Jesus before his birth

MatthewVII

This question is purely one of interest, not trying to start any wars.

god has always been present. That surely means that god the son (jesus) has also always been present. was he up on high staying in the background or what was he doing before the events of the new testament?

chozometroid

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 17:5 "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Philippians 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him.
17And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

1 John 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life--

1 John 1:2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us--

Revelation 19:13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

This question is purely one of interest, not trying to start any wars.

god has always been present. That surely means that god the son (jesus) has also always been present. was he up on high staying in the background or what was he doing before the events of the new testament?

For someone who claims to have read the entire Bible (I'm still sceptical) this is really basic stuff, answered in the first chapter of John's Gospel.

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

For someone who claims to have read the entire Bible (I'm still sceptical) this is really basic stuff, answered in the first chapter of John's Gospel.

It may be basic canon, but it still doesn't make any sense. The gospel of John really doesn't make Jesus' place in heaven all that clear either.
If Jesus indeed had glory with God before the world existed, does this mean that he had no consciousness before he became flesh incarnate ("who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped") - which would seem an odd quality for God

What I'm trying to get at is the real signifance of God sending his son down to die. It would seem more like God telling Jesus "have a 32-year holiday for no real reason". Jesus always knew what he was going to do, become etc, so the actual exercise of coming down and going through the motions was actually kind of pointless, since God was always going to forgive our sins anyway; what did God get from Jesus dying instead of just having Jesus come down and remind us all that God was real and loving etc.

Dying to atone for the sins of others proves nothing, since God can forgive their sins without Jesus needing to die. The image it conjours is of an argument in heaven, with Jesus trying to convince his father to forgive sins, and God replying with "only if you go down there and bloody well earn it"

What am I missing?

As an aside, Hurin, I read the bible when i was 12, and reread over bits of it until I was 16. It was at that point that I realised my gullibility and put it away forever.

PDN

MatthewVII wrote: »

It may be basic canon, but it still doesn't make any sense. The gospel of John really doesn't make Jesus' place in heaven all that clear either.
If Jesus indeed had glory with God before the world existed, does this mean that he had no consciousness before he became flesh incarnate ("who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped") - which would seem an odd quality for God

As the Second Person of the Trinity He was fully conscious before the incarnation, as the Scripture from Philippians you just quoted makes clear.

What I'm trying to get at is the real signifance of God sending his son down to die. It would seem more like God telling Jesus "have a 32-year holiday for no real reason"

No, God the Son willingly chose to come to earth in human form with the express intent of dying for our sins.

Jesus always knew what he was going to do, become etc, so the actual exercise of coming down and going through the motions was actually kind of pointless, since God was always going to forgive our sins anyway; what did God get from Jesus dying instead of just having Jesus come down and remind us all that God was real and loving etc

God the Son knew what he was going to do, but it would not be correct to say that Jesus 'always' knew. This is due to semething we call 'kenosis' (Greek for 'emptying'). God the Son, in becoming a man, laid aside many of His divine attributes. When He was a baby in a manger He was not an omniscient, omnipotent superbaby who knew everything would happen to Him for the next 33 years. He was squealing and squalling like any newborn waiting for the next feed.

BTW, God is a God of justice as well as a God of love - so just winking and pretending sin hadn't happened would be contrary to His nature.

What am I missing?

Well, I wouldn't have said it if you hadn't asked - but I think you're missing knowledge of the Bible and also understanding of what Christians actually believe.

MatthewVII

Cool, thanks for the clarification PDN. Definitely improves my understanding of something that I thought the bible rather vague on.

It still doesn't make sense to me why God would think that Jesus' gesture atoned for the sins of others though. I just don't get why it would be so big a deal to spend a short stay on earth living as a human. Why not let people atone for their own sins in a way that might be meaningful instead of making a big, dramatic gesture which ultimately would be no different than if he had just come down and went back to heaven after he felt he had spread his message?

It just doesn't seem so big a sacrifice from Jesus' point of view considering that he knew he was going straight to heaven. It also doesn't seem so big a sacrifice from God's point of view, since he was only letting go of his son for 30 odd years, which is nothing in the context of the eternity they had spent together. I'm sure it would have been a relief to have the place to himself for a while.

chozometroid

The penalty for sin had to be paid. You could think of it as a divine law.
Sin results in death. God is just, and we were justified by the atonement of Christ. Instead of all of us dying as soon as we sin, we can have faith that the penalty for our sins have been paid in full by God Himself. Jesus Christ is God, and he literally died for our sins. His death was enough to pay for all the sins of mankind.
It is only by faith in Christ that we can receive this gift of salvation by grace (grace: God giving rebellious man this gift purely out of love).

MatthewVII

chozometroid wrote: »

The penalty for sin had to be paid. You could think of it as a divine law.
Sin results in death. God is just, and we were justified by the atonement of Christ. Instead of all of us dying as soon as we sin, we can have faith that the penalty for our sins have been paid in full by God Himself. Jesus Christ is God, and he literally died for our sins. His death was enough to pay for all the sins of mankind.
It is only by faith in Christ that we can receive this gift of salvation by grace (grace: God giving rebellious man this gift purely out of love).

The problem for me is that what Jesus did wasn't really a payment. He didn't lose anything by coming down to earth, dying, and going back to heaven. No payment has been made to atone for the sins of mankind. Nothing changed in the grand scheme of things.

chozometroid

MatthewVII wrote: »

The problem for me is that what Jesus did wasn't really a payment. He didn't lose anything by coming down to earth, dying, and going back to heaven. No payment has been made to atone for the sins of mankind. Nothing changed in the grand scheme of things.

On the contrary. Jesus was a living creature, and His blood was shed. He died and paid the penalty. It was a divine act of justice on the cross. What gives His death on the cross it's atoning power is fact that Jesus was SINLESS. A perfect sacrifice. The penalty for all sin was paid in the grand equation.

PDN

MatthewVII wrote: »

The problem for me is that what Jesus did wasn't really a payment. He didn't lose anything by coming down to earth, dying, and going back to heaven. No payment has been made to atone for the sins of mankind. Nothing changed in the grand scheme of things.

The payment was His suffering on the Cross. This was something that only an infinite God could do, because only He has an infinite capacity for pain. You and I can only tolerate so much pain & then we lose consciousness or even die.

I believe that Jesus, on the Cross, endured the pains of hell, multiplied billions of times over for each one of us, compressed into a 3 hour period.

Everything changed in the grand scheme of things.

MatthewVII

Again, it makes sense but Jesus knew he was going to heaven. No earthly suffering could ever really get to him, and 3 hours is nothing compared to the eternity he had lived for.

To be honest, it's rather condescending that Jesus passes off feeling the agony of a mortal as divine intervention. It kinda reminds me of when P. Flynn used to come around to the houses of the people of west mayo to help them for an hour or two on the bog when elections were coming around to act like "a man of the people"

PDN

MatthewVII wrote: »

Again, it makes sense but Jesus knew he was going to heaven. No earthly suffering could ever really get to him, and 3 hours is nothing compared to the eternity he had lived for.

To be honest, it's rather condescending that Jesus passes off feeling the agony of a mortal as divine intervention. It kinda reminds me of when P. Flynn used to come around to the houses of the people of west mayo to help them for an hour or two on the bog when elections were coming around to act like "a man of the people"

Jesus didn't pass off feeling the agony of a mortal. He experienced an agony no mortal could ever feel.

MatthewVII

PDN wrote: »

The payment was His suffering on the Cross. This was something that only an infinite God could do, because only He has an infinite capacity for pain. You and I can only tolerate so much pain & then we lose consciousness or even die.

I believe that Jesus, on the Cross, endured the pains of hell, multiplied billions of times over for each one of us, compressed into a 3 hour period.

Everything changed in the grand scheme of things.

To be able to feel more pain than a human would mean he had a radically different nervous system. Which would mean that he wasn't really a human at all, maybe a more evolved or improved, but not the same as those around him.

As for how mortals lose consciousness and die, isn't that what jesus did?

PDN

MatthewVII wrote: »

To be able to feel more pain than a human would mean he had a radically different nervous system. Which would mean that he wasn't really a human at all, maybe a more evolved or improved, but not the same as those around him.

I think you're being simplistic here. There's emotional & spiritual pain as well as physical.

As for how mortals lose consciousness and die, isn't that what jesus did?

Not until He had declared "It is finished!" (literally, accomplished or fulfilled)

I can see what Matthew is saying though - Jesus knew that he was going to heaven after all of his troubles, after the whole ordeal. That, in my opinion, isn't as great of a sacrifice as it's made out to be.

Maybe if God offered his son completely, as in Jesus would go to hell, or indeed, just literally die. That would of been more impressive.

chozometroid

MatthewVII wrote: »

To be able to feel more pain than a human would mean he had a radically different nervous system. Which would mean that he wasn't really a human at all, maybe a more evolved or improved, but not the same as those around him.

As for how mortals lose consciousness and die, isn't that what jesus did?

I actually differ in my view from PDN.
I feel Jesus was fully man and experienced the weight of the sins of the world without any supernatural pain tolerance. This would include physical, mental, and emotional anguish. Perhaps He was sustained by the Holy Spirit to even last as long as He did, but I think the extreme burden of bearing the sin of all mankind is what caused Him to die so soon (along with His physical torture).
The mental and emotional suffering actually began before the crucifiction. Christ was contemplating what was ahead, and said to God, "if it's possible, let this cup pass from me."
This is more evidence of His human nature shining through. He was experiencing great distress as a man.

MatthewVII

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Maybe if God offered his son completely, as in Jesus would go to hell, or indeed, just literally die. That would of been more impressive.

I wanted to ask this earlier, but then I was having trouble figuring out where Jesus' soul would go. If it went to Hell, the omnipotent Jesus would have turned it into paradise (which would have been awesome for christians).

That said, if God had sacrificed part of himself for the human race, that would definitely have been awesome.

chozometroid wrote:

I feel Jesus was fully man and experienced the weight of the sins of the world

If he was fully man, surely he wouldn't have been able to feel the weight of sins, since that is beyond our sensation?

Húrin

Sin must be paid for. It's a law of metaphyics. The eastern religions recognise it too as the law of karma.

It's fine to ask about the atonement, but don't hold your breath hoping for a complete mechanical understanding of how it was done. None of us can really know in this world.

chozometroid

MatthewVII wrote: »

I wanted to ask this earlier, but then I was having trouble figuring out where Jesus' soul would go. If it went to Hell, the omnipotent Jesus would have turned it into paradise (which would have been awesome for christians).

That said, if God had sacrificed part of himself for the human race, that would definitely have been awesome.



If he was fully man, surely he wouldn't have been able to feel the weight of sins, since that is beyond our sensation?

Well, it's not described in detail as to how exactly He bore our sins.
It's not something we can experience, because only He paid the penalty for all sins. It was a burden placed on Him by God. He felt the result of all of mankind's sin with the guilt, regret, shame, and pain that goes with it.

BTW, I should have said I believe He was fully God and fully man, but my point was that He was fully incarnated as a man, did not use His powers as a diety, and experienced life as we do, so we can relate to Him, and He to us.

MatthewVII

chozometroid wrote: »

He was fully incarnated as a man, did not use His powers as a diety, and experienced life as we do, so we can relate to Him, and He to us.

except of course, that on occasion he turned water into wine, walked on water and healed the sick. Or was he just an early David Blaine?

H&#250 wrote: »

It's a law of metaphyics

Oxymoron ftw

chozometroid

MatthewVII wrote: »

except of course, that on occasion he turned water into wine, walked on water and healed the sick. Or was he just an early David Blaine?



Oxymoron ftw

No, Jesus said we can do the same works as Him, and even greater. His life was to be our example. The Holy Spirit is what allowed Him, and will allow us, to have spiritual gifts, or perform miracles.

John 14:12 KJV Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

MatthewVII

chozometroid wrote: »

No, Jesus said we can do the same works as Him, and even greater. His life was to be our example. The Holy Spirit is what allowed Him, and will allow us, to have spiritual gifts, or perform miracles.

If this is the case, how do we explain that people haven't been performing miracles since the days of the New Testament? Is it that we are unworthy?

chozometroid

MatthewVII wrote: »

If this is the case, how do we explain that people haven't been performing miracles since the days of the New Testament? Is it that we are unworthy?

His disciples, as well as Paul, performed miracles, but no, I don't think we are worthy.

Maybe it's hard for us to see where we are lacking, since we have no worthy role models to look to.
That's why Jesus should be the example. He is the perfect role model, and unchanging, while the world is ever-changing and ever-degrading.
Kinda hard to follow His lead in this day and age, but I think that's what it would take.

MatthewVII

chozometroid wrote: »

His disciples, as well as Paul, performed miracles, but no, I don't think we are worthy.

I realised that. I didn't just mean the New Testament with reference to Jesus, I know his disciples apparently did things like survive snake bites, heal the sick as Jesus taught them to do etc.

My point is that looking objectively at it, the most likely reason miracles don't happen is because people stopped writing a book which makes it look like someone gave others the power to perform miracles.

chozometroid

MatthewVII wrote: »

I realised that. I didn't just mean the New Testament with reference to Jesus, I know his disciples apparently did things like survive snake bites, heal the sick as Jesus taught them to do etc.

My point is that looking objectively at it, the most likely reason miracles don't happen is because people stopped writing a book which makes it look like someone gave others the power to perform miracles.

Do I sense a motive behind every one of your questions? What is it that you are trying to get at?

Anyways, I disagree. I don't see people directly healing other people on the news, but I believe miracles happen all the time.
When I say I don't think we're worthy, I mean that for the most part. I'm not saying there is no one on this earth capable of doing the things Jesus did, but I doubt there are many, and it's not likely I would know about it anyways.

But I do know God has directly intervened in my life.
He has saved my life numerous times, made opportunities for me, and brought my wife and I together.

MatthewVII

chozometroid wrote: »

Do I sense a motive behind every one of your questions? What is it that you are trying to get at?

Oh nothing, I just waft in whatever direction bizarre tangents off threads take me.

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

If this is the case, how do we explain that people haven't been performing miracles since the days of the New Testament? Is it that we are unworthy?

Miraculous healing is done to this day. Every day throughout the world people in groups are filled with the holy spirit and speak in tongues. Every day people are coming to know Jesus in the face of ridicule, adverse circumstances and persecution.

Every Christian who believes that Jesus can do these things for him or her is worthy of his free gifts.

Amazing things happen if only you open your eyes.