GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Author Topic: Jesus Christ; From 100% God, to 100% Flesh and Blood Man and BACK to 100% God!  (Read 2675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Eccl12vs13

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
  • Manna: 0
    • View Profile
Readers.....let's do as God's word tells us before commenting and replying on this post. Let's put aside doctrine that is not supported by scripture and do as the word of God tells us;
 

"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."
 
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
 
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
 

Let's use every word and ALL scriptures to come up with a biblical answer for the question presented. ALL of the words of God are to be used for reproof AND correction. This is where we are to get our doctrine. So let's begin.....
 

Did Jesus Christ go from being 100% God, to 100% Flesh and Blood man, and BCAK to 100% God?  Of course He did!

Was He ever BOTH at the same time? That's impossible!

Now let's prove this with scriptures.......
 

Let's start at the beginning....
 
John 1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] The same was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
 

So in the beginning was the Word. And whoever this Word was, He was with God AND at the beginning He was God. Well.....let's find out just who is this one that is called the Word....
 

[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
 

Ok....NOW we have some information we can work with. Whoever this person was that was called the Word, went from being God to being made flesh. He was also the only begotten of the Father. Let's find more information on this one called the Word.
 
Luke 1
[35] And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
 
John 3
[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
 
And just to further confirm...let's not forget what else was said about the one called the Word; "...All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
 
Col.1
[13] Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
[16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
[17] And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
 
Heb.1
[1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
[2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
 

So now we have proved exactly who the one called the Word is; It is Jesus Christ, the only begotten of God, the one that created everything that was made. Now that we know the Word is Jesus Christ and now that we know He was made flesh....let's define just what this flesh is that Jesus became. Let's also determine what Jesus was BEFORE becoming flesh.
 

Isa.31
[3] Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together.
 
God makes a distinction above. Horses are NOT spirit...they are flesh. God let's us know that a flesh being is NOT the same as a spirit being. Let's continue with our search....
 
Gen.6
[12] And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
[13] And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
[17] And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
[19] And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
 
So not only are Horses flesh....but everything that God made that breaths upon this earth is also flesh.
 
Gen.7
[21] And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
 
So man too is considered a flesh being. And we also know that flesh is NOT spirit and is NOT God. So what is God? Let's read....
 
John 4
[24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
 
And what did the scriptures tell us the Word was BEFORE coming in the flesh?; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
 
And let's confirm again what Jesus was in the beginning....
 
Phil.2
[5] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
[6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
 

Now we are getting to see a difference. God's word tells us that man is flesh and blood and that God is a Spirit. Jesus was God in the beginning and then was born flesh and blood man. It is becoming clear that God, a spirit being is NOT the same as man, a flesh and blood being. Let's find out more about spirits....
 
Heb.1
[7] And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
[14] Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
 
So now we know that angels too are spirits. So angelic beings are of the same family as God. BOTH are spirit beings, as opposed to man, flesh beings. Let's confirm this with scripture....
 
1 Cor.15
[35] But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
 
So the question is asked, "What type of body will those that raise from the dead will have?". Let's find out...
 
[39] All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
 
Now we already know what flesh beings are from reading Gen. chap's 6 & 7. And above we read the same thing. There are different types of flesh...but ALL of the above are flesh beings. Let's continue.....
 
[40] There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
 
And now we find that there is a difference between a flesh being and a spirit being.
 
[42] So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
[43] It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
[44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
 
When man is born of woman he is born a flesh being and man then dies. When man is raised he will no longer have a flesh and blood body, he will no longer be a flesh being.....he will be a spirit being. Man is born a flesh being but will be raised as a spirit being. Once this happens, man will have been born into the family of God, he will be as God...a spirit being.

Let's continue. Let's find why Jesus came to this earth....
 
Heb.2
[5] For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
[6] But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
[7] Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
 
Above we find that man was made just a little lower than the angels. Was there any other that was made just as man? Let's read...
 
Heb.2
[9] But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
[14] Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
[16] For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
 
Phil.2
[7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
[8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

1 Peter 3
[18] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
 
 
Now a greater picture is coming together. We find that Jesus was born NOT as a spirit being, for He, just as man, was made lower that the angels. Jesus was born of a woman. Jesus did NOT take on the spirit nature of angels, but was born as a flesh and blood being just as you and I.

And why did Jesus have to take the form of a flesh and blood being? The scripture already told us;

"...for the suffering of death...", "...And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.", "...being put to death in the flesh..."

How many times must God's word tell us that Jesus was born a 'flesh and blood' being and NOT a spirit being and also WHY He was born a flesh and blood being?
 
Think about this for a moment..... God is a spirit being. Angels are spirit beings. Can a mortal man kill a spirit being? Can man kill a God? Spirit beings CANNOT die. That is why God had to make a place called hell for their punishment. You cannot kill a spirit being but God has to in some way punish those that trnasgress....thus 'HELL'!  Let's continue to read and see how Jesus went from flesh and blood to spirit.
 
Here is a description of Jesus BEFORE His death...
 
1 John 5
[6] This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
 
1 Pet.4
[1] Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
 

And now a description of Him after His death but BEFORE becoming a spirit being....
 

Luke 24
[39] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
 
Above we find that Jesus was yet a flesh and blood being AFTER His resurrection. With His own words He tells us He had not been made into a spirit being, for He still had a flesh body, something He tells us a spirit being does not have. At this point He had not ascended to heaven, the dwelling place of the Father.
 
But when He ascended to the Father as our redeemer He was made a spirit being once again. Let's read what Jesus asked of the Father
 
John 17
[5] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
 
Jesus asked to be as He was with the Father before the world was. And what was Jesus before the world? What was Jesus in the beginning? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
 
Jesus was God!
 
And what is God? "God is a Spirit:..."
 
Christ was made a spirit being before entering into heaven. He had to, hence the scriptures;
 
1 Cor.15
[50] Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

So for those that believe Jesus is YET a flesh and blood man dwelling in the kingdom of God....re-read the above scripture......can't happen!

 
Jesus could not enter heaven with a flesh and blood body. Something that He clearly tells us He had above in Luke 24:39. So sometime after His resurrection BUT before entering heaven, God the Father granted Jesus request; "glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

Jesus had to go through the same transformation that each and every one of us hope and pray for. Jesus had to be 'born again'! Jesus had to be born BACK into a spirit being so that He could be accepted by the Father and sit at His righthand.
 

Spirit beings are not made up of the same substance as flesh and blood beings. Why is knowing this important? Because in order for mans sins to be forgiven BLOOD HAD TO BE SHED! And that is why Jesus came to this earth. To shed His blood for the remission of sins. Had Jesus been a 100% spirit being He would not have been able to accomplish what He came to do. Had Jesus been 100% God how would He have been able to save mankind? Something HAD to die to save mankind of his sins! And God cannot die! Only flesh and blood beings die....Jesus was just that; flesh and blood.
 

Let's review...
 

- Jesus was God in the beginning. John 1:1
- Jesus was then born flesh and blood of a woman. Luke 1:35, John 3:16-18
- Flesh and blood beings are NOT spirit beings. Isa. 31:3
- God and the angels are spirit beings. John 4:24, Heb. 1:7&14
- Flesh and blood beings are not made of the same substance as spirit beings. 1 John 5:6, Luke 24:39
- Jesus and man were made lower than the angels. Heb. 2:7&9
- Jesus took on the nature of man for the suffering of death. Heb. 2:9
- Jesus asked to be as He was in the beginning. John 17:5
- Jesus was born with a spirit body before entering heaven. 1 Cor.15:45-46, 50
- God is a spirit. John 4:24
- Jesus is now God, a spirit being as He was in the beginning. John 1:1
 

Now let's read of those that do NOT believe Jesus Christ was born of Mary as 100% flesh and blood man...
 

1 John 4
[2] Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
[3] And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
 
2 John 1
[7] For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Please understand what is being said above.....the scriptures did NOT say that Jesus was both God and Man, the scriptures did NOT say that He was some sort of being that was a mixture of Spirit and Flesh and Blood!

The scriptures are very clear on the nature of the one that came to save mankind;

Jesus was born a flesh and blood being and nothing else!
 

Jesus was 100% flesh and blood man when born of Mary!


Jesus Christ; from 100% God, to 100% Flesh and Blood man, to 100% God...... again!
 

.

Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14276
  • Manna: 189
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Except for the fact that all the time he was 100% human he was ALSO 100% God.

Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline thefixer

  • A Disciple of Jesus
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Manna: 12
  • Gender: Male
  • 1Co 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of t
    • View Profile
Except for the fact that all the time he was 100% human he was ALSO 100% God.

Dear brother Dave,
     While I agree with your statement I think you raise another question; "How is it possible?". Perhaps it would be beneficial to explain 'HOW'.

Your brother in Jesus,
Leroy (thefixer).

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14276
  • Manna: 189
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Quote from: DaveW
Except for the fact that all the time he was 100% human he was ALSO 100% God.
Dear brother Dave,
     While I agree with your statement I think you raise another question; "How is it possible?". Perhaps it would be beneficial to explain 'HOW'.

Your brother in Jesus,
Leroy (thefixer).

There is no explanation. He is God and beyond any limitations, physical or logical.

Offline Eccl12vs13

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
  • Manna: 0
    • View Profile
Except for the fact that all the time he was 100% human he was ALSO 100% God.





1 John 4
[3] And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
 
2 John 1
[7] For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.



Now that we know from which spirit you you are......let's look at some more scripture that show that Jesus was NOT 100% God after being born of Mary:


Matt.26
[53] Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?


Why would "God" have to pray to "God" for help?


Mark 13
[32] But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.


Why would one that is 100% "God" NOT know the hour of His return?



We can read over and over again that Jesus was NOT born a spirit being as the angels and the Father are, but was in fact born just as all of us were born.....a flesh and blood being.

We can also read where Jesus asks that He return to being as He once was.....a spirit being!



But NO WHERE can we read that Jesus was both a spirit being AND a flesh and blood being at the same time.

If God's word says so......please present scriptures that PROVE it!



.


Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline Tolasonn

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
  • Manna: 0
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile

Jesus was 100% flesh and blood man when born of Mary!
Since you believe that Jesus is God, do you also believe that Mary, is the mother of God?

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29359
  • Manna: 523
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile

Jesus was 100% flesh and blood man when born of Mary!
Since you believe that Jesus is God, do you also believe that Mary, is the mother of God?
 

No God has no mother. He has always excisted, wheras Mary is like us, a created human being used by God as a vessel to carry His Son to birth.

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14276
  • Manna: 189
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
But NO WHERE can we read that Jesus was both a spirit being AND a flesh and blood being at the same time.

If God's word says so......please present scriptures that PROVE it!

Colossians 2:9 (NASB)  For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

The fullness of God in a human body.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile


Your OP is riddled with errors

1.
Readers.....let's do as God's word tells us before commenting and replying on this post. Let's put aside doctrine that is not supported by scripture and do as the word of God tells us;
 

"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."
 
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
 
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
 

Let's use every word and ALL scriptures to come up with a biblical answer for the question presented. ALL of the words of God are to be used for reproof AND correction. This is where we are to get our doctrine. So let's begin.....

Scriptures do not contain ALL the words of God. Scripture itself tells us that (e.g. Jn 21:25, 2Thess 2:15)

Scripture does not tell us to get our doctrines from scripture.
Where do you think the Apostles got their doctrines from?

2.
 

Isa.31
[3] Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together.
 
God makes a distinction above. Horses are NOT spirit...they are flesh. God let's us know that a flesh being is NOT the same as a spirit being. Let's continue with our search....

Your quote says that horses are flesh and not spirit. It does not say that all flesh is not spirit. You are extrapolating invalidly.

3.
Heb.1
[7] And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
[14] Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
 
So now we know that angels too are spirits. So angelic beings are of the same family as God. BOTH are spirit beings, as opposed to man, flesh beings. Let's confirm this with scripture....

Angels are not of the same family as God otherwise they would be God.

There is only one God.

Humans and dung beetles are both “flesh” but they are not the same family

4.

Think about this for a moment..... God is a spirit being. Angels are spirit beings. Can a mortal man kill a spirit being? Can man kill a God? Spirit beings CANNOT die. That is why God had to make a place called hell for their punishment. You cannot kill a spirit being but God has to in some way punish those that trnasgress....thus 'HELL'

Of course spirit beings can die. Only God is immortal of himself.

God created the angels and he could destroy them.


5.

And now a description of Him after His death but BEFORE becoming a spirit being....
 
Luke 24
[39] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
 
Above we find that Jesus was yet a flesh and blood being AFTER His resurrection. With His own words He tells us He had not been made into a spirit being, for He still had a flesh body, something He tells us a spirit being does not have. At this point He had not ascended to heaven, the dwelling place of the Father.
 
But when He ascended to the Father as our redeemer He was made a spirit being once again.

What nonsense. Jesus was not made into a “spirit being” sometime after his resurrection. He was raised in a spiritual body.

1Cor 15
 [44] It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body.

Jesus was raised a spiritual body. It doesn't say he was turned into a spiritual being.


6.
You say:


But when He ascended to the Father as our redeemer He was made a spirit being once again. Let's read what Jesus asked of the Father
 
John 17
[5] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

He said that before the Resurrection

1Cor 15
[43] It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.

Jesus received his glory when he was raised – not some time afterwards.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
 It is correct to call Mary the mother of God since she is the mother of Jesus, who is God.
 
That does not mean that she is older than God, or the source of Jesus’ divinity.
 
 
It is also correct to say that God died on the cross. If Jesus was not God and therefore God did not suffer and die then we are still in our sins because someone who is only man could not atone for our sins.
 
Another point worth considering in this debate is that if the Second person of the Trinity stopped being God and became only a man then we no longer have a Trinity but some sort of Duplicity (is that the right word?) for 33 years and then a Trinity again. What sort of whacky theology is that?
 

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4807
  • Manna: 154
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
    • View Profile
Mary is not the Mother of God, that's allegory created by Catholics.


Why is it so difficult to accept that God simply chose an acceptable and 100% human woman to birth His fleshly existence?

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Mary is not the Mother of God, that's allegory created by Catholics.

Allegory?

Why is it so difficult to accept that God simply chose an acceptable and 100% human woman to birth His fleshly existence?

Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God

It's simple logic. If you deny that Mary is the mother God, you are denying the divinity of Jesus which is what the author of this thread is trying to do.

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4807
  • Manna: 154
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
    • View Profile


Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God

It's simple logic. If you deny that Mary is the mother God, you are denying the divinity of Jesus which is what the author of this thread is trying to do.


You are putting God in a box believing that logical conclusion applies to His Kingdom, God is above your interpretation of Logic.


Philosophical argumentation does not always stand up to the test of correctiveness.


example;


Premise 1: All birds lay eggs.

Premise 2: Platypuses lay eggs.

Conclusion: Platypuses are birds.

example 2

Premise 1: All mammals have fur.


Premise 2: Platypuses have fur.

Conclusion: Platypuses are mammals.

Sometimes there is a need to further define each premise, example;

Premise 2 should read "Jesus is God and Man" since this is more true.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile


Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God

It's simple logic. If you deny that Mary is the mother God, you are denying the divinity of Jesus which is what the author of this thread is trying to do.


You are putting God in a box believing that logical conclusion applies to His Kingdom, God is above your interpretation of Logic.

Translation: I have no answer to that.


Philosophical argumentation does not always stand up to the test of correctiveness.


example;


Premise 1: All birds lay eggs.

Premise 2: Platypuses lay eggs.

Conclusion: Platypuses are birds.

example 2

Premise 1: All mammals have fur.


Premise 2: Platypuses have fur.

Conclusion: Platypuses are mammals.

Sometimes there is a need to further define each premise, example;

Premise 2 should read "Jesus is God and Man" since this is more true.


False philosophical arguments do not stand up to the test of correctivesness.

Both of your examples have logical errors.

Can you show a logical error in my argument?

You can substitute your version of Premise 2 if you like but it makes no difference to the logic.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Why is it so difficult to accept that God simply chose an acceptable and 100% human woman to birth His fleshly existence?

Well, because people don't give birth to "fleshly existence".  They give birth to persons

Other than that, we have no dispute with the "acceptable and 100% human woman" part.  That's exactly what Mary was/is.
« Last Edit: Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 11:30:07 by Catholica »

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4807
  • Manna: 154
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
    • View Profile


Can you show a logical error in my argument?

You can substitute your version of Premise 2 if you like but it makes no difference to the logic.


The error is the incomplete statement, "Jesus is God"


 "Jesus is both God and Man" is not defined in the statement.


I'll show you a simpler example that you may be able to comprehend easier.


1-The earth contains oxygen


2-Man requires oxygen to survive


Conclusion: Man survives by oxygen


You can see by limiting the premise by not entering all the facts that the conclusion will be flawed, much like your conclusion.


Jesus was both God and Man, not just one or the other.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile


Can you show a logical error in my argument?

You can substitute your version of Premise 2 if you like but it makes no difference to the logic.


The error is the incomplete statement, "Jesus is God"


 "Jesus is both God and Man" is not defined in the statement.


I'll show you a simpler example that you may be able to comprehend easier.


1-The earth contains oxygen


2-Man requires oxygen to survive


Conclusion: Man survives by oxygen


You can see by limiting the premise by not entering all the facts that the conclusion will be flawed, much like your conclusion.


Jesus was both God and Man, not just one or the other.

Of course Jesus was both God and man, not just one or the other

Please explain how this makes a difference to the logic of my argument.

You example bears no relationship to the logic of my argument. It is just faulty logic.

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4807
  • Manna: 154
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
    • View Profile

Of course Jesus was both God and man, not just one or the other

Please explain how this makes a difference to the logic of my argument.

You example bears no relationship to the logic of my argument. It is just faulty logic.

The point is that the information in your premise is incomplete and thus the conclusion is flawed, much the same as the example I gave you.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile

Of course Jesus was both God and man, not just one or the other

Please explain how this makes a difference to the logic of my argument.

You example bears no relationship to the logic of my argument. It is just faulty logic.

The point is that the information in your premise is incomplete and thus the conclusion is flawed, much the same as the example I gave you.

There are many things about Jesus Christ that are not included in the premises but that does not make the conclusion flawed. It would only be false if the data were necessary for the conclusion.

In the example you gave me the first premise was not used in the conclusion and therefore was irrelevant. That makes the structure of your argument false. Therefore your argument is false.


Please show how incomplete data in my premise makes the argument false.

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4807
  • Manna: 154
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
    • View Profile
It would only be false if the data were necessary for the conclusion.


That's exactly the point I've been attempting to make here, your premise is incomplete, lacking in data.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
It would only be false if the data were necessary for the conclusion.


That's exactly the point I've been attempting to make here, your premise is incomplete, lacking in data.


 Of course it is incomplete concerning Jesus Christ. John said at the end of his gospel:
 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

What you need to show is that the incompleteness matters to the conclusion.

 Please show me how the data you think should be in the premise makes any difference to the conclusion.
 
I think you are just playing around. You know perfectly well that the logic is sound but you are not prepared to accept the conclusion for reasons that have nothing to do with the logic.
 

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4807
  • Manna: 154
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
    • View Profile
The conclusion would result in Mary being the mother of God and man, which only leads back to Jesus since the only reference we have to God and man is Jesus himself.

Again, Mary was a simple, mortal human being like the rest of us, chosen by God to give birth to His son in the flesh. Mary did the human part, the Holy Spirit provided the other.

Please do not undermine me, I am most certainly not playing around.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
The conclusion would result in Mary being the mother of God and man, which only leads back to Jesus since the only reference we have to God and man is Jesus himself.

Saying it leads back to Jesus is not relevant to the argument.

The issue is  = Is the conclusion true?

You could expand the conclusion to say that Mary is the mother of a person who is both God and man but that still means that Mary is the mother of God.

You have not shown that the extra data is relevant to the conclusion.
Let me give you an example:

All birds lay eggs
A duck is a bird
Therefore ducks lay eggs

There is data missing, such as ducks have webbed feet and wings, but that makes no differece to the conclusion and is therefore not relevant whether it is included or not.
 

Again, Mary was a simple, mortal human being like the rest of us, chosen by God to give birth to His son in the flesh. Mary did the human part, the Holy Spirit provided the other.

That point is not relevant to the argument of whether the logic of my premises and conclusion is correct or not.


Please do not undermine me, I am most certainly not playing around.


I don’t mean to undermine you but IMO you seem to give the impression of trying to avoid a conclusion you do not like by raising irrelevant points.
« Last Edit: Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 16:11:33 by winsome »

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4807
  • Manna: 154
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
    • View Profile
The only method to disprove a Valid Logical Argument is to disprove one of the premises. You are correct in your duck example, but if the duck was much more than simply a duck then that data would indeed be necessary to validate the argument.

Take the argument to a professor, even William Lane Craig agrees that each premise has to be complete and precise.

If no man had ever heard of God or Jesus would it be correct to say Jesus is God without further explanation?

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
The only method to disprove a Valid Logical Argument is to disprove one of the premises. You are correct in your duck example, but if the duck was much more than simply a duck then that data would indeed be necessary to validate the argument.

Take the argument to a professor, even William Lane Craig agrees that each premise has to be complete and precise.

Your problem is that you seem unable to disprove my premises. Not having superflous data in a premise does not invalidate a premise - as I showed in the duck example.

You have consistently failed to show what the addition of Jesus being both God and man makes to my premise

If no man had ever heard of God or Jesus would it be correct to say Jesus is God without further explanation?


But we have heard of God and Jesus. This is a Christian discussion forum. So your point is not valid.

I'm not going to go on with this exchange. Your reactions are just perverse.

However I will add a few more comments for those who may be following this (if anyone has lasted this long)

Let me modify my original statements

Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God incarnate
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God incarnate

This gives a better understanding of in what sense Mary is the mother of God.

Firstly it implies that Mary did not exist from the beginning, or before God. Mary became in a mother relationship to God at a point human history.

Secondly (although this is already implied in being the mother of Jesus) it makes it clear that Mary’s motherhood relates to the Second Person of the Trinity, not the Father, nor the Holy Spirit.

That takes nothing away from the correctness of saying that Mary is the mother of God.

In relation to this thread this is important to defend the divinity of Jesus. If Mary being the mother of Jesus is not also the mother of God (incarnate) then it is accepting that Jesus, while on earth, was only 100% human and not also 100% God.

A final point - when it was defined as doctrine at the Council of Ephesus that Mary was Theotokos (literally God-bearer) it was not to glorify Mary but to make the very point we are discussing here, namely that Jesus was fully God and fully man. Again it was in defence of the divinity of Jesus against a heresy (Nestorianism).



Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
    • View Profile
Quote
Scriptures do not contain ALL the words of God. Scripture itself tells us that (e.g. Jn 21:25, 2Thess 2:15)

Scripture does not tell us to get our doctrines from scripture.
Where do you think the Apostles got their doctrines from?

WinSome, you and your church are in error on this point, and that's why you can justify so many of your errors.  The word of God is all that God was pleased to share with us concerning his testimony of any given truth that the church of Jesus Christ should believe and teach.  Any doctrine that can not be supported by the word of God is to be rejected by the chosen and faithful saints of God.  You have been convinced of this, (that is~ traditions, specially Catholic's) but you will never convinced God's elect that this is so, never~ you are wasting your time and breath.  Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4; "Catholic traditions" are not above, or even equal to the words of God, that he has graciously left his little ones to trust in, you can believe that lie, but the children of the kingdom know their true bread, and that bread is not fit for dogs.

Quote
Jesus Christ; From 100% God, to 100% Flesh and Blood Man and BACK to 100% God!

This statement is riddle with errors.

Jesus did not go from a 100% God to flesh!  Jesus was God's Son conceived in the womb of a young virgin woman named Mary.  Before he was conceived, he did not exist! That is the corrupt doctrine of creeds supported by Catholics, and believed by most of Christendom.  Was Jesus a complex person, both man and God?  Yes.   But only in this sense: his incarnation,  and not in any other sense. The Catholics are dead wrong believing that Word in the beginning was Jesus!  They believe that God's Son was eternally generated by God, and that the Spirit proceeded from them! Read the Nicene creed that they so trust in.  We have dealt with this corruption already in another thread at length. 

Mary did not give birth to God!  She gave birth to the Son of God.  In the beginning was God, period!   God is a Spirit with no beginning and no end.  The Son was NOT the Word in the beginning!  The scriptures does not say that, man does. The Word in the beginning was God, and THAT WORD joined himself to the tabernacle of the Son of God, and walked and preached among men. Jesus was indeed both God and man.  His complex natures were totally separated in him.  His human nature needed sleep, food, and needed to grow in wisdom and knowledge, not so with his Divine nature.  In his Divine nature, he was before Abraham, yet in his flesh, afterward!  In his Divine nature, he created the worlds, yet in his human nature, he learned to be a carpenter with his father, Joseph.   In his human nature, he could suffer and die for the sins of his people, not so in his Divine nature, he is from everlasting, to everlasting.  We have a thread already dealing with this is depth.  Mary did not give birth to Emmanuel, she gave birth to the Son of God, up until that point, God did not have a Son, only in his eternal purposes of doing so.  This is a  great mystery of godliness! 1 Timothy 3:16

Quote
BACK to 100% God!

That is not so. 

1 Timothy 2:5

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, THE MAN Christ Jesus."

There is a 100% man at the right hand of God (or, a man exalted as high as one can be exalted) named JESUS!  God is a Spirit, and will ever remain so, that can not ever changed.  No man, or angels have ever seen God, for that is impossible, we see God in the MAN Jesus Christ, who is the express image of who God is!

Jesus has a glorified body of a man in heaven, that is far above all sitting on his glorious throne, being highly exalted by his Father, The Everlasting God, who is above all and over all.
« Last Edit: Sat Feb 01, 2014 - 08:39:30 by Red Baker »

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14276
  • Manna: 189
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Most words and phrases have at least 2 definitions: the denoted definition and the connoted definition.  The denoted definition means how a word is defined in the dictionary.  The connoted meaning includes many popular uses and shades of meaning, based on many different factors, including at times similarities in sounds with other words. It is why someone got fired a decade ago from the DC government when he described certain wealthy tax evaders (who were white) as "niggardly;" (misers) and it caused a major backlash in the black community because it sounded like a racial epithet.  (the word itself is totally unrelated to the racial slur - coming from an entirely different language)  It just sounded bad to them.  In other cases it may be perceived that 2 words which have almost identical denotations have opposite "feels" to them; one "feels" more negative than the other.

In this case, the phrase "Mother of God" is being argued across this divide of denotation (Winsome) and connotation (Alan).  Winsome is exactly right that the phrase is accurate.  But in American English the connotation is taken to mean that she would be called the mother of God the Father. And that is entirely INCORRECT.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Most words and phrases have at least 2 definitions: the denoted definition and the connoted definition.  The denoted definition means how a word is defined in the dictionary.  The connoted meaning includes many popular uses and shades of meaning, based on many different factors, including at times similarities in sounds with other words. It is why someone got fired a decade ago from the DC government when he described certain wealthy tax evaders (who were white) as "niggardly;" (misers) and it caused a major backlash in the black community because it sounded like a racial epithet.  (the word itself is totally unrelated to the racial slur - coming from an entirely different language)  It just sounded bad to them.  In other cases it may be perceived that 2 words which have almost identical denotations have opposite "feels" to them; one "feels" more negative than the other.

In this case, the phrase "Mother of God" is being argued across this divide of denotation (Winsome) and connotation (Alan).  Winsome is exactly right that the phrase is accurate.  But in American English the connotation is taken to mean that she would be called the mother of God the Father. And that is entirely INCORRECT.

I agree that to understand Mother of God as mother of the Father is incorrect.

The problem is that American Protestants seem to think that American English is the universal world language and that whatever they may understand by a word is the only valid one.

I remember one trying to tell me that Websters Dictionary was used by everyone all over the world. It's a very insular (and arrogant) attitude.

There are several disagreements between Catholics and Protestants (at least American Protestants) that are basically about the meaning of words.

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14276
  • Manna: 189
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
And to be honest - some of the disagreements between various protestant groups come down to word meanings as well.

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14276
  • Manna: 189
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Quote
I remember one trying to tell me that Websters Dictionary was used by everyone all over the world. It's a very insular (and arrogant) attitude.

I do not know if you are familiar over there with a tv show M*A*S*H*. The setting is the Korean war in a US battlefield hospital camp.   

There was an episode where one of the main characters ( a bit of a moron) is talking to a N. Korean prisoner very slowly in English. One of the other doctors informs him that the prisoner does not understand because he does not know English.  He replies that "... they ALL understand English and the only reason they talk that other gobbledygook is just to confuse US. "

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Quote
I remember one trying to tell me that Websters Dictionary was used by everyone all over the world. It's a very insular (and arrogant) attitude.

I do not know if you are familiar over there with a tv show M*A*S*H*. The setting is the Korean war in a US battlefield hospital camp.   

There was an episode where one of the main characters ( a bit of a moron) is talking to a N. Korean prisoner very slowly in English. One of the other doctors informs him that the prisoner does not understand because he does not know English.  He replies that "... they ALL understand English and the only reason they talk that other gobbledygook is just to confuse US. "

 rofl rofl rofl

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4807
  • Manna: 154
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
    • View Profile
Thanks Dave for giving some new meaning and insight to a debate that I see now that could easily arise from a difference in opinion of how the phrase is intended to pan out, and I apologize to you winsome if I came across abrupt, prideful, or arrogant.

Peace and blessings, Alan

BTW Dave, was that Major Burns?

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14276
  • Manna: 189
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Yes indeed.  ::smile::

"Frank Burns Eats Worms."

Now we're getting somewhere!

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Quote
Scriptures do not contain ALL the words of God. Scripture itself tells us that (e.g. Jn 21:25, 2Thess 2:15)

Scripture does not tell us to get our doctrines from scripture.
Where do you think the Apostles got their doctrines from?

WinSome, you and your church are in error on this point, and that's why you can justify so many of your errors.  The word of God is all that God was pleased to share with us concerning his testimony of any given truth that the church of Jesus Christ should believe and teach.  Any doctrine that can not be supported by the word of God is to be rejected by the chosen and faithful saints of God.  You have been convinced of this, (that is~ traditions, specially Catholic's) but you will never convinced God's elect that this is so, never~ you are wasting your time and breath.  Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4; "Catholic traditions" are not above, or even equal to the words of God, that he has graciously left his little ones to trust in, you can believe that lie, but the children of the kingdom know their true bread, and that bread is not fit for dogs.

Hi Red, please forgive if I am interjecting into a conversation, your response was to winsome, but I respond to you.  You have written a lot in this post, with a wide variety of points, so I can't respond to them all or the conversation would get far too messy.   Suffice it to say, in response to the paragraph above, that we disagree, and I also note that you haven't shared any scriptures that demonstrate that what he has written is not true.  It is only if you interpret Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 to be referring only to the Bible would the verses support what you say, but that implication is just your premise restated, not demonstrated.

Quote
Jesus Christ; From 100% God, to 100% Flesh and Blood Man and BACK to 100% God!

This statement is riddle with errors.

Jesus did not go from a 100% God to flesh!  Jesus was God's Son conceived in the womb of a young virgin woman named Mary.  Before he was conceived, he did not exist! That is the corrupt doctrine of creeds supported by Catholics, and believed by most of Christendom.  Was Jesus a complex person, both man and God?  Yes.   But only in this sense: his incarnation,  and not in any other sense. The Catholics are dead wrong believing that Word in the beginning was Jesus!  They believe that God's Son was eternally generated by God, and that the Spirit proceeded from them! Read the Nicene creed that they so trust in.  We have dealt with this corruption already in another thread at length. 

I respond with questions for you, to gain insight into what you believe so that I might respond with understanding.

1. What do you mean when you use the word "incarnation"?  Who (as precisely as you can be) became incarnate?  And what does "incarnate" mean in your understanding?

2. What do you believe the Bible is saying in John 1:1 when it said "In the beginning... the Word was with God"?

3. What does the word "proceeded" imply to you, with regard to the Holy Spirit, and what about that is heretical in your view?

4. What do the words "eternally generated" imply to you, with regard to "God's Son", and what about that is heretical in your view?

Mary did not give birth to God!  She gave birth to the Son of God.  In the beginning was God, period!   God is a Spirit with no beginning and no end.  The Son was NOT the Word in the beginning!  The scriptures does not say that, man does. The Word in the beginning was God, and THAT WORD joined himself to the tabernacle of the Son of God, and walked and preached among men.

Again, more questions:

1. What, in your belief, is wrong with the idea that Mary gave birth to God?

2. Was the "Son of God" also "God"?  If so, when?

3. Did "The Word" remain God when he became "incarnate"?

Jesus was indeed both God and man.  His complex natures were totally separated in him.  His human nature needed sleep, food, and needed to grow in wisdom and knowledge, not so with his Divine nature.  In his Divine nature, he was before Abraham, yet in his flesh, afterward!  In his Divine nature, he created the worlds, yet in his human nature, he learned to be a carpenter with his father, Joseph.   In his human nature, he could suffer and die for the sins of his people, not so in his Divine nature, he is from everlasting, to everlasting.  We have a thread already dealing with this is depth.  Mary did not give birth to Emmanuel, she gave birth to the Son of God, up until that point, God did not have a Son, only in his eternal purposes of doing so.  This is a  great mystery of godliness! 1 Timothy 3:16

1. What is a "nature" in your understanding?  What does it mean for a human person to have a "human nature"?

2. For the sake of discussion, let us consider that a "person" is defined (simplistically) as "a rational being that can act".  For example, you are a person.  You have a human nature, which describes what you can do, but is not who you are, because I also have a human nature and I am not you.  Is this reasonable to you?

3. If Jesus, in his divine nature, "created the worlds", but "did not exist before he was conceived" as you wrote above, how was that accomplished?  If Jesus, in his divine nature "was before Abraham" but "did not exist before he was conceived", how was that accomplished? 

Quote
BACK to 100% God!

That is not so. 

1 Timothy 2:5

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, THE MAN Christ Jesus."

There is a 100% man at the right hand of God (or, a man exalted as high as one can be exalted) named JESUS!  God is a Spirit, and will ever remain so, that can not ever changed.  No man, or angels have ever seen God, for that is impossible, we see God in the MAN Jesus Christ, who is the express image of who God is!

Jesus has a glorified body of a man in heaven, that is far above all sitting on his glorious throne, being highly exalted by his Father, The Everlasting God, who is above all and over all.

Final set of questions.

1. Would you say to someone that they should worship Jesus?  Or would you say that worshiping Jesus is idolatry?

2. When did Jesus stop being both human and divine and start being just human?

3. What scripture do you use to support this claim that Jesus stopped being God?

4. If no man has ever seen God, then how can you say that Jesus was 100% God?

5. In your view, why does the scripture call Jesus "Emmanuel" which means "God among us"?  And why is that significant, considering that God was already "among us" upon the Ark of the Covenant?

Thanks Red, I think your answers to these questions will go a long way in helping me understand where you are coming from.

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ. 9 For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily, 10 and you share in this fullness in him, who is the head of every principality and power.
« Last Edit: Mon Feb 03, 2014 - 14:35:35 by Catholica »

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
    • View Profile
Greetings Catholica,

You and I have went through the questions before, I beleive, but can not remember which thread, But will search and see.  Nevertheless, I will address each and every question again if need be.

It is late in the evening for me, as most know that I generally do post after 6:00 pm EST.  I am in bed before 8:00, but do rise very early in morning, the good Lord willing. I will consider these things tomorrow.   Your post was well written and very well thought out, and most of all, orderly and easy to follow, which does not surprise me.  Thank you for that.

RB