Jesus - First Born?

[amazing grace]

It does not mean "in harmony".
It is one of those places where we can see the unity of the Father and Son, unity of what they are. It is easy to see that they are distinct persons, and this shows they are one thing, and imo that means united in one, as one God. Something like a husband and wife are united as the one flesh during sex.

You are the one who keeps using the phrase "in harmony" - I believe I said in 'unity and purpose' - they are one because they have a united purpose. A husband and wife become one flesh . . . is that literally becoming one "thing"? I am not my husband nor is my husband me.
I keep reiterating Jesus' prayer in John 17 where Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be “one” as he and God were “one.” It is obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being or “substance” but Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose.

Yes you gave an answer, but Thomas was speaking to Jesus and not praying to God, and that is how Jesus could answer him.

I didn't say Thomas was "praying to God" either.

The Word, the Son of God who was with and in God in the beginning (beginning of all things, including time) and was the exact image of God.
They were companions, partners, equals, one the Father and one the Son, and joined in and by the one Spirit.

Zechariah 13:7Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, against the man who is My Companion, declares the LORD of Hosts. Strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn My hand against the little ones.

Ever wonder why the logos is considered a person only in Gospel of John, i.e. John 1 and nowhere else in scripture? And the logos didn't even become flesh until verse 14 but yet "the Son" is read in conjunction with logos starting in the very first verse of John 1!

That is just what conception is. Life comes from the parents and grows in the womb. The life given Adam and Eve has come down to us, like a flame that grows bigger. Same with the animals and plants. It is not God creating new plants or animals all the time. Creation ended on the 6th day.
Heb 7:10 For when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the loin of his ancestor.

Yep, individual human beings are made through procreation between a husband and wife. Yes, the act of creating was ended on the 6th day and on the 7th God rested.
BUT - the thing is there had to be another man, genetically perfect to come who would fix what Adam messed up through disobedience. A man who would redeem and reconcile mankind from Adam's disobedience - God never promised to send himself to redeem mankind rather He promised that "the seed of the woman" would come and that this man would do the necessary work.

I use a variety of translations. I prefer the ESV to the NIV and so have been using the ESV a fair bit recently.
"The Word" in John 1:1 I am told indicates a person, not a thing, just as "the God" (with the definite article) indicated God in John 1:1 "with the God".
"and the Word was God" (no definite article) (John 1:1) imo shows that the Word was exactly like "the God".
This exactly like includes being alive, as John 1:4 says "in Him was life".
"God said" does not mean that God's Word was not a person.
I think John 1 is special with relation to the use of Logos and that can be seen in the grammar and what is said about the Logos both there are further down in Chapter 1. (eg John 1:10)

ESV - In the beginning was the Word (the logos), and the Word (the logos) was with God, and the Word (the logos) was God. Where is the definite article "the" God?

I think trinitarians go overboard in they way they speak. I don't think rhetoric like "Mary is the mother of God" helps.
But the Son of God, the Word, a spirit, was joined to the flesh of Mary and became a man.

But if Jesus is God come to, descended into the world as a man and he was conceived in the womb of Mary to come into existence then Mary would be considered His mother.

God is Spirit (John 4:24) . . . Jesus Christ is referred to in scripture as "the Spirit" because he became a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) in this context meaning that God has given Christ the power to raise the dead, (John 5:21; John 6:39-54; 11:25) The context is speaking of raising the dead (1 Cor. 15:35, 42) It is also true that Jesus gives us power in this life (2 Cor. 4:7-10; 2 Cor. 12:9; 2 Tim. 1:7) The NT sometimes refers to him as "the Spirit" but he still had a flesh and bone body.

 

[amazing grace]

@Brian2

Here is an excerpt from the book, One God & One Lord: Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith (Mark H. Graeser, John H. Lynn and John M. Schoenheit) Maybe this will help a little on my understanding of John 1 regarding the "logos":

It is a challenge for the modern translator to even translate the word logos into a single English word. Logos is derived from lego, meaning to say or speak", and its root, leg, means "to gather or arrange. For the Greeks, to speak is to utter the arrangement or gather of one's thoughts. Logos expressed the essential unity of language and thought, both of which consist . . . of words. . . . . To have and give a logos was, in ancient Greece, to have and give a rational account a reasonable explanation. (pg. 219)
Logos, then, in its original Greek usage, encompassed human language and thought in its relation to the things of human experience and the purpose of human existence. The biblical usage of logos runs parallel to this concept in that "the Word" is God's purpose or plan, His reasonable explanation of, and His rationale for, His creation of all things before they became corrupted in human experience. (pg.220)

Excerpt from Sir Anthony Buzzard (Buzzard and Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity) But what was it that became flesh in John 1:14? Was it a pre-existing person? Or was it the self-expressive activity of God the Father, His eternal plan? A plan may take flesh, for example, when the design in the architecture's mind finally takes shape as a house. What pre-existed the visible bricks and mortar was the intention in the mind of the architect. Thus, it is quite in order to read John 1:1-3a: "In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]. All things came into being through it." This rendering suits the OT use of "word" admirably: "So shall my word be that goes forth out of my mouth; it shall not return to me empty without accomplishing what I desire and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it." (pg. 220)

We are now in a better position to see why Jesus is known as "the word (logos) in the flesh". Jesus was the ultimate expression of God. God's plan, wisdom and purpose was the logos and when we speak of the Bible, it is called "the Word" because it also is God's expression of Himself. When we speak of a prophecy, we say it is "the word of the Lord" both because it is in the form of words and because it is God's expression of Himself. Jesus was the logos in the most complete sense. He was the ultimate expression of God and the essence of His plan and purpose. (pg. 220)

 

[Soapy]

You read in the passages I quoted that Jesus said that He came from heaven, and then you tell me that Jesus never said that He came from heaven.

You are just stalling like politicians do.

God did not sent ‘GOD’ from anywhere.
The sending of Jesus was AFTER he was anointed with the spirit of God. If Jesus was GOD then there would be no need to be anointed with God’s spirit.

@AmazingGrace showed you that the correct translation is ‘Came from God’ and ‘Sent from God’. Only the trinitarian translation in the book of John (always said to be suspiciously presented!) claims that Jesus ‘CAME / WAS SENT from Heaven’.

Also, it makes no sense to say, ‘No one has ascended into Heaven except the one who descended from Heaven - the Son of man’. As we know, and you must agree, the ‘Son of man’ did not come from nor was sent from Heaven nor was the Son of man descended from Heaven. Nowhere in any valid book or verse in a book is there any such claim as that would be ridiculous and more to the point, untrue!

 

[Soapy]

Jesus was born both Lord and Christ.
Luke 2: 9 And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. 10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

Brian2, what does the title ‘Christ’ mean?

It means ‘Anointed one’. Jesus was not anointed until he was about 30 years old.

The books of the Bible were written many many years after Jesus ascended into Heaven. It is reasonable (but seemingly wrong!) to state an after event as though it were s pre-event. It is like saying about Elon Musk:

• ‘Here is a childhood photo of he who is the wealthiest in the world’…

The ’problem’ is about the language usage.. it should properly be:

• ‘Here is a childhood photo of he who IS TO BECOME the wealthiest in the world’

For sure, Elon Musk was not the wealthiest in the world when he was born nor in his childhood - but BECAME SO when he was blessed and empowered by the business that brought him his wealth.

You read in the passages I quoted that Jesus said that He came from heaven, and then you tell me that Jesus never said that He came from heaven.

Trinitarians translated the text that way. But they did a poor job because many other things Jesus said DO NOT TALLY with those claims of being sent ‘FROM HEAVEN’. Jesus consistently states that he was sent ‘FROM’ and ‘BY’ God (The Father). And as for, ‘Descended from Heaven’, even the text saying Manna was sent from Heaven cannot be true since Manna is material matter - physical food from within creation.

It is and should be stated as ‘Manna came from God’ - not ‘Manna came from Heaven’. There is no ‘Manna’ in Heaven!! God brought together the chemical element of the created world to form the material that showed as Manna.

 

[Brian2]

Brian2, what does the title ‘Christ’ mean?

It means ‘Anointed one’. Jesus was not anointed until he was about 30 years old.

The books of the Bible were written many many years after Jesus ascended into Heaven. It is reasonable (but seemingly wrong!) to state an after event as though it were s pre-event. It is like saying about Elon Musk:

• ‘Here is a childhood photo of he who is the wealthiest in the world’…

The ’problem’ is about the language usage.. it should properly be:

• ‘Here is a childhood photo of he who IS TO BECOME the wealthiest in the world’

For sure, Elon Musk was not the wealthiest in the world when he was born nor in his childhood - but BECAME SO when he was blessed and empowered by the business that brought him his wealth.

You are presuming that the anointing of Jesus to be the Christ was at His baptism. However the Bible tells us, using the language it uses and not the language that you think it should use, that the baby Jesus was already Lord and Christ. That means that you are mistaken about when Jesus was anointed. It appears that He must have been anointed before He was born. I don't think in the womb, so I would say in heaven. Presumably when He Father said to Him "I want you to go to earth as the Christ".
So Luke 2:9 is also a proof text for the pre existence of Jesus.

Trinitarians translated the text that way. But they did a poor job because many other things Jesus said DO NOT TALLY with those claims of being sent ‘FROM HEAVEN’. Jesus consistently states that he was sent ‘FROM’ and ‘BY’ God (The Father). And as for, ‘Descended from Heaven’, even the text saying Manna was sent from Heaven cannot be true since Manna is material matter - physical food from within creation.

It is and should be stated as ‘Manna came from God’ - not ‘Manna came from Heaven’. There is no ‘Manna’ in Heaven!! God brought together the chemical element of the created world to form the material that showed as Manna.

John 6:29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” 30 So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

Manna fell from heaven, the sky, but Jesus came from the heaven where God is.
What's the problem?
I know what the problem is, you do not believe Jesus was the bread that came from heaven. But that is your problem, not the Bible's problem, and nothing to do with the translators.

 

[Brian2]

You are just stalking like politicians do.

God did not sent ‘GOD’ from anywhere.
The sending of Jesus was AFTER he was anointed with the spirit of God. If Jesus was GOD then there would be no need to be anointed with God’s spirit.

@AmazingGrace showed you that the correct translation is ‘Came from God’ and ‘Sent from God’. Only the trinitarian translation in the book of John (always said to be suspiciously presented!) claims that Jesus ‘CAME / WAS SENT from Heaven’.

Also, it makes no sense to say, ‘No one has ascended into Heaven except the one who descended from Heaven - the Son of man’. As we know, and you must agree, the ‘Son of man’ did not come from nor was sent from Heaven nor was the Son of man descended from Heaven. Nowhere in any valid book or verse in a book is there any such claim as that would be ridiculous and more to the point, untrue!

That sentence "Nobody has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven" is a strange one imo
Let's leave it out of the list of texts about Jesus pre existing in heaven. Problem solved and Jesus still shown to have come from heaven, from God in heaven, and to have gone back to heaven, where He came from and to the glory He had with His Father before the world was made.
Maybe you should do what @AmazingGrace does and say that Jesus was in heaven in the mind of God and just dismiss any mention of Jesus pre existence that way.
It becomes hard to do that when we are told the Jesus was Lord and Christ as a baby, implying anointing in heaven (Luke 2:9) and that through Him everything was made. But it works for @AmazingGrace, I guess Jesus must have been anointed in the mind of God and was only a thing (The Word) when helping with creation, even if John 1 says that life was in the Word.
But it is your belief and I'm sure you will work it out.

 

[Brian2]

@Brian2

Here is an excerpt from the book, One God & One Lord: Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith (Mark H. Graeser, John H. Lynn and John M. Schoenheit) Maybe this will help a little on my understanding of John 1 regarding the "logos":

It is a challenge for the modern translator to even translate the word logos into a single English word. Logos is derived from lego, meaning to say or speak", and its root, leg, means "to gather or arrange. For the Greeks, to speak is to utter the arrangement or gather of one's thoughts. Logos expressed the essential unity of language and thought, both of which consist . . . of words. . . . . To have and give a logos was, in ancient Greece, to have and give a rational account a reasonable explanation. (pg. 219)
Logos, then, in its original Greek usage, encompassed human language and thought in its relation to the things of human experience and the purpose of human existence. The biblical usage of logos runs parallel to this concept in that "the Word" is God's purpose or plan, His reasonable explanation of, and His rationale for, His creation of all things before they became corrupted in human experience. (pg.220)

Excerpt from Sir Anthony Buzzard (Buzzard and Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity) But what was it that became flesh in John 1:14? Was it a pre-existing person? Or was it the self-expressive activity of God the Father, His eternal plan? A plan may take flesh, for example, when the design in the architecture's mind finally takes shape as a house. What pre-existed the visible bricks and mortar was the intention in the mind of the architect. Thus, it is quite in order to read John 1:1-3a: "In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]. All things came into being through it." This rendering suits the OT use of "word" admirably: "So shall my word be that goes forth out of my mouth; it shall not return to me empty without accomplishing what I desire and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it." (pg. 220)

We are now in a better position to see why Jesus is known as "the word (logos) in the flesh". Jesus was the ultimate expression of God. God's plan, wisdom and purpose was the logos and when we speak of the Bible, it is called "the Word" because it also is God's expression of Himself. When we speak of a prophecy, we say it is "the word of the Lord" both because it is in the form of words and because it is God's expression of Himself. Jesus was the logos in the most complete sense. He was the ultimate expression of God and the essence of His plan and purpose. (pg. 220)

The Word was so much the ultimate expression of God and His plan and purpose that the Word was living and exactly like God His Father, in and with whom He is and from whom He came.
In the beginning, before time existed, was the Word,,,,,,,,,,,,, that is from eternity. If the Word came into being then time would need to have existed.
The beginning of creation was the start of time and the unfolding of God's plan, God's living plan in the creation that God created through the Word, the living Word, the Word exactly like His Father. imo

 

[blü 2]

Excerpt from Sir Anthony Buzzard (Buzzard and Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity) But what was it that became flesh in John 1:14? Was it a pre-existing person? Or was it the self-expressive activity of God the Father, His eternal plan? A plan may take flesh, for example, when the design in the architecture's mind finally takes shape as a house. What pre-existed the visible bricks and mortar was the intention in the mind of the architect. Thus, it is quite in order to read John 1:1-3a: "In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]. All things came into being through it." This rendering suits the OT use of "word" admirably: "So shall my word be that goes forth out of my mouth; it shall not return to me empty without accomplishing what I desire and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it." (pg. 220)

The problem with this is a common problem in Christian writings ─ it proceeds on the basis that the NT describes a single Jesus, when in fact there are five distinct Jesuses there, Paul's and the four gospel versions. So what was made flesh in John? Well, John's Jesus, like Paul's, pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe (a role very similar to gnosticism's 'demiurge' ('craftsman'). But Mark's Jesus was just an ordinary Jew until JtB baptized him, the heavens opened, and God adopted him as [his] son, just as God had adopted David as [his] son in Psalm 2:7 (as explicitly confirmed Acts 13:33). And as is notorious, the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Mark were 'conceived of the Holy Ghost' by Mary, a virgin, so that we must assume these two versions of Jesus had God's Y-chromosome; but there is no suggestion, no hint, that either of them existed before their respective conceptions.

So Mark's Jesus was made flesh in the ordinary way, and dwelt among us in the ordinary way, until his baptism. And the Jesuses of Matthew and of Luke did not pre-exist their divine conception. Only the Jesuses of Paul and of John pre-existed with God, let alone created the material universe.

The five versions are irreconcilable. If (as many Christians like to do) you cobble a further version of Jesus from parts that appeal to you in the five versions mentioned, you'll end up with a sixth version that like the other five, has major differences with all the other versions ─ hardly an improvement.

 

[Brian2]

You are the one who keeps using the phrase "in harmony" - I believe I said in 'unity and purpose' - they are one because they have a united purpose. A husband and wife become one flesh . . . is that literally becoming one "thing"? I am not my husband nor is my husband me.
I keep reiterating Jesus' prayer in John 17 where Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be “one” as he and God were “one.” It is obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being or “substance” but Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose.

One in purpose comes after being one thing. Christians are all part of the body of Christ and united in purpose through the one Spirit we have.

Ever wonder why the logos is considered a person only in Gospel of John, i.e. John 1 and nowhere else in scripture? And the logos didn't even become flesh until verse 14 but yet "the Son" is read in conjunction with logos starting in the very first verse of John 1!

I have wondered along those lines before.

Yep, individual human beings are made through procreation between a husband and wife. Yes, the act of creating was ended on the 6th day and on the 7th God rested.
BUT - the thing is there had to be another man, genetically perfect to come who would fix what Adam messed up through disobedience. A man who would redeem and reconcile mankind from Adam's disobedience - God never promised to send himself to redeem mankind rather He promised that "the seed of the woman" would come and that this man would do the necessary work.

So you think that sin is a product of genetics?

ESV - In the beginning was the Word (the logos), and the Word (the logos) was with God, and the Word (the logos) was God. Where is the definite article "the" God?

No definite article with the 2nd "God" in John 1:1. I hear this is showing that the Word was exactly like "the God" He was with.
The Word coming from "the God" and so the Son of "the God".

But if Jesus is God come to, descended into the world as a man and he was conceived in the womb of Mary to come into existence then Mary would be considered His mother.

Mary is the mother of the man. The person however came from His Father.

God is Spirit (John 4:24) . . . Jesus Christ is referred to in scripture as "the Spirit" because he became a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) in this context meaning that God has given Christ the power to raise the dead, (John 5:21; John 6:39-54; 11:25) The context is speaking of raising the dead (1 Cor. 15:35, 42) It is also true that Jesus gives us power in this life (2 Cor. 4:7-10; 2 Cor. 12:9; 2 Tim. 1:7) The NT sometimes refers to him as "the Spirit" but he still had a flesh and bone body.

Jesus did not "become" a life giving spirit but was a life giving spirit. The prehuman Jesus was a spirit and exactly like His Father who gives life. We take after the last Adam, the spiritual Adam, the life giving Spirit Adam.
Am in a hurry and so am not answering as fully as I would like.

 

[Eli G]

One in purpose comes after being one thing. Christians are all part of the body of Christ and united in purpose through the one Spirit we have.
...

What unity are you talking about? Is there any unity in Christendom?

The spirit of God does not produce the fruits of the Christendom members and groups like false and contradictory teachings.

I can see real unity among the more than 8 millions of JWs around the planet. This unity and love is real.

 

[blü 2]

Jesus did not "become" a life giving spirit but was a life giving spirit. The prehuman Jesus was a spirit and exactly like His Father who gives life.

No.

As I remarked to @amazing grace above at #208 above, there are five distinct versions of Jesus in the NT, and they're of three distinct kinds,

The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John each pre-existed in heaven with God and each created the material universe, very like the 'demiurge' in gnosticism.

However, the Jesus of Mark is simply an ordinary Jew until his baptism by JtB, at which point the heavens open and God adopts him as [his] son, as [he] had adopted David as [his] son in Psalm 2:7. There is no suggestion in Mark that Jesus had been the "son" of God in any special sense before then.

And the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke were each conceived when the holy spirit impregnated a virgin. There is no suggestion in either case that either had existed before then.

So as you can see, even before we start on the life of Jesus, the three different models of Jesus' origin are irreconcilable. And of course (given a Jesus that existed in history) only Mark's is anywhere near credible.

 

[Eli G]

... there are five distinct versions of Jesus in the NT, and they're of three distinct kinds, ...

Different versions of Jesus? Really? Do you study the Bible? Or you just heard that?

I am one of JWs in the world, I've been for more than 30 years baptized ... and believe me, you will not have studied Jesus any more than a witness will have studied it with the Bible in hand.

Every week all of Jehovah's Witnesses around the world study about Jesus and Jehovah in two meetings of more than one hour each, and every year we meet in larger groups to study the Bible many more times. We also study it at home with a library that encompasses such abundant Biblical information that you could not imagine starting to study it and finishing all of it in a full course of 5 or 6 years. That's how much it is...

I can assure you: all the biblical stories about Jesus show us such a solid and realistic personality, that those who have seriously studied the Bible have realized that it is impossible for these stories not to be based on a real person.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Different versions of Jesus? Really? Do you study the Bible? Or you just heard that?

I am one of JWs in the world, I've been for more than 30 years baptized ... and believe me, you will not have studied Jesus any more than a witness will have studied it with the Bible in hand.

Every week all of Jehovah's Witnesses around the world study about Jesus and Jehovah in two meetings of more than one hour each, and every year we meet in larger groups to study the Bible many more times. We also study it at home with a library that encompasses such abundant Biblical information that you could not imagine starting to study it and finishing all of it in a full course of 5 or 6 years. That's how much it is...

I can assure you: all the biblical stories about Jesus show us such a solid and realistic personality, that those who have seriously studied the Bible have realized that it is impossible for these stories not to be based on a real person.

If that is the case you should be able to support your claims. All that we have seen so far are empty claims. When it comes to education the JW's are outperformed by almost everyone.

 

[Brian2]

What unity are you talking about? Is there any unity in Christendom?

The spirit of God does not produce the fruits of the Christendom members and groups like false and contradictory teachings.

I can see real unity among the more than 8 millions of JWs around the planet. This unity and love is real.

I am talking about the body of Christ, which according to JW doctrine only the anointed JWs are members of.

 

[blü 2]

Different versions of Jesus? Really? Do you study the Bible? Or you just heard that?

I am one of JWs in the world, I've been for more than 30 years baptized ... and believe me, you will not have studied Jesus any more than a witness will have studied it with the Bible in hand.

But one possible difference is that I'm interested in what it actually says, and have no preconceptions about what it "ought to say".

I said that the Jesus of Paul pre-existed with God in heaven and created the material universe.

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.​

I said that the Jesus of John pre-existed with God in heaven and created the material universe.

John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.​

​

John 17:5 and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory that I had with thee before the world was made.​

(And in John there are several other references.)

I said that the Jesus of Mark was an ordinary Jew until his baptism, at which point God adopted him as [his] son.

Mark 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.​

5 And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.​

6 Now John was clothed with camel's hair, and had a leather girdle around his waist, and ate locusts and wild honey.​

7 And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.​

8 I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit​

9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.​

10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove;​

11 and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."​

I said that this followed the adoption formula for David in Psalm 2:7.

Psalm 2:7 I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my son, today I have begotten you.​

I said that this connection was affirmed in Acts 13:33.

Acts 13:33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, 'Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.'​

I said that the Jesus of Matthew was born of a virgin inseminated by the holy ghost. I said that the Jesus of Luke was born of a virgin inseminated by the holy ghost. Do you require quotes for those?

And I point out that nowhere in Matthew and nowhere in Luke does the relevant author suggest that Jesus pre-existed in heaven (let alone usurped Yahweh's role in the creation).

I can add here that Paul (Romans 1:3) says his Jesus is descended from David. The author of Mark says his Jesus is not descended from David (Mark 12:35-37). The respective authors of Matthew (Matthew 1:6) and of Luke (Luke 3:31) say that their Jesuses are descended from David, and provide genealogies (not only spurious but entirely incompatible) purporting absurdly to show that Joseph ─ expressly NOT the father of Jesus in these cases ─ is descended from David. The author of John (John 7:42) says his Jesus is descended from David but gives no account either of Jesus' parentage or birth.

Let me know if I can be of further help.

 

[Soapy]

You are presuming that the anointing of Jesus to be the Christ was at His baptism. However the Bible tells us, using the language it uses and not the language that you think it should use, that the baby Jesus was already Lord and Christ. That means that you are mistaken about when Jesus was anointed. It appears that He must have been anointed before He was born. I don't think in the womb, so I would say in heaven. Presumably when He Father said to Him "I want you to go to earth as the Christ".
So Luke 2:9 is also a proof text for the pre existence of Jesus.



John 6:29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” 30 So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

Manna fell from heaven, the sky, but Jesus came from the heaven where God is.
What's the problem?
I know what the problem is, you do not believe Jesus was the bread that came from heaven. But that is your problem, not the Bible's problem, and nothing to do with the translators.

I believe that Jesus is the bread that came from God:

• ‘The bread of God is he who comes from God and gives life to the world’

God sent Jesus to be the giver of life to those who were in spiritual hunger.

Your argument is that Jesus IS GOD who was SENT BY GOD from Heaven.

You cherrypick when you want Jesus to be God and when you don’t want him to be God. In another place you say that Jesus - who you imply is God in Heaven - might have been anointed to become Christ while in Heaven and then came to be born on earth as a man.
Well, what nonsense that is.

 

[Soapy]

That sentence "Nobody has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven" is a strange one imo
Let's leave it out of the list of texts about Jesus pre existing in heaven. Problem solved and Jesus still shown to have come from heaven, from God in heaven, and to have gone back to heaven, where He came from and to the glory He had with His Father before the world was made.
Maybe you should do what @AmazingGrace does and say that Jesus was in heaven in the mind of God and just dismiss any mention of Jesus pre existence that way.
It becomes hard to do that when we are told the Jesus was Lord and Christ as a baby, implying anointing in heaven (Luke 2:9) and that through Him everything was made. But it works for @AmazingGrace, I guess Jesus must have been anointed in the mind of God and was only a thing (The Word) when helping with creation, even if John 1 says that life was in the Word.
But it is your belief and I'm sure you will work it out.

Oh Brian2… Brian2, why are you so all over the place with your obviously unconnected ideology?

Each time I see your post I wonder what nonsense you are going to come out with this time. But I see that at least this time you have admitted that the claim that ‘Nobody has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven" (and you left out the part about ‘-the Son of man’) is problematic.

I’m glad you are starting to see that the book of John is attempting to set a stage but has made grievous errors in its attempt.

But, Brian2, there are plenty more errors in the book of John - which is why this book has ALWAYS BEEN ‘standout different’.. something not quite right!!

 

[amazing grace]

The Word was so much the ultimate expression of God and His plan and purpose that the Word was living and exactly like God His Father, in and with whom He is and from whom He came.
In the beginning, before time existed, was the Word,,,,,,,,,,,,, that is from eternity. If the Word came into being then time would need to have existed.
The beginning of creation was the start of time and the unfolding of God's plan, God's living plan in the creation that God created through the Word, the living Word, the Word exactly like His Father. imo

The Jews of that time would have understood it to mean "plan" or "purpose" - that plan put forth in Gen. 3:15---a "seed" of a woman who would destroy the works of the Devil. This plan of God for the salvation of man finally “became flesh” in Jesus Christ.

 

[amazing grace]

The problem with this is a common problem in Christian writings ─ it proceeds on the basis that the NT describes a single Jesus, when in fact there are five distinct Jesuses there, Paul's and the four gospel versions. So what was made flesh in John? Well, John's Jesus, like Paul's, pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe (a role very similar to gnosticism's 'demiurge' ('craftsman'). But Mark's Jesus was just an ordinary Jew until JtB baptized him, the heavens opened, and God adopted him as [his] son, just as God had adopted David as [his] son in Psalm 2:7 (as explicitly confirmed Acts 13:33). And as is notorious, the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Mark were 'conceived of the Holy Ghost' by Mary, a virgin, so that we must assume these two versions of Jesus had God's Y-chromosome; but there is no suggestion, no hint, that either of them existed before their respective conceptions.

So Mark's Jesus was made flesh in the ordinary way, and dwelt among us in the ordinary way, until his baptism. And the Jesuses of Matthew and of Luke did not pre-exist their divine conception. Only the Jesuses of Paul and of John pre-existed with God, let alone created the material universe.

The five versions are irreconcilable. If (as many Christians like to do) you cobble a further version of Jesus from parts that appeal to you in the five versions mentioned, you'll end up with a sixth version that like the other five, has major differences with all the other versions ─ hardly an improvement.

I believe that the gospels, all four gospels, portray one Jesus. The synoptic (to veiw together) gospels, Matt., Mark, and Luke share a similar view of the Lord's life and contain much overlapping information in their narrative accounts of the life of Jesus whereas John presents a unique and independent view of Christ as the Son of God with less of its material paralleled in any of the Synoptics.

There is a fourfold pattern or paradigm in presented in these gospels - In Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as a King; in Mark - he is portrayed as a servant, in Luke - he is portrayed as man; and in John - he is portrayed as a Son. These terms or portrayals of the Messiah are reflected in OT depictions of the "Branch" from the OT.

 

[amazing grace]

One in purpose comes after being one thing. Christians are all part of the body of Christ and united in purpose through the one Spirit we have.

(sigh) being "one thing" - God is not Jesus and Jesus is not God. Yes, we are all members, individually, in one body - if there are fifty members - there are fifty individuals - not one individual; i.e. "NOT ONE THING". Your arm is part of your singular body and your leg is part of your singular body but your arm is not your leg nor your leg your arm.

I have wondered along those lines before.

So you think that sin is a product of genetics?

I believe that Adam was part of a creation that God declared to be "very good". His "seed" therefore was perfectly designed to reproduce "fruit after its kind" making Adam "genetically flawless". But by his action of sinning, all their offspring would carry that "imperfection" of a "sin nature". (Romans 5:12) So, if Jesus was born of a man and woman, he would have carried that "sin nature". As the First Adam was in the beginning, the Last Adam, to be the Redeemer of mankind, would have to start with a sinless nature, i.e. without the sin nature.

No definite article with the 2nd "God" in John 1:1. I hear this is showing that the Word was exactly like "the God" He was with.
The Word coming from "the God" and so the Son of "the God".

I see no definite article in the phrases: was with God and was God in the KJV or ESV.
The word - the plan and purpose of God was with God and was God - that word became flesh in and through the Son of God, Jesus Christ - the Living Word of God, who came from God and was sent by God via conception and birth. I don't believe that I have ever seen the expression "Son of the God" . . . .

Mary is the mother of the man. The person however came from His Father.

Mary is the mother of Jesus of Nazareth who was conceived via the Holy Spirit, the power of the Most High - God's creative power.

Jesus did not "become" a life giving spirit but was a life giving spirit. The prehuman Jesus was a spirit and exactly like His Father who gives life. We take after the last Adam, the spiritual Adam, the life giving Spirit Adam.
Am in a hurry and so am not answering as fully as I would like.

"become" or "has become" is supplied from the context. The first human, Adam, “became” a living soul when God took his body that was formed from the ground and breathed life into it - Here in 1 Cor 15:45, Jesus Christ has become a “life-giving spirit.” When God raised Jesus from the dead, the “last Adam” had a spirit-powered body and the authority to give eternal life to people.