Your logic means Jesus existed before Jesus existed - which is an impossibility. (NOTE: bold emphasis and sentence break mine)
*****
All the people said, say what?????
Dude....you've really gone off the rails on this one.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God John 1:1-2
14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. John 1:14-18 NASB
Meant to ping you on this one.
The Holy Spirit had to add DNA to Jesus body for the incarnation or He would have been a girl. Mary has no x chromosome to give anyone. To say Jesus took on Mary’s flesh is not accurate. The genetic make up of Jesus human body is not important and frankly out of bounds to speculate on as far as I’m concerned. The important fact is while fully God He also became fully Human.
Jesus of Nazareth was born.
The Second Person of the Trinity was not born but always was.
Thus, Jesus only existed at a certain point and not before.
Jesus did not exist until He took on flesh in Mary’s womb. The Second Person of the Trinity ALWAYS existed.
This isn’t hard. This is right out of John 1.
John 1: 1-3: In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him,
and without him nothing came to be.
John 1:14: And the Word became flesh
and made his dwelling among us,
and we saw his glory,
the glory as of the Father’s only Son,
full of grace and truth.
The Second Person of the Trinity BECAME FLESH. Only after John says that does he refer to “Jesus Christ” in verse 17.
Perhaps you’re one of the “less orthodox” referred to below:
Douglas McCready, in his analysis and defence of the pre-existence of Christ, notes that whereas the preexistence of Christ “is taken for granted by most orthodox Christians, and has been since New Testament times”, during the past century the doctrine has been increasingly questioned by less orthodox theologians and scholars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existence_of_Christ
Once again we see how easily anti-Catholics fall into error or heresy in their desperate bid to attack the Catholic faith.