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.
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?
Good question. Why are you asking me? I have at no point mentioned 'the Father' or 'the Son'.
The definition of Jesus is 'fully human and fully divine'. This would suggest he is the first man.
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.
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
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
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.
What does 'Jesus' refer to if not the FHaFd man? Why not simply refer to God?
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].
Well - yes and no.
Your statements are mostly correct.
However, there exists a very special and unique association between the Father and the Word.
An explanation for it is written in the OP of the thread I linked to.
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.
The human race.
I presently know of only two or three places in the O.T. where 'father' is attributed to the Father:
1) Psalms 68:5
2) Psalms 89:26
3) Malachi 2:10
The first one speaks to the 'character' and 'personality' of God.
The second one speaks to the relationship between David and God.
The third may be referring to the Father - but, "at a glance" (without further deeper study) - I believe it is actually referring to Abraham.
In all of these places - in-so-much as they actually refer to the Father - they "position" Him as being the father of/to the human race that is His creation.
Nope - sorry.
1 Corinthians 15:
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
Every word he/his/him in this verse is referring to Jesus.
No part of it is referring to Adam.
Because 'God' encompasses a lot more than 'jesus'.
'God' is all-that-is-God.
'Jesus' is the God-man.
Jesus is the only begotten of the One True Living God.
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.
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.
John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Jesus is the Word incarnate.
Jesus ==> Body, Soul, and Spirit
Word ==> Soul and Spirit
The very same Soul and Spirit.
Jesus [minus] Body is the Word.
The Word "was made flesh" (verse 14) and "became" Jesus - 'God in the flesh'.
Please read the OP of this thread for a more complete explanation:
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...of-god-word-father-son-and-the-trinity.72792/
It should answer your questions.
Oh, I totally agree. My explanation in post #195 was to indicate that all other-than-Jesus-related references to 'father' in the O.T. were actually a 'secondary-indirect' form/type of reference (with regard to the human race) - as opposed to being a direct progenitive father-son type of reference.
The phrase 'Son of man' is associated with Jesus being the God-man - as the only-begotten 'from'/'out of' the human race.