Virgin Birth - Original Sin (Christ)

[nancyer]

I also have been told that the reason for Jesus' virgin birth was so that Joseph could not boast. If Jesus was truly part of Mary & Joseph we would truly be worshipping man, not God, because no matter how perfect and sinless Jesus turned out to be He would still be human. I realize he was fully man and fully God but not in the same way as if Joseph had actually fathered him.

Not wanting Joseph to be able to boast follows along with why we were given the gift of grace, so that none may boast.

[Paidion]

If Joseph had fathered Him, He would not have been the pre-existing Son of God who became man, but as you say a mere human being like any other.

As I see it, He was not "fully God and fully man" while on earth. He had divested Himself of all of his divine attributes (Phil 2:6,7), and so He was fully man. The only thing He retained of his former existence was his identity.

He could do nothing of Himself (John 5:30). All of the miracles attributed to Him were actually performed by the Father working THROUGH Him.

[nancyer]

Paidion, True, true. Thanks for clearing it up.

[TheEditor]

Hi Paidion,

As I see it, He was not "fully God and fully man" while on earth. He had divested Himself of all of his divine attributes (Phil 2:6,7), and so He was fully man. The only thing He retained of his former existence was his identity.

Whereas I agree with you that "fully God and fully man" is a Nicene idea, still, what do we do with this verse:

"Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily."
(Colossians 2:8-9)

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

Whereas I agree with you that "fully God and fully man" is a Nicene idea, still, what do we do with this verse:

"Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily."
(Colossians 2:8-9)

I don't see this verse as describing Jesus while He walked this earth as a man. Rather Paul refers to the resurrected Jesus, who is essentially of the same divine essence as the Father, even as He was in his pre-incarnate state. As I see it, when He became man, He divested Himself of his divine attributes and became fully man, but after He was raised, these attributes were again restored to Him, so that the fullness of deity dwells within Him bodily (in his resurrected body which He still possesses).

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Paidion]

The use of the word "before" in the phrase "before time began" makes sense if we consider that this phrase is not to be understood as implying that there was any time, in reality, before the first moment of time; but, rather, this phrase points to such a "time" as it exists in our imagination.

Actually, the phrase "before time began" does not occur in the New Testament except in those versions, such as the NKJV and Philps, which I consider to have made a poor translation of the Greek phrase "προ χρονων αιωνιον" (pro chronōn aiōnion), literally "before times lasting".

Translations of the phrase vary considerably. I discount those which include "world" in the phrase. As for some of the others, we have:

Before the ages began — ESV
Before times eternal — ASV, WEB
Before eternal ages — Calvin
Eternal ages ago — Williams
Before times age-lasting — Diaglot
Before the times of the ages — JB 2000
Long ages ago — NASB
Ages ago — RSV
Before age-enduring times — Rotherham
Before the times of the ages — YLT

Some of these phrases don't seem to make sense. But take your pick. Personally, I would translate it as literally as possible, namely "before lasting times". What would that mean? I'd say it means "at the beginning of time".

However, the translation "Before time began" is an oxymoron. How can there be a "before" if time had a beginning? But you say, "rather, this phrase points to such a 'time' as it exists in our imagination." Yes, I agree. I would say that that is the only place it could exist.