19–2: Why the idea of a pre-incarnate Christ is fallacious

When I asserted that Jesus was NOT one of the visitors who appeared to Abraham, a couple of people just lost their minds.

I reasoned that in the original Hebrew, since the third person is called “YAHWEH” (or YEHOVEH) and Jesus is never referred to by the Father’s name, there is no way this could be Yeshua.

But, apparently, that argument wasn’t sufficient enough…so here we go with another post about this.

Look, there is an important physical or biological distinction that needs to be made here.

Yeshua was born from a woman, circumcised on the eighth day, and He grew up like any normal Jewish child.

He was a 100%, flesh-and-blood man.

This situation is qualitatively different than the three men who appeared to Abraham.

The difference is that the men who appeared to Abraham were spiritual beings who only took on the form of men.

And one of them was the almighty YAHWEH Himself.

They were NOT men in the sense that they started life as babies who grew up and matured.

My point is, if Yahweh took on physical, human form when He visited Abraham…

Why didn’t He do the same thing with Yeshua?

The point is, He didn’t.

Yeshua was NOT an apparition of a man, like what appeared to Abraham.

He was a real flesh-and-blood man born at a specific place at a specific time for a specific purpose.

And numerous OT prophecies point to this event.

So I think it is fallacious to call every YAHWEH-labelled human apparition who appears left and right in the Old Testament Yeshua.

If this is true, then the idea of the first and second coming of Christ becomes ridiculous.

When Mary gave birth to Yeshua, it would have been more like His 6th or 7th coming.

Ya feel me?

© Richoka