It also, and I believe way more consistently, refers to this.
In the beginning there was God and his hosts of heavens ( angels ). God through his word , which is his holy power, created the heavens and the earth. This power, his Holy Spirit , is the same word that conceived a child in marry.
Jesus, never existed before he was born. He was the power of the Holy Spirit.
That word became flesh. The word became flesh and dwelt among us. The sword of the spirit is the word.
Jesus did not have these past memories of thousands of years. He was a baby, and 100% human. God gave him all power and Holy Spirit.
He did not consider himself equal to God. Philippians 2:6.
When the word became flesh Jesus existed. Before the word became flesh, it was the power of god, his Holy Spirit.
First, look up blueletterbible original Greek. The word “seed” is literally “Sperma” in the Greek.
Secondly , I am not sure that the seed “represents” the Holy Spirit is authoritative interpretation. Seems to me the commentator doesn’t want to think about the logic of the nature of the offspring vs the parent. If God is the parent, and the children are born of his seed, then how can the nature of the children be different from their Father?
Gal. 4:6 Because you are his son s, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba , Father.”
When was Paul a son of God? Are Christians sons (and daughters) of God?
I just noted that the New Oxford Annotated Bible (in the NRSV) translated 1 John 3:9 in that sense and, in the footnotes, said that “God’s seed” represented the Holy Spirit and went on with a further explanation. They hardly claim to be “authoritative interpretation,” but are explaining the text. This is what footnotes do. So was/is the Word Biblical Commentary on that verse. The commentator there refers to both orthodox and heterodox individuals who are taking some ideas in various ways and he tries to direct the orthodox listeners with some encouragement toward holy living. The Africa Study Bible says “Those who have been born into God’s family do not make a practice of sinning, because God’s life is in them. So they can’t keep on sinning because they are children of God” (1John 3:9) and then have a lengthy footnote entitled “Choose Your Path” where they explain the verse In the ESV it says " No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God" — with a footnoted explanation of “sinning” being meant as “a regular way of life.” And “seed” is the divine nature given “the one born of God,” per their notes. It seems to me that saying this refers to the Holy Spirit which indwells the believer – is not exactly a one-off interpretation, in this case.
And the quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia is not one I can amend. It is what they said. It is a matter of what is known of the culture, mindset, religious philosophy, and biblical interpretation of that culture. " Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other" (isaiah 45:21-22). We could find more —“Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is One” …etc…This was the religious tradition of Judea and Galilee… N.T. Wright also asserts this in his Resurrection of the Son of God.
The point of these sort of “clarifications” – or explanations – is to emphasize that something really different is being asserted within the context of the earliest communities of Christ followers. It was not a development of an idea taken from ancient Rome—or Greece. In The Messiah before Jesus, author Israel Knohl describes a Qumranic figure who suffered and died in the ‘suffering servant’ mode of Isaiah 53 and would bring atonement for people’s sins and is “clearly comparing himself to the biblical God” — etc. I suggest you read that. Knohl goes on to assert (p 26) that “the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 was NOT discovered in the Christian church.” The point here – before we get too far adrift — is that gentile thinking of that era had interpretations of deity —gods becoming men, rulers being half divine or – in some weird cases one-third divine etc …but the belief system of Judaism took a different approach. Therefore it is better to look at what – within the local community — led ordinary people to believe what they came to believe. That might require focusing more on the Suffering Servant idea…and the inevitable belief that two separate comings of the Messiah (who was believed to be divine) were necessary.
“Why were you searching for me?’ he [Jesus] asked. ‘Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?’” ( Luke 2:49)-- that is, Jesus reminding His earthly parents who His real Father is — and the remark implies pre-existence since his (His) earthly parents knew their house was elsewhere. .“The Holy Spirit will come upon you …,” etc in Luke 1:32, 35…
Depends how you define “early Christians”. As for me, the “early Christians” were the ones led by the man Jesus called the “rock” and to whom Jesus gave “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (John 1:42, Matt 16:18-19l - ie, Peter.
The fake “early Christians” - ie, those who didn’t submit to the authority of Peter - believed all manner of nonsense and heresies, so who cares what those imposters believed?