If Jesus is not God then: When was Jesus created?

[Wootah]

If Jesus is not God then: When was Jesus created?

If you respond then Can I get an order of creation from you, like baking a Jesus cake: water, flour, Jesus, sugar, mix?

So you might start with God, then heaven, earth, birds, Jesus.

Any takers?

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #64]

You will have to explain how your view differs from standard fully God / fully man theology.

You call it a mystery and I agree but I don't have to explain where God went while he was a man.

What do you think you explain better or I can't explain at all from the standard theological view of fully God / fully man?

My view is supported by scripture.

"Fully God/fully man" is not.

There are natural bodies and there are spiritual bodies.

God is fully a spiritual body.

Jesus was fully a natural body.

There is no God/man hybrid as that type of being would have contradictory characteristics. For example, a mortal being cannot also be an immortal being.

Longevity is the reason that the Word could not perform the tasks required of Jesus to save mankind.

Thus the Word was made a man for the purpose of dying.

And yes, how that was accomplished is a mystery to mankind.

[PinSeeker]

It's really kind of incredible. I mean, we all agree -- I think; at least I know Wootah and I do -- that Jesus was a man. And then we read things like Paul's statement in Colossians 1 regarding Jesus -- not some "mysterious word" -- that "...in Him (Jesus) all the fullness of God (the Father) was pleased to dwell, and through Him (Jesus) to reconcile to Himself (God the Father) all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of His (Jesus's) cross." It is mysterious, because it is incredible both how and why God would do this, that He would go to such length to reconcile sinful men to Himself by atonement in the Person of Jesus, wholly undeserved as it is. But there is no mystery in Paul's statement. Absolutely none. One need an intelligence quotient only slightly above the level of a tomato to understand Paul rightly there.

Grace and peace to all.

[myth-one.com]

It's really kind of incredible. I mean, we all agree -- I think; at least I know Wootah and I do -- that Jesus was a man. And then we read things like Paul's statement in Colossians 1 regarding Jesus -- not some "mysterious word" -- that "...in Him (Jesus) all the fullness of God (the Father) was pleased to dwell, and through Him (Jesus) to reconcile to Himself (God the Father) all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of His (Jesus's) cross." It is mysterious, because it is incredible both how and why God would do this, that He would go to such length to reconcile sinful men to Himself by atonement in the Person of Jesus, wholly undeserved as it is. But there is no mystery in Paul's statement. Absolutely none. One need an intelligence quotient only slightly above the level of a tomato to understand Paul rightly there.

Grace and peace to all.

14 In whom we (humans) have redemption through his (Jesus') blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For by him (The Word) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him (The Word) , and for him (The Word):

17 And he (The Word) is before all things, and by him (The Word) all things consist.

18 And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead (Jesus was the first resurrected from the grave); that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19 For it pleased the Father that in him (Jesus) should all fulness dwell;

20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him (Jesus) to reconcile all things unto himself (Jesus is the mediator between man and God); by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Jesus was a man.

The Word is a Spirit.

They are different.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #59]

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

How do you resolve that?

The Word existed in the beginning.

The Word was with God.

And the Word was God.

Is Jesus like a mask to you? The flesh around the Word?

No, Jesus was a man.

There are things God cannot do. One thing God cannot do is die.

Therefore, the Word was incapable of completing the tasks required of Jesus.

So the Word was "made flesh" as the man Jesus for the purpose of living a sinless life and dying:

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

John 1:1 has been resolved here on these threads, but I see that probably you have missed the discussions. "The Word was with God" shows us the "God" here has the definite article in front of "God," in the Greek way of writing that something is THE only one being discussed. In Greek (with no upper-case or lower-case letters), it would say, "the logos was with the god." The next phrase would read, "and god was the logos," without any definite article. That means that this "god" was not the same "god" as what has the definite article. To translate this into understandable English, it would have to have "a" inserted before "god" in this last phrase to show that in English there has to be an indefinite article there, which Greek does not have. They always show the UNIQUE thing being discussed to have a definite article. "The logos was god" has no definite article. It is not the same as the first "god" mentioned.

Now, to understand further the meaning of this verse, we have to realize what the term "god" means. It merely means an individual that is highly revered, with power and influence. Even MEN are called "gods" in the Scriptures, to which Jesus himself referred (John 10:34-36). So to call Jesus (the Word) a god is not any kind of mistake. He was an important, powerful and influential person. He was these things, but certainly not THE God that only the Father, Jehovah, is.

Jesus said to his Father: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the ONLY true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." (John 17:3)

Obviously Jesus agreed with the translation of "the logos was a god" and not "the" god.



.

[PinSeeker]

It's really kind of incredible. I mean, we all agree -- I think; at least I know Wootah and I do -- that Jesus was a man. And then we read things like Paul's statement in Colossians 1 regarding Jesus -- not some "mysterious word" -- that "...in Him (Jesus) all the fullness of God (the Father) was pleased to dwell, and through Him (Jesus) to reconcile to Himself (God the Father) all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of His (Jesus's) cross." It is mysterious, because it is incredible both how and why God would do this, that He would go to such length to reconcile sinful men to Himself by atonement in the Person of Jesus, wholly undeserved as it is. But there is no mystery in Paul's statement. Absolutely none. One need an intelligence quotient only slightly above the level of a tomato to understand Paul rightly there.

Jesus was a man. The Word is a Spirit. They are different.

LOL!!! I rest my case. Truly incredible.

Grace and peace to all.

[myth-one.com]

Jesus was a man. The Word is a Spirit. They are different.

LOL!!! I rest my case. Truly incredible.

What is your case?

I recall you posting that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God at the same time.

What type of being is the Word?

What is the relationship between The Word and Jesus?

And are they the same or different?

[PinSeeker]

What is the relationship between The Word and Jesus? And are they the same or different?

Jesus Christ is the full incarnation and perfect embodiment of the Word of God the Father, the Word become flesh, as John puts it in John 1:14. This alone should prove to you that the Word and Jesus are not two different beings. In addition, it should also express to you -- and it does, whether you realize it or not -- the fact that the spiritual and physical are not mutually exclusive and can absolutely be present in a person at the same time. The fact that you can't digest this is, frankly, astonishing.

As in the other thread, myth-one, with all due respect, I am out of patience with you. Grace and peace to you.

[myth-one.com]

What is the relationship between The Word and Jesus? And are they the same or different?

Jesus Christ is the full incarnation and perfect embodiment of the Word of God the Father, the Word become flesh, as John puts it in John 1:14. This alone should prove to you that the Word and Jesus are not two different beings. In addition, it should also express to you -- and it does, whether you realize it or not -- the fact that the spiritual and physical are not mutually exclusive and can absolutely be present in a person at the same time. The fact that you can't digest this is, frankly, astonishing.

The scriptures state that the physical and spiritual bodies are mutually exclusive. The natural body comes first and the spiritual body comes last for Christians:

Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. (I Corinthians 15:46)

Logically, there is no longer any reason why a spiritual bodied being would also desire a physical body with it's characteristics.

The Word "became flesh" as Jesus to save mankind.

The Word was incapable of directly performing the tasks required by a man -- because the Word is an immortal spiritual bodied God and cannot perish.

Therefore, Jesus had to be created.

[Miles]

If Jesus is not God then: When was Jesus created?

I assume you're asking, what month and year did god inseminate Mary. If we take the celebrated date of December 25th as Jesus birthday (good as any I guess) then god had sex with Mary around the latter part March or early April. As for the year this took place, that's estimated to be between 6 and 4 BC.

If you respond then Can I get an order of creation from you, like baking a Jesus cake: water, flour, Jesus, sugar, mix?

Sure. "I order you to to bake a Jesus cake."

So you might start with God, then heaven, earth, birds, Jesus.

Start what? You're the one doing the baking.


.

[PinSeeker]

"The Word was with God" shows us the "God" here has the definite article in front of "God," in the Greek way of writing that something is THE only one being discussed. In Greek (with no upper-case or lower-case letters), it would say, "the logos was with the god." The next phrase would read, "and god was the logos," without any definite article. That means that this "god" was not the same "god" as what has the definite article. To translate this into understandable English, it would have to have "a" inserted before "god" in this last phrase to show that in English there has to be an indefinite article there, which Greek does not have. They always show the UNIQUE thing being discussed to have a definite article. "The logos was god" has no definite article. It is not the same as the first "god" mentioned.

This is completely false. English has two different kinds of articles: a definite article (the word “the”) and an indefinite article (the words “a” and “an”). Greek does not distinguish between these two types of articles. For that reason the usage of the article in Greek has some striking differences from the word “the” in English. While “the” is often the best English translation for the Greek article, the Greek article is used in some contexts where we clearly would not use “the” in English. In such cases, the Greek article must be left untranslated.

With this in mind, a Greek article may be used to indicate the subject of any equative verb. This is the case with the third part of John 1:1. In the sentence θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1), the article (ὁ) marks λόγος as the subject of the verb ἦν, so the translation should be “The word was God,” not “The word was a god." Thankfully there are very, very few, but the translations that render it in the latter way are clearly engineered with a false presupposed agenda and thus wrong.

Now, to understand further the meaning of this verse, we have to realize what the term "god" means. It merely means an individual that is highly revered, with power and influence.

This is completely false also. Since John is the writer, what he writes cannot be removed from the context in which he is writing.

Jesus said to his Father: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the ONLY true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." (John 17:3) Obviously Jesus agreed with the translation of "the logos was a god" and not "the" god.

Obviously not; quite the contrary, as evidenced by Jesus in the very same breath in the next two verses: "I glorified You on earth, having accomplished the work that You gave Me to do. And now, Father, glorify Me in Your own presence with the glory that I had with You before the world existed." And as I have said before, the word 'with' here (as well as in John 1:1) does not merely denote mere proximity or agreement but one-ness, which fits perfectly with Jesus's statement that "I and the Father are one." Jesus is speaking in the imperative here, actually issuing a directive, having full confidence that the Father's doing so is part of His unthwartable purpose and irrevocable will.

Grace and peace to you.