PDA

View Full Version : Christology



Aner
February 4th, 2013, 01:53 AM
Not a new subject obviously - but I believe most will find the following a new question -

If the Logos did not incarnate in the that human "thing" that was conceived and born of Mary, wife of Joseph, would that human "thing" be fully functional??

Likewise - who cried and who learned obedience in Heb 5:7ff... ?? Was it the human person or the human nature?!?

Aner

jerzy
February 4th, 2013, 02:19 AM
If the Logos did not incarnate in the that human "thing" that was conceived and born of Mary, wife of Joseph, would that human "thing" be fully functional??

Aner

On what account you capitalised the word “logos”? On account of Isa 55:11 to which undoubtedly John refers to in Jn 1?

Or on account of the “logos” of God given to King David as recorded in 2Sam 7:12? This “logos” was fulfilled according to Peter (Ac 2:30) and Paul (Ac 13:23).

jerzy
February 16th, 2013, 02:14 AM
Does this ring a bell?

The reason our Bibles translate logos as word is that Jerome, a monk of the early fifth century, mistranslated it as verbum. Jerome’s Vulgate, as it is called, became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, and the texts Jerome used have become the mainstay of contemporary liberal versions. The Latin term Verbum became Word in English.

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=255.

Wow!!!!

Isn't this what the Trinitarians say?

Or this?

The entire superstructure of the Vatican system is built on sinking sand . . . and not on the Rock of Ages....Every corrupt practice and doctrine can be traced back to the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.
In 382, Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to revise the popular Latin translation of the Bible in use since at least 150 A.D.
Eventually, his perversion replaced the Old Latin Version.
It was called the Latin Vulgate and became the official version of the Vatican and the foundation of all their damnable heresies.
The Council of Trent condemns every other translation of the Bible except for the Latin Vulgate:

http://www.reformation.org/latin-vulgate-unmasked.html

Please bear in mind that it took place just after the Trinity God doctrine was completed (began in 325 as two "Gods", declared unbiblical in 351 & the third "God" added in 382). Thus Jerome was tasked the same year with cooking of the “proof”.

So this is exactly why you the Trinitarians worship two man-made “Gods” instead of the Father the only one true God.

Lazy afternoon
February 16th, 2013, 03:27 AM
Not a new subject obviously - but I believe most will find the following a new question -

If the Logos did not incarnate in the that human "thing" that was conceived and born of Mary, wife of Joseph, would that human "thing" be fully functional??

Likewise - who cried and who learned obedience in Heb 5:7ff... ?? Was it the human person or the human nature?!?

Aner

No scripture says the word incarnated.

The overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit also occured in the scriptures,(OT) and no word incarnated, but life was.

You do not know the reference so go look for it before claiming such a thing as incarnation to be true.

LA

jerzy
February 16th, 2013, 05:21 AM
No scripture says the word incarnated.

God fulfilled His word spoken through the prophets.

God's word (not “God” the Word) became reality; became flesh as foretold.

oatmeal
February 16th, 2013, 04:07 PM
Not a new subject obviously - but I believe most will find the following a new question -

If the Logos did not incarnate in the that human "thing" that was conceived and born of Mary, wife of Joseph, would that human "thing" be fully functional??

Likewise - who cried and who learned obedience in Heb 5:7ff... ?? Was it the human person or the human nature?!?

Aner

Aner,

Grace and peace,

Your first question could be simplified for those who like plain talk.

Your second question, Jesus Christ, who is a man, learned obedience.

oatmeal

Jason0047
February 16th, 2013, 10:40 PM
Hebrews 5:8 does say that Jesus "learned obedience through what he suffered." But anyone who has made any comparisons knows that the same Epistle also depicts Jesus as perfectly obedient from the moment of his conception: "When Christ came into the world, he said: Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me ... Then I said: Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God." So it is evident at the outset that Jesus could not have had to learn obedience in his human will: it was the theme of his life from the start. What then does Hebrew 5:8 mean?

Well, just as a person who has long been devoted to the will of God, but now for the first time finds himself in great physical suffering, from cancer, needs to have his bodily side learn to acquiesce, to settle down in suffering, so it was with the bodily, not the spiritual side of Jesus.

Another example would be that despite all the knowledge about His native language, in order for Christ to get his tongue and vocal organs used to forming the sounds-that again needed practice. In fact, the Scriptures say that the flesh has desires (Galatians 5:16). This implies that your body has a mind. So it was the mind or abilities of the physical body that needed to catch up with the Spirit of Christ.

In other words, suppose Christ had met a Chinaman: could he have talked with him? Well, the same principles will solve the question for us now too. For Christ's knowledge gave his human intellect full knowledge of the Chinese language. But his vocal equipment would normally need practice. Divine power could have made up for the lack of that practice. But would it have done so? Now, some have suggested that Christ had acted in obedience as a man because He gave up some of His divinity. For they believe that Christ emptied of himself (A portion of His divinity, but not all) in heaven (Philippians 2:7 HCSB (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:7&version=HCSB)). However, I believe this is based upon the corruption within modern translations or a wrong theological thought that Jesus was not 100% God. For such a model is incompatible with the miracle narratives as proofs of his messianic claims. For an emptying of himself, would mean Jesus gave up being God! Therefore, Christ could not lay claim to working miracles in addition to the Father. For God cannot stop being God.

And yet other modern translations translate Philippians 2:7 as the giving up of divine privileges like the NLT (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:7&version=NLT) states. Which would be a little closer to the truth but not exactly correct: For Jesus did not give up His divine abilities or privileges in being God, but He resolved to not to use his divine power for his own comfort. Hence He considered it a temptation to be asked to change stones to bread in the desert. But He would use that power freely for the sake of others, like in the healing of the sick.

What then of the Chinaman: Would Jesus have called on his divine power to provide the missing facility to let him speak to the Chinaman? I am inclined to think He would have, for that would have been for the benefit of the soul of another, not for His own comfort.

Lazy afternoon
February 17th, 2013, 12:54 AM
This might help you.


Heb 5:6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Heb 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;


Jesus was born as a pure spirited human being.

Jesus was made like His brethren.

Jesus grew in wisdom.

Jesus was not a freak of creation plus.

God entered Jesus after His baptism by John.

Gods Spirit is the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit fathered Jesus but did not enter Him there at the conception or birth of Jesus.

God through the Holy Spirit of truth prepared Jesus to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit of His Father who did the works and told Jesus what to say and do.

May the Grace of God be upon you and in your heart as you read His word and give you understanding.

LA

Jason0047
February 17th, 2013, 07:27 AM
Anyways, to continue...

So what bodily part of Christ cried? The nature of the body or the body itself?

Well, to address our Human nature: we know that the Scriptures repeatedly tell us that mankind has a sin nature. I believe this sin nature is a combination of a fallen spirit and a body that can draw us into lusting after the flesh. However, that does not mean the body does not have good desires like wanting to be fueled properly by eating the right foods and getting the proper sleep.

As for the body: Well, the physical body can learn to do certain things very quickly by an automatic function like expressing emotion. So crying would fall under this category. For you do not have to teach your human nature or the mind of your body to cry. It just cries automatically as a part of your being. For it is not a skill that you had to learn.

So what bodily part of Christ learned obedience thru suffering? The nature of the body or the body itself?

I believe in this case it would be both the human nature and the body itself that learned obedience thru suffering. Again, the Spirit of Christ (Who is God) did not learn anything new about suffering and obedience but it was his body or the human flesh that learned.

How so? Well, I know that my body must learn to suffer in working out and eating healthy foods every day in order to train my body to a point of habit. In other words, once my body is used to suffering long enough for a specific goal or purpose it can actually get stronger and give me more energy and get accustomed to following that pattern of obedience. So essentially, with enough exercise or suffering, my body will be trained to crave or obey it's task on a continual basis.

In a similar way, the Spirit of Christ suffered in the flesh of a man and trained the body to obey in it's suffering to the cross. A Son who became the author of our eternal salvation by teaching his own body to be crucified against it's own affections and lusts. So the actual body or the flesh of the man (including the body's mind or it's human nature) learned in suffering and not the Word or the Spirit of Christ.

In fact, we as Christians are admonished to do this very thing with our flesh as well.

Galatians 5:24-26 - "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another."

For the only way we as Christians can teach our flesh to be crucified against it's own lusts and desires and bring it into obedience is by living and walking in the Spirit.

Side Note:

Oh, and if anyone is interested...

#1. I responded to "the Son" not knowing of His return issue for you here...
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3331707&postcount=133
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3139487&postcount=3548

#2. Here is a response to Father Only knows of Jesus' return issue here...
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3140542&postcount=3616

#3. And here is a response to Jesus growing in wisdom issue that I answered for you here, too...
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3140365&postcount=3597

Jason0047
February 17th, 2013, 11:26 AM
Actually, J.B. Phillips New Testament translation gives us a more modernized up to date translation so we can understand this passage in Hebrews a little better.

Hebrews 5:8-9 PHILLIPS (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%205:8&version=PHILLIPS) - "He had to prove the meaning of obedience through all that he suffered. Then, when he had been proved the perfect Son, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who should obey him."

In other words, Christ the Spirit did not learn obedience or anything new because He is God, but He had to prove the meaning of obedience by suffering in the flesh so that He could be an example or a model for us in an attempt to inspire us to bring our own bodies in subjection by suffering for His sake (i.e. by crucifying our lusts and desires for the sake of Christ).

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%205:8&version=PHILLIPS

Lazy afternoon
February 17th, 2013, 09:21 PM
Actually, J.B. Phillips New Testament translation gives us a more modernized up to date translation so we can understand this passage in Hebrews a little better.

Hebrews 5:8-9 PHILLIPS (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%205:8&version=PHILLIPS) - "He had to prove the meaning of obedience through all that he suffered. Then, when he had been proved the perfect Son, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who should obey him."

In other words, Christ the Spirit did not learn obedience or anything new because He is God, but He had to prove the meaning of obedience by suffering in the flesh so that He could be an example or a model for us in an attempt to inspire us to bring our own bodies in subjection by suffering for His sake (i.e. by crucifying our lusts and desires for the sake of Christ).

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%205:8&version=PHILLIPS

So you think it was only Jesus body crying out to His Father to save Him from death??

Dividing up the man into parts is an idea from Platonists.

LA

Jason0047
February 17th, 2013, 09:48 PM
Hebrews 5:8-9 KJV - "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"

Christ was not being made perfect. He was perfect. Christ was being made as a perfect high priest by offering himself as a sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 8:3) whereby he became the author of our salvation if we obey and suffer for his name sake.

So just as we suffer and obey Christ for His name sake, Christ was a Son like unto a Father who had to learn obedience in suffering. This was a model or type. For the Father declared that Christ was His begotten Son (Hebrews 5:5). This does not mean that Christ was actually born out of the Father spiritually (Also see note below). For God had always existed as one God in three persons and He changes not (1 John 5:7) (Psalm 90:2) (Malachi 3:6). For the use of the words "Father" and the "Son" are not only names of the persons of God, but they are also a type or a model for us to understand the parallel of the loving relationship between a human father and a human son. That there are times when a human son has to suffer in obedience to their human father because he loves and respects him. For a son will learn in obedience just as we can learn in obedience to Christ. For Christ is our everlasting Father, our might God, our wonderful counselor, and our prince of peace (Isaiah 9:6).

Side Note:

Now, it is true that Christ was begotten of the Father in the fact that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit. For God had to redeem us thru the flesh of a man to pay the price for our sins. This is why the Father sent the Son down from Heaven into the flesh of a man named Jesus.

Jason0047
February 17th, 2013, 09:53 PM
So you think it was only Jesus body crying out to His Father to save Him from death??

Dividing up the man into parts is an idea from Platonists.

Dear LA:

Why did Jesus say "My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?"

Well, for one, there is a big difference between making an assertion and asking a question. Secondly, Jesus was referencing Scripture as a fulfillment of prophecy (Psalm 22:1). Thirdly, Jesus also said these words as if it was you and me in His place saying these words. For He was taking on our sins and our punishment as a substitution.

In fact, when look at Psalm 22, we can see that the response to the first verse where the psalmist cries out the prophetic words, "Why have you forsaken me?" there is an answer in verse 24. Here's the answer to the question of Jesus, the question of the psalmist and the question of every person who has ever felt abandoned by the Father: For he (God the Father) has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.

Sin may deafen our ears to the answer, but the reality is that the Father has never and will never despise, disdain or turn His face away from us, forsaking us (if we are seeking His forgiveness). For He has heard our cry for help!

God the Father forsaking His own Son? Impossible! God the Father was "in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19)! On the surface, it appears that the words of Jesus had shown that He might have felt abandoned at the time. It seemed like the Father had forsaken Him, but He hadn't! Nor will He ever forsake you (if you have a broken heart before Him).

But what about the "God cannot look upon sin" part? Doesn't the Bible say that? Well, it does but we need to put that comment in context. It was Habakkuk the prophet who said that as he watched evil people seemingly getting away with their sins. Here's the whole quote in context:

"Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong. Why then do you tolerate the treacherous? Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves?" ~ (Habakkuk 1:13)

To paraphrase him, Habakkuk said, "Your eyes are too pure to look on evil and you can't tolerate wrong so why are you?" In other words, it made no sense to Habakkuk that God was looking on sin when Habakkuk believed that wasn't possible. He was smearing the face of God with the guilt and shame of humanity the same way Adam had done when he hid himself in the Garden of Eden because He thought God wouldn't want to look at him after he sinned. Adam was wrong. God came for His walk that day just as He had every day. And Habakkuk was wrong too.

I hope this helps.

And may God bless you, my friend.

With loving kindness to you in Christ:

Sincerely,

~Jason.


...

Bradley D
February 17th, 2013, 10:52 PM
Why did Jesus say "My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?"


As Christ took on the sins of the world on the cross He felt seperated from God.

jerzy
February 18th, 2013, 12:51 AM
Christ was not being made perfect. He was perfect.

Hi Jason.

You don't seem to bother what God says but merely trying to justify the Trinitarian blasphemy somehow referring to few texts rendered out of the entire biblical context by the Trinitarians.

Jesus was toughed to fear God amongst few things:

Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
Isa 11:3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:

jerzy
February 18th, 2013, 12:54 AM
As Christ took on the sins of the world on the cross He felt seperated from God.

But he wasn’t separated from his claimed other part; from “Good” Jesus, wasn’t he?

Jason0047
February 18th, 2013, 12:38 PM
Hi Jason.

You don't seem to bother what God says but merely trying to justify the Trinitarian blasphemy somehow referring to few texts rendered out of the entire biblical context by the Trinitarians.

Jesus was toughed to fear God amongst few things:

Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
Isa 11:3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:

Dear J:

For one, Jesus Christ never showed the type of fear of the Lord where He repented like a man. For Jesus Christ never repented of His sins; And you would be hard pressed to find a verse that says that He did. For this type of fear described here in Isaiah chapter 11 is a reverence of God and not a Godly fear of turning from one's sins. In fact, the Scriptures say that Jesus had no sin.

2 Corinthians 5:21 - "For he has made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

In other words, Christ had no sin, because He was God just as much as the Father was God; For Christ was one with the Father (John 10:30) and He was worshiped by men (Matthew 9:18) (Matthew 14:33) (Matthew 15:25) (Matthew 28:9) (Matthew 28:17) (Luke 24:51-53) (John 9:35-38) and He was worthy to be worshiped by angels (Hebrews 1:6-8).

Aner
March 8th, 2013, 01:28 AM
@Jason

Here is why I am troubled by your statements

1.
In other words, Christ had no sin, because He was God just as much as the Father was God;
>> Not much of a role model for a man or mankind then is He?

2.
For Christ was one with the Father (John 10:30)
>> In what sense was He one with the Father - how does He interpret the sense of what He is saying?

3.
He was worshiped by men (Matthew 9:18) (Matthew 14:33) (Matthew 15:25) (Matthew 28:9) (Matthew 28:17) (Luke 24:51-53) (John 9:35-38)
>> Maybe a brief review of men being worshipped might help here?? Somewhere say in Rev 3 or so?

Aner
March 8th, 2013, 01:31 AM
This is why the Father sent the Son down from Heaven into the flesh of a man named Jesus.

@ Jason - Are you saying the person of the divine Son inhabited another person - the Man Jesus - such that there are two persons???

Lazy afternoon
March 8th, 2013, 01:49 AM
@ Jason - Are you saying the person of the divine Son inhabited another person - the Man Jesus - such that there are two persons???

As best I can tell, the Trinitarian believes the word was a person in Heaven who took on an outward body of Man through Mary, so that only the flesh part of Jesus was related to King David.

It came from Platonic philosophy, not from Hebrew thought, in that of cutting up man and God into sections, each having a particular function.

LA

Krsto
March 8th, 2013, 01:49 AM
Dear J:

In other words, Christ had no sin, because He was God just as much as the Father was God;

If this were the case then:

1) Jesus could not be genuinely tempted, because God can not be tempted, according to James.
2) Jesus could not learn obedience, because God is omniscient and learns nothing.
3) Jesus could not be dependent on another, because God is never dependent on another, yet Jesus was 100% dependent on God for his authority. All of Jesus' authority was delegated to him by God yet God is not delegated authority by anyone. He is the one who delegates authority.

In order for you trinitarians to accept these truths you must not admit the person of Jesus was less than God so then you say Jesus' human nature was tempted, learned, and dependent. In so doing, you must say that it was Jesus' human nature that cried out to God, not the person of Jesus.

In other words, you do not have a human person, you have a person with both human and divine qualities.

IOW, Jesus was not a man, he just acted like a man, if you're consistent with your own theology.

Either that, or you have two persons in Christ: one from heaven and one of natural, earthly origin.

You trinitarians are just plain confused.

Why don't you just do a bible study on the Greek and Hebrew words translated as "God" and you may realize the error of your way. Once you realize that all of Jesus' divinity was delegated to him by God and the Greek and Hebrew terms for God also include a human representative of God then you can freely admit he was not "very God of very God." You may be branded as a heretic by the church but hey, better men than you have suffered far worse at the hands of the church.

Jason0047
March 9th, 2013, 01:00 AM
If this were the case then:
1) Jesus could not be genuinely tempted, because God can not be tempted, according to James.

Dear K:

Jesus inherited the desires of the flesh from Mary but not sin. For Mary was a descendant of Adam who passed the natural desire of the flesh upon every man, woman, and child that has every lived or will live. But sin is only passed thru the male seed.

Oh, and it was not the the Spirit of Christ who was tempted, but it was the flesh that had that was tempted.

For Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned and have come short of the glory of God. Yet this passage is not talking about Christ because the Word made flesh was not a part of the "ALL" crowd of regular men because the Word is God.


2) Jesus could not learn obedience, because God is omniscient and learns nothing.

Exactly. The Spirit of Christ did not learn obedience. As I stated in my previous posts, the body of Christ had learned obedience and not the Spirit of Christ who was God. For a person can train their body to be in the habit to exercise. A person can give into the desires of the flesh or resist them. So the body can learn to obey or disobey your self conscious choices that your soul makes.


3) Jesus could not be dependent on another, because God is never dependent on another, yet Jesus was 100% dependent on God for his authority. All of Jesus' authority was delegated to him by God yet God is not delegated authority by anyone. He is the one who delegates authority.

Your choice of the word "dependence" implies that Christ was limited so as to depend upon the Father as if Christ was a limited being. Yet, this was not the case at all. Jesus prayed to the Father for two reasons:

#1. Jesus prayed to the Father as an example to the body of Christ to be united.
#2. Jesus prayed to the Father so that the world could believe that the Father had sent Him as the Son (John 17:20-21). Thereby authenticating that He was the Son of God (i.e. being as the same nature of divinity as the Father).

Also, you have to understand that if God is three in one, then Christ appearing as a man who communicated with the Father and or who did His will is not a contradiction of the Godhead. Besides, the Godhead can be clearly seen thru out all of Scripture.

As for the Father having authority within the Godhead:

Well, the best way I have found to understand the Godhead is to understand how we are made in God's image (Genesis 1:27). For God is triune and He consists in being as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit (1 John 5:7). Therefore, if God is triune, then man must be triune, too. In fact, Scripture confirms this fact, for man consists in being as a soul, spirit, and body (1 Thessalonians 5:23).

For example, when I shake somebody's hand, I am using my soul, spirit, and body in order to do so. Yet the person who is shaking my hand is only receiving the hand shake from my physical body. For they cannot touch my spirit or my soul. Yet I used all three in order to make that one physical action to happen, though; And it was my mind (or my soul) that chose to shake that person's hand.

Here is another example:

Your body, mind and spirit are separate and distinct. My hand is a part of me, but it is not my intellect, my mind. My thoughts are a part of me, but they are not my spirit. To help illustrate this to you, There have been times where I've seen my mind and my spirit in conflict. I'm hurt. My spirit is wounded. I'm crying and my mind says "Stop crying!" but I can't because my spirit has been wounded. Sometimes our mind and our flesh are in conflict. We know something is wrong but we are so weak and powerless that we let the flesh have its way. For again, Paul talks about how his mind and flesh were in conflict--

Romans 7:25 "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." For we are undoubtedly tripartite (body, mind, spirit) yet we remain one entity. In fact, if you and I were in the same room and I looked at you, I would only see your flesh. I could not see what you were thinking or what you were feeling. I could not see who you really are.

Therefore, in conclusion...

God exists in perfect harmony so there is no separation within the Godhead for God to have any type of disobedience within Himself. So if God is three and one (and He is) then the issue of authority can't be the same type of authority that is ascribed to man because the Lord is far more perfect than man.

Anyways, I hope this helps.
And may God bless you greatly.

With loving kindness to you in Christ:

Sincerely,

~Jason.


...

Jason0047
March 9th, 2013, 01:26 AM
@ Jason - Are you saying the person of the divine Son inhabited another person - the Man Jesus - such that there are two persons???

Dear A:

No, I do not believe Jesus is two persons as you suggest here. For Christ did not possess another man's soul. For Christ who is the Word was made flesh. Sort of like God putting on a cloak.

However, when I speak of this cloak or the flesh having a mind: What I mean is that the flesh or the physical body merely has needs and desires that can influence you. Which suggests your body has something like a mind, but it is not a type of intelligence that can over ride your free will choices from your soul, though. It is not it's own entity that can exist separate from your soul. It does not have a personality or a will of it's own like your soul has that makes the real decisions. In other words, the flesh is a passive intelligence that merely can influence while a soul inhabits it.

However, the physical body can learn to being accustomed to forming certain habits. The body has needs, such as food, water, and sleep in order to function. The body has desires like wanting to have a mate or to feel good or happy.

So, no. Christ who is the Eternal God did not possess a man's soul. He merely put on a living cloak of flesh that was infected with a sin nature (and not sin itself).

Anyways, I hope this helps.
And may God's love shine upon you greatly today.

With loving kindness to you in Christ Jesus.

Sincerely,

~Jason.


...

Aner
March 9th, 2013, 01:31 AM
@J -

So you are saying that Jesus is not really a man - but just a human body. Therefore, if the Logos had not inhabited the human body - the human body would not function independently as a genuine man - such as you and I - would function.

Can you please confirm?

Thanks,
A

Jason0047
March 9th, 2013, 01:41 AM
The Word or the Spirit of Christ had put on a living, breathing, flesh, and blood human body that was a descendant of Adam (Which was cursed by a sin nature and not sin).

For when Christ put on the flesh, His eternal and divine being had entered into a newly created flesh of a human body. For Christ had became a man without any loss or suppression of His deity. For the fullness of the Godhead dwelled within Him bodily (Colossians 2:9).

Oh, and God did not cheat, either. He did not function differently than us because He was tempted like we were (Hebrews 4:15). For he had the same flesh that we do. A flesh that had a sin nature. So Christ was in our place. He walked in our shoes. Christ was our substitute. That is why Christ humbled Himself as a servant in the likeness of men even though He thought it not robbery to be equal with God (Philippians 2:5-8).

oatmeal
March 25th, 2015, 09:01 AM
Good question

Aner
April 4th, 2015, 02:17 PM
Good question

I assume you are referring to my question

Can Jesus fully function if the Logos separated from Him?

Jason did not answer this question explicitly - however, he did answer implicitly and in doing so openly denied the man Christ Jesus - our Lord and Master who bought us. Yikes!

Cruciform
April 4th, 2015, 02:30 PM
If the Logos did not incarnate in the that human "thing" that was conceived and born of Mary, wife of Joseph, would that human "thing" be fully functional??
I have no idea what this even means. According to the New Testament witness, the Word that was God became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn. 1:1, 14; cf. Phil. 2:7). That is the Incarnation.

Aner
April 5th, 2015, 06:01 PM
Cruc - Please note that I am not responding to you because you are on my Ignore List. You have not shown the least interest in critical thinking or reference to genuine exegetical effort. The extent of your statements simply regurgitate vaticanist heresy.

When you choose to submit to Jesus Christ alone as your Lord (that means your sole authority) and Savior (that means He alone is your means of being reconciled to God with no wicked priests dispensing various graces through cookies or kool-aid or any other such pagan nonsense) and begin to engage your mind for critical thinking - leaving no stone unturned - then I will be open to engaging with you.

Simple as that.

Sincerely,
In the grace that is in the Lord Jesus Christ,

Aner

Cruciform
April 5th, 2015, 06:44 PM
Cruc - Please note that I am not responding to you because you are on my Ignore List.
That's fine. I posted not for you, but for any genuinely interested and honest readers who might be looking on.


You have not shown the least interest in critical thinking or reference to genuine exegetical effort. The extent of your statements simply regurgitate vaticanist heresy.
Of course, I could make the very same claim about you, simply replacing "vaticanist" (?) with "schismatic/sectarian."


When you choose to submit to Jesus Christ alone as your Lord (that means your sole authority) and Savior (that means He alone is your means of being reconciled to God...)
Informed readers will recognize that what you describe here is exactly what Christ's one historic Catholic Church has always believed and taught.


...with no wicked priests dispensing various graces through cookies or kool-aid or any other such pagan nonsense...
The erroneous assumptions and opinions that you have mindlessly derived from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Lazy afternoon
April 6th, 2015, 12:57 AM
For when Christ put on the flesh, His eternal and divine being had entered into a newly created flesh of a human body. For Christ had became a man without any loss or suppression of His deity. For the fullness of the Godhead dwelled within Him bodily (Colossians 2:9).

).

Then you do believe a God put on a body and was therefore not a man at all.

LA

freelight
September 25th, 2015, 08:32 PM
~*~*~'

Ah,...looks like a particular moderator thought you had too many threads questioning the deity of Christ, so you've been charitably allowed to have this one :) - well,...I say that somewhat with a smirk towards the 'moderation' style (methodology),...but I understand the bias and keeping threads on a particular topic to a minimum (gotta sanction that space ;) )

Granted, I didn't read this whole thread yet, but noticed the 'shut down' on the others, so had to chime in. - I may 'transfer' some of my last posts with questions to you, in this thread to continue the 'Christological fun' here.

I find it interesting that Jesus humanity and/or divinity matters much, except to a believer in any particular definition or doctrinal preference,...besides the sheer mystery and unknowability beyond some scriptural passages or creeds about what the 'constitution' of Jesus really is. Who really knows? :idunno: (slice and dice as you wish).

While I've studied and had 2 past threads on Historical Unitarianism & Arianism, plus expanding my own 'Christology' within an eclectic world-view drawing from various schools on the matter,...I have to plead being 'agnostic' towards some points on the matter, and only claiming to be a 'gnostic' as regards my own personal 'inner-knowing' or 'illumination', as my own 'religious experience' (of course all that is subjective). Otherwise, who knows, we can only speculate, theorize and at worse, 'pontificate'. - we find some excelling mostly in the latter :rolleyes:

Ok, I admit, my more liberal agnostic side seems to carry on a similar tone like one of my favorite Bible geek critics Robert M Price (http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/). - its ok to have the intellectual honesty to question matters, and also have faith in those areas that require such, but admitting also to what can be known and what cannot. Ok,....I digress....more soon :surf:

patrick jane
September 25th, 2015, 08:46 PM
Not a new subject obviously - but I believe most will find the following a new question -

If the Logos did not incarnate in the that human "thing" that was conceived and born of Mary, wife of Joseph, would that human "thing" be fully functional??

Likewise - who cried and who learned obedience in Heb 5:7ff... ?? Was it the human person or the human nature?!?

Aner

those are all mysteries answered in the Bible. anything else is conjecture and speculation. the quest you are on is time consuming and fruitless; no fruit. lots of intriguing words and concepts that lead away from God and straight to the occult and being utterly confused. you'll see, maybe years or decades from now, maybe today.

you think you have new questions nobody ever thought of ?

yep. decades -

freelight
September 25th, 2015, 09:52 PM
Not a new subject obviously - but I believe most will find the following a new question -

If the Logos did not incarnate in the that human "thing" that was conceived and born of Mary, wife of Joseph, would that human "thing" be fully functional??

Likewise - who cried and who learned obedience in Heb 5:7ff... ?? Was it the human person or the human nature?!?

Aner

I'll take a stab at this, and then maybe share the question from Aner's other thread to continue here, if that's ok.

The first question is a 'tricky' one. I see we have various 'terms' and definitions to sort out, from the get-go here. By a human "thing" are we referring to the mere flesh-body of Jesus, or the soul/personality of Jesus (which includes spirit-soul-body)?....assuming Jesus was born as a genuine human being, having all the essential qualities and potential of an actual human being. If we assume Jesus was 100% human (as even Trinitarian creeds claim),...then so it is. Problems get con-fused with 'terms' and 'definitions'.

The 'tricky' part is where the 'logos' comes into the picture, and how. We might interject here that the greek philosophical concept of 'logos' is 'non-personal' or 'transcendental' in nature in most contexts, so that the traditional assumption of Jesus being the 'logos' is a philosophical construct or metaphoric reference to the 'logic', 'plan', 'wisdom', 'thought', 'creative-design' of 'God',...SOMEHOW manifested in or thru the person of Jesus, Jesus acting as the personification of that 'logos', fulfilling that 'plan' of 'God'. Jesus could embody, personify and reveal the 'logos' of 'God' without him being a pre-incarnate deity. If so,...then Jesus the man is a genuine human person being anointed/empowered by 'God', infused with the 'logos' of God, and so carries on his ministry as his 'anointed' messenger. No problem there in that context, unless someone presupposes and assumes something different, and there you different views of Christology.

To the second question,....it was apparently the human personality of Jesus that learned obedience, and grew in wisdom and knowledge.

freelight
September 25th, 2015, 10:33 PM
~*~*~

Converging thread subjects ---->

In 'The Man Christ Jesus' thread, Aner's OP starts off as -


Jesus specifically tells us that He is "a man who has told us the truth that He heard from God" (Jn8:40).

While I hear many people talk about Jesus as being "fully man" or "fully human", they rarely speak the way Jesus and Paul spoke - and simply say, Jesus is a man.

To understand the man Christ Jesus (1Tim2:5), I have recently provided the following two questions. To date, no one has been able to answer what should be very simple questions to confirm that Jesus is a man "made in all points like His brethren"(Heb2:17).

Then his 2 questions:


The Questions -

1. Do you believe that the Jesus conceived was a created human person - human center of consciousness - just like you and I??

2. Do you believe this Jesus that was conceived could fully independently function independent of any incarnated deity just like you and I?

I responded to Q #1 :


If we take Jesus in the context of his humanity, then of course, Jesus the MAN is a created human person. However, we are assuming such within the language and context of both 'scripture' and 'tradition'. The genuineness of his humanity is essential, a 'must' regarding the significance of the 'Incarnation' in as much as we can even rightly call Jesus a 'man'.

I respond to Q # 2 :


Ok,...this second question is really 'pivotal' since its here where the centuries old question of whether Jesus has any divine nature comes to the fore, hence the various views of 'Christology', his pre-existence, logos-connection, Trinity-assumption, etc. It appears early Christianity of the first few centuries held diverse views on Jesus, from being an anointed human agent (Messiah-type figure), to being 'God the Son' (part of an eternal Trinity) who took on flesh, and some views inbetween these. Centuries of church council debates hashed out which 'formula' was to be 'orthodox', and which was to be deemed 'heresy'. These debates continue today......

I'm still open and exploring in my own Christology, so have nuances integrating different school-traditions and philosophical perspectives. While we accept the full/genuine humanity of Jesus, we have the assumption of his 'divinity' from scripture and tradition, and how this later got codified in various creeds becoming 'dogma' for some groups. Of course Orthodox Christianity settled the mystery or paradox of Jesus human and divine natures by ASSUMING that he is BOTH 'human' and 'divine', then making him completely 'God' (100% Deity) and completely 'Man' (100 % human)...a "wonderful confusion to say the least".

Finally, I'm re-evaluating the question because its 'loaded' and can be taken from many different angles.

Could you for the readers answer definitively and liberally your own 2 questions so we understand better your 'Christological' view?

Thanks :)

I await for Aner to respond to my request to answer his own 2 questions in the bold above :thumb:

Aner
September 26th, 2015, 01:57 AM
~*~*~'

Ah,...looks like a particular moderator thought you had too many threads questioning the deity of Christ, so you've been charitably allowed to have this one :) - well,...I say that somewhat with a smirk towards the 'moderation' style (methodology),...but I understand the bias and keeping threads on a particular topic to a minimum (gotta sanction that space ;) )

Granted, I didn't read this whole thread yet, but noticed the 'shut down' on the others, so had to chime in. - I may 'transfer' some of my last posts with questions to you, in this thread to continue the 'Christological fun' here.

I find it interesting that Jesus humanity and/or divinity matters much, except to a believer in any particular definition or doctrinal preference,...besides the sheer mystery and unknowability beyond some scriptural passages or creeds about what the 'constitution' of Jesus really is. Who really knows? :idunno: (slice and dice as you wish).

While I've studied and had 2 past threads on Historical Unitarianism & Arianism, plus expanding my own 'Christology' within an eclectic world-view drawing from various schools on the matter,...I have to plead being 'agnostic' towards some points on the matter, and only claiming to be a 'gnostic' as regards my own personal 'inner-knowing' or 'illumination', as my own 'religious experience' (of course all that is subjective). Otherwise, who knows, we can only speculate, theorize and at worse, 'pontificate'. - we find some excelling mostly in the latter :rolleyes:

Ok, I admit, my more liberal agnostic side seems to carry on a similar tone like one of my favorite Bible geek critics Robert M Price (http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/). - its ok to have the intellectual honesty to question matters, and also have faith in those areas that require such, but admitting also to what can be known and what cannot. Ok,....I digress....more soon :surf:

Yeah - this is a really old thread. I am uncertain how it was resurrected...

freelight
September 26th, 2015, 01:28 PM
Yeah - this is a really old thread. I am uncertain how it was resurrected...

Well, it was, and its the only thread you are allowed to carry on this subject so shall we have at it? - Could you answer the question in my last post? :)

Christology is a wonderful business for some, and an apologetic head-ache for others :crackup: Note that your thread-title here is less 'challenging' being a universal term, so it can include all kinds of viewpoints,....good for you.

I posted from your now 'closed' thread 'The Man Christ Jesus' located here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113160) (for readers not familiar)

Lets face it folks,....your view of Jesus is based on so many 'assumptions', 'translations' and personal interpretation, no matter if you choose to accept an 'ortohdox' or 'heterodox' Christology, they are just points of view, figurative assumptions. All one has on Jesus is what he can formulate or conceive from any given context of data, however true or accurate that data can be, further fused with various interpretations of records that we cannot even be sure are the very words of Jesus, embellishments or a mixture thereof. Paul further ripples the pool by having his very own 'gospel' with almost half of his letters being 'pseudographical' (and I could go on). In this I take on a more agnostic/skeptical view on the outskirts, while being a liberal gnostic concerning the inner meanings and values of what religious myth and symbols are the outer archetypes. It all comes down to subjectivity anyways, no matter what context of objectivity you hold up....the final analysis is always 'subjective'.

Anyways,....as I shared in the 'The Man Christ Jesus' thread,....who really cares? - now that's not necessarily meant to be crass or apathetic,...well, maybe just a touch ;),...but really, it comes down to what investment one puts into it...which could be a passionate to an 'anything goes' view on it, but what does it affect/effect in the end? - as long as Jesus represents the revelation of 'God' in human form communicating to us the nature, character and will of 'God'...this is all that is essential. This is all I have ever shared having any fundamental value, while all 'else' is secondary (when non-essentials however become a matter of 'conflict' or 'contention',...its time for a reality-check back to the 'essentials' lest you miss the forest for the trees). - on that note its fine sharing differences in the 'details' or 'metaphysics' of our 'Christology', but we do so recognizing aspects of this may only be 'cosmetic'.