did Christ exist before (H)e was conceived?

[Blue3]

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.    

Fully Human and Fully God.

The Son, which Jesus was an Incarnation of, existed before the universe.

And when he had a human body, of course he had normal DNA and all that.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

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 don't insist on taking it from the standpoint of religious doctrine; I don't really want to, even. In fact, that's just as uninteresting if not more so, because I would say that 'yes' is the only acceptable or cogent answer and an Arian or adoptionist (or atheist, or non-Christian of any other kind) poster would say 'no' and nobody would be able to change anybody else's minds except by converting them. I think that question like this need to be pursued on the level of narrative for people with differing beliefs to be able to discuss them on a level playing field. I simply don't think that, from the perspective of our own various religious beliefs, this question could ever be especially interesting to discuss.

I admit that in view of my original answer, which was the first thing to come to mind while I was trying to do several things at once, saying this now is somewhat hypocritical. I shouldn't have answered the way I did, but rather the way Starwatcher and realisticidealist did.

[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?

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?

No, no. By that logic you can say that Star Wars actually happened, Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader really faced off exactly as in those movies, and so on. That does not wash, as I'm sure you realize. It's fiction like King Arthur and like all the people roughly at the time of Jesus  or who resembled Jesus (Mithra and Apollonius, to name two) and who worked miracles, lived forever, born of a virgin (again, not possible), etc.

Conversely, I can actually show you a square that has four sides. Why? Because it has four 90-degree angles that add up to 360 degrees, which is what it is supposed to add up to. An empty set is such because it equals, essentially, zero. And I can show you zero. I cannot show you a man who existed before he was born like I cannot show you a light saber. it's not physically possible. That's really the beginning and end of it.

The burden of proof rests on whoever makes the claim. I claim a square has four sides, and so I can show you one. I can diagram it. I claim a man can live forever, but I cannot show your that, and it's not congruent with anything that's known, so therefore it is fiction. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I cannot show you a man who existed before he was born like I cannot show you a light saber. it's not physically possible. That's really the beginning and end of it.

You are begging the question in assuming that Jesus, son of Mary, was only a man.  Asking the question only makes sense if one accepts as an axiom that Jesus was divine.

Asking whether a Jesus who was only a man existed before he was conceived is like asking whether Schwarzenegger would have beaten Kerry for President in 2004 when he wasn't even eligible to run.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

There's a certain 6th century or so "heresy" about Jesus' divine nature that applies here and that I'm actually fond of, but I can't remember the name of it right now.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

There's a certain 6th century or so "heresy" about Jesus' divine nature that applies here and that I'm actually fond of, but I can't remember the name of it right now.

Arianism?

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

There's a certain 6th century or so "heresy" about Jesus' divine nature that applies here and that I'm actually fond of, but I can't remember the name of it right now.

Arianism?

Arianism is earlier than BRTD seems to be thinking of, though it's possible his conception of history is off by a few centuries (note: That isn't meant to sound snide. I know it does but I'm not sure how to avoid that here).

[afleitch]

There's a certain 6th century or so "heresy" about Jesus' divine nature that applies here and that I'm actually fond of, but I can't remember the name of it right now.

Arianism?

Arianism is earlier than BRTD seems to be thinking of, though it's possible his conception of history is off by a few centuries (note: That isn't meant to sound snide. I know it does but I'm not sure how to avoid that here).

It's worth working on

I’m not entirely sure what BRTD is referring to because the debate is difficult to follow due to various doctrinal splits; i.e Chalcedon didn’t exactly lay it to rest at the time and in many ways, still hasn’t. Just head due east. He might be referring to the Council of Frankfurt but that’s still out by a hundred years or so.

And that I guess is my point. The argument over this particular matter boiled down to the ‘intermediary’ in all of this; Mary. Was Mary, as is now generally accepted, the ‘mother/bearer of god’ or is she more appropriately the ‘mother of the christ?’ In calling her the bearer of god does it actually deny Jesus his humanity? That’s only taking us back to the 400-500’s. Reeling it all back further I could approach this from an agnostic position. If you accept that there is a god and you then choose to accept that the man Jesus was somehow ‘representing’ that divinity because you are so emboldened by his teachings (not the best way to frame it but it will do), then an easier interpretation of him without dispensing with the core tenets of biological conception is taking an adoptionist approach and assume that he was ‘adopted’ by god at some point in his life and therefore was born of human parents. It was the First Council of Nicaea that threw this out, but even a generation or two prior to this, critics such Celsus or some of the Jewish scholars for example espoused the view that Jesus was simply an illegitimate child.

Adoptionist views are hinted at in Mark (some translations of 1.1) and with Paul (‘You are my son. Today I have begotten you’) and the gospels were composed prior to when the nature of Jesus’ divinity or the virgin birth were settled. So fragmented and fractured is the story of the early church that whatever ‘truth’ there was can never be determined. Declaring a view as heretical is simply a means to shut down debate, not to confirm that debate has reached its natural end with a solution. Nor does it help that early Christianity was subject to a take-over by the gentiles. The core band of initial followers were contemporary Jewish-Christians and in all likelihood included the ‘desposyni’; those who had direct, possibly even familial connections to Jesus. The Jewish revolts essentially put an end to them but we know that for many of them Jesus was just. Jesus was righteous, he was even resurrected but in the great Jewish tradition of prophets, he was simply chosen by god when anointed at his baptism. The further back you go and the closer in time and geography and kinship you get to the historical Jesus, the less and less he looks like he does today. Supernaturally speaking.

It actually makes Starwatchers ‘jmfcstesque’ quoting of the gospel without comment or commentary, which in an earlier post you praised, quite weak because simply quoting it doesn’t fully settle the issue. Not to ‘nestorians’ anyway. Or to Unitarians for that matter. Very little is actually settled doctrine in Christianity. This thread makes a false assumption that it is, in part because the forum is inhabited by Chrisitians almost exclusively belonging to post Council sects.

[angus]

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.

You may be taking it out of context.  The question specifically asks about Christ and not about Jesus of Nazareth.  Presumably that was intentional.

[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.

You may be taking it out of context.  The question specifically asks about Christ and not about Jesus of Nazareth.  Presumably that was intentional.

As I explained in my post above, even if I were to consider 'Christ', my response would still be relevant.

[angus]

Ah, I posted before I noticed the subsequent post.  Clearly you have thought a great deal about this.  Still, the assumption that you say is false is the assumption that we are operating under.  What you are doing is arguing a broader point. 

There's a former porn star who reads Greek and Hebrew very well and comes on TV in the United States late at night and talks about this stuff.  I don't watch much television evangelism, but I like to watch her.  Melissa Scott is her name.  She's probably looking tired now, but about 15 years ago she was hot.  Sometimes when I had trouble sleeping I'd torch up a fat one and sit there watching her translate Greek and Hebrew.  Anyway, she was talking about this very thing one night, interpreting the Gospels (I forget which one) to show the divinity of Christ even before his birth.  I wish I could remember all that stuff so I could post something intelligent here; alas, all I can remember was the way she used to grip that dry erase marker.

[afleitch]

Ah, I posted before I noticed the subsequent post.  Clearly you have thought a great deal about this.  Still, the assumption that you say is false is the assumption that we are operating under.  What you are doing is arguing a broader point. 

That's correct and you’re the first to notice It is dishonest to argue that the ‘Yes’ response to the initial question requires the accepted, ‘western’ Christian conclusion on the nature of the 'logos' when other interpretations exist. Other interpretations that exclude physical divinity entirely, with divinity only being conferred on Jesus by adoption also exist and indeed were once more prevalent than today. Accepting his divinity, while a supernatural act in itself, does not require further acts of the supernatural when it comes to his conception and birth.

To go back to the point, Mark is generally accepted to be the earliest written Gospel, even if it is not placed as such canonically. Mark 1.1 opens up with ‘’The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God", a direct statement of faith. It could also be translated (due to there being no article in the greek) as ‘a’ son of god. But most importantly some early manuscripts don’t even have ‘son of god’; the Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th Century for example (see Strong’s) so there has to be some hesitation as to whether it was ever there to begin with. Mark doesn’t contest Jesus’ divinity per se, but nor does he identify him as the ‘son of god’ at his birth and that’s the key point. No one does until Jesus is an adult and the mad man in the tombs at Mark 5 says it. Luke and Matthew do however establish his divinity at the beginning of their narrative; (i.e the beginning of Jesus’ life) and John has him being divine before his birth (which is what everyone is arguing about on here) It is accepted The Jewish-Christian gospels did not call for a supernatural birth. It’s entirely probably that Mark didn’t either. Given that the earliest texts of the people who probably knew Jesus personally, or at least within the first few generations of the early Christians around Judea (including the gospel of Mark) don’t seem to be pushing for a supernatural birth, it is strange that some 200 years later with early Christianity now almost exclusively a gentile exercise (at least within in the eastern Roman Empire) that adoptionism is suddenly declared to be heretical when in all likelyhood it was the original belief.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Yup. In fact Jesus made several appearances in the Old Testament timeframe. The best and clearest of these examples is is when Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were preserved in the firey furnace. The foutrh in the fire with them was the pre-incarnate Jesus. Daniel 3 tells us of the account.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Yup. In fact Jesus made several appearances in the Old Testament timeframe. The best and clearest of these examples is is when Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were preserved in the firey furnace. The foutrh in the fire with them was the pre-incarnate Jesus. Daniel 3 tells us of the account.

This works as an explanation of why one answers the way one does but, as afleitch has correctly pointed out, doesn't actually constitute an argument that would be convincing beyond that explanation. I sincerely hope you're aware that Jews, for instance, would interpret the story of the burning fiery furnace very differently.

afleitch, I'll try to address your points sometime later but I can't promise anything because I'm having a mild emotional crisis right now and may not be able to devote much intense thought to the Atlas Forum over the next few days.

[afleitch]

If it helps, what I am essentially trying to say is that despite on the surface you and JCL appear to have different views on Christianity technically you do not. Obviously of course, that really goes without saying and no doubt you would both readily admit that. However what you believe, in common with most western Christian sects was hammered out in edicts and councils by around 700AD give or take. There are schisms before then in the faith leading to many of the eastern faiths as was mentioned earlier but many of the very early Christian sects do not have direct living successors (spurious claims by the Catholic Church aside). Many of these sects were suppressed, declared heretical or died out. You therefore have to place a lot of stock in that what emerged theologically several hundred years after Jesus was alive, is correct. Of course there’s the caveat of the ‘spirit’ assisting those in the early church to interpret and preach and evangelise ‘correctly’ and continuing to this day but that too is a product of the development of the faith. Looking a lot closer to home, all those from the greatest intellectual to the lowest lay worshipper who used the bible to guide their faith to justify slavery are now generally accepted as getting it wrong. As time progresses more and more things become ‘wrong’ or perhaps are newly understood. Logically it suggests that most Christians today are probably wrong about something they adhere to or believe; they just don’t know it yet! As a result Christianity improves with each iteration and edges closer to the ‘truth’. A bit like a science really. The difference is for a Christian, was Jesus himself not the ‘truth’? As a person and as a messenger, he was very much parked at around 5BC to 30AD. So surely those who knew him and followed him are closer to the ‘truth’ than people are today? Yet so much trust and faith is placed in what was far more recently agreed.

Something comparable, time wise would be Robin Hood. Let’s assume he is real (there are contemporary records of men by that name in the right place at the right time) and that how we now popularly understand him in 2013 is deemed to be the ‘truth.’  He’s first referenced in ‘Piers Plowman’ published around 1360 at the earliest. Let’s place that at 60AD, the earliest of the gospels. Constructing this timeline, by around 120AD more is being written about him; ‘Robyn hode in scherewode stod.’ The very earliest stories have his archery, his disregard for state and church offices and the Sheriff of Nottingham. He also has veneration for the Virgin Mary. By the early 200’s, we’re now being told that he was a contemporary of Richard the Lionheart during the reign of John while he was away on Crusade some 160 years before we first hear of him in. This places him around 100BC. However ‘A Gest of Robyn Hood’, among other books, estimated to be written in 150 AD in our timeline, places him in the reign of Edward III which was around 40AD. However that’s no longer accepted despite being an earlier and contemporary account because it’s been agreed that he fits in with King John ( and makes for a better story) What’s even more confusing is that there may never have been one ‘Robin Hood’ at all. We now know that from magistrates records that variations of the name appeared to be an alias adopted by petty thieves across the midlands of England. There were people like him claiming to be ‘the Robin Hood’ so the mythological Robin and all his deeds may actually be a combination of different men, but it’s very difficult for this idea to gather steam because so many people are so very attached to the Robin Hood story. However what we really accept of Robin today was pulled together in the works of novelists such as Walter Scott by 460AD. By now he has his full band of ‘merry men’ and he’s no longer a thief, at least not a selfish one. He ‘robs from the rich to give to the poor.’ It is by this time that the Robin Hood story becomes universal as does the setting of the story, his supporters and his deeds. However it’s Howard Pyle’s popular stories between 500 and 600AD that really affect how we are told to view Robin Hood. He even starts getting his green tights. All other concepts are now forgotten or declared heretical. The ‘truth’ therefore is Pyles and Scotts. The old tales are forgotten or retroactively interpreted to prove Pyle and Scott and the tales where Robin isn’t that good a person, or perhaps his escapades are set at the wrong time are sidelined. The records of the aliases that gave us these conflicting accounts, the real Robin/s are forgotten or purged. In fact everything I just told you right up to Walter Scott isn’t really talked about by the supporters of Robin Hood at all. There are some smaller sects who still have him being a contemporary of Edward, not John and have differing accounts of his nature.

It’s a very crude example but I hope it serves my point. Picking up on the gospels, I’ve already talked about Mark. Matthew is interesting too because his audience were also gentiles who had no knowledge of the Hebrew prophecies regarding their messiah. They did however have an understanding of their own stories; the gods coming to earth (or not in some cases) and impregnating women, miraculous births of sons that become heroes and daughters that wars are waged for. So with Matthew, Mary moves from the generic ‘alma’ (fulflilling Isaiah for the Christians even though it probably referred to someone like Hezekiah) to the supernatural ‘parthenos’ (also ‘generic’ in Greek mythology but for different reasons) So our poor Jewish-Christians, Jesus’ own ‘merry men’ are arguing in favour of adoptionism for about two generations post Jesus before they get snuffed out, but the gentiles in Anatolia have subscribed to parthenogenesis. It’s what they’re used to hearing after all and the Mithraists have their own virgin birth to the west and the Zoroastrians have theirs to the east. Back to Anatolia, we’re not even entirely sure if Paul’s relative silence on the matter infers he knew about it or not. We have early gentile Christian apologists getting a little hot under the collar at pagan and stoic attempts to ‘parody’ their beliefs and rituals (though there is just as strong assertions to be made that the contrary may also have been true) and that includes parthenogenesis. You know where I stand on human parthenogenesis so I hope you can understand why I am slightly more amenable to an adoptionist approach if we have to take Jesus’ divinity as irrefutable for the purposes of this exercise, particularly as that approach seems to have been taken by those closest to the historical Jesus and is more likely to have been the ‘truth’. Therefore for me, Christianity today is so far removed from the reality of who Jesus of Nazareth was and has inflections of being a religion essentially formed by a committee that it cannot be considered worthy of serving his message should I accept it. It is also problematic that we will never actually know what his message was.

This is essentially the shorthand of where I stood in about early 2010. I had had a brief flirtation with the Scottish Episcopalian Church as part of my ‘recovery’ from Catholicism but found that wanting and had discussions with Quaker and Unitarian friends (all three that I’ve had the pleasure of working with on the ‘Faith in Marriage’ equal marriage campaign recently) I couldn’t accept the virgin birth not from just a biological perspective which is something that had always made me feel uncomfortable, but from a faith perspective too. It lead me to accept that I wasn’t a Christian per se but may still have followed Jesus and accepted his ‘divinity’ from a philosophical point of view; the same manner in which otherwise rational Greek thinkers understood the interactions of the gods. What ended up happening was a fairly fast unraveling of my belief in anything at all by the summer which for me was the equivalent of taking a huge breath of air after being underwater.

[angus]

I am slightly more amenable to an adoptionist approach if we have to take Jesus’ divinity as irrefutable for the purposes of this exercise...

There's a good lad.

Except for the bizarre foray into Nottingham, that was a good read.  Let's hope that Nathan's mild emotional crisis isn't as unraveling as yours turned out to be. 

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

I assure you, my emotional crisis is about something completely unrelated; it's just that it's adversely affecting my ability to form detailed arguments.

I will agree with angus, afleitch, that that was a good read, I think especially the part about Robin Hood (a story in which I've always been very interested). I don't agree with it, but that's because I don't think that Christian doctrine having been formed by committee necessarily discounts it or does it any disservice, because of my understanding of how the Holy Ghost operates in history. (Obviously, or I wouldn't have the beliefs that I do!--since I'm not an idiot or willfully ignorant and I do know that that is what in fact happened.) Things done by--certain types of--committee can develop a certain ponderance that sudden flashes of inspiration often don't, at least not on their own.

I definitely concede that, taking the long view, my conception of Christianity is indeed a lot more similar to JCL's on the theoretical level than either he or I would probably like to admit on the liturgical or political level.

[The Mikado]

The answer is, for the purposes of doctrine and the story, he is. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's the answer  in the same vein as saying that according to Hesiod, Uranus and Gaia were children of Chaos instead of saying "There's no such thing as Uranus or Gaia, the sky is not a god, and neither is the Earth."  Or saying that according to Homer, Achilles slew Hector, and not saying "Neither Achilles nor Hector actually existed, and Homer himself probably didn't exist either."  One answer is relevant to the question at hand, and the other is being a jerk who can't tell the difference between discussing characters in literature and "reality."

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Yup. In fact Jesus made several appearances in the Old Testament timeframe. The best and clearest of these examples is is when Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were preserved in the firey furnace. The foutrh in the fire with them was the pre-incarnate Jesus. Daniel 3 tells us of the account.

This works as an explanation of why one answers the way one does but, as afleitch has correctly pointed out, doesn't actually constitute an argument that would be convincing beyond that explanation. I sincerely hope you're aware that Jews, for instance, would interpret the story of the burning fiery furnace very differently.

afleitch, I'll try to address your points sometime later but I can't promise anything because I'm having a mild emotional crisis right now and may not be able to devote much intense thought to the Atlas Forum over the next few days.

The leader of Babylon himself in chapter three of Daniel said

Daniel 3:24-25 ESV

24 Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and rose up in haste. He declared to his counselors, “Did we not cast three men bound into the fire?” They answered and said to the king, “True, O king.” 25 He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”

He, meaning the king,  thought the fourth was like one of his "gods".  A Jew would likely have thought that it was the ANGEL OF THE LORD or likely their messiah. They believe their messiah would be able to do these kinds of things.  My understanding is if you see angel of the LORD in scripture it always refers to a pre-incarnate appearence of Jesus. Also look at the appearances of Jesus in Revelation 1 and the figure in Daniel 10 are so similar that it has to be the same individual

Daniel 10:2-9 ESV

2 In those days I, Daniel, was mourning for three weeks. 3 I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine entered my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, for the full three weeks. 4 On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river (that is, the Tigris) 5 I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. 6 His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude. 7 And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision, but a great trembling fell upon them, and they fled to hide themselves. 8 So I was left alone and saw this great vision, and no strength was left in me. My radiant appearance was fearfully changed, and I retained no strength. 9 Then I heard the sound of his words, and as I heard the sound of his words, I fell on my face in deep sleep with my face to the ground.

Revelation 1:9-20


9 I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet 11 saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”12 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, 18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. 19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this. 20 As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

The fourth man in the fire, and the man in Daniel and John's visions is clearly and without dispute the Son Of Man.
Who called himself the Son of Man throughout the Brit Chadashah(New Testament) is none other than Yeshuah(Jesus) himself.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Yes, I'm familiar with Christian exegesis, being a Christian and all. What I'm asking is whether you're aware that this isn't the interpretation that Judaism has.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Some Jews agree with the Christian exegesis. Some don't. Indeed I do know that.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The pre-existence of Christ is alluded to in sections of the Epistles to Paul that have become known as the "Christological hymns."  In Philippians Christ is said to have emptied himself to enter into human form, and in Colossians he is the one by whom all things are made.  These poems are often considered to be quoted by Paul rather than written by him, suggesting that these concepts were already widespread among the Christian communities, and may be among the earliest Christian literature in the NT. 

That's not the same as the virgin birth.  I don't think the concepts are combined in the NT.  The virgin birth is described in Matthew and Luke, and I don't know of any pre-existence statements from those gospels.  There is a hint in John of Jesus' critics considering him a bastard (I can't recall where it is), but no description of the author's view of the circumstances surrounding his nativity.  The virgin birth took on a doctrinal statement all its own, but I think it's best understood in context of the nativity narratives and the drama of God's relation to Mary and Joseph. 

[Beet]

Yes, I'm familiar with Christian exegesis, being a Christian and all.

Not all Christians are as knowledgeable about their own faith as you are, which is certainly unfortunate.