did Christ exist before (H)e was conceived?

[© tweed]

did Christ exist before (H)e was conceived?

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Yes (Chalcedonian Christian).

[Blue3]

Yes, of course. That is quite clear in the Gospel of John, and it's explicitly been the orthodox view for well over a 1000 years.

Jesus is the Incarnation of the Son.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have existed, co-dependent on each other, since the timeless beginning.

[© tweed]

I just asked my mom this question and she answered, "that is the most absurd thing..."

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Interesting, portions of the Proverbs that Christians interpret as referring to Christ use mostly feminine pronouns.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I voted yes, but even as a Christian I remain somewhat confused about this question.

[Blue3]

Gospel of John, Chapter 1, Verses 1-18

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

[DemPGH]

No. I hate to even have to give a reason, but-- if Jesus Christ existed, and there's at least a 75% chance that he did (there were plenty of Messiahs walking around at that time - see Apollonius of Tyana), then he was a human being. Which means he was made from human DNA. And if he was made from human DNA, he was finite. People who are finite exist only while they exist physically. Therefore, Jesus did not exist before he was conceived. There is no evidence, I hate to reiterate, of anything beyond the elements, which are truly fascinating.    

[RI]

Duh. See the first line of John, as posted above. "In the beginning was the Word" -> Jesus is the Word made flesh -> ergo, Jesus existed in the beginning.

[RI]

No. I hate to even have to give a reason, but-- if Jesus Christ existed, and there's at least a 75% chance that he did (there were plenty of Messiahs walking around at that time - see Apollonius of Tyana), then he was a human being. Which means he was made from human DNA. And if he was made from human DNA, he was finite. People who are finite exist only while they exist physically. Therefore, Jesus did not exist before he was conceived. There is no evidence, I hate to reiterate, of anything beyond the elements, which are truly fascinating.   

Thanks for that insight. May I point you to the assembled works of Mikado?

[DC Al Fine]

Yes, absolutely.

[afleitch]

No. If he was a human being then his mother was human as was his father. He only 'existed' essentially as a potential DNA template that came together at a certain moment to create him. If that means he 'existed' before he was conceived then I guess the same can be said of all of us.

[DemPGH]

No. I hate to even have to give a reason, but-- if Jesus Christ existed, and there's at least a 75% chance that he did (there were plenty of Messiahs walking around at that time - see Apollonius of Tyana), then he was a human being. Which means he was made from human DNA. And if he was made from human DNA, he was finite. People who are finite exist only while they exist physically. Therefore, Jesus did not exist before he was conceived. There is no evidence, I hate to reiterate, of anything beyond the elements, which are truly fascinating.   

Thanks for that insight. May I point you to the assembled works of Mikado?

LOL. Mikado says he has no evidence and can't prove something, so he's not going to debate challengers. So what?

What evidence do you have that a human being existed before he was conceived? Do you understand in biological terms what you are saying?

And as far as the gospel-writers go, who were also just story-tellers, how about this: someone named Thomas [Malory] said King Arthur is asleep in a cave on an island called Avalon and will return one day to unite England. You believe that one as well? Why not, if no?

[afleitch]

No. I hate to even have to give a reason, but-- if Jesus Christ existed, and there's at least a 75% chance that he did (there were plenty of Messiahs walking around at that time - see Apollonius of Tyana), then he was a human being. Which means he was made from human DNA. And if he was made from human DNA, he was finite. People who are finite exist only while they exist physically. Therefore, Jesus did not exist before he was conceived. There is no evidence, I hate to reiterate, of anything beyond the elements, which are truly fascinating.   

Thanks for that insight. May I point you to the assembled works of Mikado?

Let me get this straight. A question is raised, he answers 'no'; one of the available options and that's...a problem somehow?

[All Along The Watchtower]

No. I hate to even have to give a reason, but-- if Jesus Christ existed, and there's at least a 75% chance that he did (there were plenty of Messiahs walking around at that time - see Apollonius of Tyana), then he was a human being. Which means he was made from human DNA. And if he was made from human DNA, he was finite. People who are finite exist only while they exist physically. Therefore, Jesus did not exist before he was conceived. There is no evidence, I hate to reiterate, of anything beyond the elements, which are truly fascinating.   

Thanks for that insight. May I point you to the assembled works of Mikado?

Let me get this straight. A question is raised, he answers 'no'; one of the available options and that's...a problem somehow?

"What is your opinion of these aspects of liberal democracy?"
"I don't believe in liberal democracy. You can't prove it's better than anything else, so it's stupid to discuss it at all."

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

No. I hate to even have to give a reason, but-- if Jesus Christ existed, and there's at least a 75% chance that he did (there were plenty of Messiahs walking around at that time - see Apollonius of Tyana), then he was a human being. Which means he was made from human DNA. And if he was made from human DNA, he was finite. People who are finite exist only while they exist physically. Therefore, Jesus did not exist before he was conceived. There is no evidence, I hate to reiterate, of anything beyond the elements, which are truly fascinating.   

Thanks for that insight. May I point you to the assembled works of Mikado?

Let me get this straight. A question is raised, he answers 'no'; one of the available options and that's...a problem somehow?

The Mikado used a different Dostoyevsky analogy, but I think this one works better here:

'Is Prince Myshkin a direct Christ analgoue?'
(Options are yes or no)
'No, because Prince Myshkin isn't real.'

[afleitch]

So what should we people who wish to answer 'no', say?

[Insula Dei]

But why would you want to wade into a thread about a theological question to come out with that specific bit of high-grade scholastical thinking? I don't spend my days debating the ins and outs of Mein Kampf on Stormfront.

As to the question at hand: yes, everything else is arianism etc. etc.

[RI]

No. I hate to even have to give a reason, but-- if Jesus Christ existed, and there's at least a 75% chance that he did (there were plenty of Messiahs walking around at that time - see Apollonius of Tyana), then he was a human being. Which means he was made from human DNA. And if he was made from human DNA, he was finite. People who are finite exist only while they exist physically. Therefore, Jesus did not exist before he was conceived. There is no evidence, I hate to reiterate, of anything beyond the elements, which are truly fascinating.   

Thanks for that insight. May I point you to the assembled works of Mikado?

LOL. Mikado says he has no evidence and can't prove something, so he's not going to debate challengers. So what?

What evidence do you have that a human being existed before he was conceived? Do you understand in biological terms what you are saying?

And as far as the gospel-writers go, who were also just story-tellers, how about this: someone named Thomas [Malory] said King Arthur is asleep in a cave on an island called Avalon and will return one day to unite England. You believe that one as well? Why not, if no?

Thanks for missing the point entirely. Unfortunately, I was logged out before I could post my full statement on your post, but I'd like to address one thing again. You mention the concept of "proving" Jesus existed before conception, and I would say that that is a rather spurious notion. You can no more "prove" that Jesus existed before conception than you can "prove" a square has four sides or that the empty set has no elements; it is true by definition under the parameters of a defined universe. Jesus is defined to be both man and God, and while yes, the man portion didn't exist before conception any more than any other person (their atoms existed, etc.) that is not what we're addressing. The divine portion of Jesus is the Word, which John says in a canonical text existed in the beginning. Our definition of Jesus therefore says He existed in the beginning, and that his earthly body was a manifestation of what always was.

Perhaps you might say this: a "square" does not truly exist, it is an idea that can be manifested in physical form albeit imperfectly. This idea has always existed whether or not it is currently being used or even if it had been thought up by man; it exists independent of human conceptions in another "realm" of existence. Very, very loosely, Jesus is somewhat like that.

So what should we people who wish to answer 'no', say?

Give an "in-universe" answer? That is, if you take the existence of Jesus as a given proposition, why would Jesus have not existed before his conception?

[afleitch]

Give an "in-universe" answer? That is, if you take the existence of Jesus as a given proposition, why would Jesus have not existed before his conception?

But I did. I said he was human. Therefore he had human parents as all humans do. I think that's a perfectly acceptable answer given that I do not accept his divinity.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

No (rationalist agnostic).

[RI]

But I did. I said he was human. Therefore he had human parents as all humans do. I think that's a perfectly acceptable answer given that I do not accept his divinity.

I apparently neglected some words. "If one accepts the divine existence of Jesus, as in, that he is the Son of God, why would He not exist beforehand?" This is a far more interesting question that could actually lead to interesting conversations, unlike saying "I'm taking my ball and going home."

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

But I did. I said he was human. Therefore he had human parents as all humans do. I think that's a perfectly acceptable answer given that I do not accept his divinity.

I apparently neglected some words. "If one accepts the divine existence of Jesus, as in, that he is the Son of God, why would He not exist beforehand?" This is a far more interesting question that could actually lead to interesting conversations, unlike saying "I'm taking my ball and going home."

Yes, exactly. Is 'John Watson never lived' an 'in-universe' answer to the issue of his marital status? Is 'Enlightenment isn't a real concept' an 'in-universe' answer to questions about Shakyamuni's experience at Bodh Gaya?

[RI]

If someone were having a discussion about varying elements of quantum mechanics, would you be miffed if I came in and said "X element of quantum mechanics can not be proven empirically due to the Uncertainty Principle/smaller than a Planck length/what have you so why even discuss it"? How about if you were discussing about the interior physics of black holes and and I intejected that "You can't prove what exists inside an event horizon and communicate with someone outside it, and thus we can't empirically prove anything and shouldn't discuss it"? That would irritate me, I know.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

I am sorry, Nathan, but you cannot compare religious writings to works of fiction, because religion (at least Christian religion) has (at least in his most widespread interpretation) a claim to material reality. You cannot expect people to take by default this question from the standpoint of religious doctrine, and if you want people to think of it that way the topic's title should indeed be changed into what Realisticidealist said.

I would also note that there is a difference between discussing the moral teachings of a religion (which are universal and have the same value regardless of your beliefs) and its theological or doctrinal elements, which obviously can be discussed by nonbelievers, but only really make sense if you subscribe to that beliefs.