Was Jesus the first man?
- Thread starter VickyK
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
From Genesis to the New Testament, it's all about the [WORD] dealing with humans.
The WORD visited humans in the Bible as
Angel of God
Angel of the Lord
Melchizedek
the Man with 2 Angels before Sodom and G
Burning Bush
General of God's Army to Joshua/allowed Joshua to [fleece] Him
Whirlwind in Job
in the Old Testament the Word is known as Yahweh
He was the 4th man with Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego
He was the [hand] that wrote the 10 Commandments
He was the Ark of the Covenant
He was the Ark of Noah
He is the Holy of Hollies
He was the Tree of Life in the Garden
But in the New testament, the WORD, is known as Jesus [Yeshua]
So being Jesus is not the [first time] the WORD {GOD} has become human, Angel, Fire, Tree, Boat, Cross, Savior to deal with His creation.
I am not sure I follow your line of reasoning. Why should the pre-incarnate Jesus be referred to only as "God" and not "Jesus"? Why can’t the name “Jesus” be used interchangeably as the NT authors use it, referring to Jesus by name in contexts where pre-existence is in view? I cited several texts (ie, Philippians 2:5-11, 1 Corinthians 8:6, etc.) where the text specifically mentions “Jesus” prior to the incarnation.
If you would like, we can discuss the topic of Unitarianism. It seems to me that you suffer from an identity crisis. As you have mislabeled yourself as Trinitarian, confusing it for Modalism.
Should I start from ground zero?
If you would like, we can discuss the topic of Unitarianism. It seems to me that you suffer from an identity crisis. As you have mislabeled yourself as Trinitarian, confusing it for Modalism.
Should I start from ground zero?
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Why should the pre-incarnate Jesus be referred to only as "God" and not "Jesus"?
Have you not answered your own question? It's like referring to a piece of bacon as a 'bacon sandwich' simply because the bacon was later placed in between two pieces of bread.
I would be happy to discuss Unitatrianism. If you're able, you may also message me.
Have you not answered your own question? It's like referring to a piece of bacon as a 'bacon sandwich' simply because the bacon was later placed in between two pieces of bread.
I would be happy to discuss Unitatrianism. If you're able, you may also message me.
I'm very tickled by the conversation. I've enjoyed every line.
I sense sarcasm. The Trinity isn't explicitly mentioned in the Bible, it is part of Christian culture but there are non-trinitarian denominations which are consistent with the Bible.
I offer the forth position, that the human condition is in question. What does it mean to be human? People of dust? People of spirit? What does eternal mean? If a prophet is shown the future, is it established in reality? Does time flow linearly for God? Did you exist before you where on Earth? What does eternal spirit mean?
If I envision the bacon sandwich before putting the sandwich together, are the parts before me not parts of a bacon sandwich despite not being physically actualised as a sandwich yet? This gets into a bit of semantics.
1 Cor 15:45-50 establishes that chronologically Adam was the first man:
""For it is written: The first man, Adam, became a living soul. The last Adam became the life-giving Spirit. However, the spiritual didn’t come first. The natural precedes the spiritual. The first man was from the dust of the earth; the second Man is the Lord Jehovah, from the realm of heaven. The first one, made from dust, has a race of people just like him, who are also made from dust. The One sent from heaven has a race of heavenly people who are just like him. Once we carried the likeness of the man of dust, but now let us carry the likeness of the Man of heaven." (TPT)
This would be like saying the God of Israel didn't exist before Israel. If we're assuming linear time without determinism, you could argue the semantic that the God of many names became the God of Israel only after Israel.
I suggest that 1 Cor 15:45-50 opens the discussion of the human condition as an aspect of the Trinity. Perhaps the perspective is that Jesus was always a Man of heaven, but not always chronologically a man of dust, but at the point on earth became both. Though, maybe there's more to that immaculate conception than meets the eye.
The entire topic is interesting, but aside from 1 Cor 15:45-50 saying that Jesus was not the first man of dust, my only other pursuit to the conversation is the element of the semantics of what any of it is supposed to mean. Kudos for the discussion.
I sense sarcasm. The Trinity isn't explicitly mentioned in the Bible, it is part of Christian culture but there are non-trinitarian denominations which are consistent with the Bible.
I offer the forth position, that the human condition is in question. What does it mean to be human? People of dust? People of spirit? What does eternal mean? If a prophet is shown the future, is it established in reality? Does time flow linearly for God? Did you exist before you where on Earth? What does eternal spirit mean?
If I envision the bacon sandwich before putting the sandwich together, are the parts before me not parts of a bacon sandwich despite not being physically actualised as a sandwich yet? This gets into a bit of semantics.
1 Cor 15:45-50 establishes that chronologically Adam was the first man:
""For it is written: The first man, Adam, became a living soul. The last Adam became the life-giving Spirit. However, the spiritual didn’t come first. The natural precedes the spiritual. The first man was from the dust of the earth; the second Man is the Lord Jehovah, from the realm of heaven. The first one, made from dust, has a race of people just like him, who are also made from dust. The One sent from heaven has a race of heavenly people who are just like him. Once we carried the likeness of the man of dust, but now let us carry the likeness of the Man of heaven." (TPT)
This would be like saying the God of Israel didn't exist before Israel. If we're assuming linear time without determinism, you could argue the semantic that the God of many names became the God of Israel only after Israel.
I suggest that 1 Cor 15:45-50 opens the discussion of the human condition as an aspect of the Trinity. Perhaps the perspective is that Jesus was always a Man of heaven, but not always chronologically a man of dust, but at the point on earth became both. Though, maybe there's more to that immaculate conception than meets the eye.
The entire topic is interesting, but aside from 1 Cor 15:45-50 saying that Jesus was not the first man of dust, my only other pursuit to the conversation is the element of the semantics of what any of it is supposed to mean. Kudos for the discussion.
The layout of my last post got really messed up, so I apologize for posting twice. This is take two!
It's of vital significance to understand that there are multiple forms of Unitarianism. One of the heresies of the Early Church was a form of Unitarianism known as Sabellianism, which didn't deny that Jesus was God, but rather, argued that it was the Father who took on flesh, and was incarnated in the person we know as Jesus. There are multiple Unitarian groups, all with significantly different views of Christ, but the primary belief that they each share is that God is one sole individual. In this particular scenario, it's important to understand what distinguishes Trinitarianism from Sabellianism/Modalism.
Modalism adheres that prior to the incarnation Jesus pre-existed as the person of the Father, who alone created the heavens and the earth. And in the incarnation that this pre-incarnate Jesus took on the role of "the Son." Whereas Trinitarianism teaches that the pre-existent Jesus eternally existed alongside, and whose work in creation is coextensive with that of the Father.
As I stated in an earlier post, I am (for now, at least) hesitant to label you Modalist, because there is the possibility that you are a Trinitarian that believes in incarnational Sonship (that is, the pre-incarnate Jesus, who existing eternally alongside the Father later assumed the role of "the Son" at a certain point in the incarnation).
So before I invest too much time into responding, I'd really like to know which side of the coin you fall on.
It's of vital significance to understand that there are multiple forms of Unitarianism. One of the heresies of the Early Church was a form of Unitarianism known as Sabellianism, which didn't deny that Jesus was God, but rather, argued that it was the Father who took on flesh, and was incarnated in the person we know as Jesus. There are multiple Unitarian groups, all with significantly different views of Christ, but the primary belief that they each share is that God is one sole individual. In this particular scenario, it's important to understand what distinguishes Trinitarianism from Sabellianism/Modalism.
Modalism adheres that prior to the incarnation Jesus pre-existed as the person of the Father, who alone created the heavens and the earth. And in the incarnation that this pre-incarnate Jesus took on the role of "the Son." Whereas Trinitarianism teaches that the pre-existent Jesus eternally existed alongside, and whose work in creation is coextensive with that of the Father.
As I stated in an earlier post, I am (for now, at least) hesitant to label you Modalist, because there is the possibility that you are a Trinitarian that believes in incarnational Sonship (that is, the pre-incarnate Jesus, who existing eternally alongside the Father later assumed the role of "the Son" at a certain point in the incarnation).
So before I invest too much time into responding, I'd really like to know which side of the coin you fall on.
God did not embody any human being. It's more like has a body He uses. Melchizedek, the General of God's Army, the 4th Man in furnace, the Man with 2 Angels were not different people. They were God being different people and using the same body. But these appearances are not at once but spread out over time in a 2,200 year period. So no one would ever see the same appearance more than once like Adam, Abraham, whatever Moses saw, and Joshua met a few times.