Burning question


#1

As I was driving yesterday, a thought struck me like a lightning bolt and it’s been on my mind all day today. Here it is… Is it possible that Jesus did not exist before he came into the womb of Mary? I’m not a bible scholar but I can’t recall any mention of the Trinity or Jesus in the Old Testament except for prophecies of the coming of Jesus. If Jesus and the Trinity existed in the Old Testament times, why wasn’t it talked about? Here’s my theory. God created Jesus, put his holy spirit into him, and put him in Mary’s womb. This would answer the question of how the trinity could be one and three at the same time. When you clone a sheep, you have created a second being but it is the same as the original being. If you could put all the thoughts and spirit of the original sheep into the cloned sheep, you have 3 as 1 and 1 as 3. If God created a son from only himself (Mary’s DNA was not involved) the son would be one in the same as the father. If Jesus always existed like God, you would have 2. I think at some point, God must have created Jesus and I think it was when he was put into Mary. Why else would Jesus refer to God as father if he was not created by the father? Also, if God created a son for the sole purpose of having him killed for us, to me, this would be more meaningful than sending a son who existed for eternity, down to earth for a mere 33 years, and then bringing him back. Isn’t there something in the bible that says that after the Assention, God would place Jesus at his right side. Wouldn’t that be where he came from if he always existed? I apologize for rambling but my thoughts on this matter are a little disorganized. To me this all seems very logical and it blows me away that I have never heard anyone suggest this before. I think it is generally assumed that Jesus was just always there. Anyone have any feed back?


#2

I’m sorry, but you’re wrong.

John writes about Jesus ‘being’ before He was born in his Gospel. And in Genesis (correct me if I phrase this wrong) it talks about how ‘we’ or ‘they’ (I cannot remember) made everything. It would not be plural without The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


#3

Jesus has always been, as have the Father and Holy Spirit! The Father chose not to reveal the fullness of Himself in the OT. John 1:1 says it all:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.%between% %between%


#4

Jesus is eternal; from all eternity. Jesus is from the beginning. See John 1:1


#5

[quote=awalt]Jesus has always been, as have the Father and Holy Spirit! The Father chose not to reveal the fullness of Himself in the OT. John 1:1 says it all:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
[/quote]

You beat me to it :wink:


#6

So far I haven’t read any replies that have negated my theory, John 1:1 only speaks of the eternal existance of God, not of Jesus. I would be interested in more specifics on the Genesis scripture that refers to “we”. Could you be more specific? Incedently, the Mormons also claim that God chose not fully reveal himself until he revealed himself to Joseph Smith.


#7

[quote=Bob R] I think it is generally assumed that Jesus was just always there.
[/quote]

I think you should try reading some of the Church Fathers. 2,000 years of trying to figure this out might help you understand.

catholic.com/library/Eternal_Sonship_of_Christ.asp

catholic.com/library/God_in_Three_Persons.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Trinity.asp

catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp

catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

What you are proposing is heretical, and its all been answered before.


#8

Hi Wisdom 3:5,
I can’t ever recall being accused of heracy before but every day brings something new. I was merely presenting a theory and looking for feedback. I appreciate the feedback and have yet to find anything that disproves my theory. You provided alot of info, Wisdom, but the bible passages refer only to the existance of the trinity, are all from the New Testament, and say nothing (other than author interpretations) about the existence of the “eternal” Jesus. I did learn something new from you though that blows the “clone” part of my theory. It was from Romans 1: 3-4 that Jesus was a descendant of David which means that he did have DNA from Mary. Also, I looked up the word begotten in the dictionary (Jesus…the only begotten son of the father), and begotten is defined as: To father, sire. To cause to exist or occure, produce. This would support my theory. I would love someone to disprove my theory, biblically, as it goes against everything I had always believed. Thanks.


#9

One more thing,
This is to Pro-Life Teen (I love your screen name by the way). You mentioned something about Genesis refering to “we” or “us”. I looked it up and you were absolutely right. It’s somewhere between Genesis 1: 20-30. It does prove the existance of more than one but not three. Passages of the Bible, like any other book, can be skewed if not taken within the context of the surrounding passages. The beginning of the chapter states in Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning GOD created…”. In Genesis 1:2 it states that “…the spirit of God was…”. There is absolutely no mention of anyone other than God and the Holy Spirit in the rest of Genesis that I could find. I appreciate the feed back but it didn’t help.


#10

[quote=Bob R]Hi Wisdom 3:5,
I can’t ever recall being accused of heracy before but every day brings something new. I was merely presenting a theory and looking for feedback. I appreciate the feedback and have yet to find anything that disproves my theory. You provided alot of info, Wisdom, but the bible passages refer only to the existance of the trinity, are all from the New Testament, and say nothing (other than author interpretations) about the existence of the “eternal” Jesus. I did learn something new from you though that blows the “clone” part of my theory. It was from Romans 1: 3-4 that Jesus was a descendant of David which means that he did have DNA from Mary. Also, I looked up the word begotten in the dictionary (Jesus…the only begotten son of the father), and begotten is defined as: To father, sire. To cause to exist or occure, produce. This would support my theory. I would love someone to disprove my theory, biblically, as it goes against everything I had always believed. Thanks.
[/quote]

I don’t remember which theologan said this but the relationship between the three persons of the trinity is often described as thus:

When the Father thinks a though it’s perfect in every way. So perfect it becomes another person, the Son. The two love each other with such a perfect love that this love then becomes a third person, the Spirit

In this way the Father begets the Son, but since they are outside time neither came first (as time points like first/second/last/next/etc have no meaning outside time).

Why are you against using quotes from the NT to prove this? In the OT the full nature of God wasn’t known, it was only by the coming of the second person that it could be known. In the OT God was preparing Israel to worship only one God, with all the influence from the outside pagan tribes it probably wouldn’t have worked well to say this one God has three persons. At that point they would have too easily fallen away (at least this is my suspicion).

I note your next post you found the quote in Genesis where God says ‘we’, but I’m confused where you point to the singular usage of God. Christians still profess faith in one God, so that doesn’t take away support for the usage of ‘we’.


#11

[quote=Bob R]As I was driving yesterday, a thought struck me like a lightning bolt and it’s been on my mind all day today. Here it is… Is it possible that Jesus did not exist before he came into the womb of Mary? ?
[/quote]

no, it is not possible. read the first chapter of John’s Gospel.


#12

Hi Lady Cygnus,
I’m not against the New Testament, I’m only pointing out that there is no mention of the Trinity in the OT, which I find strange if Jesus had always existed. There is of course, mention of the Trinity in the NT because Jesus was clearly alive. I have yet to see anything from the NT though that mentions that Jesus always was. Your thoughts that the God didn’t introduce the concept of the Trinity because it might have been too much to handle for the people of the OT days may or may not be true but I 'm pretty sure it can’t be proven through scripture. Regarding my mention of Genesis, Pro-Life Teen was stating that the use of “we” or “us” in that chapter proved the existance of the Trinity and I was pointing out that it only proved a plural,God and the Holy Spirit, because they were the only two mentioned in that book. Thanks for the feed back and trying to help. This is really driving me crazy!!! :confused:

  • Bob

#13

[quote=Bob R]Hi Lady Cygnus,
I’m not against the New Testament, I’m only pointing out that there is no mention of the Trinity in the OT, which I find strange if Jesus had always existed. There is of course, mention of the Trinity in the NT because Jesus was clearly alive. I have yet to see anything from the NT though that mentions that Jesus always was. Your thoughts that the God didn’t introduce the concept of the Trinity because it might have been too much to handle for the people of the OT days may or may not be true but I 'm pretty sure it can’t be proven through scripture. Regarding my mention of Genesis, Pro-Life Teen was stating that the use of “we” or “us” in that chapter proved the existance of the Trinity and I was pointing out that it only proved a plural,God and the Holy Spirit, because they were the only two mentioned in that book. Thanks for the feed back and trying to help. This is really driving me crazy!!! :confused:

  • Bob
    [/quote]

There is actually no mention of the Trinity in the NT either (at least not that word), but that is getting nit picky… :stuck_out_tongue:

In the NT Jesus is refered to as the Word of God. The Holy Spirit as the Spirit of God. In the OT you won’t find “Holy Spirit” but “spirit of God”. In the same way you don’t find the word Jesus but “word of God”.

Note - the pural “we and us” doesn’t denote a number, it could be two, three or thirty. It is in the NT that we learn who the rest of the “WE” are.

Another Note, if Jesus was created by God he could not BE God.


#14

[quote=puzzleannie]no, it is not possible. read the first chapter of John’s Gospel.
[/quote]

I agree with puzzleannie. If you can read the first chapter of Johns Gospel and not clearly see that Jesus is eternal there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise!


#15

From Genesis 1:26: Then God said, “Let **us **make man in **our **image.” Who was God talking to? Who’s image? the answer is in v 27: So God created man in His own image." But “His own image” was obvious plural.


#16

Hi Bob

Jesus is the Alpha and Omega … the beginning and the end

(always was and always will be)

…I think the best place for the Trinity is Genesis 1 - 26 Then God said," Let us make man in our image, …etc (too long to write it all out)

I hate to say this but even I thought this once :o and it was when homeschooling my sons that it occurred to me how wrong I was.


#17

How about this:

John 8:58 Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.

Does this help:

Psalms 109:1 The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool.

Jesus mentions this, then St. Paul refers to it:

Matthew 22:42 Saying: What think you of Christ? whose son is he? They say to him: David’s. 43 He saith to them: How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying: 44 The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool? 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time: Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool?

Or again:

Psalm 2:7 The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession.

2 Samuel 7:13 He shall build a house to my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son: and if he commit any iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men.

These indications of Father/Son are explained thusly:

Hebrews 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they. 5 For to which of the angels hath he said at any time, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Again:

Psalm 44:7 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of uprightness. 8 Thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

This refers to the Son.

There are numerous other references in the Old Testament to the Son of God, the Christ, but does this help so far?

hurst


#18

[quote=Bob R]Hi Wisdom 3:5,
I can’t ever recall being accused of heracy before but every day brings something new. I was merely presenting a theory and looking for feedback.
[/quote]

Sorry about that. I suppose heresy was too strong a word since you were just presenting the theories, my bad. They just sounded very much like some of the older heresies that some of the church fathers were up against, and there’s nothing new under the sun, right?

I’m wondering now why you only want to use scripture. This is from CA’s Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth:

HOW GOD SPEAKS TO US

As from the first, God speaks to his Church through the Bible and through sacred Tradition. To make sure we understand him, he guides the Church’s teaching authority—the magisterium—so it always interprets the Bible and Tradition accurately. This is the gift of infallibility.

Like the three legs on a stool, the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium are all necessary for the stability of the Church and to guarantee sound doctrine.

                    **Sacred Tradition (CCC 75–83) **

Sacred Tradition should not be confused with mere traditions of men, which are more commonly called customs or disciplines. Jesus sometimes condemned customs or disciplines, but only if they were contrary to God’s commands (Mark 7:8). He never condemned sacred Tradition, and he didn’t even condemn all human tradition.

Sacred Tradition and the Bible are not different or competing revelations. They are two ways that the Church hands on the gospel. Apostolic teachings such as the Trinity, infant baptism, the inerrancy of the Bible, purgatory, and Mary’s perpetual virginity have been most clearly taught through Tradition, although they are also implicitly present in (and not contrary to) the Bible. The Bible itself tells us to hold fast to Tradition, whether it comes to us in written or oral form (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2).

Sacred Tradition should not be confused with customs and disciplines, such as the rosary, priestly celibacy, and not eating meat on Fridays in Lent. These are good and helpful things, but they are not doctrines. Sacred Tradition preserves doctrines first taught by Jesus to the apostles and later passed down to us through the apostles’ successors, the bishops.


#19

Continued from the previous post:

**Scripture (CCC 101–141) **
Scripture, by which we mean the Old and New Testaments, was inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). The Holy Spirit guided the biblical authors to write what he wanted them to write. Since God is the principal author of the Bible, and since God is truth itself (John 14:6) and cannot teach anything untrue, the Bible is free from all error in everything it asserts to be true.

Some Christians claim, “The Bible is all I need,” but this notion is not taught in the Bible itself. In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20–21, 3:15–16). The “Bible alone” theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church.

It is new, having arisen only in the 1500s during the Protestant Reformation. The theory is a “tradition of men” that nullifies the Word of God, distorts the true role of the Bible, and undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established (Mark 7:1–8).

Although popular with many “Bible Christian” churches, the “Bible alone” theory simply does not work in practice. Historical experience disproves it. Each year we see additional splintering among “Bible-believing” religions.

Today there are tens of thousands of competing denominations, each insisting its interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The resulting divisions have caused untold confusion among millions of sincere but misled Christians.

Just open up the Yellow Pages of your telephone book and see how many different denominations are listed, each claiming to go by the “Bible alone,” but no two of them agreeing on exactly what the Bible means.

We know this for sure: The Holy Spirit cannot be the author of this confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). God cannot lead people to contradictory beliefs because his truth is one. The conclusion? The “Bible alone” theory must be false.

                    **The Magisterium (CCC 85–87, 888–892) **

Together the pope and the bishops form the teaching authority of the Church, which is called the magisterium (from the Latin for “teacher”). The magisterium, guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, gives us certainty in matters of doctrine. The Church is the custodian of the Bible and faithfully and accurately proclaims its message, a task which God has empowered it to do.

Keep in mind that the Church came before the New Testament, not the New Testament before the Church. Divinely-inspired members of the Church wrote the books of the New Testament, just as divinely-inspired writers had written the Old Testament, and the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to guard and interpret the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

Such an official interpreter is absolutely necessary if we are to understand the Bible properly. (We all know what the Constitution says, but we still need a Supreme Court to interpret what it means.)

The magisterium is infallible when it teaches officially because Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles and their successors “into all truth” (John 16:12–13).


#20

[quote=Bob R]As I was driving yesterday, a thought struck me like a lightning bolt and it’s been on my mind all day today. Here it is… Is it possible that Jesus did not exist before he came into the womb of Mary? I’m not a bible scholar but I can’t recall any mention of the Trinity or Jesus in the Old Testament except for prophecies of the coming of Jesus. If Jesus and the Trinity existed in the Old Testament times, why wasn’t it talked about? Here’s my theory. God created Jesus, put his holy spirit into him, and put him in Mary’s womb. This would answer the question of how the trinity could be one and three at the same time. When you clone a sheep, you have created a second being but it is the same as the original being. If you could put all the thoughts and spirit of the original sheep into the cloned sheep, you have 3 as 1 and 1 as 3. If God created a son from only himself (Mary’s DNA was not involved) the son would be one in the same as the father. If Jesus always existed like God, you would have 2. I think at some point, God must have created Jesus and I think it was when he was put into Mary. Why else would Jesus refer to God as father if he was not created by the father? Also, if God created a son for the sole purpose of having him killed for us, to me, this would be more meaningful than sending a son who existed for eternity, down to earth for a mere 33 years, and then bringing him back. Isn’t there something in the bible that says that after the Assention, God would place Jesus at his right side. Wouldn’t that be where he came from if he always existed? I apologize for rambling but my thoughts on this matter are a little disorganized. To me this all seems very logical and it blows me away that I have never heard anyone suggest this before. I think it is generally assumed that Jesus was just always there. Anyone have any feed back?
[/quote]

First, Jesus is the Name of the Human Soul indwelled by the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. As JESUS He did not exist until the Incarnation; but as the Son of God He Is from all eternity. That is a change external to the Divine Person; iow, nothing of the Divine Person changed by virtue of the Incarnation. Rather, it was Man who changed by being brought into friendship with God in and through the God-Man. The theological term for the union of God and Man in Christ Jesus is “hypostasis”. Briefly put: “The dogma asserts that there is in Christ a Person, who is the Divine Person of the Logos, and two natures, which belong to the One Divine Person. The human nature is assumed into the unity and dominion of the Divine Person, so that the Divine Person operates in the human nature and through the human nature, as its organ,” Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott.

Second, God’s Self-revelation didn’t occur in one fell swoop, so to speak, but gradually, over many centuries. Through those centuries He prepared one People to receive Him, the Jews. Many peoples had a multitude of gods - how was the One God to instruct them about His Triune Nature without having them fall into the pagan idolatry of their contemporaries (something they were already very prone to do)? By sending His Son as Man Who would instruct His chosen Apostles to proclaim the Kingdom of the One God in Three Persons. This He continues to do through the Church which Christ established which is the instrument of preserving the Revelation in Christ. Thus we don’t have to rely on our own thoughts or insights to be assured of the truth of Who God Is and how He is towards us. This doesn’t mean that we cannot grow in our personal insights, but that we have the true measure by which to judge them: the Church’s Magisterial Teaching.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.