jesus was fully God. Also there is not any text saying that Jesus existed before birth.

 

[Ormly]

Actually, nowhere in the Bible we read that Jesus was fully God. Also there is not any text saying that Jesus existed before birth.

Very true. What was written of that being a truth was recorded after His resurrection. cf John 1:1-4

 

[Lamb's Wife]

Then He must have had a Divine Mother? Otherwise, God would have had to create Him. . . . as He did the angels. And we know that is not true.

Of course the Son of God has a Mother lol! Who would think otherwise (except for maybe a trinitarian I guess...)

His True Mother is divine! (and it is not Mary);

(Mat 12:46) While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
(Mat 12:47) Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

His mother wasn't Mary, but BELIEVERS are His Mother;

(Mat 12:48) But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
(Mat 12:49) And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
(Mat 12:50) For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

He is birthed from within us, that is How He Comes as He described to His disciples;

(Joh 16:21) A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.

(Gal 4:19) My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

(Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

(Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
(Gal 4:27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
(Gal 4:28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

(Gal 4:31) So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

(Rev 12:1) And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

We who are redeemed in Christ are the New Jerusalem Wife.
Christ is born out of Her in the New Covenant in Resurrection from the Dead.

We being born with Him out of Her is a Highly Spiritual affair, but ultimate truth as this remains a mystery to those who don't have ears to hear or eyes to see. Lord Heal us that we may have sight!

 

[Ormly]

Of course the Son of God has a Mother lol! Who would think otherwise (except for maybe a trinitarian I guess...)

His True Mother is divine! (and it is not Mary);

(Mat 12:46) While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
(Mat 12:47) Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

His mother wasn't Mary, but BELIEVERS are His Mother;

(Mat 12:48) But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
(Mat 12:49) And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
(Mat 12:50)For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

He is birthed from within us, that is How He Comes as He described to His disciples;

(Joh 16:21)A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.

(Gal 4:19) My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

(Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

(Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
(Gal 4:27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
(Gal 4:28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

(Gal 4:31) So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

(Rev 12:1) And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

We who are redeemed in Christ are the New Jerusalem Wife.
Christ is born out of Her in the New Covenant in Resurrection from the Dead.

We being born with Him out of Her is a Highly Spiritual affair, but ultimate truth as this remains a mystery to those who don't have ears to hear or eyes to see. Lord Heal us that we may have sight!

Ah, Yes. Now I see it. Thank you.

 

[Goinheix]

Brother
be aware that as soon we prove that There was not any divinity on Jesus, this thread will be moved into unhorthodox Theology"

 

[Ormly]

I didn't say Jesus was not of divinity. He, of course, was.

 

[Goinheix]

I didn't say Jesus was not of divinity. He, of course, was.

Can yo define better: being God, being divine, having divinity, having divine atributes.

 

[Lamb's Wife]

Actually, nowhere in the Bible we read that Jesus was fully God. Also there is not any text saying that Jesus existed before birth.

Jesus didn't exist before birth, no lol.
But "Christ" has always existed, for God is Christ. But Jesus wasn't "Christed" until His baptism. He washed away everything of His former life, and only accepted Sonship of God then and there. That is why the voice from Heaven came at that time proclaiming Jesus His Son. The true meaning of BarMitzva.

Two became One. the Son then became One with the Father. Only then could He say, "He who sees me sees the Father", for "I and my Father are One".
This can only happen in Resurrection. Hence Jesus Baptism into His own death to self, and coming up out of the water is resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Then Christed. Only then was He qualified to begin the Ministry of Christ. At the age of thirty.

Jesus never "pre-existed". But Christ is certainly Eternal. Now there is no difference, for in His resurrection from the dead, Jesus is the Eternal Christ. God Himself. YHVH. By Inheritance of all things.
Now we in Him, die and are raised in His resurrection, never to die Praise Jesus!

Shalom

 

[Ormly]

Can yo define better: being God, being divine, having divinity, having divine atributes.

Jesus had one nature, His Father's. His nature was divine. His human nature was nulled by His allegiance to Father. When we are born again we are imputed with the same divine nature He had. In this is our human nature made dead. The power of sin is made dead within us at the same time. What remains is our undisciplined dispositions that are antagonistic to our new Nature. This is what must be worked of us [rectified] with fear and trembling and that by our obedience to the Father of our new nature.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Goinheix]

Jesus had one nature, His Father's. His nature was divine. His human nature was nulled by His allegiance to Father. When we are born again we are imputed with the same divine nature He had. In this is our human nature made dead. The power of sin is made dead within us at the same time. What remains is our undisciplined dispositions that are antagonistic to our new Nature. This is what must be worked of us [rectified] with fear and trembling and that by our obedience to the Father of our new nature.

Does that make sense to you?

Not much since my request was: "Can yo define better: being God, being divine, having divinity, having divine atributes", and you have mention only the word "divine". Sometimes I found myself discussing with somebody that thinks exactly like me, but he uses diferent words, or even use the same words with totally different meaning. So again ... Can yo define better: being God, being divine, having divinity, having divine atributes? please

 

[Goinheix]

Jesus didn't exist before birth, no lol.
But "Christ" has always existed, for God is Christ. But Jesus wasn't "Christed" until His baptism. He washed away everything of His former life, and only accepted Sonship of God then and there. That is why the voice from Heaven came at that time proclaiming Jesus His Son. The true meaning of BarMitzva.

Two became One. the Son then became One with the Father. Only then could He say, "He who sees me sees the Father", for "I and my Father are One".
This can only happen in Resurrection. Hence Jesus Baptism into His own death to self, and coming up out of the water is resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Then Christed. Only then was He qualified to begin the Ministry of Christ. At the age of thirty.

Jesus never "pre-existed". But Christ is certainly Eternal. Now there is no difference, for in His resurrection from the dead, Jesus is the Eternal Christ. God Himself. YHVH. By Inheritance of all things.
Now we in Him, die and are raised in His resurrection, never to die Praise Jesus!

Shalom

My post was "Actually, nowhere in the Bible we read that Jesus was fully God. Also there is not any text saying that Jesus existed before birth". and you did not apoint to any text or verse in the Bible.

Lol means "I dont know what to answer back"; and obviously you dont. Can you tel me/us of one verse in the Bible stating that Jesus was fully God?