Genesis 32:30: “I have seen the face of God”

Yeah but his body. Begotten, yes. But not pre existent. That doesn’t make sense. A body forms in the womb, he wasn’t magically teleported into a womb. I do not believe his body was pre existent. His body is not the logos which was there before the world.

His body is part of his being fully man. Hence his body must have existed from the beginning.

Who says he was fully man from the beginning? I believe he was logos and then at his conception became fully man also. The only opinion that makes sense.

Uh, the Bible, which says that God does not change. Hebrews 13:8. Jesus' nature can't have altered from not fully man to fully man at some point. He is the same now as he has always been.

God does not change but his body has to be created. That is just logic mate.

It's not logical at all. If you claim that Jesus Christ was not fully man from the beginning then you are saying that he is not God. The illogical thing at that point is to continue to call yourself a Christian.

He was not fully man from the beginning of time, when things like man, woman and child were not even concepts. Are you Protestant? You are deeply wrong, please stop right now.

So you reject the clear teaching of the Bible in Hebrews 13:8. Congratulations on being a heretic.

And so you're also claiming that Jesus wasn't the Son of God from the beginning lol. Literally denying the Trinity.

Hebrews 13:8 means the logos and not his body. It’s absurd to think he had a fashioned body since the beginning of time. Protestantism everyone.

What’s your winnie the pooh problem?

Right, it's absurd to trust the Bible over the fallible "logic" of human beings. How silly of me.

A son is a child. Don't get mad at me just because you said something idiotic without thinking it through first.

In all honesty, I had never thought about this before. Time is created, and seperate from God, but if God (specifically the second person of the Trinity) took on a human nature, became incarnate at a point in time, does that mean the Logos/Word (who is eternal) is now eternally human? I'm confused, hopefully someone could explain this.

I am actually mad. Why would you
Lol at that? Calling someone a heretic and saying he denies the trinity. Get gassed you k*ke

He literally denied the Trinity by claiming there was no concept of a child at the beginning, i.e., there was no Son of God, i.e., there was no Trinity. I don't know whether it was accidental or not, but considering the way he is rejecting the Bible, I wouldn't be surprised if he was a modalist.

Don’t listen to the bullshit this guy spouts. Christ’s body was created and the logos incarnated as Jesus. If we take Hebrews literally, meaning Christ never changes, that means also his soul would not separate from his body, since that would be change. It is not meant that way.

Christ is not the literal son of god and you know that. You are a kike

The nature of God is not some incidental thing. God's nature cannot change. If God was fully man at any point, then he was always fully man. God doesn't evolve over time like some kind of cosmic organism.

lmao
Condemned out of your own mouth. Massive heretic.

Not rejecting the Bible. You are rejecting the Bible. God is no man, is written in the Bible. He BECAME man at the incarnation. But he was not eternally a man. That sounds so retarded to someone sane.

Jesus Christ is the son of god, the divine son, not the literal son. Admit that you are a Protestant who makes shit up.

So what about Deuteronomy saying god is not a man, that he might change his mind. What about that?

Numbers 23:19 actually

Are you saying Jesus’ adult male body became a baby? Lmao, now that is funny.

More specifically, I want to know how the eternal Word, considering that time is a creation of God, (and how He transcends time), I'd like to understand how something in time (the Incarnation) "changed" His very form, and wouldn't this -eternally- change His "form" (or rather, give Him a human body, to the point that He would indeed still be the eternal Word, but He would eternally have a human body, so all the theophanies in the OT would indeed be the Christ, Jesus, true man and true God). Hopefully this makes a lick of sense…

There is no scripture that supports this view, and also consider Numbers 23:19 “God is no man, that he might lie” he became man but was not man from the beginning, since in that time man and woman were not created yet.

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

Enjoy perishing.

Why did you reply three different times to the same post? Were you trying to samefag and you forgot to switch on your proxies?
Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God, yes. You are a heretic if you deny this.
In Numbers it's God the Father speaking, not God the Son.
Now you're literally mocking God. Major wicked heresy.

So, then the pre-incarnate Word/Logos eternally "ceased" to exist after the Incarnation, when the Word became flesh? I don't mean that in a heretical way, I'm genuinely trying to wrap my head around this.

God the son is not God according to you? It clearly says God, not god the father. God, is not a man. He wasn’t, Prior to the incarnation.

It existed inside Christ. Like a bowl being filled with water.

God doesn't evolve or change. It's completely obvious that if God was ever fully man then he was always fully man.

But it's impossible for limited beings trapped inside time to fully grasp an infinite being that exists outside time. Some things are just mysteries that need to be accepted on faith.

The person of the Trinity speaking in Numbers is God the Father. The Bible obviously never specifies in the Old Testament since the Trinity is a New Testament doctrine.

lmao

I should be the one laughing at such Protestant heresy. Not you. Discard everything this guy says.

You've already denied the Trinity and claimed Jesus is not the Son of God. Now that I think about it you might be a Jew come here to spread heresy and attack Christianity. Those are two very Jewish heresies.

Okay, thank you. What I'm about to say ask sounds silly, but I'm serious… could Christ, who is the Word, "shift" back into His pre-incarnate form at will? Your responses edify me. I'm guessing it's not something we can truly know?

Nope. It’s not God speaking, it’s Moses. And he knew full well that God is not a man, and never was, up until his incarnation. His body was then created. Everything that was made includes his body, obviously. How does a body exist before time? Before the first man and woman are created? Nonsense.

Are you the guy who says He can’t have scars, because that’s change? The Bible explicitly states that God BECAME a man.

Interesting question. I guess if he wanted to shift back into his spirit/body-less form he would have to un-create his body, is that a satisfying answer?

You are the heretic

This is literally the heresy of modalism.

It's God speaking in the book of Numbers, Moses isn't just making stuff up.
How does a son exist before time? Before the first child was created? I notice you are at least not including "child" in your list anymore. I guess the heresy was too blatant even for you.

The nature of God is not incidental like a scar. God's nature does not change.
He did. And he also eternally had a fully human nature.

LITERAL MODALISM
Holy shit hahaha. Imagine being a modalist heretic who thinks God is some kind of shapeshifter.

Source: Dude trust me
Stop right there. Ask any catholic or even orthodox priest and he will tell you that is complete and utter bullshit. I wish I wouldn’t have to bother with this utter nonsense.

You are the heretic, again. Stop right there because all your claims are false and you are attacking your own brothers, Christians, who should be dear to you. You have shown to be extremely malignant so stop right there and meditate upon the meaning of the incarnation. Cease being a malignant and evil person and come to the light, embrace the teachings of the church and cease with your false teachings.

Stop replying multiple times to the same post, it's obnoxious.
Not an argument.
Heretics who claim Jesus isn't the Son of God aren't Christian.
Not an argument.

John 1:14 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.

Philippians 2:5-8 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Why would you say that about someone? That I don’t think Jesus is the son of God? God did not procreate with Mary to make Jesus, so he is not the literal son of God. Simple. Any priest would tell you that and you know it. So cease with this bullshit.

But you actually attacked me before I ever talked about Jesus being the (non literal) son of god. So you are wrong.

Wow. Just wow.
Any priest who would tell you that is retarded. If anything Jesus is more literally the Son of God than any human being is the son of his human father, since the relationships of the persons of the Holy Trinity are what define sonship and fatherhood and the human equivalents are just imperfect shadows of these.

And Mary conceived by God the Holy Ghost. So the literal temporal father of Jesus is God, too.

Yeah, for denying the Bible in favour of your own personal "logic."

26: In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth,
27: to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
28: And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."
29: But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.
30: The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31: And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus.
32: He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David.
33: He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."
34: Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"
35: The angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.
36: And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren.
37: For nothing will be impossible with God."
38: Then Mary said, "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word." Then the angel departed from her.

The Bible says Jesus body was not created? Must have missed that. You know, it actually is heretical to think something physical exists that was not created by the logos. That is akin to docetism.

Attached: HERESY DETECTED.webm (640x360, 2.93M)

Wrong. I am saying the body is not co eternal.

His body is now eternal as well. It had a beginning, but now has no end.

Yes?

I hope you two don't mind me interjecting but I just want to ask:
How many people believe that because Jesus is fully man and fully God and that his nature never changes, that Jesus must have always been fully man and fully God? How normal is this perspective? The poster arguing in favour of it seems to assert it to be obvious but I don't think I've ever heard of this. I was always of the opinion that when the Word was made flesh, that's the point where Jesus became both fully man and fully God. I just feel like, if this is really true, then the idea that Jesus was always fully man and fully God would have been included in the Nicene Creed. It feels like something absolutely fundamental that would have to be covered.

Perhaps, regarding God's unchanging nature, the explanation would be that the line concerned exclusively God the Father? I don't think Jesus has much of a role in the Old Testament.

Also, there's the fact that I always hear (don't quite know where) that Jesus humbled himself when he became Man. If Jesus was always man and God then surely, it would've been that he humbled himself entering time and leaving eternity rather than becoming Man.

hold up, are you implying that you're not a Protestant yourself? because if so… I can't even. Are Catholics seriously being taught this these days? Cause I doubt any Orthodox would ever make this mistake after getting the idea of Jesus' 2 natures drilled into you every liturgy.

It's literally Orthodox theology 101 material. Just check out a copy of the Orthodox Study Bible, this interpretation is literally all over the footnotes.

It's one poster here, and it's not a normal view. Christians accept Christ's own words on the subject.

I tried to Google around on the issue and I found this article.

gotquestions.org/hypostatic-union.html

Is this not Orthodox theology then?

Just to clarify, so you don't think I intend for you to read the entire thing.

Do the Orthodox not believe in the Hypostatic Union?

No, we most certainly do, don't let one poster on a chinese cartoon imageboard make you think otherwise.

So you are now denying the Son!! Why are people overlooking this post?

Yes there is you heretic.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him 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, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Your feeble mind and logic don't constrain God. What you're saying contradicts actual scripture on the matter.

John 1:15
John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

1 John 1:1-2
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Colossians 2:8-9
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

You’re deliberately ignoring the scripture that says He BECAME a man in the incarnation. Yes, God the Son, the Word, has always existed, but He did not have a human body before He incarnated. Read it.

You've got Hebrews 13:8 which says "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."

Why would you think the Son of God existed as a disembodied, de-personed shell during the course of history when Colossians 1:17 clearly says that all things actually consist by him. That would include everything right from the very beginning. And in Colossians 1:15 it clearly says that he is the firstborn of all, he is the Alpha and Omega, why would the Alpha be different than the Omega.

Just look at the theophanies. Like others have been saying, God exists outside of time and you can't attribute a change to God's nature just because someone's flimsy logic requires it. It's just like an Arian who thinks the Trinity is "illogical" and not a mystery of God. Paul himself knew this was part of the mystery of Godliness in 1 Timothy 3:16—

Then quote it for us. Shouldn't be that hard.

And another thing, in Revelation 22:16 he takes on the name of the root and the offspring of David. We have people here saying Jesus is only the offspring but denying that he is the root.

Quite literally the same as saying "I've been to hell and back".

Saying that he's always had a body (though not always an incarnate one manifested physically on Earth) as a part of his human nature, is not contrary to the hypostatic union. Re-read this part closely:
Does not say that the specific incarnation described in the gospels was his only one ever. It is merely asserting, that yes, the Son has become incarnate at least once before, and that yes, Jesus in the gospels was an instance of this. Yet it is also Orthodox understanding that the incarnate Son was the one who wrestled with Jacob:
blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2015/08/29/wrestling-with-god/

In other words, we're not saying Jesus is some kind of immortal human that's always around in the flesh, but rather that the human body is part of his eternal human nature, and as such, can become incarnate whenever he wishes.

so it is possible taht Buddha is Jesus?

And what scripture are you getting that from?

None, it's just a concept, but actually…
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Oh great, so now a universalist entered the thread. Who could have seen that coming.

See John 14:6.

I am not, I am just asking the questions
What is interesting is that when Jesus comes to heaven he enters eternity and be outside of time and mater but there is problem when he is in heven when born to world and have body befor he had body?

you winnie the poohed my mind christanons

PS. sorry for broken english

Just look up theophanies. But yes, it is part of the mystery of godliness as stated in 1 Timothy 3:16.

this whole conversation was about something we can't understand kek

Philippians 2:5-8
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross

Read your Bible. Shouldn’t be that hard.

That passage doesn't support the interpretation that Jesus never had a human body prior to his incarnation as described in the gospels. If someone were to say that they became ill, would that imply that they had never become ill before?

Now you’re just being stupid on purpose.
He incarnated once, to die once, to pay our debt in full once and for all.

Exactly, thank you. He made himself of no reputation, took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men. Or in words reflected elsewhere in the Bible, he was manifested in the flesh specifically unto them. See 1 John 1:1-2. This is entirely within view with his eternal pre-existence in a hypostatic union of both fully God and fully man. Being the firstborn of all creatures and that by which all things consist according to Colossians 1:15-17 he is able to manifest most perfectly as a man being that his Person unchangeably has that nature.

Kind of a theologlet here but I'm given to understand Jesus having not yet incarnated does not preclude Him from being able to be physically manifest beforehand. Presuming that puts deep limitations on Jesus' capabilities and also implies weird things about the incidents in the Bible where angels appear in physical form.

The face of God is Jesus.

"He is the image (Greek - Icon) of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. (Colossians 1:15)

The Angel of the Lord who appeared to Hagar, Moses, Abraham, Joshua, Jacob, etc is Jesus.

And you should quote all of John.

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

For being a bible idolater, your reading comprehension is rather weak.
Also, debt to who? Satan? a vengeful Father? himself? Stop turning Jesus into some pagan sacrifice.

Surely, it makes more sense to presume so then not?

So basically, Mary isn't needed for Jesus to become incarnate? Are you really sure about what you're saying?

Haha, That's actually heretical to say
The verse that you mentioned doesn't mean what you think it does and Christ became man at the incarnation when he was born of a virgin by the holy spirit.

This entire thread is so heretical. Wow.

My guy, go and study basic Christian theology before making such statements on the internet. Christ did not change but rather at the incarnation took on flesh alongside his preexistent divine nature. Reread John 1:1
And John 1:14

If you look at one his later posts (>>797236) he argues that Jesus's incarnation during the time of the Gospels wasn't necessarily his only incarnation. He even argues that Jesus can become incarnate whenever he wishes.

Wew

Watch the embedded video from 6:20-8:20. It discusses exactly what you said about Hebrews

For God's sake, user. Read Hebrews 10.

8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified

Then, read the board rules:

Then, read the Nicene Creed:

Then, enjoy your vacation.

You're actually Insaine! If you take the term "Son" of God literally then who was Gods wife? Did he have sex? Also, read genesis 6:2
Guess God has many sons and don't you dare say they're not because it clearly says son and so we should apply human definitions to God.

Well I guess Christ must’ve been insane when He said He’s the only begotten son of God.
God does not have to fit in your finite mind. It does not matter if it makes you uncomfortable, His power is infinite, and by His power Mary conceived and bore His son. If you don’t like it, then it’s your eternal soul.

The word begotten isn't in the original manuscript. It only appears in later manuscripts that insert the word begotten. But still you think that Christ's human nature was eternal with his divine nature. But the very definition of human is being finite and if it was eternal along with his divine nature then guess what, it isn't human. And how do you read the parts where it says he took on flesh in John 1:14? How can he take on something if he always had it?

At least understand that what you are promoting isn't orthodox Christianity but rather your own misunderstanding. Catholics, Protestants and eastern orthodox alike do not agree with you.

You’re mistaking me for someone else ITT. I am affirming my belief that His human nature was taken on at the incarnation, His only incarnation.