Christology

[Krsto]

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]

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]

@ 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]

@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]

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]

Good question

 

[Aner]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

selective trimming....

selective trimming....

~*~*~'

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

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. - 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]

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]

First dibs.....

First dibs.....

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]

Converging discussions..........

Converging discussions..........

~*~*~

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]

~*~*~'

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

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. - 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]

Now back to discussion......

Now back to discussion......

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 (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'.