Question regarding Christ's humanity

[PuritanD]

I was talking with a few friends of mine and was caught off guard about their response.

We were talking about the humanity of Christ and I mentioned that here is a perfect human who never got sick. I was surprised that my friends all thought that Jesus probably got sick. What is your opinion?

I think that this view of Christ being able to be sick has serious consequences. How is it that the wind and seas obey Christ, but germs can get him? Also, if Christ is the lamb of God and our substitution for atonement, does it make sense that He would be perfect and withouth blemish (illness, broken bones, etc.)?

[Jaltus]

If He could not get sick, how was He able to be beaten and crucified?

They seem closely tied together, ot me. He was FULLY human, He just never sinned.

[Believer]

I would have to agree fully with Jaltus.

I think that this view of Christ being able to be sick has serious consequences. How is it that the wind and seas obey Christ, but germs can get him?


Remember Jesus' statement that with enough faith you can move mountains? Jesus, being filled with the Holy Spirit of God, obviously had this much faith, and I don't think it was the seas and the winds obeying him; they were obeying God the Father, who was responding the Jesus' request of faith to calm the waters.

[PuritanD]

Why should we associate sickness with being beaten and crucified? Would you believe that you are sick if someone beaten you?

We need to differentiate sickness from Christ's crucifixion due to the reason that He allowed and submitted himself to such brutality out of his own volition. According to Christ when He was arrested, He could have had legions of angels come to His rescue if He desired. Again, Jesus was in full control of himself and all creation obeyed Him. It would be strange that the God-man can control every aspect of nature but viruses and germs.

In response to Believer, were the disciples amazed by Jesus' faith or that He commanded and the wind and sea obeyed? Though my argument is from silence, we do not know how He rebuked the wind and waves. I think it is interesting that the disciples were asking who Jesus was and not amazed by His faith.

I think that the sickness issue goes deeper. I believe that sickness and disease are due to the Fall of mankind just like weeds and hardships. I would find it hard to say that diseases were around before sin entered the earth.

The other aspect of this argument deals with Adam-Christology. If Christ is the second Adam as Paul argues, then would not Christ have similar characteristics to Adam prior to the Fall?

[Jaltus]

Is dying part of the pre-fall Adam? Of course not! Sin brought death, both physical and spiritual. If Jesus was to be fully human, how could He not experience sickness?

Remember Phil 2:5-11, He emptied Himself and became human. Nowhere is sickness ruled out.

For all we know, He had allergies.

[PuritanD]

It is an interesting thought Jaltus, but Jesus did not die because of his sin but as a sacrifice He gave up his life.

According to your logic here, since Jesus never experience committing a sin, does this disqualify Him from being truly human especially since all humans sin. How about those individuals who have never been ill, broke a bone, etc., (rare they are but it is a possibility) are they less human? We should not expect Jesus to have to experience ever aspect of life to be human, for no individual has ever experienced everything that life has to offer.

Why does Jesus need to experience sickness to be human? Yes, He "emptied" himself but that does not make him less God does it? Did He every give up his authority? Does He no longer have authority over germs and viruses, but only other aspects of nature? That is the ultimate question. For if he does, then there should be no reason to think that He was sick but if not then we come close to questioning His deity.

Hebrews 7:26-28 states: For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.

The term, perfect, resonates with the idea resonated in the Law of Moses especially regarding the sacrifice for sins. Hebrews is full of parallels with the Law, priesthood, and sacrifice. God required that all sacrifices had to be perfect, blameless, without defect, or blemish. In essence, no weaknesses. If Christ is the atonement for our sins, He must be a perfect sacrifice.

Just some food for thought.

[Jaltus]

It is an interesting thought Jaltus, but Jesus did not die because of his sin but as a sacrifice He gave up his life. He died because of OUR sin, sin was still the cause of His death. I did not say it had to be His sin, just sin.

According to your logic here, since Jesus never experience committing a sin, does this disqualify Him from being truly human especially since all humans sin. How about those individuals who have never been ill, broke a bone, etc., (rare they are but it is a possibility) are they less human? We should not expect Jesus to have to experience ever aspect of life to be human, for no individual has ever experienced everything that life has to offer. No, you are assuming that I think sin is part of being human, but I do not. The consequences of sin are part of being human, but sin is something that corrupted humanity, not an integral part of it.

Why does Jesus need to experience sickness to be human? Yes, He "emptied" himself but that does not make him less God does it? Did He every give up his authority? Does He no longer have authority over germs and viruses, but only other aspects of nature? That is the ultimate question. For if he does, then there should be no reason to think that He was sick but if not then we come close to questioning His deity.He does not need to experience it, but if He was free from the effects of sickness, then why was He not free from all the effects of the fall? You cannot take some and not others.

Hebrews 7:26-28 states: For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.

The term, perfect, resonates with the idea resonated in the Law of Moses especially regarding the sacrifice for sins. Hebrews is full of parallels with the Law, priesthood, and sacrifice. God required that all sacrifices had to be perfect, blameless, without defect, or blemish. In essence, no weaknesses. If Christ is the atonement for our sins, He must be a perfect sacrifice.Ok, that is true, but perfect in what sense? You are assuming physicality as the answer, but that is an assumption. Human "perfection" does not deal with physicality but spirituality. Note the key word "blameless."

[PuritanD]

He died because of OUR sin, sin was still the cause of His death. I did not say it had to be His sin, just sin.

Sin brought both physical and spiritual death and Christ did not suffer the latter. If sin was the cause, would he not redeem us from both physical and spiritual death. You stated that sin brought death but this is not the cause for Christ's death. For He died on His own volition. He chose to die for us, which we cannot say for ourselves. We do not have such an ability; we can only accept death as inevitable. Nonetheless, Jesus died because that was what was established in the foreshadowing of the sacrificial lamb in the OT for atonement.

He does not need to experience it, but if He was free from the effects of sickness, then why was He not free from all the effects of the fall? You cannot take some and not others.

What other effects of the Fall are you talking about? I do not recall arguing for this. This does remind me though that you never did answer the question of His authority over germs and viruses.

Ok, that is true, but perfect in what sense? You are assuming physicality as the answer, but that is an assumption. Human perfection does not deal with physicality but spirituality. Note the key word blameless.

I do not see "blameless" used in the passage of Hebrews 7:26-28. I believe that "perfect" in this context describes the characteristics listed in verse 26, holy, without fault, undefiled or pure, and separated from sinners. The "separated from sinners" is an interesting description.

It is just as much an assumption that perfection only deals with spirituality. Was not the sacrificial lamb needed to be perfect without blemish? You may think that this is comparing apples to oranges but have the demands from God for atonement changed from OT to NT? I think that perfect could imply both spiritual and physical.

Besides all this I will ask again the question I have posted before. Does He no longer have authority over germs and viruses, but only other aspects of nature (a.k.a calming the storm)? That is the ultimate question. For if he does have authority over this aspect of creation, then there should be no reason to think that He was sick but if not then we come close to questioning His deity.

PuritanD

[PuritanD]

Jaltus,

Have you given up on this thread? I would really like to hear your answer regarding the last question in my previous post.

PuritanD

[motor]

I have read nowhere in the bible that Jesus was ever sick.. although He sufered greatly when He was crucified..

[Jaltus]

I'll be back, was just sick the entire weekend.

[PuritanD]

:yipee: :yipee:

:huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:

[PuritanD]

Hey Jaltus,

Are you ever going to get around to answering my question???

Just curious...:yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee:

[popof3]

03-04-2003 @ 09:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=27371#post27371)
Jaltus:

If He could not get sick, how was He able to be beaten and crucified?

They seem closely tied together, ot me. He was FULLY human, He just never sinned. According to his own words, Jesus sinned. He stated that anger was the same as murder (Matthew 5:21-22) yet the majority of the posters online (and yes, I recognize the largest screamers and abuses from every theology board also run this crap here) love to state that it's ok to be angry and hate since Jesus himself did. Rather than read Matthew 5:21-22 and accept those words as (since most here can't accept that no where does the bible state that the NT texts are 'Gospel') 'gospel', they come in here and throw hissy fits screaming at every opposing view and using the phrase "God hates a sinner"

The bible can not be gospel for the majority of the posters in this forum since they spend their lives looking for loopholes to justify their actions, their hatreds, their prejudices, their biases, and more than anything else, their pride. They need to be seen as 'biblethumpers' online so they can act like fools offline.

Too many here quote what they refuse to follow. They will undoubtably attack this post, and me, in their efforts to refuse to acknowledge their shortsitedness and own sins that will keep them from "heaven'.

You can not be following Jesus words if you refuse to follow Jesus actions.

If you want to prove Jesus without the bible, walk His walk. That will be louder than anything you can ever say. Until then, you are nothing but pharisees creating more and more laws until no one can enter heaven, including you.

Attack away my friends. I know what is coming because I have seen you do it at every theology thread on the web. I've watched freak ignore child prostitution in Thailand in order to 'exorcise' the spirit houses.

I recognize almost every name here and know how truly scary some of you are since you claim to represent God, yet couldn't possibly act an further from him if you tried.

You want to prove there is a Christ? Become like him. Until that is in your every thought you will only create more atheists.

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]
We were talking about the humanity of Christ and I mentioned that here is a perfect human who never got sick. I was surprised that my friends all thought that Jesus probably got sick. What is your opinion?


[comment]
Perhaps this is a strawman - whatever - how does sickness firgure into creation? When were viruses and bacteria created? - by whom? and for what purpose?


[quote]
You want to prove there is a Christ? Become like him. Until that is in your every thought you will only create more atheists.

[comment]
There is more "Christ" in this atheistic body of mine than many, many Christians. But the main pint of this comment is that proof is not given by those that "walk in another's shoes". That act only defines the one walking. I would not be affended by being called "Christ-like" or Buddha-like"- thus I can say that the innate evil in man does not create atheists

[o2bwise]

Hi Puritan,

Might you consider reading Hebrews Ch 2 and explain why it is NOT saying that Jesus took the same flesh and blood of the children of men and that He likewise shared in the same?

Consider two eagles. Both are flying. One has a five pound weight strapped onto him.

Which would you say is a greater accomplishment?

To say that Christ took our flesh, as our flesh is after the fall, and yet to insist that Jesus rendered a perfect obdience while so laden, isn't that most glorious?

Honestly, your position is bad news. I need a Svior who knows MY experiences. Not one who knows pre-fallen Adam's.

I need a grace that reaches even as low as I am, I need more than a grace that only reaches to pre-fallen Adam.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[dizzle]

I see absolutely no reason at all why Jesus did not get sick. He grew tired, he learned, he sweated, he toiled, etc. etc. There is o reason to believe he did not get sick.

[Sozo]

Yes, perhaps He even had "mental illness", and was suffering from delusions and hallucinations. Maybe He wasn't God and man after all, maybe He just had a bi-polar disorder. He was just being a complete hypocrite when he told us not to be anxious, and not to be fearful, while at the same time suffering from various brain diseases that manifested themselves as phobias!

If Jesus bore our sin and carried away our diseases, and He had diseases of His own, then perhaps He also had sins of His own.

NOT!

[dizzle]

He also bore our griefs and had griefs of his own. That argument sounds good but fails under scrutiny. The Scripture doesn't say whether He got sick or not. I see no reason why He could not have. The Scriptures say He did not sin. I don't know if He got sick or not, but I still see no reason why He could not have. But the Scriptures are silent on that point.

[Sozo]

Nevertheless, if Jesus could have been sick, and schizophrenia is a sickness, then Jesus could have suffered from it. I mean, after all, the bible doesn't say that Jesus wasn't schizophrenic. (This would explain why He thought God was talking to Him)

[o2bwise]

Hi Sozo,

Hebrews ch 2 says that Jesus Christ "likewise shared in the SAME." It says He took the flesh and blood of the CHILDREN of men.

How do you interpret those passages?

Regarding mental illness, you make an assumption I am not about to make. Yes, you cite things with a physiological component. But, consider the chicken-egg quandary.

Are you so sure these illnesses do not have a causal component that is spiritual? Might it be possible that intense unbelief can manifest itself in the physical realm and cause imbalances that trigger mental maladies?

Jesus always had faith. If unbelief is a partial contribution to things like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder OR if manifesting faith is a partial contributor to a physiological resistance to such illnesses, it follows that Christ could have taken even our flesh and been exempted from such maladies - due NOT to being exempt from our flesh, but rather due to His FAITH.

At the least, given the above, I think it is fair to suggest that this discussion is highly speculative terrain.

Where your words are highly speculative, the BIBLE is NOT.

Ultimately, it is a matter of which authority one chooses to submit to. Human speculation or the sure Word of God.

I would guess you are entrenched in a belief to the extent that speculation is preferrable to the Bible, where this is concerned.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[Sozo]

Today @ 10:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79388#post79388)
o2bwise:

Hi Sozo,

Hebrews ch 2 says that Jesus Christ "likewise shared in the SAME." It says He took the flesh and blood of the CHILDREN of men.

How do you interpret those passages?



God took on flesh and blood, but not sin. I do not beleive that Jesus was, or had the prospect of sin or disease.

Are you so sure these illnesses do not have a causal component that is spiritual? Might it be possible that intense unbelief can manifest itself in the physical realm and cause imbalances that trigger mental maladies?

Mental confusion is not an illness or disease, but I whole heartily agree that "intense unbelief can manifest itself in the physical realm and cause imbalances". Brain diseases can be triggered by an unsound mind. The brain is a responder.

Where your words are highly speculative, the BIBLE is NOT.

The BIBLE my source regarding this issue, science is the speculator. I have given sufficient evidence, and none can dispute it.

[o2bwise]

Sozo,

God took on flesh and blood, but not sin. I do not beleive that Jesus was, or had the prospect of sin or disease.

"He has made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made be made the righteousness of God in Him."

[Sozo]

Today @ 05:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79615#post79615)
o2bwise:

Sozo,



"He has made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made be made the righteousness of God in Him."


I think you know that I was refering to the incarnation, and not the cross. Do you believe that Jesus took on sin prior the cross?

[Woman]

o2bwise:
Jesus always had faith. If unbelief is a partial contribution to things like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder OR if manifesting faith is a partial contributor to a physiological resistance to such illnesses, it follows that Christ could have taken even our flesh and been exempted from such maladies - due NOT to being exempt from our flesh, but rather due to His FAITH.

This makes no sense to me. But, maybe you can explain what you mean here.

To say that Jesus had faith is nonsensical. Jesus created the world and everything in it. How does faith (something man needs) even mean anything when related to Him?

If belief kept people more sane or more healthy there would be ample evidence of it. Insurance complanies would be thrilled to have Christians as customers. Unfortunately they suffer from illness and insanity as much as the other religions and non-believers. They even have crime rates right up there with atheists.

[Sozo]

Today @ 06:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79628#post79628)
Woman:

o2bwise:


If belief kept people more sane or more healthy there would be ample evidence of it. Insurance complanies would be thrilled to have Christians as customers. Unfortunately they suffer from illness and insanity as much as the other religions and non-believers. They even have crime rates right up there with atheists.

Not that you would heed my response, but I believe that people who are involved in religion, church, or faith based orgainizations, are the most likely candidates for an unsound mind.

An evangelist, that some here may know, spent 20 years in and out of mental hospitals, medicated and shocked on a daily basis, and he claims that over 90% of the people that are in mental hospitals were either raised in Christian homes, or were havily involved with their church. From my perspective, I am surprised that it isn't 99%. Whenever you tell people that Jesus loves them, and then tell them they better please Him or else, you are going to create a group of people who are very double-minded, living in fear, depressed, and anxious.

[dizzle]

Today @ 10:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79369#post79369)
Sozo:

Nevertheless, if Jesus could have been sick, and schizophrenia is a sickness, then Jesus could have suffered from it. I mean, after all, the bible doesn't say that Jesus wasn't schizophrenic. (This would explain why He thought God was talking to Him)

As the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxay says..."Don't Panic!!"

Jesus was "able" to be injured, yet he didn't suffer an amputation. God protected Him from such things. Thus, I do not think your point is valid. Schizophrenia manifests itself in multiple ways, and in Case for Christ the Gospels are analyzed for evidence of this, so I would disagree with you that the Bible does not say Christ was not schizophrenice, for it does. The evidence shows that He was not.

[Sozo]

Today @ 07:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79677#post79677)
Dee Dee Warren:



As the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxay says..."Don't Panic!!"

Jesus was "able" to be injured, yet he didn't suffer an amputation. God protected Him from such things. Thus, I do not think your point is valid. Schizophrenia manifests itself in multiple ways, and in Case for Christ the Gospels are analyzed for evidence of this, so I would disagree with you that the Bible does not say Christ was not schizophrenice, for it does. The evidence shows that He was not.


I'm glad you took the time to think through that :hrm:

What is your point? :huh:

[o2bwise]

Sozo,

I think you know that I was refering to the incarnation, and not the cross. Do you believe that Jesus took on sin prior the cross?

If you insist, on rational grounds, that Christ could not be made sin, what is the difference if He was made so at the cross or at the incarnation?

Either way, it is being acquiesced that He was made sin.

The fact that He was made sin disallows the insistence that He could NOT be made sin, irrespective of "when."

Christ was made sin at the incarnation.

Tony

[Sozo]

Today @ 05:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80324#post80324)
o2bwise:

Sozo,



If you insist, on rational grounds, that Christ could not be made sin, what is the difference if He was made so at the cross or at the incarnation?

Either way, it is being acquiesced that He was made sin.

The fact that He was made sin disallows the insistence that He could NOT be made sin, irrespective of "when."

Christ was made sin at the incarnation.

Tony

Christ was the spotless lamb, how do you say that He became sin at the incarnation? Please explain.

My original point, was that Jesus did not have a sin nature. He was not born in sin. Do you disagree?

[o2bwise]

Hi Woman,

To say that Jesus had faith is nonsensical. Jesus created the world and everything in it. How does faith (something man needs) even mean anything when related to Him?

What you are asserting makes sense, given one assumption. That being that Christ retained His pre-incarnate mental faculties at the incarnation and beyond, during His earthly sojourn.

Scripture, in many places, contradicts this assumption. It is written that He increased in wisdom and stature. Jesus states He does not know the time of the Second Coming. He also states that He can, of Himself, do NOTHING, that His Father does the works.

Revelation describes a people who have "the faith of Jesus." Hebrews describes Christ as "our faithful High Priest."

Woman, in all things, Jesus is our example.


If belief kept people more sane or more healthy there would be ample evidence of it. Insurance complanies would be thrilled to have Christians as customers. Unfortunately they suffer from illness and insanity as much as the other religions and non-believers. They even have crime rates right up there with atheists.

A possibility is that many are not what they profess to be (Christian) and that those who are what they profess to be, are such that a great degree of sanctification awaits.

It's mighty dark out there, even within Christianity.

The latter rain awaits. A change in that respect looms.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[o2bwise]

Christ was the spotless lamb, how do you say that He became sin at the incarnation? Please explain.

Spotless refers to character.


My original point, was that Jesus did not have a sin nature. He was not born in sin. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree.

Christ took sinful flesh. He had to in order to save us. He could not have had a cross experience, which (by the way) was a lifelong experience, unless He took our flesh.

Tony (o2)

[Woman]

Sozo:
Not that you would heed my response, but I believe that people who are involved in religion, church, or faith based orgainizations, are the most likely candidates for an unsound mind.

An evangelist, that some here may know, spent 20 years in and out of mental hospitals, medicated and shocked on a daily basis, and he claims that over 90% of the people that are in mental hospitals were either raised in Christian homes, or were havily involved with their church. From my perspective, I am surprised that it isn't 99%. Whenever you tell people that Jesus loves them, and then tell them they better please Him or else, you are going to create a group of people who are very double-minded, living in fear, depressed, and anxious.

Well, yes I agree. It may be stereotypical, but we've all seen the movies/read the books about the totally deranged serial killer who is also a religious fanatic.

It was the mind-bending crap that nuns taught me that caused me to leave the faith. They taught that one must die in a state of "grace" or be doomed. The classic example given to all pubescent pre-confirmed Catholic kids was this:

Sue and Bill were excellent Catholics, students, kids...went to mass regularly, to confession, lived an ideal Catholic life. then came the PROM. And on that night they parked and "made out" - which we were told was as bad as fornication. (though not as much fun) Anyway, they had a fatal car crash on the way home and because they did not have time to go to confession or have last rites...straight to hell. In other words, it's only the state you're in at death that matters. The sum of your life or your belief doesn't count. This of course was just the Catholic church's way of keeping us under their thumb and coming to mass and confession and bringing MONEY with us. Is it any wonder that I left?

Sozo:
God took on flesh and blood, but not sin. I do not beleive that Jesus was, or had the prospect of sin or disease.

Then how do you account for the temptation of Christ? If sin wasn't possible, what was the meaning of that story?

[Woman]

woman:
To say that Jesus had faith is nonsensical. Jesus created the world and everything in it. How does faith (something man needs) even mean anything when related to Him?

o2bwise:
What you are asserting makes sense, given one assumption. That being that Christ retained His pre-incarnate mental faculties at the incarnation and beyond, during His earthly sojourn.

Scripture, in many places, contradicts this assumption. It is written that He increased in wisdom and stature. Jesus states He does not know the time of the Second Coming. He also states that He can, of Himself, do NOTHING, that His Father does the works.

Revelation describes a people who have "the faith of Jesus." Hebrews describes Christ as "our faithful High Priest."

Woman, in all things, Jesus is our example.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply o2b.

I can understand that in abstract. But it brings me smack up against another huge issue for me. Clearly Jesus and the Father are not the same beings. Why must we have the Trinity doctrine, which is not really scriptural in my humble opinion? It is confusing and devisive. I think the early church fathers were just concerned that by diefying Christ they would be accused of having more than one God.

[Sozo]

Today @ 05:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80344#post80344)
Woman:

Sozo:


Sue and Bill were excellent Catholics, students, kids...went to mass regularly, to confession, lived an ideal Catholic life. then came the PROM. And on that night they parked and "made out" - which we were told was as bad as fornication. (though not as much fun) Anyway, they had a fatal car crash on the way home and because they did not have time to go to confession or have last rites...straight to hell. In other words, it's only the state you're in at death that matters. The sum of your life or your belief doesn't count. This of course was just the Catholic church's way of keeping us under their thumb and coming to mass and confession and bringing MONEY with us. Is it any wonder that I left?


Thank God you left! Now, all you need to know is that God has nothing to do with what disquises itself as religion (and for the most part, Christianity), and then maybe you will come to understand what great love He has for you.

Then how do you account for the temptation of Christ? If sin wasn't possible, what was the meaning of that story?

I can tempt you with all kinds of things, and yet you not be tempted by them. Also, being tempted does not mean that you have to give into temptation.

Jesus was born in the "likeness" of sinful flesh. For someone to be claiming that Jesus had a sin nature is very strange indeed. O2bwise, what is your background?

[Socrates]

Woman:I can understand that in abstract. But it brings me smack up against another huge issue for me. Clearly Jesus and the Father are not the same beings. They are not the same PERSONS but are one God. This is shown by the fact of only one God but both the Father and Son have attributes beloninging uniquesly to God.Why must we have the Trinity doctrine, which is not really scriptural in my humble opinion?And your refutation of articles such as Jesus Christ our Creator: A Biblical Defence of the Trinity (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4222.asp) is, what? It is confusing and devisive.It may be confusing to you, but that doesn't make it confusing to me. And truth is always divisive. I think the early church fathers were just concerned that by diefying Christ they would be accused of having more than one God.They didn't deify Christ, because Christ already had deity. Rather, they merely recognised His divine attributes. But you're right about the need to formulate doctrines that recognize Christ's divinity without erring into tritheism. Actually, cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals deceitfully misrepresent the Trinity as tritheism.

[Woman]

Soc,

Ya know, your "required reading list" grows by the day! :read: :read:

Until I can get to it, can you make this more clear to me?

Soc:
This is shown by the fact of only one God but both the Father and Son have attributes beloninging uniquely to God.

[o2bwise]

Hi Woman!,

I am not Trinitarian.

God is the One from whom all others come from, including the Son. The Son is begotten of God. All others are via creation, which God wrought via His Son.

Jesus is divine not by virtue of being God, but by virtue of being His Son. Just as I am human by virtue of being the offspring of human parents.

I can state four things about the Trinity that are absolutely irrational.

It is false doctrine that emerged synonymous with the emergence of papalism and of professed Christian persecuting, sometimes by cruel death, other professed Christians.

It is the foundational dogma of the little horn power in Daniel.

God Bless You, Woman,

Tony (o2)

[o2bwise]

Hi Sozo,

Jesus was born in the "likeness" of sinful flesh.

That word "likeness" is used in another place, I believe Philippians, where it is written that Jesus came in the likeness of MAN. Same exact Greek word with the same exact grammatical structure.

Thus, it would follow, to be rigorous, that:

1. Jesus really did come a man.

2. Jesus really did come laden with sinful flesh.

-or-

1. Jesus really did not come as a man.

2. Jesus really did not come in sinful flesh.

If one were to render "likeness" consistently.

Now, for one to accept the second set of views would be to altogether destroy Christology.

Sozo, in your attempt to disprove what I am asserting, you actually gave my position one of its most compelling supports.

By the way, I think it would be useful to include the "born of a woman" texts in Job and to include them with Galatians 4:4.

May God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[o2bwise]

What happened to this discussion?

[Wonder Woman]

Hi Tony,

So nice to see you here. :)

I'm in agreement with you on the Trinity front - I don't believe it either. Whoops. Time to be branded a heretic! :eek:

A really great book is "The Trinity: Christianity's self-inflicted wound" by Anthony Buzzard and Charles Bunting(?I think?)

So there ya go.

[o2bwise]

Hi Wonder Woman!,

Thanks! Nice to see you too!

As I said, there are FOUR notions with respect to the Trinity, that are absolute irrationalities. They are not mysteries, they are contradictions. I should open a topic on that.

I have found that most beliefs have one thing in common. They deny, in meaning, the idea that the Christ is the only begotten Son of God.

What does this mean, in meaning?

It means that the way offspring of all species are what they are, Christ came to be what He did, by being the lone "offspring" of God Himself.

He is not God, He is THE SON OF GOD.

Thus, He is "like God." (Or was, it appears He divested Himself of all divine attributes forever.)

I revere the Christ for who He is. "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

And not for who He is not. God.

The Son is not His own Father.

God Bless Ya,

Tony (o2)

[AVmetro]

Hey O2! What happend to the cool avatar?

I have found that most beliefs have one thing in common. They deny, in meaning, the idea that the Christ is the only begotten Son of God.

What does this mean, in meaning?

It means that the way offspring of all species are what they are, Christ came to be what He did, by being the lone "offspring" of God Himself.

I wouldn't think that being "directly'' created by God would make you the "only" begotten son in the strict literal sense. God has "begotten" all other creation as well (even if only by indirect means), so nevertheless the word "only-begotten" continues to hold the meaning of "unique" in any case. Under your view I suppose you could say that Jesus was created "uniquely".

See Gen22:2 and Heb11:17 (monogenes) and compare with Gen16:11. Issac was not Abraham's "only begotten" son, nor was he even the firstborn in regards to Abraham.

I believe that Christ was "begotten", but just in the way I have always thought. A reference to his birth in Bethlehem. Hence John1:14 "ginomai sarx" i.e. "became flesh"

You've explained to me your view on Christ's role as "Son of God" before, but I'm lacking a grasp on it after the amount of time that has passed. In regards to "only begotten" I may only be agreeing with you on what it (monogenes) means. Simply disagreeing on what basis He is said to be the "Only-Begotten".

He is not God, He is THE SON OF GOD.

What is your interpretation of John20:28. I know it's an often used proof-text, but I don't remember your explanation. That is, if you and I have ever discussed it to begin with. The point being, why is it wrong to call Jesus "God" when He is said to be ("how" is the question) in the scriptures and in fact called this very thing? What do you think "my God" would mean to a first century Jew?

I revere the Christ for who He is. "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God."


I believe that "Son of God" denotes divinity in itself. But that is not what I would like to emphasize right now. Look at passages such as John5:18, Jn19:7 for explicit accusations. Matt26:63 Mk14:61,63 on a more implicit level.

My question is this; Why did these first century Jews consider the title "Son of God" to be blasphemous when such it is nowhere to be found in their law? Especially in light of such passages as John8:41? It seems to me that one of the often used objections to the Trinity is that a "Jew in those days" would not have believed in such a thing as a "Trinity". However, in instances such as these we find the Jews coming to interesting conclusions. I don't think it would be "blasphemy" to claim to be a 'lesser god'. In fact, if you look at John10:30, the Jews accused him of "making Himself God" on account of what He (Jesus) said was a result of calling Himself the "Son of God". See the connection? Why did these Jews consider "Son of God" to be an equivalent to "God"?

The Son is not His own Father.

Correct, that would almost imply Modalism. :wink:

God bless you Tony--AV

Btw - I just got off work and I'm not quite 'up to speed' as of right now, so if anything is unclear just let me know.

[AVmetro]

If it's not personal, where are you going to church now? Basically, what have you affiliated with sense we last talked? That's just my curiosity talking, so feel free not to disclose that information.

God bless you!

[AVmetro]

Yesterday @ 05:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82720#post82720)
Wonder Woman:

Hi Tony,

So nice to see you here. :)

I'm in agreement with you on the Trinity front - I don't believe it either. Whoops. Time to be branded a heretic! :eek:

A really great book is "The Trinity: Christianity's self-inflicted wound" by Anthony Buzzard and Charles Bunting(?I think?)

So there ya go.

Hunting :smile: I was going to get the book above so I could have an archive of AT arguments. However, I've decided I'll get Stafford instead. It's bound to be "better" and Stafford is a JW so he believes in the preex of Christ which will save me time in getting to the "higher level" stuff. :wink:

God bless

[o2bwise]

Hi AV,

I go to a local Seventh-Day Adventist church.

I think the SDA church contains unique doctrines, that when looked at a bit more spiritually, point to the New Covenant, which comes at the very end of time, and perfects the conscience of its recipients.

By the way, I came to my non-Trinitarian beliefs and sometime later found that all the Adventist pioneers had the same view I presently have.

I believe Adventism is Israel, but is in bondage to Babylon. The primary nature of bondage is in the spiritual realm (its wine).

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[Will_C_Drotar]

I agree with the first response. I do indeed affirm the full deity and humanity of our Lord.

Jaltus does have a good point. A God that could die could certainly have the ability to get sick.

I see no malevolent theological repurcussions for such a belief. He had a human immune system in an environment full of germs. If we deny that his immunity to illness was not human, we are giving a part of an aspect of His humanity over to deity.

No matter what stance you take, there are no consequential theological developments that could substantially change or alter any current doctrine, as long as you don't begin to stretch the topic into other areas. It's a fun thought though.

TTYL Jesus loves you!

[Wonder Woman]

IronMetro,

Are you any relation to AVMetro??

:shrug:

[o2bwise]

Hi Will,

I agree with the first response. I do indeed affirm the full deity and humanity of our Lord.

Can one be fully two different "things" at the same time? How would one test such a hypothesis?

My understanding is that Christ emptied Himself of all divine attributes at the incarnation. He said of Himself, He could do nothing. He said the Father did the works. He said the disciples would do greater works than these. He said He knew not the time of the second coming. It is written that He increased in wisdom and stature.

Consider the following analogy. A man, somehow, comes down to some planet as a Labrador Retriever.

Does he have a tail? Yes. (Dog-like. Not very man-like.)

Does he have an exceptional sense of smell? Yes. (Dog-like. Not very man-like.)

How smart is he? Not very. (Dog-like. Not very man-like.)

How much hair does he have? All over. (Dog-like. Not very man-like.)

My point? There is one valid test for the presence of a nature.

You test the presence of a nature for its attributes.

Anything else is irrational. It is said Christ was God (divine, John 1:1-3). This speaks of His pre-incarnate status.

Could Christ, as a demonstration of His love for us, let even that go?

I submit there is no rational means whatsoever to support the idea of ANY being, having two natures, all at the same time.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[AVmetro]

05-01-2003 @ 07:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84297#post84297)
o2bwise:

Hi AV,

I go to a local Seventh-Day Adventist church.

I think the SDA church contains unique doctrines, that when looked at a bit more spiritually, point to the New Covenant, which comes at the very end of time, and perfects the conscience of its recipients.

By the way, I came to my non-Trinitarian beliefs and sometime later found that all the Adventist pioneers had the same view I presently have.

I believe Adventism is Israel, but is in bondage to Babylon. The primary nature of bondage is in the spiritual realm (its wine).

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Thanks Tony. I thought your beliefs were similar to those of the SDAs but I didn't know you had become affiliated with that particular denomination. Thanks again and God bless.

[AVmetro]

Yesterday @ 01:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84580#post84580)
Wonder Woman:

IronMetro,

Are you any relation to AVMetro??

:shrug:

Yes. One of these days I'll get around to changing it back :wink: I was just experimenting one day and left it. :smile:

[Wonder Woman]

Off-topic....again. I think you should leave it - it seems more ..... youthful somehow. Not that AVmetro sounds like a grandfather, but......*gulp*

*pulls foot out of mouth and exits left stage* :eek:

[o2bwise]

Might a Trinitarian explain to me the rationale of Christ having two natures at one time?

Thanks!

Tony (o2)

[AVmetro]

Today @ 12:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86255#post86255)
o2bwise:

Might a Trinitarian explain to me the rationale of Christ having two natures at one time?

Thanks!

Tony (o2)

I've never fully understood this particular AT objection. Therefore I usually view it as a straw man of sorts (not by their intention) or, at least, a partial misunderstanding on their part of the Trinitarian doctrine itself.

I should be getting a book in the mail here soon which deals extensively with the hypostatic union. After I give it a read, I'll probably post my comments on it. If it's good I may even recommend it. If I don't get around to finishing it in the amount of time I would like, I'll still give my own views on the hypostatic union if a thread on the matter is begun.

Now..

There was a thread where the topic of Christ's two natures was under discussion in this section of the board. Personally I don't think the thread was very fruitful. In fact, I think initiating a new thread on the topic might be a good idea in the near future.

-God bless-

[AVmetro]

Today @ 07:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86203#post86203)
Wonder Woman:

Off-topic....again. I think you should leave it - it seems more ..... youthful somehow. Not that AVmetro sounds like a grandfather, but......*gulp*

*pulls foot out of mouth and exits left stage* :eek:

:lol:

[o2bwise]

Hi Iron,

Can't you just rationalize it for me in your own words? I mean...you don't believe it because you are told you must, do you? Rather, you believe it because the word points to it, no?

What is YOUR rationale, Iron?


I believe Christ laid aside His divine attributes, which He inherited by virtue of being God's only-begotten, so as to inherit man's attributes, so as to be "the son of man."

The same "One" who had divine attributes, is the same "One" who laid them aside in love for us, is the same "One" who walked by faith alone and partook of a divine nature, not by virtue of the one He inherited, but rather by virtue of the grace of His Father working through His faith.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[AVmetro]

Today @ 01:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87164#post87164)
o2bwise:

Hi Iron,

Can't you just rationalize it for me in your own words? I mean...you don't believe it because you are told you must, do you? Rather, you believe it because the word points to it, no?

I believe the doctrine is easily inferred from the scriptures. If I can demonstrate that Christ is God - And I can also demonstrate that Christ is fully man - Put 1 and 1 together and what do I get? I would almost lump the hypostatic union in with the understanding of the Trinity itself. The fact of which can be proven from scripture. The understanding of is a spiritual discernment. Of course I speak of full understanding. There is plenty of room for discussion.

I'm away from home at the moment. When I return I'll answer the remainder of your questions. :wink:

Thanks and God bless

[Socrates]

Wonder Woman:I'm in agreement with you on the Trinity front - I don't believe it either. Whoops. Time to be branded a heretic! Yes, alas, unlike the real Lynda Carter who is a Christian.A really great book is "The Trinity: Christianity's self-inflicted wound" by Anthony Buzzard and Charles Bunting(?I think?):rofl: Forgive my mirth, but really. Fact is, it's just more boring old Unitarian arguments dressed up in modern pomposity in a poor-quality double=spaced presentation. E.g. most of the book defends the ipse dixit "God is one, therefore God is one person." The review on Tektonics.org www.tektonics.org/AB.DT_1573093092.html leads to more detailed arguments.

[Socrates]

o2bwise:I think the SDA church contains unique doctrines, that when looked at a bit more spiritually, point to the New Covenant, which comes at the very end of time, and perfects the conscience of its recipients.

By the way, I came to my non-Trinitarian beliefs and sometime later found that all the Adventist pioneers had the same view I presently have.How wierd. SDAs have a number of strange doctrines, but they are sound in affirming the Trinity.

[Socrates]

On post#37, Woman asked me to explain this statement further:This is shown by the fact of only one God but both the Father and Son have attributes beloninging uniquely to God.Monotheism is a foundational doctrine of Judeo-Christianity. Yet Jesus's followers, who were members of the most fiercely monotheistic faith around rather than polytheists, came to regard Jesus as God. How so?

Because we know that only God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, Creator, the only Savior (Isaiah 43:11), immutable, the sustainer of creation, sent the prophets, sent the Holy Spirit, is worthy of worship, forgives sin (because He is the One sinned against). These are all attributes belonging uniquely to God.

But the Bible says that Jesus has all these attributes, which are uniquely God's. E.g. Jesus is omnipotent (Matthew 28:18), omniscient (John 1:48), omnipresent (Matthew 18:20), eternal (John 1:1, 8:58 -- and note that His opponents realized full well He was claiming deity), Creator (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2), Savior (e.g. Titus 2:13), immutable (Hebrews 13:8), the sustainer of creation (Colossians 1:17), sent the prophets (Matthew 23:34), sent the Holy Spirit (John 16:7), is worthy of worship (Matthew 14:33, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:6, Phil. 2:10), forgives sin (Luke 5:20-25, and note again the reaction, "Who can forgive sins, but God alone?").

[o2bwise]

Socrates,

How wierd. SDAs have a number of strange doctrines, but they are sound in affirming the Trinity.

Most things are perspective-dependent. My perspective is that Babylon has a number of strange doctrines, the Trinity being one of them. Alas, that Adventism is in bondage to the wine of Babylon.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[o2bwise]

Socrates,

Please explain to me how:

1. One who is omniscient
2. Can increase in wisdom and stature and knows not the time of the second coming.

Or to put another way, please explain to me how:
1. One knows all things.
2. And does not know all things.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[o2bwise]

Socrates,

Yes, alas, unlike the real Lynda Carter who is a Christian.

And Wonder Woman is not?

[o2bwise]

Hi Iron,

My understanding is that the Son of God, divine by reason of inheritance, divested Himself of all divine attributes as part of His "incredible giving" in saving man.

Thus, the assertion that dual natures is so because it is biblical, means nothing to me. Since I rely on the Bible in my understanding that Christ does not have a dual nature.

Thus, I asked you to answer on another front - reason. Please simply explain to me how a being, any being, has two natures at the same time. (Refer to my "man condescending to be a Labrador Retriever analogy.)

Thanks and God Bless!,

Tony (o2)

[hupertheos]

Hi, O2 - I'm just wondering how you interpret John 1:14 - 'the Word became flesh'. It seems to me that this was a key text in certain christological debates back in the fourth century CE.

[o2bwise]

Hi hupertheos,

I'm just wondering how you interpret John 1:14 - 'the Word became flesh'. It seems to me that this was a key text in certain christological debates back in the fourth century CE.

I think it refers to:
From:
A. The only-begotten Son of God, innately divine by reason of inheritance.

To:
B. A human being, human by reason of some kind of miracle.

A to B, hupertheos. All that Christ consisted of as a result of A, laid aside so as to walk as a man must walk, but having faith from the get-go (somehow).

God Bless Ya,

Tony (o2)

[AVmetro]

Hey O2,

Thus, I asked you to answer on another front - reason. Please simply explain to me how a being, any being, has two natures at the same time. (Refer to my "man condescending to be a Labrador Retriever analogy.)

I'm not quite certain that this is *the* front to begin the argument. I would assert that the hypostatic union goes beyond reason but not against reason. As I stated previously, I would classify the doctrine in with that which is spiritually discerned. As I also stated prior, I feel that if one can demonstrate Christ as being both 'very God' and 'very man' that the doctrine of the hypostatic union is sound - howbeit difficult to explain.

Let us take your own view of Christ's nature.

Similar to the JWs, I can see that you believed Christ to be "a god/divine merely" but not 'THE God', correct? Let's take what hupertheos presented in the above.

John1:1 - 'The Word was God'

John1:14 - 'The Word was made flesh (i.e. 'man')

After this process we have:

John1:18 - 'The Only-Begotten God'

Tie the above passages in with those such as Col2:9, Phil2:6 ("being" is a present participle), John20:28 etc. etc. to see that Christ retained His 'divinity' ("a god" or "THE God" either way) while at once being 'man.' This is why, as I believe, Christ could call Himself the "Son of God" and at the same time, the "Son of Man".

So even if we grant the view that Christ was merely "a god", then we would still have an example of dual natures in one being.

Two pushbacks to my view I see under the totality of your view being his "emptying of His divinity" and the "begettal" being reference to 'in the beginning (or further back)' rather than at vs14 i.e. 'bethlehem'. So I suppose clarification as to why I accept neither of those would be in order for future posts.

Secondary pushbacks - you might take Col2:9 to be "post resurrection" whereas the Christ has been "re-deified" so to speak. Etc. etc. Again, more to clarify in future posts.

But in a tiny nutshell you can see how I would quickly explain my own view, if anything.

I don't find a problem with this nor do I see a clear contradiction in the sense you put forth.

-God bless-

[AVmetro]

Sorry for the hasty nature of the above. It's getting to be that time for bed. :smile:

Later, I'll want to inquire/comment on the below:

A to B, hupertheos. All that Christ consisted of as a result of A, laid aside so as to walk as a man must walk, but having faith from the get-go (somehow).

-God bless-

[o2bwise]

Hi Iron,

Well, you did nothing to explain how a being has two natures at the same time. Nothing!

You gave your sense of why you think the Bible asserts this.

But, that doesn't help me. You stated "the God," but we know the definite article is lacking in John 1 when referring to Christ and present both times referring to the Father (God).

One place I see things quite different than you, is with your descriptor "merely." My position is that Christ is not God, rather the Son of God (and divine on that basis).

It appears you have a strong distaste for one "merely" granting Christ reverence on the basis that He is whom Peter confessed Him to be:

Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!

I feel very uncomfortable stating that Christ is "merely" what Peter confessed Him to be.

With my view, being the one and only literally begotten Son of God, is not something to describe with the term "merely."

In closing, I would ask you once again to dispense with a biblical proof and to simply explain, in your own words and with your own reasoning, how it is that a being, any being, has two natures at the same time.

May God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[AVmetro]

Hi Iron,

Hey O2.

Well, you did nothing to explain how a being has two natures at the same time. Nothing!

I know. There are two options; Demonstrating that a single being possesses two natures and demonstrating how, in detail. The latter is a great deal more difficult of a task to accomplish if possible. As I stated previously, I believe that the hypostatic union is not something which can merely be "explained" within a single post. Perhaps not even hundreds. I know the fact from scripture. Why go beyond that? Asking me to help an individual understand the doctrine is another thing.

Why not think of it more along the lines of "one unique nature" that derives it's being from the two? That's something I'll have to give more thought on, but it might help in our (finite, human) understanding in the meantime.

You gave your sense of why you think the Bible asserts this.

For me that is sufficent to disprove the notion that it is a "contradiction." If I can demonstrate from scripture that Christ is wholly God in nature. And I can demonstrate as well that He is fully man in nature. Then I have, in this, demonstrated that the hypostatic union of Christ is in fact sound biblical doctrine. That is reasonable. An individuals inability to understand is not a viable objection.

But, that doesn't help me. You stated "the God," but we know the definite article is lacking in John 1 when referring to Christ and present both times referring to the Father (God).

But what is the relevance? The occurences of 'theos' in John1:6, 12, 13 and 18 lack the definite article as well. Note the following passages Matt5:9; 6:24; Luke1:35, 78; 2:40; 1Cor1:30; 15:10 etc. which too lack the definite article 'ho' before 'theos'.

Now turn to John20:28 and Heb1:8 where 'ho theos' is used of Christ Jesus. How is your above reasoning consistent in light of this fact? Pointing out that the majority of passages speak of the Father as "THE God" in no wise negates the fact that Christ too is referred to as "THE God."

I need to add that this is excluding references to Christ being 'YHWH' which only strengthens our case.

One place I see things quite different than you, is with your descriptor "merely." My position is that Christ is not God, rather the Son of God (and divine on that basis).

I use the word "merely" to demonstrate the great contrast between two views, one holding Christ as being 'THE God' while the other presents him as being a 'lesser deity'. In the case of the 'created' being contrasted with the 'UNcreated', I think the word "merely" is appropriate. You may have taken that in way I didn't exactly intend.

It appears you have a strong distaste for one "merely" granting Christ reverence on the basis that He is whom Peter confessed Him to be:

Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!

I feel very uncomfortable stating that Christ is "merely" what Peter confessed Him to be.

I do not disagree that Christ is the 'Son of God.' Nor do I feel as if being the 'Son of God' negates Christ's *being* God. In fact, I see the title 'Son of God' as denoting Christ's Godship in itself. See Jn5:18 (Son of God = equality with God); Jn19:7 (Son of God = blasphemy according to Law); Matt26:63-65; Mk14:61-63 (The affirmation results in a subsequent charge of blasphemy). See also Jn10:33..cf..vs36 (Claiming to be the 'Son of God' is equated with claiming to be God).

8<

In closing, I would ask you once again to dispense with a biblical proof and to simply explain, in your own words and with your own reasoning, how it is that a being, any being, has two natures at the same time.

A biblical proof would be Christ existing as both God and man as I stated earlier. That is precisely what you are requesting now. If Christ is the 'God-man' then two natures are present. End of story. I see no conflict in reason. Only that which goes beyond reason.

As for helping you to understand, that is something you should pray about rather than look to man for the answer. Let's take Phil4:7. Here is a principle which is beyond our understanding (See also 1Cor13:12). Can I assert that it is therefore unbiblical? Not at all.

Quite simply put, if I were able to explain that which is a mystery, then it would cease to be a mystery. If it were not considered a mystery, I would most likely be going beyond what is considered orthodox (as the Trinity etc. is considered a mystery by orthodoxy). Am I afraid to step out of the bounds of orthodoxy? No. I simply find the orthodox position to be biblically substantiated - Even if I cannot understand fully all aspects of that which I know from scripture to be a fact. :wink:

-God bless-

[mickiel]

[Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit Or the Power OF GOD. No human sperm entered Marys body, nothing that could have contaminated Jesus entered his body in the womb. This includes the human blood he had, every physical aspect of Jesus birth was manipulated by the Holy Spirit. He inherited no imperfections. When Jesus became human , he gave up the trappings of a God, he gave up his glory, much of his power( but not all of it) and he gave up his Spiritual form, BUT he didnot give up his mind. He still had the mind of God, therefore it was impossible for him to sin. Many teach that is was possible for him to have sinned, this is incorrect teaching, it was never possible for him to sin, he had
the mind of CHRIST. He was tempted in all mannerism, but those temptations NEVER penertrated his mind. I would question however, WHEN Jesus became aware of who he was, i do not think God allowed him to be concious of who he was until he was in his teens, and perhaps even then , not fully aware. He was aware at his baptism for sure. I think God did something to his mind while in his youth, or maybe he didn't, i'm not sure. For a youth to be aware that he has all power, would indeed be a challange.

[hupertheos]

A little parenthesis from the main discussion. . .

Today @ 09:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90771#post90771)
mickiel:Many teach that is was possible for him to have sinned, this is incorrect teaching, it was never possible for him to sin, he had the mind of CHRIST. He was tempted in all mannerism, but those temptations NEVER penertrated his mind.

Granted that Jesus never gave in to temptation, but how could he genuinely have been tempted if 'it was never possible for him to sin'?

Also, if you mean what you say in your subject heading, then I'm afraid you've lapsed into what Patristic theology classified as the heresy of Apollinarianism. :frown: If Christ didn't have a human mind as well as a human body, then he couldn't have been fully human.

[o2bwise]

Hi Iron,

My understanding is that Christ emptied Himself of all divine attributes at the incarnation.

A divine being knows all things. Christ increased in wisdom and stature and knew not the time of the second coming.

Thus, lacking an attribute of divinity, Christ lacks divinity.

He laid it aside.

Iron, the fundamental disconnect I gather is that you seem to think that what is sufficient biblical proof (for the hypostatic union) for YOU, is sufficient for me.

You seem to posit your conception of what is sufficient proof to me. That's not fair. That is the only reason I asked for an explanation. In you asserting that asking for an explanation is sort of uncalled for, I can only speculate that you have an unfair expectation of me: This is my proof for the hypostatic union. You SHOULD believe it! And thus, explanation of how it is, is without meaningful value!

As I said, I do not see that Christ had one shred of divine attributes while a man. This is consistent with the notion that He LET IT ALL GO at the incarnation, which is then consistent with the idea that, on earth, Christ only had a human nature.

I find this idea biblical and consistent with the following.

1) A being having one nature is obviously tenable on the face of it.

2) A being having two natures at the same time, is obviously untenable on the face of it.

I believe the Trinity is rather saturated with the sentiment of declaring untruths to be "mysteries."

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[o2bwise]

Hi mickiel,

Your post wasn't exactly "strong" on the biblical side!

Romans 1:3
Christ was made of the seed [sperma in the Greek] of David according to the flesh.


Hebrews 2. Christ had the same flesh and blood as the CHILDREN of men.

mickiel, please cite one single child of man who had flesh and blood that was pure. Please logically share with me how the Bible could say Christ LIKEWISE SHARED IN THE SAME, and yet DID NOT.

In other words, please be biblical.

Finally, please furnish scientific evidence that a woman's egg is composed of "unfallen" genetic material, unlike a man's sperm.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[AVmetro]

Back tomorrow night after work with a response to your last post. I've spent the majority of my time today in town. I need some rest :smile:

-God bless you-

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 02:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90934#post90934)
o2bwise:

Hi mickiel,

Your post wasn't exactly &quot;strong&quot; on the biblical side!

Romans 1:3
Christ was made of the seed [sperma in the Greek] of David according to the flesh.

You are misunderstanding this verse. Explain to yourself how Christ could be from the physical seed of David, if no human sperm entered Mary to conceive him. Its fairly simple reasoning. The seed of David is a spiritual symbolism, thats all it could be.




Hebrews 2. Christ had the same flesh and blood as the CHILDREN of men.

mickiel, please cite one single child of man who had flesh and blood that was pure. Please logically share with me how the Bible could say Christ LIKEWISE SHARED IN THE SAME, and yet DID NOT.

In other words, please be biblical.

God is the Father of Christ, his Holy Spirit is pure. The Holy Spirit of God conceived Jesus in the womb of Mary, if you cannot see pureness in that, i cannot help you in any futher explination.

Finally, please furnish scientific evidence that a woman's egg is composed of &quot;unfallen&quot; genetic material, unlike a man's sperm.

Understand that Jesus was not conceived of Josheps sperm OR MARYS, neither of them supplied physical contribution to the genectic make up of Christ, he was CONCIEVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, the Holy Spirit IS NOT HUMAN. Jesus was given a human body, but his humanity ended there, his mind was not human, only the physical caseing of his brain was human, his Spirit was devine, thats why he couldnot sin.



God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 10:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90834#post90834)
hupertheos:

A little parenthesis from the main discussion. . .



Granted that Jesus never gave in to temptation, but how could he genuinely have been tempted if 'it was never possible for him to sin'?

You must define temptation to yourself. Temptation is an offer, an allurement, temptation comes from satan and can be extended to anyone. The abilities or strength of the individual being tempted is not a part of the definition of temptation. If you tempt me and i reject the offer, that does not mean i was NOT tempted, i just refused to accept the offer, you still tempted me. Jesus was tempted, but never accepted the offer, just as it is not possible for God to sin, Jesus was no different. It was just as if God himself was on earth in a physical body, it was impossible for Christ to sin.




Also, if you mean what you say in your subject heading, then I'm afraid you've lapsed into what Patristic theology classified as the heresy of Apollinarianism. :frown: If Christ didn't have a human mind as well as a human body, then he couldn't have been fully human.

Jesus was human, but if you think he was a normal person, there is nothing futher i can show you. You can label me a heritic if you wish, in my view anyone who thinks Jesus was a normal human has some meditating to do, he was in no way normal, and no , he was not JUST human, he was far more. When the Holy Spirit conceives you, YOU ARE NOT A NORMAL HUMAN.

[hupertheos]

by Mickiel. . .
You must define temptation to yourself. Temptation is an offer, an allurement, temptation comes from satan and can be extended to anyone. The abilities or strength of the individual being tempted is not a part of the definition of temptation. If you tempt me and i reject the offer, that does not mean i was NOT tempted, i just refused to accept the offer, you still tempted me. Jesus was tempted, but never accepted the offer, just as it is not possible for God to sin, Jesus was no different. It was just as if God himself was on earth in a physical body, it was impossible for Christ to sin.

This didn't really answer my question. I asked how could Jesus genuinely have been tempted if it wasn't possible for him to sin. Being tempted surely assumes that you can give in to temptation.

by Mickiel. . .
Jesus was human, but if you think he was a normal person, there is nothing futher i can show you. You can label me a heritic if you wish, in my view anyone who thinks Jesus was a normal human has some meditating to do, he was in no way normal, and no , he was not JUST human, he was far more. When the Holy Spirit conceives you, YOU ARE NOT A NORMAL HUMAN.

Come, come. . . I didn't label you a heretic, I said that your position was deemed heretical by many Patristic theologians. :wink:

Now I agree with you that Jesus was and is far more than human, insofar as he is the Word of God incarnate; but the key thing is that he is fully human as well as fully God. If Christ's mind isn't human but divine, then he isn't fully human, he can't achieve salvation, etc, etc, etc, and that's why your position was deemed dodgy by the early theologians.

[mickiel]

Today @ 08:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91812#post91812)
hupertheos:



This didn't really answer my question. I asked how could Jesus genuinely have been tempted if it wasn't possible for him to sin. Being tempted surely assumes that you can give in to temptation.

You must futher understand the power of God, which was flowing through Jesus brain and blood. Temptation and submission to it are two entirely different things, but you are combineing them. You seem to think that because a person is tempted, they have ALREADY sinned, or just entertained the thought. No my freind the thought MUST CONCEIVE, and then that conception will bring forth sin. Study that in the book of James. The thought of sin never conceived in the mind of Christ, conception of sin is a penertration of the mind. It is simply impossible for sin to penertrate Christ mind, because his mind was not human. Granted part of his mind was indeed human, but only the physical parts were human, their is another spirit in man. Jesus had the Spirit of God living in his mind, the extent of that power, we just cannot understand, but that power is a power of goodness, purity, righteousness, these things are no match for sin.

When sin approaches Christ, it is out-matched, no contest at all. It is not possible for sin to penertrate the lamb of God, in fact Jesus is how God will RID the world of sin. Jesus blood will wash away all sin, because Christ penertrates sin and erases it, this is how we are forgiven, the sin we are forgiven of, just does not exist anymore, Jesus eliniminated it. When Jesus faced satan in Matt. 4, there was no way possible Christ was going to loose that battle, nothing that lives can distinguish the light of the Lamb, nothing. You must futher understand his power. Jesus didnot fast those 40 days to build up strength to defeat satan, he could defeat satan in any state he was in. He fasted FOR US, because he knew he was not fully human. At that time Jesus knew he was all powerful, knew satan was nothing to him, he knew sin was nothing to him, people just tend to make Christ more human than he was.

Come, come. . . I didn't label you a heretic, I said that your position was deemed heretical by many Patristic theologians. :wink:

Now I agree with you that Jesus was and is far more than human, insofar as he is the Word of God incarnate; but the key thing is that he is fully human as well as fully God. If Christ's mind isn't human but divine, then he isn't fully human, he can't achieve salvation, etc, etc, etc, and that's why your position was deemed dodgy by the early theologians.

Christ achieved salvation, no matter what anybody thinks, its a done deal. It is impossible to be fully human, and be conceived by a Spirit from God, or born without the male spermodzoa injected into the female uterus. Are people so intrenced in traditional thought that this cannot be understood. No one on earth was conceived like this, and this conception does not mean Jesus was not human. He had flesh and blood, that qualifies him enough right there. But this was a GOD, walking amounst us in the flesh. Jesus was Gods son, explain to me what is human about God. NOTHING ABOUT GOD IS HUMAN. When Jesus became a man, it was a humiliating reduction for him. This God had to sleep, eat food and drink water, he had to use the bathroom and eliminate waste, he had to walk amounst the most selfish beings God has created. Then he had to be beaten to a pulp, and not fight back. Jesus was truly a great example of our savior, we just do not realize all he went through, because we concentrate on his manhood too much. My friend, men cannot walk on water, humans cannot create food from nowhere, humans cannot die then ressurect themselves, and humans certainly cannot ressurect others from the dead. Jesus did all these things because he is the CHRIST, the actual son of God, his spirit was more than his flesh, no flesh can glory in Gods sight, God was well pleased with Christ because Jesus concentrated on the spirit, we are the ones who try to glorify flesh.

[hupertheos]

by Mickiel. . .
Temptation and submission to it are two entirely different things, but you are combineing them. You seem to think that because a person is tempted, they have ALREADY sinned, or just entertained the thought.

No, I'm not combining them. I don't think Jesus gave in to his temptations, and I don't think he sinned. What I am saying is that Jesus couldn't have been genuinely tempted unless it was possible for him to sin. That he didn't demonstrates his obedience to his Father in the power of the Holy Spirit.

To the second half of your post. . . How do you reconcile this:

by Mickiel. . .
NOTHING ABOUT GOD IS HUMAN.

with

by Mickiel. . .
When Jesus became a man, it was a humiliating reduction for him. This God had to sleep, eat food and drink water, he had to use the bathroom and eliminate waste, he had to walk amounst the most selfish beings God has created.

If Jesus became a man, as you say, then in some sense God must be said to be human. How can Jesus be God incarnate if he is not human? How can Jesus be the Word made flesh if he is not human? You say that

it is impossible to be fully human, and be conceived by a Spirit from God, or born without the male spermodzoa injected into the female uterus..

Fine. . . but then how do you square it with your contention that

this conception does not mean Jesus was not human

Are you saying that Jesus is human but isn't human? Are you saying that because

He had flesh and blood, that qualifies him enough right there

that's all it means to be human? I'm confused, I'm afraid. . . :huh:

You conclude:

My friend, men cannot walk on water, humans cannot create food from nowhere, humans cannot die then ressurect themselves, and humans certainly cannot ressurect others from the dead.

If Jesus was truly human, then yes, somehow he was able to walk on water; somehow he was able to create food from nowhere; and somehow he was able to resurrect others from the dead. I say that he did these in the power of the Spirit. But Jesus didn't raise himself from the dead; he was raised by his Father (Acts 13:30; Romans 4:24; 10:9). Doesn't this suit the doctrine that Christ was fully human more than one depicting God simply dressed in flesh and blood?

[o2bwise]

Hi mickiel,

I know you wrote this to huper, but I am jumping in, nonethless.

but if you think he was a normal person, there is nothing futher i can show you.

This is a straw man. You are equating a belief that Christ was not physically pure in the way you suggest and that He was not tempted with "being normal."

mickiel, which is less normal?
To be an eagle and fly? Or to be an eagle with a 10lb weight strapped to you and fly?

Think of Christ taking our liabilities (our flesh and blood) and being tempted as you and I are tempted and consider Him being perfectly obedient with this "liability."

The Christ I envision, I believe, is far more glorious than the one you envision. For He was not righteous by NATURE, rather, He was righteous by FAITH, even in the midst of taking MY nature upon Him.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[AVmetro]

A divine being knows all things. Christ increased in wisdom and stature and knew not the time of the second coming.

Thus, lacking an attribute of divinity, Christ lacks divinity.

He laid it aside.

In what sense do you mean "He laid it aside"? Are you implying that He was "re-created" at Bethlehem?

I contend the statement that He "lacked" a divine ablility but rather believe that He simply refused to exploit that which He had. The use of the present tense participle "being" in previously mentioned passages seems to imply just that (See Phil2:6).

Take for example, 2Co 8:9. Here we once again have the present participle "being." He was rich but chose not to exploit what He had. That would fit perfectly my own definition of "laid aside". It also parallels nicely to Phil2:6.

8<

You seem to posit your conception of what is sufficient proof to me. That's not fair. That is the only reason I asked for an explanation. In you asserting that asking for an explanation is sort of uncalled for, I can only speculate that you have an unfair expectation of me: This is my proof for the hypostatic union. You SHOULD believe it! And thus, explanation of how it is, is without meaningful value!

I'm not making an attempt to "force" you to accept my basis for accepting the hypostatic union. I'm merely presenting my case. I will agree with you though that it certainly appears that way on account of the fact that there is so little I can do to explain the minute details surrounding the fact. What I am emphasizing is that the fact can be inferred from scripture. The "how" may not in detail, but the fact of which can.

I begin by presenting a hypothetical situation - If I can demonstrate that Christ is both 'God' and 'man' in nature then I have demonstrated that the hypostatic union is biblically sound. Any subsequent argument would naturally end up in a debate revolving around the deity of Christ, which is precisely why I haven't really "gone there". I've already made it clear that explaining the hypostatic union of Christ in great detail is a difficult task to carry out if at all possible. I can demonstrate from scripture the fact. However, an argument from human reason will not be my basis for authority.

As I said, I do not see that Christ had one shred of divine attributes while a man.

Perhaps becuase He 'laid them aside' in order to play it our way and be our sympathizer. We essentially agree upon this with the exception taht you believe he lost his divine perogatives whereas I simply believe He refused to exploit them. He had them, but He didn't use them.

In any case I'll take this time to give a quick demonstration from scripture the fact of two natures subsisting in one being:

1Ti 2:5 - "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

..cf..

Col 2:9 - "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,."

Simple.

What is this telling us? See an excellent article on the topic here (http://www.forananswer.org/Colossians/Col2_9.htm). It is clear that Christ, although being a man, was and is also fully divine. How is this possible? I cannot simply label this as a "contradiction" on the basis of my finite human understanding as it is clearly taught in scripture as we see above.

-God bless you-

[AVmetro]

The Logic of God Incarnate (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1579106293/qid=1052593169/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5051020-3375301?v=glance&s=books).

Another book recommended to me a while back. Most likely to be my next book purchase.

-God bless-

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 02:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91899#post91899)
o2bwise:

Hi mickiel,

I know you wrote this to huper, but I am jumping in, nonethless.



This is a straw man. You are equating a belief that Christ was not physically pure in the way you suggest and that He was not tempted with &quot;being normal.&quot;

mickiel, which is less normal?
To be an eagle and fly? Or to be an eagle with a 10lb weight strapped to you and fly?

Think of Christ taking our liabilities (our flesh and blood) and being tempted as you and I are tempted and consider Him being perfectly obedient with this &quot;liability.&quot;

The Christ I envision, I believe, is far more glorious than the one you envision. For He was not righteous by NATURE, rather, He was righteous by FAITH, even in the midst of taking MY nature upon Him.

God Bless,

Tony (o2
) Tony, Did you know Jesus could have flown like an egale if he wanted to. Jesus wa not righteous by faith, but by his very nature, you sure have that backwards. Jesus was not a normal man by no means of the word. To call his life normal is an insult to common sense. Jesus mind and life were extra-ordinary. He was superman. He just carried himself in a humble way. Jesus didnot "act" like the superpower he was.

[hupertheos]

Yesterday @ 10:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93062#post93062)
mickiel:Did you know Jesus could have flown like an egale if he wanted to.

I didn't realise our Lord was in fact Neo from The Matrix. . . :wink:

[o2bwise]

Hi Iron,

sigh

Can you cite one single thought you have shared that explains the HOW of a being having two natures at one time? You have not done so at all, that I can see.


I'm just really busy, but I will try to reply to your post, with some kind of detail. But, for now:

Philipians 2:6
who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,


First off, if Christ were God, it would seem to be absurd to say He is equal to Himself. That is self-evident that: A=A.

Secondly, the use of "being" could be taking us back to that pre-incarnate time. There seems a sequence here. Taking us back to that time and bringing us forward to the time of the incarnation and beyond.

Iron, do you contend that an omniscient being can choose not to know what He knows due to His omniscience? I.e.

I am omniscient. I know all things. But, I have chosen not to know when I will return, even though I am omniscient.

Do you also believe, that as a 1 day old baby, Jesus Christ consciously chose not to utilize His omniscience so that He could grow in wisdom and stature?

Iron, I honestly mean no disrespect, but such an idea sounds profoundly absurd to me. To an extent that I cannot conceive of even being able to measure.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[o2bwise]

Hi mickiel,

Tony, Did you know Jesus could have flown like an egale if he wanted to. Jesus wa not righteous by faith, but by his very nature, you sure have that backwards. Jesus was not a normal man by no means of the word. To call his life normal is an insult to common sense. Jesus mind and life were extra-ordinary. He was superman. He just carried himself in a humble way. Jesus didnot "act" like the superpower he was.

I know that you never appeal to the Bible and I know that you claim things that are 100% diametrically opposed to the clear statements of scripture.

My guess is you are young in the faith and that's wonderful! We all are, at one time or another (unless we were never in the faith to begin with).

I very much hope you choose to diligently search the scriptures to see what is so and to be willing to temper your beliefs by scripture, rather than scripture by your beliefs.

God Bless You, Bro...

Tony (o2)

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 01:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93438#post93438)
o2bwise:

Hi mickiel,



I know that you never appeal to the Bible and I know that you claim things that are 100% diametrically opposed to the clear statements of scripture.

My guess is you are young in the faith and that's wonderful! We all are, at one time or another (unless we were never in the faith to begin with).

I very much hope you choose to diligently search the scriptures to see what is so and to be willing to temper your beliefs by scripture, rather than scripture by your beliefs.

God Bless You, Bro...

Tony (o2)
The question is was Jesus biblically normal or was he superpowerful? In Matt. 8:3, Jesus heals a man of leprosy, No one has done this since, in vs. 13 he heals a man without even being near the man, this has never been done since, in vs. 23 Jesus stops a hurricane in its tracks, this has never been done since, In Matt. 12:15-16 Jesus heals many people and ask them not to tell anyone about their healing, no healer has ever done this since-- they all take credit for Christ power, in Matt. 14:15 Jesus feeds 5,000 people-and thats just counting the men not the women and children- with just the remains of one lunch, this has never been done since, in vs. 25 he walked on water, besides Peters temporary effort this has never been done since-- i also maintain that if Jesus can walk on water, he can walk on air.

In matt. 26:53, Jesus reveals that he can have God send him 6,000 angels who would be at his command, by only requesting it. I maintain that he couldnot command anything that he is not MORE powerful than himself, God DOES NOT PUT WEAKER BEINGS IN CHARGE OF POWERFUL BEINGS. Therefore i maintain that Jesus was MORE capable than an angel, whatever they could do, Jesus was able to do more, or he was more powerful than angels. If they had wings and could fly, so can Christ- their God. Even when Jesus was born, angels were at his serivce, Luke 2:13. In vs. 9 an angel announced his birth, this has never been done since. All the angels mentioned in the book of Revelation are at Jesus command, all the awesome abilities they have, i maintain that Jesus has them in greater power himself. This is shown in Rev. 5:11-12, billions of angels themselves verbally clain that Jesus is all powerful in wisdom, might, riches, power, honor and glory and Gods personal blessing. The angelic world itself proclaims Jesus superman. In Matt. 13:41, it proves Jesus owned these angels while he was still human, they were "his angels" then as they are now.

satan knew of this truth himself, mentioning it in Matt. 4:6, the fact that Jesus was human meant nothing to his authority, he still was superman. Thats WHY the devil could not defeat him. After Jesus battle with satan, which no other human has directly done since, the angels fed him or ministered to him, Mark 1:13. hey were his even while he wa human. I have been accused of not using scripture, i hold that this accusation is false.

[hupertheos]

Mickiel, just one question. . . what relationship to the Holy Spirit does Jesus have?

[mickiel]

Today @ 12:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94112#post94112)
hupertheos:

Mickiel, just one question. . . what relationship to the Holy Spirit does Jesus have?

I believe the Holy Spirit is the power of God, the refection of his image, the manifestation of Gods mind into reality. Jesus has this power, this manifestation at his service. Look at John 17:2, Jesus has power over all the physical world, Matt. 9:6, the power to forgive sins, Rev. 4:11 the power over the angelic world, in other words Jesus has all power in his hands or at his disposal. That power IS the Holy Spirit of God, or simply Gods own PERSONAL POWER, or his Holy Spirit. Notice Rev. 12:10, salvation and "the power", or the Holy Spirit, the kingdom of God and the authority of his Crist has come.

Christ relationship with the Holy Spirit is his authority to use it as he pleases, it is under his direction. Mind you i am not a trinitarian, i do not understand the Holy Spirit to be a third God, but simply the power of God manifeted into reality.Its just that God is so powerful, his Spirit, or his Holy countanance, has a life of its own,but not a personality. God is life itself, he radiates life, life is inside and outside of him, he is literally crackleing with pure life, and the same with pure power. Men just understand and interpit that power as a third God with a seperate personality. Still at times i wonder, God is so awesome, i sometimes don't even know what his Holy Spirit is like. He just so powerful, we tend to want to gve his Spirit a mind of its own, his Spirit is just tat alive, i mean it can do anything, but its really just his mighty will going out from him, and it cannot return to him void, it wil accomplish what God thinks about.

[hupertheos]

Today @ 01:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94132#post94132)
mickiel:Mind you i am not a trinitarian, i do not understand the Holy Spirit to be a third God, but simply the power of God manifeted into reality.

Ah, I think this is why I've been having problems with your christology, Mickiel. . . I am a trinitarian.

I understand that the fully human Jesus - mind and all! - did the miraculous things he did in the power of the Holy Spirit, not through some innate ability because he is fully God. The trinitarian aspects really come into play, I believe, if we understand the Spirit with whom Jesus was baptised to be the one who enabled Jesus to obey his Father and to carry out his will.

Have you read Tom Smail's The Giving Gift? This will help you understand my position if the fancy takes you! :smile:

[mickiel]

Today @ 01:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94137#post94137)
hupertheos:



Ah, I think this is why I've been having problems with your christology, Mickiel. . . I am a trinitarian.

I understand that the fully human Jesus - mind and all! - did the miraculous things he did in the power of the Holy Spirit, not through some innate ability because he is fully God. The trinitarian aspects really come into play, I believe, if we understand the Spirit with whom Jesus was baptised to be the one who enabled Jesus to obey his Father and to carry out his will.

Have you read Tom Smail's The Giving Gift? This will help you understand my position if the fancy takes you! :smile:


I understand the trinity position, i just do not agree with it. I believe in John 1:1, there are only two in my view,God and his son. But i will look into Tom Small, i like reading.

[AVmetro]

Hi Iron

Hello O2. Sorry for the wait. I had a long weekend :smile:

8<

Can you cite one single thought you have shared that explains the HOW of a being having two natures at one time? You have not done so at all, that I can see.

Are you insisting that the scriptures saying so isn't sufficient of itself? Are you implying that in order for you to believe a biblical doctrine you must first be able to comprehend it fully? Have you been to the biology section of TWeb? They tend to implement this same line of reasoning as well. I'll repeat a previous example - Col2:9..cf..1Tim2:5. Simple. Now what you need to explain to me from this one example is "how" Christ can be fully divine and yet also at the same time be fully 'man' as the passages make clear. Are we speaking of two natures? Yes. Are these two natures resident in one being? Yes.

8<

But, for now:

Philipians 2:6
who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

The rendering of the NASB, etc. is considered by most to be the more "accurate" rendering, which is probably a rendering you will prefer:

Phil 2:6 - "..who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himslef, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." NASB

First off, if Christ were God, it would seem to be absurd to say He is equal to Himself. That is self-evident that: A=A.

?

The use of "God" in Phil2:6 (as you agree) is a reference to the Father. I would almost parallel this use with John1:1. "The Word was with God and the Word was God." However, my main contention with your above statement is that you would view this as being "equal to Himself" under the Trintarian interpretation. Your objection would work only if I were a Modalist i.e. 'Oneness' where the Father and Son are the same person. But I am not. The Father being called "God" does not negate the possiblility that Christ is, too, ontologically "God." (E.g. Jn20:28 etc.) The main point to be drawn from Phil2:6 - if Christ is equal with God, then He is God. Look at the context starting with vs3:

Phi 2:3 doing nothing according to party spirit or self-glory, but in humility, esteeming one another as surpassing themselves

Now read:

Phi 2:5 For think this within you, which mind was also in Christ Jesus

So even though the Philippians were equals with one another, they were to submit themselves willingly to their brother. This is the point Paul is making when he says to have in you the mind that was in Christ when He submitted Himself to the Father (His equal). This is the example we are to follow.

So granted that Christ is God, it is not "absurd" to see Christ as "equal" to God as this is what the context explicitly conveys.

Secondly, the use of "being" could be taking us back to that pre-incarnate time. There seems a sequence here. Taking us back to that time and bringing us forward to the time of the incarnation and beyond.

Not for certain what you're getting across in the above so I'll cite a Greek grammarian for the time being:

A.T. Robertson:
Being (huparcho¯n). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of huparcho¯. In the form of God (en morphe¯i theou).

Iron, do you contend that an omniscient being can choose not to know what He knows due to His omniscience? I.e.

I am omniscient. I know all things. But, I have chosen not to know when I will return, even though I am omniscient.

I truly don't believe the "dilemma" here is too much greater in my case than in yours. See below:

Do you also believe, that as a 1 day old baby, Jesus Christ consciously chose not to utilize His omniscience so that He could grow in wisdom and stature?

So what of your interpretation? This Christ, in your view, is co-creator of heaven and earth who existed prior to time itself. The difference in one area between our views being between 'knowing all things' and 'knowing a whole lot'. That said, how is it that you can comprehend that Christ "chose not" to utilize the knowledge He had previously. You say He "laid it aside". I ask "how"? "Losing" your knowledge and choosing not to utilize it are not that far apart. At least as far as basing an objection to dual natures goes.

Now let me make this point:

Christ is called upon for one's salvation. Does He hear them? Christ calls His sheep out by name. How does He know it? He searches the hearts and minds of all men. How? Christ says that many will call Him 'lord' whereas He will say to them "I never knew you" and therefore reject them. During His stay on earth there is an obvious limitation upon Christ's "knowledge". However, after the resurrection Peter states that Christ "knows all things" (Jn21:17). You can take that statement to be merely hyperbolic if you like, but I think the above examples will demonstrate that it is not to be taken in such a way.

So in light of the above, how is it that Christ can do all this and yet still be "man"? I see no problem in this.

Iron, I honestly mean no disrespect, but such an idea sounds profoundly absurd to me. To an extent that I cannot conceive of even being able to measure.

The idea not being so in the least to me. So now what? That line of reasoning will not suffice as an argument in my view. Can I, myself, "conceive" it fully? Perhaps not. Can I conceive 'God' Himself fully? Perhaps not till the end. Should this be a basis for rejection? No. The statement "That's ludicrus" seems to be the favorite substantiation of atheists. I refuse to "lean on my own understanding" in those areas I believe the bible teaches explicitly.

-God bless you-

[o2bwise]

Hi Iron,

You don't get it. I disagree with your interpretation. I don't expect you to agree with mine. But, where we see the Bible differently, appeal to reason is not inappropriate.

You have not explained a SHRED how the same being can have two natures.

He emptied Himself. That's pretty basic. Take a glass of water. Empty it of the water. The "nature" that is water, is no longer there, in the glass.

He knows not the time of the second coming. Confirmation that He did indeed "empty Himself."

God Bless,

Tony (o2)