This issue arose on another thread - I wanted to raise it here where I hope there will be some good responses!
I do not think that Jesus was not a man before the incarnation. The incarnation was all about Jesus becoming human, which is the same as becoming a man. That's another point, as the person disputing this said that being human and being a man are not the same thing, if I understood him correctly.
When Jesus incarnated, he became a man by adding on a human nature and body. The main support for this is Hebrews 2. The OT appearances of Jesus, even if he appeared as a man, do not say or mean he became a man at that time.
I am raising this here to clarify the issue.
Was Jesus A Man Before the Incarnation?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Marcia, Sep 1, 2006.
Page 1 of 9
-
If Jesus was a man before the incarnation (or even human if there is a man/human distinction) then you wind up with adoptionism. The church ruled that heresy with the Arian controversy of Nicea(?)
If Jesus was a man before incarnation then He was created (as man is not eternal) and therefore, not of the same nature as God. This leaves only the possibility that God adopted him at some point to fulfill his role. -
The Creed of Nicea
325 A.D
We believe in one God, the Father All-sovereign, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, and the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all the ages, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and comes again with glory to judge living and dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end:
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Life-giver, that proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and Son is worshipped together and glorified together, who spoke through the prophets:
In one holy catholic and apostolic church:
We acknowledge one baptism unto remission of sins. We look for a resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come. -
The orthodox position certainly is that Jesus became a man in the incarnation. The difference between being human and being a man does not fall outside of semantics (I contend there is no difference at all, but certainly no substantive difference). Passages which speak of Christophanies do not entail that the Son (or second person of the trinity if you like) was a man (or human if you like) before the incarnation. The Bible points to one event in which the Son became a man, and that is the Incarnation.
BJ -
BTW Nate may have been thinking of the The Apostles' Creed which did deal with Christ human side. When the Apostles' Creed was drawn up, the chief enemy was Gnosticism, which denied that Jesus was truly Man.
The Apostles' Creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell. [See Calvin]
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen. -
If it was, then Athanasius' point was that Jesus was the same essence of God. Whereas Arius was arguing that Jesus was man who became God (instead of the other way around). I think the view of the OP is similar to Arius' view that Jesus was man who became God. The difference being the argument from the OP would be that Jesus was preexistent man, but man nevertheless. -
Simply put this smacks of mormoism to me.Ask your friend who he thinks Christ Jesus really is.
-
-
Many OT passages describe him as an Angel, so I don't think he became a letter lower than that before entering Mary.
-
see next post..
-
Indeed it was, therefore the debate was over the deity of Christ and not over him being human.
The OP..
http://experts.about.com/q/Christianity-Church-History-2348/Paulicians.htm
Anyway...the Church seeing this weakness in the creed and facing these outsdie groups held the 1st gathering of Nicea. this was in 325
sorry....I love history. :)
In Christ..James -
Read Hebrews 1 and 2.
When Angel is used, it means "messager" in most cases. Context tells us if this is a real angel or Christ. If it is Christ its meaning is messager. Angels are made by God. Christ IS God.
In Christ...James -
Amen! Preach it!
-
-
Mormons would take that to far and disagree with Marcia (i hope) and say that we all pre-existed as spirits and got our bodies when we came to earth. Remember Mormons think Jesus is just one of us. Our older brother. -
Here is your Mormonisem. -
Just because Jesus appeared on earth in the OT in a certain form, that does not mean it was permanent! That is not the same as having a human body. -
When Mormons say this, they mean something entirely different, as you pointed out -- about how we all were spirits and took on bodies on earth (according to LDS teachings). This is NOT what I said!!!!! -
Human
HU'MAN, a. [L. humanus; Heb. form, species.]
1. Belonging to man or mankind; pertaining or relating to the race of man; as a human voice; human shape; human nature; human knowledge; human life.
2. Having the qualities of a man.
Page 1 of 9