ECT Did the "Eternal Word" merge with a newly created human mind, will, and emotions?

[Right Divider]

You think it is in reference to divine attributes or power, when in reality is talking "ontologically" (i.e. the substance and or core being of God's existence).

:juggle:

In John 17:5, Jesus says to God the Father,
"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." (John 17:5).

I believe this glory is in reference to the "glory of the knowledge of the Lord."

This appears to be another of your mistakes in understanding.

For it is written:
"For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." (Habakkuk 2:14).

"For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (2 Corinthians 4:6).

You are trying to connect things that are not connected. It's no wonder that you're so confused.

P.S. "glory of the knowledge" is not even the same thing as "the knowledge of the glory".

 

[Jason0047]

That is not what Paul wrote. Instead, he wrote that all die because all have sinned:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5:12).​

It repeatedly says that by one's man's sin all were made sinners.
Scriptures says we are shapen in iniquity.
For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Romans 5:12 is saying this:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for [so] that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12).

Federal Headship is taught in other verses:
9 "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him." (Hebrews 7:9-10).

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

When a person sins he dies spiritually so spiritual death passed upon all men because all have sinned. In order to die spiritually a person must first be alive spiritually. The only way that all who sin can be alive spiritually is because they all emerge from the womb spiritually alive.

1. The soul of a baby is innocent (and is saved by Jesus).
2. The body of a baby is under the curse of Adam's sin (death).

The body of babies are condemned by the curse of sin from Adam (Hence, this is the reason why they die). For the wages of sin is death. If the baby is 100% innocent, then babies should not technically die and there would be no need to have a Savior to save us. But we live under the curse of Adam where sin and death was past down upon all of his offspring. However, the soul of a baby is innocent and the promise (that became reality) of the death and resurrection of Christ allows for God to save the souls of babies (even when their body's are condemned because of the curse of sin upon mankind). One day, the baby will be able to live again because of Christ's resurrection.

For why do you think God prevented Adam and Eve from eating of the tree of life after the Fall?
It was so that they would not be forever in a condemned state bodily. They would forever live if they ate of the tree of life and they would be condemned to live forever in a corrupt sinful body that is supposed to die. Their bodies were corrupted by sin. Their offspring would be a part of their choices and who they are. For just like a mother who smokes can effect her unborn baby, Adam and Eve's choice to sin had effected us and condemned us to die (even at birth).

And that explains why David said the following:

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well" (Ps.139:13-14).​

Nothing is said here about a person's entire moral character. If they were totally without fault, then they would not sin. God made them, but it is their choice to sin or not. Unfortunately, their parents (who are a part of them) had sinned in the Garden. Their body is condemned to die as a result of this sin that Adam and Eve had committed.

First of all, are we to take what David said here in a "literal" sense even though the Scriptures reveal that people are made in the likeness of God?

In this passage David was using figurative language while confessing to the LORD his deep sense of guilt for his sin. When we examine the context where David speaks of being conceived in sin we see that David employed figurative language numerous times, or else we must believe that God breaks the bones of people when they sin or that the broken bones rejoice when forgiven.

It is actually more fitting of the text and his situation that the reason why he sinned is because he had the stain of sin on him from his distant parents (Adam and Eve).

For if Adam and Eve did not sin, then we would not be in the mess that we are now in.

Despite the fact that the Scriptures reveal that the Lord Jesus made like His brethren "in all things" you say that David was shapen in iniquity and conceived with a sin nature. That means that the Lord Jesus was not made like His brethren "in all things."

But you ignore the word "like" in Hebrews to make your interpretation work here. The word "like" does not mean "exact" or a "carbon copy" or "clone." Again, Jesus cannot be made into an exact replica of His brethren in all things because His brethren cannot be worshiped like he could. They also could not be like God (like He could). It's why the word "like" is in there.

I will approach what is said in the article to see if what is said there is according to the Scriptures or not. Is that approach acceptable to you?

If you read the whole article, I accept your terms. But please try to keep an open mind (While reading it). Thank you; And may God bless you today.

 

[Jason0047]

:juggle:


This appears to be another of your mistakes in understanding.


You are trying to connect things that are not connected. It's no wonder that you're so confused.

P.S. "glory of the knowledge" is not even the same thing as "the knowledge of the glory".

Well, you are not exactly convincing me of your position, or showing why my belief does not work. If this continues to be the case, then lets agree to disagree in love, my friend.

May God bless you.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It repeatedly says that by one's man's sin all were made sinners.

Yes, but I have shown that all died spiritually because all sin. Before anyone can die spiritually he must first be alive spiritually. Than can only mean that all people emerge from the womb spiritually alive.

Federal Headship is taught in other verses:
9 "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him." (Hebrews 7:9-10).

Let us read the comments of Albert Barnes on this verse:

"And as I may so say - So to speak...For numerous examples in the classic writers of this expression, see Wetstein in loc. It is used precisely as it is with us when we say "so to speak," or 'if I may be allowed the expression.' It is employed when what is said is not strictly and literally true, but when it amounts to the same thing, or when about the same idea is conveyed. 'It is a 'softening down' of an expression which a writer supposes his readers may deem too strong, or which may have the appearance of excess or severity. It amounts to an indirect apology for employing an unusual or unexpected assertion or phrase.' 'Prof. Stuart.' Here Paul could not mean that Levi had actually paid tithes in Abraham - for he had not then an existence; or that Abraham was his representative - for there had been no appointment of Abraham to act in that capacity by Levi; or that the act of Abraham was imputed or reckoned to Levi, for that was not true, and would not have been pertinent to the case if it were so"​

Of course what the author said at Hebrews 7:9-10 cannot be taken literally. The author of Hebrews was merely using a figure of speech in order to assert that Melchisedec's priesthood was superior to the Levitical priesthood. That explains why the author used the opening words "And as I may so say. " According to A. R. Fausset that phrase can only be understood in a figurative sense: "as I may so say-to preclude what he is about to say being taken in the mere literal sense."

The argument used by the proponents of the theory of Original Sin that all people sin in Adam and with Adam falls completely apart when we realize that what is said at Hebrews 7:9-10 cannot be taken literally. There is absolutely no Scriptual evidence to support either the Federal Headship Theory.

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

Since no one is automatically "in Christ" then the same must be true for those "in Adam." No one is "in Christ" until they do something, and that thing is to believe. And no one is "in Adam" until they sin.

Therefore, we can understand that no one can be under the "headship of Christ" until they believe just like no one can be considered under the "headship of Adam" until they sin.

In his comments on this verse Albert Barnes wrote that "if this passage means, that in Adam, or by him, all people became sinners, then the correspondent declaration 'all shall be made alive' must mean that all people shall become righteous, or that all shall be saved. This would be the natural and obvious interpretation; since the words 'be made alive' must have reference to the words 'all die,' and must affirm the co-relative and opposite fact. If the phrase 'all die' there means all become sinners, then the phrase 'all be made alive' must mean all shall be made holy, or be recovered from their spiritual death; and thus an obvious argument is furnished for the doctrine of universal salvation, which it is difficult, if not impossible, to meet. It is not a sufficient answer to this to say, that the word 'all,' in the latter part of the sentence, means all the elect, or all the righteous; for its most natural and obvious meaning is, that it is co-extensive with the word 'all' in the former part of the verse."

1. The soul of a baby is innocent (and is saved by Jesus).
2. The body of a baby is under the curse of Adam's sin (death).

The following words of the Lord Jesus about "little children" prove that He did not believe that little children enter the world with a fallen nature:

"Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these'" (Mt.19:13-14).​

According to the theory of Original Sin infants and little children emerged from the womb totally depraved and therefore cannot enter the kingdom of God in their fallen state but the Lord says that the kingdom belongs to them. At another place we see the Lord Jesus speaking about children and here the same truth can be seen:

"At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.18:1-4).​

If the idea of Original Sin is correct then we must stand reason on its head and imagine that the Lord Jesus was teaching that unless we become deprived of holiness we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven! That is patently ridiculous and common sense dictates that the Lord Jesus did not believe that infants come into the world tainted with Original Sin .

We can also see that children are also described as being "an heritage of the Lord":

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward" (Ps.127:3).​

According to the Scriptures the Lord Jesus was made like His brethren "in all things" and His brethren were made in the image of God but you say all people sinned when Adam sinned and therefore all people enter the world dead in sin. Your idea denies the fact that the Lord Jesus was made like His brethren "in all things."

If you read the whole article, I accept your terms. But please try to keep an open mind (While reading it). Thank you; And may God bless you today.

OK, buddy!

 

[Right Divider]

Well, you are not exactly convincing me of your position, or showing why my belief does not work. If this continues to be the case, then lets agree to disagree in love, my friend.

May God bless you.

You're making wild claims without evidence. Please prove your points, or concede that you are in error.

If you don't care to support those wild claims, there's nothing left to do but leave you there in your error(s), since that seems to be what you want anyway.

 

[Jason0047]

Yes, but I have shown that all died spiritually because all sin. Before anyone can die spiritually he must first be alive spiritually. Than can only mean that all people emerge from the womb spiritually alive.

I believe babies are saved spiritually, too. This is by Christ's sacrifice, but the physical body of babies are condemned by Adam's sin. Babies are ultimately saved (on a spiritual level) by Christ even despite Adam's stain of sin kills their bodies.

If things are as you say, then why doesn't God just kill those in whom He knows will be faithful to Him when they are babies? Why send the Son of God to save anyone at all?

I believe babies would be condemned if Christ did not die upon the cross. Jesus took away the sins of the entire world and that includes babies. Jesus is the only one who was able to reverse the curse of Adam on a spiritual level. On a physical level, it takes time for Christ to redeem the physical bodies of men who are faithful to Him or those who are innocent (like babies, and the mentally handicapped) within the flesh and blood bodily resurrection.

Again, why did God prevent Adam and Eve from eating of the Tree of Life?

Let us read the comments of Albert Barnes on this verse:

"And as I may so say - So to speak...For numerous examples in the classic writers of this expression, see Wetstein in loc. It is used precisely as it is with us when we say "so to speak," or 'if I may be allowed the expression.' It is employed when what is said is not strictly and literally true, but when it amounts to the same thing, or when about the same idea is conveyed. 'It is a 'softening down' of an expression which a writer supposes his readers may deem too strong, or which may have the appearance of excess or severity. It amounts to an indirect apology for employing an unusual or unexpected assertion or phrase.' 'Prof. Stuart.' Here Paul could not mean that Levi had actually paid tithes in Abraham - for he had not then an existence; or that Abraham was his representative - for there had been no appointment of Abraham to act in that capacity by Levi; or that the act of Abraham was imputed or reckoned to Levi, for that was not true, and would not have been pertinent to the case if it were so"​

Of course what the author said at Hebrews 7:9-10 cannot be taken literally. The author of Hebrews was merely using a figure of speech in order to assert that Melchisedec's priesthood was superior to the Levitical priesthood. That explains why the author used the opening words "And as I may so say. " According to A. R. Fausset that phrase can only be understood in a figurative sense: "as I may so say-to preclude what he is about to say being taken in the mere literal sense."

The argument used by the proponents of the theory of Original Sin that all people sin in Adam and with Adam falls completely apart when we realize that what is said at Hebrews 7:9-10 cannot be taken literally. There is absolutely no Scriptual evidence to support either the Federal Headship Theory.

But what is the metaphorical meaning?
You are offering no actual alternative that makes any sense.

Since no one is automatically "in Christ" then the same must be true for those "in Adam." No one is "in Christ" until they do something, and that thing is to believe. And no one is "in Adam" until they sin.

A baby is in both Adam and Christ when they are born.
Babies are in Christ spiritually at birth (For the spirit returns to God in whom gave it - Ecclesiastes 12:7).
Babies are in Adam physically at birth (for by one man's disobedience...):

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (Romans 5:19).

Jesus obeyed so that we can be made righteous. Jesus imputes His righteousness to us when we first come to Jesus by faith and believe in His death and resurrection for salvation. After that, it becomes a walk with Christ whereby we are conformed to His image.

Therefore, we can understand that no one can be under the "headship of Christ" until they believe just like no one can be considered under the "headship of Adam" until they sin.

The Bible does not teach that there is a neutral kingdom. One is either in God's Kingdom or the devil's Kingdom. Romans 3:23 says all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Even babies have the stain of sin on them, and their physical bodies are condemned to die because of Adam's sin. If Adam did not sin, then babies would have never died.

In his comments on this verse Albert Barnes wrote that "if this passage means, that in Adam, or by him, all people became sinners, then the correspondent declaration 'all shall be made alive' must mean that all people shall become righteous, or that all shall be saved. This would be the natural and obvious interpretation; since the words 'be made alive' must have reference to the words 'all die,' and must affirm the co-relative and opposite fact. If the phrase 'all die' there means all become sinners, then the phrase 'all be made alive' must mean all shall be made holy, or be recovered from their spiritual death; and thus an obvious argument is furnished for the doctrine of universal salvation, which it is difficult, if not impossible, to meet. It is not a sufficient answer to this to say, that the word 'all,' in the latter part of the sentence, means all the elect, or all the righteous; for its most natural and obvious meaning is, that it is co-extensive with the word 'all' in the former part of the verse."

Paul is talking in physical terms in regards to the scope of eternity. In Adam, all shall die (if they remain in Adam) their whole life. In Jesus, all shall live (if they remain in Jesus) their whole life.
Paul is saying that in Adam, all shall die. They all will die physically because of the curse of sin. Even babies die of the curse of Adam's sin. But in Christ, all shall be made alive one day by His resurrection.

The following words of the Lord Jesus about "little children" prove that He did not believe that little children enter the world with a fallen nature:

"Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these'" (Mt.19:13-14).​

According to the theory of Original Sin infants and little children emerged from the womb totally depraved and therefore cannot enter the kingdom of God in their fallen state but the Lord says that the kingdom belongs to them. At another place we see the Lord Jesus speaking about children and here the same truth can be seen:

"At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.18:1-4).​

Nowhere did I say babies and children are not saved. I said they are saved spiritually, but their bodies die as a part of the curse of Adam. But make no mistake about it. If Jesus did not go to the cross, then all of humanity would have been doomed (Including babies). Babies are only saved because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and His resurrection.

If the idea of Original Sin is correct then we must stand reason on its head and imagine that the Lord Jesus was teaching that unless we become deprived of holiness we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven! That is patently ridiculous and common sense dictates that the Lord Jesus did not believe that infants come into the world tainted with Original Sin .

All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
While babies are saved spiritually, they have sinned in Adam, thus as a result their physical bodies can die.

We can also see that children are also described as being "an heritage of the Lord":

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward" (Ps.127:3).​

Again, I am not in disagreement that babies are saved on a spiritual level.

According to the Scriptures the Lord Jesus was made like His brethren "in all things" and His brethren were made in the image of God but you say all people sinned when Adam sinned and therefore all people enter the world dead in sin. Your idea denies the fact that the Lord Jesus was made like His brethren "in all things."

So do you. You deny that the brethren are not God like Jesus.

OK, buddy!

So does that mean you are going to read the whole article?

 

[Jason0047]

You're making wild claims without evidence. Please prove your points, or concede that you are in error.

If you don't care to support those wild claims, there's nothing left to do but leave you there in your error(s), since that seems to be what you want anyway.

You are just hitting the disagree button and you are not really addressing the points I made with Scripture.

Again, how can Jesus be tempted if Scripture says that God cannot be tempted by evil (See James 1:13). Do you believe Jesus is God? If so, then how can He be tempted?

Also, if Jesus took on a newly created human mind, will, and emotions, this means that there is a portion of Jesus that is not GOD. Yet, how can you worship Jesus as being GOD if there is a part of Him that is human? Did not Jesus say that we are to worship the Lord our God only? (See Luke 4:8).

These are just some of the problems with the HU (Hypostatic Union) that you need to resolve or explain with Scripture.

 

[Right Divider]

You are just hitting the disagree button and you are not really addressing the points I made with Scripture.

I did, but you're not listening.

Again, how can Jesus be tempted if Scripture says that God cannot be tempted by evil (See James 1:13). Do you believe Jesus is God? If so, then how can He be tempted?

Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.... It seems like you are again building a rather large theory on a single verse of scripture.

By your argument Jesus is 0% God, since God cannot be temped. You might like GO, as he believes that too.

Also, if Jesus took on a newly created human mind, will, and emotions, this means that there is a portion of Jesus that is not GOD. Yet, how can you worship Jesus as being GOD if there is a part of Him that is human? Did not Jesus say that we are to worship the Lord our God only? (See Luke 4:8).

These are just some of the problems with the HU (Hypostatic Union) that you need to resolve or explain with Scripture.

I have no problem with it at all and neither does scripture.

You have a problem with God changing His own nature, which is not even possible.

 

[Jason0047]

I did, but you're not listening.

I must have missed it. Please provide the Post # where you addressed my points with Scripture.

Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.... It seems like you are again building a rather large theory on a single verse of scripture.

Then you did not read my OP. I have presented more than one verse.

By your argument Jesus is 0% God, since God cannot be temped. You might like GO, as he believes that too.

This is just a false accusation. I have already told you I believe Jesus is GOD (100%). Your claiming otherwise is just an attempt at an ad homonym that does help to further your belief here.

I have no problem with it at all and neither does scripture.

You have a problem with God changing His own nature, which is not even possible.

You may want to re-word this. You said I have a problem with God changing His own nature, and then you said this is not even possible. So which is it? Is it possible for God to change His nature or not?

 

[Jason0047]

I did, but you're not listening.


Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.... It seems like you are again building a rather large theory on a single verse of scripture.

By your argument Jesus is 0% God, since God cannot be temped. You might like GO, as he believes that too.


I have no problem with it at all and neither does scripture.

You have a problem with God changing His own nature, which is not even possible.

Again, how can Jesus be tempted by evil if Jesus is GOD? James 1:13 says God cannot be tempted by evil.

How do you explain this?

 

[Right Divider]

Again, how can Jesus be tempted by evil if Jesus is GOD? James 1:13 says God cannot be tempted by evil.

How do you explain this?

So you fully deny the deity of Christ now?

 

[Jason0047]

Again, how can Jesus be tempted by evil if Jesus is GOD? James 1:13 says God cannot be tempted by evil.

How do you explain this?

So you fully deny the deity of Christ now?

I was not asking the question because I doubted that Jesus is GOD.
I am asking the question that IF... YOU believe Jesus is GOD (AND HE IS GOD).(And you more than likely believe Jesus is GOD like I do), then Jesus cannot be tempted to do evil because GOD cannot do evil according to James 1:13. In other words, my question was hypothetical in regards to what YOU believed.

Besides, I already told you before that Jesus is 100% God in one of my other previous posts to you. Did you miss reading that post where I said that to you before?

Anyways, if you continue to be unintentionally hostile towards me in what I believe, I will simply put you on ignore, my friend.

Please be civil and kind with me; If not, then I am going to move on from talking to you.

In any event, may God bless you.

 

[glorydaz]

Again, how can Jesus be tempted by evil if Jesus is GOD? James 1:13 says God cannot be tempted by evil.

How do you explain this?

Two natures....Divine and Human.

 

[Jason0047]

Two natures....Divine and Human.

But saying such a thing creates a paradox or a contradiction. Again, if Jesus is GOD (and He is GOD), then He cannot be tempted to do evil according to James 1:13.

Jesus cannot also be worshiped as GOD if there was a newly created mind, will, and emotions as a part of His being, as well. This would mean that we can worship human beings as GOD. But is it okay to worship a little bit of a human? Surely not. This would not be correct because Jesus says we are to worship the Lord our God only (Luke 4:8).

 

[glorydaz]

You said I have a problem with God changing His own nature, and then you said this is not even possible. So which is it? Is it possible for God to change His nature or not?

God cannot, does not, and would not change His nature, He is eternally God, but He certainly can and did take on (add) the nature of man. In fact, He became flesh, and dwelt among us. God is quite able of doing just that.

]Philippians 2:6-7
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:​

 

[Jason0047]

God cannot, does not, and would not change His nature, He is eternally God, but He certainly can and did take on (add) the nature of man. In fact, He became flesh, and dwelt among us. God is quite able of doing just that.

]Philippians 2:6-7
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:​

Taking on the form of a servant is not the same as taking on a human mind, will, and emotions (i.e. a newly created human nature). Jesus suppressed His divine attribute of Omniscience so as to be limited in knowledge like a man. Jesus did not take on a newly created human mind, will, and emotions into His eternal being as GOD. If such were the case, this would mean Jesus had a beginning in the Incarnation. But such is not the case. Jesus is the Eternal Logos. Jesus said He knew Abraham. How can that be if Jesus was a newly created being (or a new person) within the Incarnation?

 

[glorydaz]

But saying such a thing creates a paradox or a contradiction. Again, if Jesus is GOD (and He is GOD), then He cannot be tempted to do evil according to James 1:13.

Which means that God would never give in to temptation. Proven right here.

Matt. 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Mark 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.​

Jesus cannot also be worshiped as GOD if there was a newly created mind, will, and emotions as a part of His being, as well. This would mean that we can worship human beings as GOD. But is it okay to worship a little bit of a human? Surely not. This would not be correct because Jesus says we are to worship the Lord our God only (Luke 4:8).

I was going to ask you about this earlier. Where do you get the idea that Jesus is "newly created" in any way? Jesus was fully human...just as He was full God.

 

[glorydaz]

Taking on the form of a servant is not the same as taking on a human mind, will, and emotions (i.e. a newly created human nature). Jesus suppressed His divine attribute of Omniscience so as to be limited in knowledge like a man. Jesus did not take on a newly created human mind, will, and emotions into His eternal being as GOD. If such were the case, this would mean Jesus had a beginning in the Incarnation. But such is not the case. Jesus is the Eternal Logos. Jesus said He knew Abraham. How can that be if Jesus was a newly created being (or a new person) within the Incarnation?

A man, even if he is merely a servant is born complete with every human characteristic. He is born with a mind, as well as a spirit, soul, and body. Just as all men are. Just as Jesus was. He lacked nothing every other man had.

Indeed, He did know Abraham because He is God. He is the God/man that so many unbelievers are unable to understand. I'm surprised you can't. :think:

 

[Jason0047]

Which means that God would never give in to temptation. Proven right here.

Matt. 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.Mark 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.​

You would be the only Christian I recall talking with who believes in the HU (Hypostatic Union) and yet they do not believe Jesus could have potentially sinned.

In fact, I am glad you believe that. It is quite disturbing to suggest that Jesus could have sinned, and yet many believe that (Wrongfully).

I was going to ask you about this earlier. Where do you get the idea that Jesus is "newly created" in any way? Jesus was fully human...just as He was full God.

I don't personally believe Jesus was newly created. I believe Jesus is eternal.

I am suggesting that this is a problem for the person who believes in the Hypostatic Union (Whether they realize it is a problem or not). For if Jesus was fully human in the sense that he took on a newly created mind, will, and emotions than Jesus would be a newly created being or person within the universe. He would be a first time unique soul in the universe to be first so as to be both God and a finite human soul for the first time.

Yet, if this is so, then how can Jesus claim to know Abraham?

But if Jesus simply took on a man suit and He suppressed His divine attribute of Omniscience, then there is no real problem or series of problems that we have to fix.

 

[Jason0047]

A man, even if he is merely a servant is born complete with every human characteristic. He is born with a mind, as well as a spirit, soul, and body. Just as all men are. Just as Jesus was. He lacked nothing every other man had.

I believe the Eternal Logos merged with an empty shell of a soulless human body. There was no need for the Eternal Logos to take on an existing newly created human non corporeal mind, will, and emotions or a tailored made human soul.

Indeed, He did know Abraham because He is God. He is the God/man that so many unbelievers are unable to understand. I'm surprised you can't. :think:

So Jesus is two persons? A person who is God and a person who is human? Jesus can speak from His divine person side and yet speak sometimes from His human side? However, those who believe in the HU, say that Jesus is a perfect unity of God and man. If this is the case, then Jesus could not technically say that He knows Abraham. He would have to say that the God portion of Him knows Abraham. But it would not be accurate of Him to say that if there was a finite human soul thrown into the mix.