Jesus begotten Son of God #17 Adam, Eve, Mary and Christianity’s central figure

Jesus begotten son of God

39. Adam and Eve, Mary and Jesus

As the ‘mannin’ Eve, who was created after the image of God, became the first mother of the 1st worldgeneration, Mary was chosen to be the mother of the 2nd Adam, who was going to be the 1st of the New Generation (The third in a row). [35. The 2nd one having started after the flood.] This new child, or the child of the new beginning (Genesis) had to come directly from God to be likewise the 1st Adam and because it would have been unfair to start off from a person who would only come from fragile humans who , because of the heridarity of defects, should have to many problems to choose not to sin. The new world had to be able to start without a bug, so giving humanity more chances to succeed the Creator took again a woman, who at first [36. Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3)] had showed a deceit, giving her again the chance to bring up good children.

Nativité de Costa — The birth of Christ Jesus - La Nativité - 1490 Lorenzo Costa (1460–1535) Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon

The prophet promised by Isaiah and the long expected by others was Jesus with his royal Sonship that is established by his miraculous begetting. That of the Christians originates with their rebirth or regeneration.

40. Identity and nature of Christianity’s central figure

As the centre of a new ecumenism the simple truth about the identity and nature of Christianity’s central figure has the backing of those many scholars who know well that neither Luke nor Matthew show any sign of believing in a pre-human eternal Son of God of the post-biblical creeds. Raymond Brown’s magisterial treatment of the birth narratives in his Birth of the Messiah makes a major point of the fact that neither Matthew nor Luke believed in the Incarnation of a pre-human, prehistoric Son.

Commenting on Luke 1:35, “therefore,” Raymond Brown says, “of the nine times dio kai occurs in the New Testament, three are in Luke/Acts. It involves a certain causality and Lyonnet (in his L’Annonciation, 61.6) points out that this has embarrassed many orthodox theologians since in pre-existence Christology a conception by the holy spirit in Mary’s womb does not bring about the existence of God’s son. Luke is seemingly unaware of such a Christology; conception is causally related to divine Sonship for him…And so I cannot follow those theologians who try to avoid the causal connotation in the ‘therefore’ which begins this line, by arguing that for Luke the conception of the child does not bring the Son of God into being.” Raymond Brown insists that according to Luke, “We are dealing with the begetting of God’s Son in the womb of Mary through God’s creative spirit.” [37. The Birth of the Messiah, London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1977, pp. 291, 312.]

“Orthodoxy” derived from later Church Councils has to turn a blind eye to Gabriel’s definition of the Son of God. It contradicted Gabriel by denying that the conception of Jesus brought about his existence as Son of God.

This is a very serious issue. Is the Jesus of the creeds, the Jesus under whose umbrella churches gather, really the created Son authorized by Scripture in Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18, 20?

Again, the exhaustive work of Brown on the birth narratives brings us the important fact that the Jesus of the Gospels is quite unlike the “eternally begotten” Son of the later creeds:
“Matthew and Luke press [the question of Jesus’ identity] back to Jesus’ conception. In the commentary I shall stress that Matthew and Luke show no knowledge of pre-existence; seemingly for them the conception was the becoming (begetting) of God’s Son (p. 31).”

“The fact that Matthew can speak of Jesus as ‘begotten’ (passive of gennan) suggests that for him the conception through the agency of the holy spirit is the becoming of God’s Son. [In Matthew’s and Luke’s ‘conception Christology’] God’s creative action in the conception of Jesus begets Jesus as God’s Son…There is no suggestion of an Incarnation whereby a figure who was previously with God takes on flesh. For pre-existence Christology [Incarnation], the conception of Jesus is the beginning of an earthly career but not the begetting of God’s Son. [Later] the virginal conception was no longer seen as the begetting of God’s Son, but as the incarnation of God’s Son, and that became orthodox Christian doctrine. This thought process is probably already at work at the beginning of the second century” (pp. 140-142).

Preceding article: Jesus begotten Son of God #16 Prophet to be heard

To be continued: 41. What to believe + 42. Inhuman

Who is Jesus Christ? #1 What does the Bible say the only man who is called “the Last Adam” , the only man who was ever born of a virgin

Preexistence in the Divine purpose and Trinity

Around pre-existence of Christ

Pre-existence of Christ #1 Intro #1 Athanasian Creed

+++