Was Jesus the first man?

I do not understand this question. Rephrase it.

If the Son only became "the Son" at the incarnation, does that mean the Father also became "the Father" at that same point in time? For there to have been a Father (prior to the incarnation) would imply that He was a Father to someone. But to who?

Amen. Jesus has always existed as God but He did not come down into this world and manifest as man until 4,000 years after He created Adam.

Not necessarily. Scenario B is Trinitarian incarnational Sonship. However, Scenario A is Unitarian incarnational Sonship. Surely, if Scenario B were your view then you would not need to fear being reported.

Good question. Why are you asking me? I have at no point mentioned 'the Father' or 'the Son'.

Recall the question that you said you could not answer for the fear of being banned (see posts #152, 153, and 154); this directly corresponds to that. There are several layers to your doctrine of God/Christ (i.e., incarnational Sonship) that you take for granted. In order to get to the pulp of an orange, we have to peal back the layers of zest and rind.

The definition of Jesus is 'fully human and fully divine'. This would suggest he is the first man.

Jesus became 'fully human and fully divine' 2000 years ago. Adam was created over 6000 years ago. Jesus was with the Father before He became a man and before He created man. Like His Father, He has always been.

In order to get to the pulp of an orange, we have to peal back the layers of zest and rind.

What does 'Jesus' refer to if not the FHaFd man? Why not simply refer to God?

only God the Son is the Word

neither God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit are the Word

the Word is God but God is not the Word

Trinity is a mysterious concept indeed. Jesus did converse with Father, both when He was in Heaven and when He was on Earth. Jesus has always been FD, but did become FHFD to be able to pay the required price for our redemption from the stain of sin.

Here we have the Father and Son FD conversing before they made Adam:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


And here we have Jesus FHFD talking to Father while He was on Earth...

Matthew 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt].

If the Son only became "the Son" at the incarnation, does that mean the Father also became "the Father" at that same point in time? For there to have been a Father (prior to the incarnation) would imply that He was a Father to someone. But to who?

Our Lord Jesus is the first man in preeminence. Above all,

For he (that is Jesus as Creator) hath put all things under his (that is Adam as created) feet. But when he (Jesus) saith all things are put under him (Adam) it is manifest that he (Jesus) is excepted, which did put all things under him (Adam). 1Cor.15:27

What does 'Jesus' refer to if not the FHaFd man? Why not simply refer to God?

I would never deny the Trinity, as that would be heresy and thus result in my being reported.

Hypothetically speaking, would it be inconsistent with scripture to suggest that there is one God, whom in the guise of man was known as Jesus? God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. He is present in ALL things. Why is it necessary that He be compartmentalised?

I am also hearing the argument that the Word was Jesus, before Jesus existed as a man. This makes even less sense to me. If Jesus has always been and always is (I wouldn't suggest he isn't, that would be a heresy) then why you refer to him as the the Word, as opposed to Jesus? And why refer to Jesus, as opposed to God? Since Jesus died, should I refer to his resurrected body as the Resurrected? Then I could retcon the terms 'the Word' and 'Jesus' as referring to the Ressurected.

I am not arguing that personally. I believe in the Trinity and the Eternality of Christ Jesus.

When our Bible speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost Trinity, it is clearly setting forth the Father as being Father to the Son and the Son as being Son to the Father. It is not referring to the Father as being Father to the Human race nor is it referring to the Son as being Son to the Human race in these particular instances.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


I agree that there are places where 'Son of Man' is the context:

Luke 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and [in his] Father's, and of the holy angels.

And where The Father means 'Our Father':

Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.