Interpreting Jesus’ Birth
December 9th, 2009 by Sean
Interpretation #1:
From eternity past the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit existed as a community of one, perfect in love, harmony, and joy. In the enternal counsels of this triune God the plan of salvation for the yet-to-be-created human race was decreed. The only question was who would go. Overwhelmed with self-sacrificial love, the Son volunteered to humble himself by uniting humanity to his divinity, veiling his deity by taking on human flesh. Two thousand years ago, this salvation plan was carried out by the second person of the Trinity. He entered the virgin womb of Mary and suddenly she became pregnant with God the Son. He was perfect God and perfect man, not half divine and half human like Hercules, but fully God and fully man in a totally unique way. This incredible event is called the incarnation—the moment when God became man for our salvation. In fact, the cross is not really the most important event for redemption, the incarnation is. For without the humbling act of God giving up his divine prerogatives to condescend to the lowly state of a first century Palestinian Jew, the cross would mean nothing. Thus, in the grand scheme of things, the incarnation is the premier event that brought God to man so that man could be reconciled with God.
Interpretation #2:
Throughout all of human history, from the instant God promised to defeat the serpent through a descendant of Eve, God has been working to bring his plan into fruition. A millennium before Christ an upstart Jewish king was promised that one of his descendants would rule over Israel forever. God promised King David that he father this descendant who then by both a son of David and a son of God. Generation after generation, Jewish women of Davidic ancestry hoped that they might be the one to give birth to the Messiah. Then, two thousand years ago, a Jewish teenager from a tiny village in northern Galilee was visited by the angel Gabriel. She was informed that she would have a son through a divine miracle. This child would be great; he would be called the son of the Most High; he would rule over Jacob on the throne of David forever. In the face of suffering a scandalous reputation, Mary, a model believer for all subsequent generations, said, “May it be done to me according to your word.†In fact, Joseph, Mary’s fiancé, nearly broke the engagement off when he found out that she was pregnant, that is, until an angel intervened to confirm what she had said. Thus, the Davidic King was born—the one who would be anointed to rule Israel, and through Israel to bless all of the nations; the one who would set right the whole series of wrongs that had begun with Adam; the one who would voluntarily give up his own righteous life on behalf of others who did not deserve it. Finally, at long last, the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, was born.
Which story will you be thinking about this holiday season? Though most Christians have no difficulty in combining these two descriptions of Jesus’ birth, we would do well to recognize that the two have different origins. One derives its content from the theologically complex propositions of Christian philosophers which were developed many years after the New Testament had been completed. The other is taken directly from the Scriptures. If the former is correct it necessarily casts a long shadow upon the latter and it effectively eclipses the simplicity and elegance of the historical facts about Jesus. Whereas the first version extols the self-sacrificial act of God the Son who existed apart from and prior to humanity, the second focuses on how God carried out his plans within time by working within the human race. In the first, the message is that humanity is a depraved and helpless species in need of alien salvation. The second conveys the idea that God is able to save mankind through a man, which thereby gives dignity and hope to all humans. In fact, from the point of view of the second account, Jesus is a new Adam—a new humanity—who succeeds where the former had failed. He gives the human race hope that, with God’s help, we can overcome sin and death.
God does not throw up his hands in frustration and say to himself, “I guess I’ll just have to go down there and do it myself,†instead, God looks down and says these people are made in my image, they are worth saving, and I have a plan to work through human frailty to save them all. Thus, through the weakness of human flesh God brought about salvation in and through the quintessential man who willingly resisted the temptation to rebel and instead humbly obeyed his Father to the uttermost. Our Lord could have sinned, he could have fallen prey to the deceptiveness of the Serpent, he could have grasped for equality with God, he could have esteemed his own life too precious to lay down; he could have chosen to exert his royal authority to rule over the world as a co-ruler with the god of this age; he could have called legions of angels to protect him from torture and death at the hands of twisted men; he could have come off the cross in a staggering demonstration of his innocence; but he did not. This miracle man consistently and tirelessly walked the narrow path that his Father had set for him. Hallelujah! Praise to God who loved so much that he gave his only begotten son. Praise to Jesus who loved so much that he obeyed his God to his last strained breath. It is a beautiful story, a story too easily lost when overlaid with mythology and too easily cheapened with an indestructible God in the guise of human flesh. May God give us courage to share the Bible’s real story with others who have been duped into substituting the flashy counterfeit for what really happened.
Sean,
Thanks for sharing the stark implications of this contrast. The Scriptures are definitely separate from the vague world of gnostic, neo-platonic thinking, in which, honestly speaking, it is DENIED that Jesus truly came as a human being ( I John 4: 2,3 / II John – verse 7.) Whether by convoluted trinitarian logic / or by converting Jesus into a spiritual “emanation” that effectively “borrowed” a human body temporarily (according to old gnostic thinking) / or by changing Jesus into a pre-existent angel (Arianism) – there seems to be a constant assault on Jesus’ humanity despite the warnings in 1st and 2nd John. It is even denied that Jesus had his “origin”/ “beginning”/ “genesis” as a human, despite the clarity of statements in Matthew 1 and Luke 1.
Understanding how God foreknew His Son and His Son’s accomplishments is key to not denying Jesus’ humanity.
I Peter 1: 20: He was marked out (literally “foreknown” in Greek) before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time for your sake.
There would not be any sense in “foreknowing” someone who already has some sort of “literal” existence.
“from the instant God promised to defeat the serpent through a descendant of Eve, God has been working to bring his plan into fruition”
If I were a nonbeliever and you just told me how God created the heavens and the world as we know it today in seven (7) days and now you are asking me to understand and believe this same God is “working” or has been working for the past 6000 years to redeem man from the sin of the man and woman He created, I am afraid I would be completely at a loss to understand.
Perhaps it should be clarified to mean that God already has everything worked out in His mind and it is a continued process. That is the first inclination that came to my mind as I read your quote above.
Randy,
honestly I’m mostly in the dark regarding God’s activity in history after the Bible, my comments were a reference to the history of redemption from Adam to Noah to Abraham to David to the Prophets to Jesus to the Apostles, etc. Good point though, the world is a mess. I certainly don’t mean to give the impression that God has been working to improve society/politics over time…apparently he has not been.
I’ve only read interpretation #1, but in that it seems to me that they hold the trinity doctrine over the importance of the divine conception, at least it gets most of the attention in their new member’s classes.
Sean
Tonight we visited a local church for its Christmas Spectacular, (which is a very professional production of music and dance) and amongst the celebration of the birth of Jesus is the espousal of interpretation #1. I saw this tonight being used in an emotional way to pull people in as if the idea that God coming down to earth to save man has more of an impact than what is the truth that Jesus as a man was born because God promised he would be born since Gen 3:15 and Jesus was obedient unto the death of the cross to legally redeen man. As outlined in interpretation #2
To the human mind without scripture to be its guide then #1 has a great emotional pull but the truth is always far more gut wrenching then mythology. That our Lord a man of flesh and blood of the seed of Abraham and of the seed of David would allow himself to be sacrificed in his obedience to God so that we might be reconciled back to God leaves one speechless in admiration at the majesty of God and the humility and sheer guts of Jesus.
so to quote your comment from #2
Hallelujah! Praise to God who loved so much that he gave his only begotten son. Praise to Jesus who loved so much that he obeyed his God to his last strained breath.
May God Bless us all who love his name
Reading the birth accounts of our Messiah I noticed something. There seems to be a discrepancy as to when Mary and Joseph were actually legally married. Matthew says that it happened as a result of the angel’s command for him to take her as his wife [Mat 1.20-25].
Luke says that they remained “betrothed” during the duration of the pregnancy and journey to Bethlehem for the Roman census [Lu 2.1-7].
Question: When do you think they were actually [legally] married? Before people would have found her to be with a child, or after? Considering the Jewish Law of the time where the woman would’ve been stoned for having sexual relations with her betrothed before the full legalisation of their marriage.
Xavier
I hope you don’t mind me interjecting my perspective on this subject. Luke was a companion of Paul and apparently had no contact with Christianity before he met Paul. At the very beginning of Luke he talks about how he made all kinds of inquiries of different people to try his best to determine the truth which he then lays out in his gospel. I think it is obvious that everything Luke writes about he has heard 2nd. or 3rd. hand from other people that had known Jesus or known people that had known Jesus.
All indications are that Mathew was an actual eye witness of most of the events he writes about. (Of course he couldn’t have witnessed the angel talking to Mary or Joseph.) As a rule of thumb whenever Luke contradicts Mathew or Mark I reject Luke’s version as being the less accurate of the three gospels.
Luke makes other contradictions as well the most obvious is the scene at the cross when according to Luke Jesus tells the one thieves being crucified with him that he will join him in heaven that day (or words similar to that). Where elsewhere it says that both of the accused that were being crucified with Jesus heaped insults on him right up until the time of his death. Again in this instance I reject Luke’s version of the events.
Of course these are just my own personal opinions.
Thomas,
I have found that the vast majority of apparent contradictions in the Gospels can be reconciled. As I suggested about the Jewish holidays, you can find info with Google on that too. Search for Bible Contradictions and you’ll get a wealth of material. Some from the perspective of disproving the Bible because of contradictions and some from the perspective of resolving apparent contradictions. I thank God for the Internet!
Thomas,
Are you a Christian? If so, are you a Marcionite?
Xavier
I’ve been told by Anthony that the correct term to describe my beliefs is Socinian which I must admit is a term I have never heard before. I’m sorry but I don’t know what a Marcionite is. I will google it and get back to you on that.
Xavier
I just googled it and I can say for sure I am not a Marcionite. From what I have read they seem to have believed almost the exact opposite of what I believe.
Thomas,
Reason I ask is due to your previous comment:
Marcion, as you can read, rejected not only certain NT books but the whole of the Hebrew scriptures. Something Christians are not supposed to do.
Although, we shouldn’t turn a “blind eye” to the discrepancies [grammatical and historical] of the NT, we shouldn’t “reject” them since this would mean denying its divinely inspired origin.
Xavier
I’m sorry if I was not clear in my last post. I do not reject the book of Luke that is one of the books that I consider to be mostly accurate and therefore valid. I am just pointing out that Luke by his own admission had to rely on the testimony of other people who may or may not have known Jesus directly since he himself was not an eyewitness to the events that he wrote about.
That being the case out of the three gospels I study when Luke contradicts one of the other two synoptics I dismiss Luke as it is obviously the least reliable of the three.
Mark was a companion of Peter and it is believed that Peter himself dictated the book as Mark transcribed it onto paper (or sheep skin or whatever). It must be remembered that Peter himself was an uneducated fisherman and his writing skills would have been very limited at best (very similar to mine).
Like I said all indications are that Mathew was an actual eye witness just like Peter but being a tax collector his writing skills would have been very evolved and he could write his own gospel.
Luke on the other hand was not a direct eye witness to the events but there is no reason to dismiss the gospel he wrote.
I must now retire now as it is getting very late. I hope you and everyone else have a very Merry Christmas.
Thomas,
Again, you cannot cherry pick the scriptures like that if you consider yourself a Christian whose after the truth.
Who gave you the Scriptures as they are Xavier? Did God send them down to you from heaven in a golden chariot? or did you receive them from drunken German and French Reformers who received them from the Whore of Babylon itself? You’d be a fool to not recognize they corrupted them somewhat. Jesus himself said tares would be sown among the wheat in the same field. That field is Scripture and although Jesus sowed a good word, the devil sowed his word in there too.
Consider that every prophecy in Matthew’s first two chapters is ripped out of context. Isaiah 7-8 is about Mahershalalhashbaz to be born of a virgin as a sign of when the kings of Damascus and Samaria would be defeated. Jer 31 is about Rachel weeping for her children in Babylonian exile not because they are murderer by Herod. Micah 5 is about a man from Bethlehem to fight Assyrian incursion into Palestine not to save souls on a cross. Hosea 11:1 is about Israel being called out of Egypt in the Exodus not Jesus as a baby. “He shall be called Nazarene” (Matt 2:23) doesn’t even exist in the Old Testament.
Jesus says in Matt 11:11 that “of all those born of women none is greater than John” implying strongly that He Himself was not born. And in John 6:51 “I am the come down bread from heaven…the bread is my flesh” showing that he descended from heaven with his flesh already, he descended full-grown.
The Catholics took the Marcionite canon and corrupted it with Pagan mythology lightly wrapped in twistings of Old Testament passages. Protestants should return to Marcionism and abandon the Catholic fables. Know also that Marcionites only called themselves Chrestians, and that Catholics gave them the name Marcionites.
Jeremiah 31:15-17 “Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. (16) Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. (17) And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border.”
This is what the Catholics twist into Herod murdering children. Yet Josephus who would love to lambast Herod doesn’t mention this crime. Because they’re twisting. This is exile not death.
Hosea 11:1 “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.”
Exodus, not infant vacation of Jesus.
Interpretation #2 sounds great (I’ve rejected #1), and if it were just the Old Testament and the Synoptics I would be with you on it. But the pre-existence language of John and Paul seems to demand a more Arian approach. Here are some texts that seem to plainly teach Jesus’ pre-existence:
John 1:15,30
John bore witness of Him … “He existed before me.â€
ΙωαÌννης μαÏÏ„Ï…Ïεῖ πεÏὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κεÌκÏαγε λεÌγων· οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον, ὁ ὀπιÌσω μου ἐÏχοÌμενος ἔμπÏοσθεÌν μου γεÌγονεν, ὅτι Ï€ÏῶτοÌÏ‚ μου ἦν.
John 3:13
And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man.
καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβεÌβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐÏανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐÏανοῦ καταβαÌÏ‚, ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθÏωÌπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐÏανῷ.
John 3:31
He who comes from above is above all…
῾Ο ἄνωθεν ἐÏχοÌμενος ἐπαÌνω παÌντων ἐστιÌν.
John 6:32-33
Jesus therefore said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. …”I am the bread of life … For I have come down from heaven. …
εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λεÌγω ὑμῖν, οὐ Μωϋσῆς δεÌδωκεν ὑμῖν τὸν ἄÏτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐÏανοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ πατηÌÏ Î¼Î¿Ï… διÌδωσιν ὑμῖν τὸν ἄÏτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐÏανοῦ τὸν ἀληθινοÌν. … ὅτι καταβεÌβηκα ἐκ τοῦ οὐÏανοῦ οὐχ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θεÌλημα τὸ ἐμὸν, ἀλλὰ τὸ θεÌλημα τοῦ πεÌμψαντοÌÏ‚ με.
John 6:62
What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before?
ἐὰν οὖν θεωÏῆτε τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθÏωÌπου ἀναβαιÌνοντα ὅπου ἦν τὸ Ï€ÏοÌτεÏον;
Dean has listed some of the passages that seem to require the pre-existence of the Son of God. The one I have been studying is John 17:5. I don’t see how that verse can be reconciled with the idea that the Son of God did not exist until Jesus was born.
The first interpretation, I agree, contradicts the Bible (John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 being the most obvious examples).
But the second interpretation seems to contradict John 17:5, as well as the first two listed by Dean.
On the other hand, IF the name of the Son of God is “the Word of God” (Revelation 19:13); and IF “the Word” of John 1:1 is the name of the same person (a very strong possibility), then there is no contradiction between any of these verses.
Nor would it change any of the details regarding his manhood and God’s plan of redemption.
My question is – can John 1:15 and John 17:5 be reconciled to the second interpretation?
Margaret
You said, “IF the name of the son of God is “the Word of God”; and IF “the Word” of John 1:1 is the name of the same person, then there is no contradiction between any of these verses.”
That is true but it would contradict other things then like, How could “the Word” of John 1:1 which created the heavens and earth be tempted by the devil in the desert or die on a cross for our sins?? An immortal being that existed since before creation could not be tempted by Satan or die like Jesus died.
Have you noticed that if you eliminate the writings of just 2 authors (Paul and John) you suddenly have no hint whatsoever that Jesus pre-existed his birth at Bethlehem or that he had a divine nature or that he came from heaven or that he returned to heaven (implying that’s where he came from).
All of a sudden you get a very clear unambiguous Unitarinan (Socinian) view of God and his son Jesus the Messiah with no contradicting verses to try to reconcile.
Why is it that every single reference to Jesus pre-exisiting or coming from heaven or having a divine nature are found in just the writings of 2 authors (Paul and John) and there is not a hint of it anywhere else?? Is this just a coincidence??
I don’t think so. Especially since the writings of Paul themselves show a rift between Paul and the rest of the church (Peter and the Apostles).
Greetings all, hope everyone is well and doing great.
Thomas,
You say:… but it would contradict other things then like, How could “the Word†of John 1:1 which created the heavens and earth be tempted by the devil in the desert or die on a cross for our sins?? An immortal being that existed since before creation could not be tempted by Satan or die like Jesus died.
Nowhere in John 1:1 do I read of the ‘word’ was immortal, however we read in 1 Tim 6 : 16.. the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see. To him be honor and might everlasting.
This could only be God Almighty. The One having no beginning and no end. The one whom no man has seen. The word however is not He. Thus the word must be mortal.
1 Tim 3:16 says: Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in the world, was received up in glory.
This fits our Savior’s description, does it not?
Margaret, Thomas,
The following is what I have read regarding pre-existence of Jesus. Any comments would be great.
In Proverbs 8 : 22 – 31 we read: Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago.
Produced me. Hebrew, qa-na’ni ; Greek e’kti-sen’ me (created me) ; Latin pos-se’dit me (Possessed me)
As the beginning of his way, Hebrew re’shith’; Greek ar-khen’ ; not bere’shith(Heb) or
en ar-khei’ (Gr) as in Genesis 1:1; “ as the first’ ; Latin in i-ni’ti-o
The beginning of his way – refers – John 1:1, John 1:14 – 1 In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father, and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.
His achievements of long ago – refers Col 1:15,16 : 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones of lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.
Proverbs 8 : 23 – From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth.
“from the start†Literally “from the head†Hebrew me-ro’sh
From times earlier than the earth – refers : Micah 5:2 – And you O Bethlehem Ephrathah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.
Refers John 1 : 3 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.
Refers John 8 : 58 – 58 Jesus said to them: Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been. (prin A-bra-am’ ge-ne’sthai e-go’ ei-mi’)
Refers John 17 : 5 – 5 So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.
Proverbs 8 : 27 – 27 When he prepared the heavens I was there, when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep.
When he prepared the heavens – refers Psalm 33 : 6 : 6 By the word of Jehovah the heavens themselves were made. And by the spirit of his mouth all their army.
“word of Jehovah†– “by the breath.†Hebrew u-veru’ach ; Greek pneu’ma-ti Latin spi’ri-tu Refer – Genesis 6 : 17 17 And as for me, here I am bringing the deluge of waters upon the earth to bring to ruin all flesh in which the force of life is active from under the heavens. Everything that is in the earth will expire.
Literally meaning “in which the active force (spirit) of life is.†Hebrew ‘asher-boh’ ru’ach chai-yim’ Here ru’ach means “active force; spiritâ€
Revelation 3 : 14 tells us: And to the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.
The Amen says – refer Greek ho A-men’; Latin A’men; Hebrew ha-‘A-men’ “ the So Be Itâ€
The beginning of the creation by God refers also to Proverbs 8 : 22, Col 1 : 15.
Christian regards
Annie
Annie
Deuteronomy 34:9
And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses.
We see Joshua received this wisdom
Job 38:36
Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?
we see here in Job its something put in our inward parts
Psalm 104:24
O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.
Psalm 136:5
To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Here we see David saying Wisdom was part of creation
Isaiah 11:2
And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord;
Here we see that this wisdom will rest upon the messiah
Jeremiah 10:1
He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
Here we see Jerimiah saying Wisdom part of creation
Matthew 11:19
The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Here we see Jesus himself stating Wisdom was a mother and showing HE is not HER
1 Corinthians 2:7
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
Heres Paul claiming Wisdom was first thing created by God
Ephesians 1:17
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
He is Paul saying Wisdom is the Holy spirit
James 1:5
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Here James says that Wisdom is the Holy spirit
James 3:17
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
Here James says where it comes from
2 Peter 3:15
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
Here Peter states Wisdom is what is giving to the apostles
Revelation 5
6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Here we find Wisdom is the seven spirits(holy spirit) that rested upon Jesus to give him the power. also we see it is what God sent to the earth
Luke 7:35
But wisdom is justified of all her children.
And here again we See Jesus showing He is not the Wisdom.
So why to you force Jesus above the power he received when it was only working through his human body when it rested upon him at his baptism
Annie
I was wrong in saying that “the word” was immortal for as you pointed out it had a beginning but since it existed since before creation and participated in the creation of the heavens and the earth you must admit that it is at the very least a supernatural being.
Which leaves us with the same question, How could a supernatural being that existed since before creation (and participated in the creation process) be tempted by Satan or die on a cross like Jesus did??
You quote 1 Tim 3:16 and asked, “This fits our saviors description does it not?”
Yes it does appear that Paul may have believed that Jesus was a supernatural being but lets look at Paul’s knowledge of Jesus. He experienced a bright light on the road to Damascus was blinded heard a voice and was later cured of that blindness. At this time outside of this experience Paul had no knowledge of Jesus other than that he was a heretic and a fraud (a false Messiah).
Years later when he went to Jerusalem Peter and the Apostles wouldn’t even see him. Barnabas felt compassion for him and took him under his wing. Everything he knew about Jesus he heard second hand from Barnabas and the others.
We find no mention from anyone else that Jesus was some kind of supernatural being that returned to heaven where he had existed since before creation. If this were true it would have been a very important detail and yet all 3 writers of the synoptics, James and Peter fail to even hint at Jesus being some kind of supernatural being.
As a matter of fact they paint a very clear picture of Jesus being a human with all the same human frailities as the rest of us.
As for your quotes from the Old Testament I agree with Robert that these are probably referring to Wisdom which Jesus said is the mother of us all (including him)…
Thomas,
I do admit that the Messiah was God’s special creation. A spirit being. A being I desire to know fully. To imitate comletely. I am sure that there is yet much to learn from him, about him and of him. We might only fully understand in the days our God will open all of our minds to fully comprehend the works of his hands.
Untill then we should keep on searching for knowledge and faith as for gold! And that seems what all present is trying to do.
However, it is the man Jesus who died and who was tempted by Satan. He was born as human, meaning he could die. Christ could not be tempted to bad things, as he was perfect in every way.
All the inclinations of his heart was pure. Therefore he cannot be tempted to wickedness. This temptation must refer to another kind of temptation…
Thanks for all the comments, it’s taken to heart.
Annie
Annie
You said, “Until then we should keep on searching for knowledge and faith as for gold!”
I completely agree. God Bless you and all of us in our search for truth…
Thomas,
And that we shall truly find, for the bible says: keep on knocking and it will be opened to you. Keep on asking, and it will be given you…
I pray God’s richest blessing on all of mankind.
Looking forward to more truths made manifest.
Praise Jah!
Thanks to both of you for a courteous discussion.
I wouldn’t be surprised if all of us are partly right and all of us partly wrong. The one thing that binds us together is a love for the only true God and for his Son, Jesus the Messiah.
I have spent some time studying Proverbs, Annie, and I can’t see Jesus in chapter 8.
For one thing, wisdom is consistently personified as a woman. In ch. 7 Solomon says to his son, “Say to Wisdom, You are my sister.†I could never say to Jesus, “You are my sister.â€
The wisdom in chapter 8:23-31 seems to be directly related to the creation of the universe. God “manufactured†that wisdom before his works of creation began.
I understand that the quality of wisdom characterizes both Yahweh and his Son; but the specific wisdom required for creation was produced by God when it was necessary.
That makes sense to me; but I’m open to correction.
As for the Word, I have a problem imagining it as having a beginning. The Word is the expression of God’s thoughts. Could God have been without a way to express his thoughts for an infinite period of time UNTIL he created the Word?
I find it easier to believe that the Word – God’s expression of himself – has always been associated with God. [You are aware, I’m sure, that I am not suggesting tri-unity.]
Revelation 19:13 tells us the name of Jesus is “The Word of God.†I don’t think that is just a coincidence.
In any case, Revelation 5:13 assures me that it is proper to worship the Lamb of God, who is the Messiah. In that passage, every creature (without exception) is seen worshipping God Almighty AND the Lamb – at the same time, in the same place, with the same words.
That fits the Father’s intention that we honor the Son, just as we honor the Father (John 5:23).
It also fits the fact that in him dwells all the fullness of deity (Colossians 2:8). Whether that divine nature was given to him or whether it was always his is another question.
It shows, too, that he is not a creature. EVERY creature is worshipping him.
“As for the Word, I have a problem imagining it as having a beginning. The Word is the expression of God’s thoughts. Could God have been without a way to express his thoughts for an infinite period of time UNTIL he created the Word?”
Margaret
The Word can only be dependent on Wisdom, So before the Word came there had to be The Wisdom to form it. Considering the Word was personified by Philo prior to Jesus and Wisdom was personified by the writers of Job,Proverbs, Psalms and Jesus Himself Do you not see that John”s Word was The Wisdom and was the Holy spirit that rested upon Jesus and John was just identifying what was indwelling Jesus and what John the Baptist was to witness. What most people never realize is it was the Holy spirit(Wisdom) that spoke and did miracles through Jesus.
She was the only one ever mentioned being with the Creator at creation. Do i believe the Godhead consist of the Creator and Wisdom? Yes. Do I believe that Jesus was there with them ? No.
Do I believe that Jesus has been exalted after his resurrection to a member of the Godhead by agency? Yes. Do i believe Jesus was born the Son of God? yes just like all other Kings, prophets and priest were.
“In any case, Revelation 5:13 assures me that it is proper to worship the Lamb of God, who is the Messiah.”
Margaret
I am sorry but i dont see any worshipping in verse 13 but do see in 14 were God only is worshiped. Giving blessing, honor, glory and power must not be worshipping because after that they fell down to worship the Creator Only.
. 13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. 14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.
You may be right, Robert. Words like that, addressed to God Almighty, sound like worship to me. But you can call it something else if you like.
In any case, I am free to say, “Blessing and honor and glory and power be to God and to his Son, for ever and ever.”
What’s more, I can say it from my heart.
And when I come to die, I can say, as Stephen did, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” Acts 7:59.
Margaret
You said, “I wouldn’t be surprised if all of us are partly right and all of us are partly wrong. The one thing that binds us together is a love for the only true God and his Son, Jesus the Messiah.”
I agree 100%.
“You may be right, Robert. Words like that, addressed to God Almighty, sound like worship to me. But you can call it something else if you like.”
Margaret
It not me defining it, its the next verse where we see the act of worship. Sure words like that could be a part of worship but in this case it just seems to be praise. Also all these words could address a mere human
“In any case, I am free to say, “Blessing and honor and glory and power be to God and to his Son, for ever and ever.â€
What’s more, I can say it from my heart.”
Margaret
Yes you certainly can and I believe every praise you give God and Jesus and how you treat others comes from your heart
And when I come to die, I can say, as Stephen did, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit†Acts 7:59.
Margaret
Yes I believe Jesus is the one who writes your name in the book of Life so you can take part of the 2nd resurrection at the beginning of Gods 8th day when all saved flesh will be circumcised leaving just our spiritual body
I’ve been reading through the blog and noticed a couple of things that invite comment.
Maybe so; but it would also eliminate more than half of the New Testament. That’s a big price to pay.
In my copy of the NWT, I read “all [other] things” in both verses.
I appreciate the honesty of the translators in indicating that the word [other] is not in the text.
But mine is an old edition. Has that practice been suspended in later editions?
Words used of the act of God in the “begetting†[birth] of His Son…
1. What the Bible says:
* “To beget, bring forth, conceive, born†[gennao] Mat 1.20; cp. Luke 1.35 [gennomenon]; Mat 1.16 [egennethe]; Mat 2.1 [gennethentos]; 2.4 [gennatai]; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5, quoted from Psalm 2:7 [Heb. yalad; Gk. gennao.
NOTE: Some older versions have understood John 1.13 as:
* “Origin, birth†[genesis] Mat 1.1, 18.
2. What some scholars have to say:
Now, what is wrong with this picture?
As you can see, the Bible explicitly talks about the “origin [genesis], beginning of existence [gennao and its derivatives]†of the Son of God in the womb of Mary. And NOT, as some scholars and many ‘pastors’ would like to have you believe, in some “eternity…time before time…eternal generation”.