A deeper closer look at who Jesus really was

AtonedFor · Jul 13, 2012

Most Trinitarian Christians think Jesus was the Son of God,
who always existed as God, the Second Person of the Trinity, but …

“In the beginning was the Word (the Logos), and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. … And the Word became flesh (Jesus) and dwelt among us” (John 1:1,14)

“… and His (Jesus&#8217 name is called The Word of God.” (Revelation 19:13)

Technically, Jesus Christ did NOT exist before the Word (the Logos) came to earth.
Jesus (as man) had a beginning, while Jesus (as God) did not.
The Word (the Logos) was the One who always existed, not Jesus Christ.

From the Scriptures, we believe this Jesus was both God and man: “fully God and fully man”.

Since He ascended physically to Heaven and sat down at the right hand of Father God
(Mark 16:19, Hebrews 1:3), it is acceptable to say Jesus exists in Heaven now.

“And behold, you (Mary) will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son,
and shall call His name JESUS. … The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also,
that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:31-35)

Gabriel said to CALL the new baby “Jesus” and to CALL Him “the Son of God”.
Gabriel did not say He WAS “Jesus” and “the Son of God”.
IMO, no one called “the Son of God” existed before the Word (the Logos) came to earth.

But, Jesus truly was the Son of God because His “father” was God the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35).

“And behold, you (Mary) will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son” (Luke 1:31)
“… do not be afraid to take to you (Joseph) Mary your wife,
for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:20-21)

This sounds like a normal conception … so IMO, the Holy Spirit planted
a male sperm next to Mary’s ovum, so a normal conception could take place.
(This is preferable to thinking the Holy Spirit performed a “creative” miracle.)

Now for the upsetting part for many (but it shouldn’t be) …

The reason for God NOT allowing Joseph to be Jesus’ biological father
was so his inherited sin nature would NOT be passed on to Jesus.

Joseph and Mary both carried man's inherited sin nature, so IMO,
man's sperm carries the sin nature, and not the blood (proof: Mary's involvement).

This sacrificial Lamb of God had to be absolute perfection in every detail.
Jesus was the ultimate, final, and perfect blood Sacrifice … the sacrificial Lamb of God.
God being sacrificed to God makes the Almighty's ingenious plan even more awesome!
.

Spartacus1122 · Jul 13, 2012

Throughout the NT there is reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All three are components of the same essence, or, all three are equal parts of one.

That is a reasonable argument, because "Jesus" was the human-flesh manifestation of God on Earth. He was a mortal, but He was also divine.
He was/is the Son, just as He was/is the Father. The two are one and the same.

Correct, but being divine, and being One with the Father, the two (along with the HS) exist as one holy entity.
You won't find a man in his mid-thirsties sitting around in some part of the galaxy.

I don't find it upsetting at all. Christ was divine, therefore could only been born from someone free of Original Sin. That someone was Mary, His virgin mother, chosen by God to be the vessel for His Son.
But let's give Joseph credit: he accepted his task, accepted a pregnant young woman as his wife (back then she would have been stoned to death), and brought up the Son of God as his own.

.

This is where I have to disagree, since Mary was "born without sin", hence her role in being the Virgin Mother of Christ.

I absolutely agree!

Great post man, very interesting and enjoyable read.

God bless.

Chadtreme · Jul 13, 2012

Where does the Bible say Mary was born without sin?

AtonedFor · Jul 13, 2012

Chadtreme said:

YES ... it is high time we put an end to this false teaching, as it is one of many "doctrines of men".

If this "immaculate conception" doctrine is not in Scripture, it sure is a HUGE LEAP of something to claim it.
.

feedm3 · Jul 13, 2012

Really it's not acceptable. BEcause if he did not exist before the flesh, then he would not exist now:

Jn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was

First, one cannot experience glory, if they do not exist.

Second he asked to be restored to the glory he had "before the world was".

If he did not exist before the world was, he would be asking not to exist again. Yet this is not what he is asking. Being beside the Father is the glory he had before the wolrd was.

Yet "he emptied himself" and became flesh so he could carry out the Father's will.

This introduction of Jesus, is for the flesh. It does not imply he never existed. Was he "a son" before he came in the flesh? I don't know. He seems he was equal with the Father. Yet on earth, he would be called the son of God. Makes sense, who was His earthly Father? Not Joseph. Who conceived Him with Mary?

God did, and why he would be called the "Son of God", yet to say this means he did not exist before that, is to say he did not have glory before the world was.

“And behold, you (Mary) will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son” (Luke 1:31)
“… do not be afraid to take to you (Joseph) Mary your wife,
for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:20-21)

This is nuts, no offense. If Mary was sinless, she would not have needed a savior. I Jn 3:4 tells us what sin is, it's something we do, not get passed down. It is transgression of God's law, children cannot do this, especially infants, so they cannot have sin.

Luke 2:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour

Mary needed a Savior just as we all do because of sin.

This is just man made doctrine, it is not scriptural, Rom 5 does not support it, Sin is defined for us - I Jn 3:4, and this does not fit that definition.

Jesus has always existed, the Bible tells us this. NOthing you said here implies nor teaches what you tried to use it to support. It just does not.

Col 1:14 in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins:
15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation(rank)
16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; 17 and he is before all things, and in him all things consist. 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.
19 For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds

The use of "by him" shows he existed. And only in this sense with the other above passages is the correct understanding of John 1.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not

How or why, if He did not exist would the Bible tell us he made the worlds. You cant say because he was God the Father, because it says "by or through whom also made the worlds".

This does not show how it is being used in Hebrews. Because if one did not exist, it could not be said that he made anything. Even if you believe he was "IN" the father, he still was non existent as Jesus.

Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in 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, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth

Cannot be taking about being God himself, but in the "FORM" of God, deity. He was deity before he came in the flesh.

He "thought it not robbery", in order to "think" anything he must exist. So we are told to have this "same mind" Which WAS in Chirst, and the "was" is speking before he came in the flesh, his mind was to serve God, even if he had to change his "form" in doing so. If he had "a mind" that "thought it not robbery" and decided to come in the flesh, he must have existed.
It cannot be one being having all these minds. If is were GOd's mind, then how can it be said to have the mind that jesus had? HE did not exist?

Spartacus1122 · Jul 13, 2012

AtonedFor said:

This is what happens when fundamentalism impairs analysis and knowledge of scriptures and the language in which they were traditionally published, such as Greek.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary.
The angel Gabriel said, "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28).
The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. She was in a state of sanctifying grace.

This is just a matter of differences in doctrines, which are commonly found in every institution, organization, religion, and school of thought.
Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. That is perfectly their right, and there is nothing wrong with having one's own assumptions or opinions.
Here, of course, we get into the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory.

There is then no problem with officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.
The immaculate conception does not contradict anything, it is just an interpretation of the term "full of grace" which implies that such a person is filled with God's grace, therefore free from sin. That is all there is to it.

No need to start snarling teeth out of a doctrinal disagreement.

Once again, I really enjoyed this post, and I hope the conversation can continue in a respectful, brotherly manner.

Be well.

resurrection33 · Jul 13, 2012

I believe Jesus Christ is God in flesh. God decided to come to earth as a human being, so he did so as Jesus Christ.

AtonedFor · Jul 13, 2012

Spartacus,

Super ... thanks for the explanation.

But, what are we to do with the several warnings about "the doctrines of men"?
If a doctrine is not found in the Scriptures, then can it be a doctrine of God?
Perhaps it's possible because not all spiritual truth is found in Scripture.
Now we'll get all kinds of complaints about this.
.

RedTent · Jul 13, 2012

I am sure this technicality, this dissecting scripture is very good for some, but it leaves me cold. God speaks to the simple in heart. No one has ever understood the complexities of God and I don’t think we have to. How God did what it did really doesn’t matter. There was a miraculous happening that results in our ability to be cleansed of our sins. I am thankful.

AtonedFor · Jul 13, 2012

feedm3,

John 17:5 … why can’t this be “fully God” Jesus speaking … the Word (the Logos)?

Yes, just for interest sake … IMO, the Son of God did not exist before in Incarnation.

Sorry, but I never said Mary was sinless … just the opposite.

Yes, just for interest sake … IMO, it is in man’s sperm that his sin nature is passed down.

Wasn’t “fully God” Jesus, i.e. the Word (the Logos), allowed to speak at all?
You’re assuming that all of Jesus words were spoken by the “fully man” Jesus.
E.G. it was the Word (the Logos) who created all things … Father God did it through the Word.
.

timothy10 · Jul 13, 2012

Spartacus1122 said:

Mary was a sinful human being who needed Jesus Christ as her Savior, just like everyone else.

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
( Luke 1:46-49 )

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
( Romans 3:23 )

AtonedFor · Jul 13, 2012

RedTent said:

Hey, we're all thankful, 'bro ... don't sweat the small stuff.
All of this is just for interest sake ... for those who find it interesting.
IMO, ALL of my ideas are probably not correct.

Hey, but this one is, 'bro ...
Jesus came to preach the gospel to those who are "poor" in various ways
(health, finances, reputation, intelligence, education, social standing, and many etc.)
.

feedm3 · Jul 13, 2012

AtonedFor said:

I guess if I wanted to stretch my imagination. Then I would have to ignore what it means for someone to say "to the glory I had WITH THEE. Not AS THEE little words give us the true meaning.

As I said, I dont know if his description would be "a son" before he came to earth. I dont know how that part works, does anyone have "sons" in the sense we do in heaven? We just dont know. However we do understand the sense of the world here. So we can understand the bond and love God is describing to us through saying he was a son.

Okay I misunderstood then, sorry for that.

This is not found anywhere in scripture. Sin strength is not found in sperm, it is found in the commandments of God - I Jn 3:4

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law
The only way sin can exist is by transgression of God's law, so their must be a law for sin to exist. It only is effective when we transgress the Law.

Rom 7:11 tells us that sins takes opportunity through the law. Just as we seen in the Garden. God gave them a command first, then sin took it's opportunity "did God say thou shalt not eat......"?

Sin is not passed down, it is still only present through transgressing God's laws.

Yes and it's what he spoke that proves to us he has always existed. Again "with thee" NOT "as thee" - Jn 17:5

Your assuming that Jesus spoke as "full man" and other times "fully God", just another stretch. When Jesus spoke, it was ALWAYS the word of God - Matt 28:18, Jn 12:48, Jn 6:63.

Jesus did not have two personalities. He was existent before the world began:

1. He had glory - Jn 17:
2. He created all things - Col 1, Heb 1
3. He had a mind to please God - NOT himself - Philp 2

It would be impossible for him to have any of these if he did not exist. The words simply do not fit, no matter hard we try to force them. You must exist to do, or experience anything.

RedTent · Jul 13, 2012

[

And isn’t it interesting!! You go brother, go.

It is so amazing that God is so simple that a young child can understand, and so complex that the most advanced minds are still working on finding the answers.

resurrection33 · Jul 13, 2012

And if I’m right, you need to take a closer look at who God is.

I’ve always pictured God as the loving, all-powerful, all-knowing Creator.

starfield · Jul 13, 2012

Spartacus1122 said:

There is no scriptural evidence for the assumption of Immaculate Conception. There is no evidence that she received God's grace before she was born. Only Jesus Christ was sinless and full of grace (John 1:14).
Romans 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:", applies to Mary too.

Spartacus1122 · Jul 13, 2012

No problem bud.
I did tho cover that aspect you argue, which is fine for you to emphasize.
As long as the doctrine does not contradict the scripture, it does not go against God.
As explained earlier, based on the early Greek documentation of the Gospel, Mary being "full of grace" was interpreted as being filled by the Grace of God, therefore without sin, thus able to conceive and give birth to Christ.

Hope this helps! And I agree: the deeper we know our Lord, the better Christians we can be.

starfield said:

Dear Starfield,

Please read my response in all of its entirety, before quoting and responding. I do present the argument that even though the Scriptures do not document so, it was interpreted as so (read earlier response).

Take care.

AtonedFor · Jul 13, 2012

Spartacus1122 said:

Let's see ...
My doctrine: the moon is purple in color.
Scripture: doesn't tell us the color.
So, my doctrine stands. Whoopie!

"Grace" means "God's unmerited favor" ... and has absolutely nothing to do with sin, or the lack thereof.
The very beginning of grace is that we even have a chance at Heaven ... because we all have an inherited sin nature (from the Fall).
Everyone sins, but many Christians fight against the FACT that they MUST sin because of their sin nature.
The Qur'an repeats over and over ... man just "chooses" to sin. It teaches against many of our major doctrines.

Historically, man has always been a spiritual idiot.
Satan is the greatest liar and deceiver in the history of the world.
Put these 2 together and you have a total disaster.
Being born again destroys much of man's blindness, but not all, and Satan's always there doing his thing.
.

feedm3 · Jul 13, 2012

AtonedFor said:

The Bible also teaches man "chooses to sin". No one is forced to sin. I dont know if that's what you meant or not. But we choose to sin when we give in to our lusts that are their by Satan.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man: 14 but each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed

Our flesh is by nature attracted to satisfy it to the lust of the flesh, eyes, and pride of life (I Jn 2:15). I said attracted, but NOT without control.
We are expected to discipline ourselves, and NOT give in to the lust, NOT choose to sin, even if the flesh wants to.
Even our Lord was tempted. The temptation is not a sin, the acting on the temptation is:

James 1:15 Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is fullgrown, bringeth forth death

It is by our own choice if our "lusts" are allowed to "conceive". This is why it's sin, because we have commands given to rule our flesh, and if we allow lust to conceive, then we transgress those commands, therefore violating God's laws and sinning because:

I Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law

Spartacus1122 · Jul 13, 2012

Dear Apostate,
This is a fallacious analogy, because you are indicating a contradiction, which I already explained, it is not the case.
A more accurate analogy would be:
Scripture: the moon is round and bright
Doctrine: the moon is round and bright, because of the illumination from the Sun.
As you can see, relying on scripture alone actually can (not always) blind us from more insightful understanding of it.

Ok... right, but you must have missed my earlier explanation of the original documentation (the Gospel was first written in ancient Greek, not modern English).
Once again, a good study on history and culture, not blind literal reading, saves the day. As I said earlier:
The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.
Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace."

The "must sin" part is Protestant doctrine. So which one is it? See how silly it is to get hanged up on doctrinal differences?
Why must we sin, if resisting sin is our way to please God? I agree that we are naturally prone to sin. But why must we? If we must because we just do, then whatta heck is the point of anything?

Are you calling me and others like me, idiots?
Being "born again" is only enlightening if it allows you to understand the word of God, not read it blindly to the point of historical and theological ignorance.

Satan is definitely deceitful......... the serpent slithers among followers of Christ, turning them into hateful, intolerant bigots... consequently turning on each others like jackals and hyenas.

I have shown you respect, and provided you fair explanations in a civilized manner.
Please return the favor.

Take care.

A deeper closer look at who Jesus really was

AtonedFor

Guest

Banned [Reason: insulting CC admin in previous pos

Chadtreme

Guest

AtonedFor

Guest

feedm3

Guest

Banned [Reason: insulting CC admin in previous pos

Banned

AtonedFor

Guest

Banned

AtonedFor

Guest

Banned

AtonedFor

Guest

feedm3

Guest

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned [Reason: insulting CC admin in previous pos

AtonedFor

Guest

feedm3

Guest

Banned [Reason: insulting CC admin in previous pos