Was Jesus fully man before the incarnation?

[Ormly]

”... and His name is called The Word of God.” (Revelation 19:13).

All made known, spoken of and written AFTER the fact, John. In other words Jesus was NEVER called that before His ascension. No one knew that to speak of it and other revelations about Him. For instance, We know IS the everlasting Father, et al but He didn't become that until AFTER His victory on the cross. Can you see that?

 

[Ormly]

]“How can Jesus be considered “fully man”, if He did not have man’s sin nature?

That is like asking how it was that He could be born sinless.

Jesus was man as God "fully" intended man to be and Jesus, as a man, PROTECTED that perfection of Himself so that we might become as He was.

 

[cmember]

-----

Wow....this is an excellent discussion. Thanks to the OP!

Remember that Christ was named 'Jesus' by the angel before he was conceived in the womb (Luke 2:21), so Jesus Christ 'is' pre-existant to this incarnation. So....

Jesus is a name given given to the pre-existant Christ born in Bethlehem. Jesus is a name and Christ is a title. Now the hard part.

The Bible says Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Heb 13:8) Hence, getting back to our OP's question....was he the God-Man (Deity/Human) before he was born? Well, it looks like he wasn't....

"....Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself.... (Phil 2:5-8)

The Bible says that "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:...." (Numbers 23:19) Well, what we do know is that God exists eternally and has no beginning or end. So it would appear that the Son of God is eternal as the 2nd person of the Trinity, but the Son of man existed from his Incarnation on in to eternity future.

When Christ was 'made in the likeness of men'....he took on our human nature, he was "made to be sin for us" (2 Cor 5:21) so he could die on the Cross and set an example for us as the perfect man. He was not 'inherently of human nature but took it on (for us). It appears that Human Nature was 'added to' his Divine nature at the Incarnation. And after he died he was raised in a new body just as we will be.

Anyhow....it looks to me like before his Incarnation, he existed as only in the Divine nature as Deity (God). But I'm sure up for more discussion of this, in other words, other ideas of how he could have existed 'in the flesh' with human nature before his incarnation.

Also think of what's been mentioned already, that Rev 13:8 does say that he was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. And...we are made in the image of God (body, soul, spirit (three in One). Then again....the Bible tells us that God is a Spirit (John 4:24). Could the Lamb that was slain consist of the past 'thoughts' of God, with the 'ways' of God being the future reality?

So as you can see, I'm sure not clear on all this, so somebody else jump in and give us some more thoughts.

 

[Ormly]

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)?

Man could only be procreated, i.e., "born of Adam's race". . . . therefore

 

[Ormly]

----
The Bible says that "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:...." (Numbers 23:19) Well, what we do know is that God exists eternally and has no beginning or end. So it would appear that the Son of God is eternal as the 2nd person of the Trinity, but the Son of man existed from his Incarnation on in to eternity future.

Good. Now who was His Mother?

 

[Simonline]

There was no Messiah/Christ existing before Jesus.

Agreed. The Messiah/Christ is the human incarnation of the Divine Creator YHWH (1Jn.4:1-3) which by definition means that the Messiah/Christ (i.e. the human incarnation) did not exist prior to the Incarnation. That stands to reason.

You are confusing the Word, the second Personality of the Godhead as being a son. He was not ever a son.

This is not strictly true. The Second Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH is Eternally Begotten of the First Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH [in other words the Existence of the First Person necessitates, causes, gives rise to (begets) the Existence of the Second Person and there is no point where the First Person Exists without the Second Person (Jn.1:1)]. It is for this reason that in relation to each other the First Person is known as the 'Father' and the Second Person is known as the 'Son' though they are NOT biological 'father' and 'son' in the way that is true of finite human creatures. The Terms 'Father' and 'Son' in relation to the First and Second Persons of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH are anthropocentric consessions to humans on the part of God (like an adult communicating with children).

If He had been then there would have to have been a Divine Mother and the means for a 'spiritual copulation . . . and birth'.

Do you really have to be so blasphemously crass?! As I have already said the First and Second Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH are NOT biological 'father' and 'son'?! They are simply terms used by the Church to try and better understand the nature of the relationship between the First and Second Persons of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH.

Now we know that copulation for this had to include at least one human being that God could do a miraculous thing.

Evidently you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about?!

The Second Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH did NOT come about through biological 'copulation' [In fact He did NOT 'come about' at all]?! The Second Person is as Infinite and Eternal as the First and Third Persons and therefore the Second Person has also ALWAYS Existed (Jn.1:1; 8:58)?!

Angels have no seed within themselves. Ergo, the miraculous seed that 'unioned' with Mary was the one and only time God ever stepped into humanity for the purpose of introducing something into it from outside itself it, something it could not give of itself, i.e., a sinless human being. . . that His sinless blood shed would become that which could only cancel out Adam's transgression.

Except that the Bible does not even hint that there was any 'miraculous seed' or 'union' of a sexual nature at all?! Indeed the very idea is blasphemous?! If God is able to bring the entire Creation into existence from nothing in the first place (Gen.1:1; Col.1:15-16) then He doesn't need sperm or the act of copulation in order to incarnate as the Messiah (talk about taking what is Holy and treating it as profane...it's nothing short of a miracle that you're not already in Hell for your blasphemy)?!

There was no one else who could do this by the Word who was no Spirit being. The Word by which all creation came into existence. The Word who is NOW Christ Jesus. The Word who will come again in Glorified Human flesh in clouds of Glory. Mk 13:26.

Except that the Word (i.e. the Second Person) didn't do it, the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Third Person) did (Lk.1:26-38)?! You should actually try reading the Bible then maybe we just might start to take you a little more seriously?!

All facts written in the scriptures concerning Jesus-Word being the creator were written subsequent to the complete knowledge and understanding and His mission and ascension. None were written before when they were still asking questions. I hope this is a help to someone.

Not true. The Church still does not have 'complete knowledge and understanding' of the Incarnation and we have had the Scriptures now for nigh on two millennia?!

You really are pontificating on that about which you evidently know virtually nothing?!

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

-----

Wow....this is an excellent discussion. Thanks to the OP!

Remember that Christ was named 'Jesus' by the angel before he was conceived in the womb (Luke 2:21), so Jesus Christ 'is' pre-existant to this incarnation. So....

The Messiah/Christ (i.e. the human incarnation of the Divine Creator YHWH (1Jn.4:1-3)) was named Jesus of Nazareth but it isn't the human creature who exists as Infinitely and Eternally Divine. It is the Divine Creator YHWH Who Exists as Infinitely and Eternally Divine. The One Who has incarnated is NOT the human creature but the Divine Creator. The human creature IS the Incarnation.

Jesus is a name given given to the pre-existant Christ born in Bethlehem. Jesus is a name and Christ is a title. Now the hard part.

You're already into 'the hard part'. The Messiah/Christ (i.e. the human incarnation of the Divine Creator (1Jn.4:1-3)) is NOT pre-existent. The Messiah/Christ is the human incarnation of the Divine Creator Who IS the One Who Exists as both Infinite and Eternal and His Name is YHWH (Ex.3:14 cf. Isa.43:10-13)?!

I recommend that you follow what the Scriptures actually reveal rather than what your Church tradition teaches you (since the two are not necessarily the same thing)?!

The Bible says Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Heb 13:8) Hence, getting back to our OP's question....was he the God-Man (Deity/Human) before he was born? Well, it looks like he wasn't....

"....Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself.... (Phil 2:5-8)

Well done! I'm impressed. You quoted a reputable translation rather than a modern perversion that has sacrificed translation on the altar of interpretation. The Authorized Version of 1611 doesn't make consessions to the heresy of Kenosis as does the NIV's 'emptied himself'

The Bible says that "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:...." (Numbers 23:19) Well, what we do know is that God exists eternally and has no beginning or end. So it would appear that the Son of God is eternal as the 2nd person of the Trinity, but the Son of man existed from his Incarnation on in to eternity future.

Oh dear, and you were doing so well?

The Son of God (i.e. the human incarnation of the Divine Creator YHWH) is definitely not Eternal. The Second Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH, Existing as God, is not the 'Son of God' either. He is the Son of the Father and both He and the Father (along with the Holy Spirit) are the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH [i.e. God Himself], otherwise the Messiah could not be Emmanuel - 'God [Himself] with us' (Matt.1:23). Instead He would have to be 'God's Son with us'?!

For the record, the terms 'Son of God' and 'Son of Man' both relate to the Messiah/Christ as the human incarnation of the Divine Creator YHWH and not the 'Son of God' to the Second Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator Existing as God and the 'Son of Man' to the Second Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator Existing as a man as many people wrongly suppose.

When Christ was 'made in the likeness of men'....he took on our human nature, he was "made to be sin for us" (2 Cor 5:21) so he could die on the Cross and set an example for us as the perfect man.

Except that it wasn't the Messiah/Christ who became the Messiah/Christ (i.e. the human incarnation of the Divine Creator YHWH) but YHWH [God] Himself (Matt.1:23)?!

He was not 'inherently of human nature but took it on (for us). It appears that Human Nature was 'added to' his Divine nature at the Incarnation.

No, it wasn't since that is metaphysically impossible both for God and man.

The Messiah/Christ is a hypostatic union of two distinct natures (one Divine and the other human) that have been united NOT in and through each other (which is metaphysically impossible) but in and through the ONE PERSON of the Son. Thus the Messiah/Christ is One Person simultaneously existing in two different ways, as Infinite and Eternal Divine Creator and finite and temporal human creature. The two modes of existence are entirely distinct from each other but NOT separate from each other or that would split the Person into two to equal the two natures thus making the Messiah/Christ into two separate persons (which is the heresy of Nestorianism).

And after he died he was raised in a new body just as we will be.

As will all men (i.e. humans - believers and unbelievers). The idea of non-corporeal (non-physical) existence is Gnostic not Hebraic/Biblical

Anyhow....it looks to me like before his Incarnation, he existed as only in the Divine nature as Deity (God). But I'm sure up for more discussion of this, in other words, other ideas of how he could have existed 'in the flesh' with human nature before his incarnation.

Let's get the Incarnation straight first before we try and tackle the Son/Word/Memra's pre-Incarnate existence eh?

Also think of what's been mentioned already, that Rev 13:8 does say that he was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

That's theological not actual (the Messiah/Christ has not been crucified twice...he only has one set of nail marks in his resurrected body). It's just another way of saying that God already had the solution before He set the problem (Rom.8:20-21).

And...we are made in the image of God (body, soul, spirit (three in One).

I'd drop that analogy if I were you? Being made in the likeness of God does not mean that we are miniature versions of Him (Jn.4:24)?! It means that we are personal (albeit mono-personal to His Tri-Personal) with all that that involves, that all.

Then again....the Bible tells us that God is a Spirit (John 4:24). Could the Lamb that was slain consist of the past 'thoughts' of God, with the 'ways' of God being the future reality?

That might be true were God Mono-Personal but God is Tri-Personal not Mono-Personal. I believe it was more than just telepathic exchange between Persons?

So as you can see, I'm sure not clear on all this, so somebody else jump in and give us some more thoughts.

Something more to chew on you mean?

Simonline.

 

[Ormly]

Agreed. The Messiah/Christ is the human incarnation of the Divine Creator YHWH (1Jn.4:1-3) which by definition means that the Messiah/Christ (i.e. the human incarnation) did not exist prior to the Incarnation. That stands to reason.



This is not strictly true. The Second Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH is Eternally Begotten of the First Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH [in other words the Existence of the First Person necessitates, causes, gives rise to (begets) the Existence of the Second Person and there is no point where the First Person Exists without the Second Person (Jn.1:1)]. It is for this reason that in relation to each other the First Person is known as the 'Father' and the Second Person is known as the 'Son' though they are NOT biological 'father' and 'son' in the way that is true of finite human creatures. The Terms 'Father' and 'Son' in relation to the First and Second Persons of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH are anthropocentric consessions to humans on the part of God (like an adult communicating with children).



Do you really have to be so blasphemously crass?! As I have already said the First and Second Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH are NOT biological 'father' and 'son'?! They are simply terms used by the Church to try and better understand the nature of the relationship between the First and Second Persons of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH.




Evidently you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about?!

The Second Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH did NOT come about through biological 'copulation' [In fact He did NOT 'come about' at all]?! The Second Person is as Infinite and Eternal as the First and Third Persons and therefore the Second Person has also ALWAYS Existed (Jn.1:1; 8:58)?!



Except that the Bible does not even hint that there was any 'miraculous seed' or 'union' of a sexual nature at all?! Indeed the very idea is blasphemous?! If God is able to bring the entire Creation into existence from nothing in the first place (Gen.1:1; Col.1:15-16) then He doesn't need sperm or the act of copulation in order to incarnate as the Messiah (talk about taking what is Holy and treating it as profane...it's nothing short of a miracle that you're not already in Hell for your blasphemy)?!



Except that the Word (i.e. the Second Person) didn't do it, the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Third Person) did (Lk.1:26-38)?! You should actually try reading the Bible then maybe we just might start to take you a little more seriously?!



Not true. The Church still does not have 'complete knowledge and understanding' of the Incarnation and we have had the Scriptures now for nigh on two millennia?!

You really are pontificating on that about which you evidently know virtually nothing?!

Simonline.

All you are offering up is criticism from creed ridden commentary, from a book you believe tells you all you think you need to understand about the bible__accepting it as gospel truth which has resulted in your inability to receive from the scriptures anything that might challenge it. Laziness, pride and conceit will do that to a person. That's too bad. Thanks, I'll move on.

 

[Simonline]

All you are offering up is criticism from creed ridden commentary, from a book you believe tells you all you think you need to understand about the bible__accepting it as gospel truth which has resulted in your inability to receive from the scriptures anything that might challenge it. Laziness, pride and conceit will do that to a person. That's too bad. Thanks, I'll move on.

Not true. I have not quoted a single book other than the Bible itself. All that I believe is based upon what the Bible itself reveals. I am quite capable of accepting ligitimate criticism from anyone whose arguments are as Biblically sound as mine but I will not accept any of the blasphemous (not to mention crass) wholely unbiblical nonsense masquerading as theology that you have espoused here on this thread?!

You need to accept that people are not necessarily wrong simply because they disagree with you and if they are wrong then you need to be able to demonstrate that fact both clearly and objectively [Q.E.D.] before people will be likely to accept it?!

Simonline.