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 2674 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Red Baker

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

Greetings Catholica,

Just because it was addressed to WinSome, does not mean that you cannot comment.  I know you disagree, as I said, we have went through his before, and I will go search (or you can and pm me with the thread) as I said I would, so that, I will not just keep repeating myself.  In comments above, I did not go into much details, other than to state a few points.  So let us get started~ I will break it down into some small post, keep from being too tedious to you and the other readers.  I would appreciate if you can wait until I am finished, so that I can at least cover your questions and get them answered as you requested.  I will quote Job 31:40 to let you know my words are ended. 

Quote
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?


The Incarnation is indeed the Key in our understanding of the Sonship of Jesus the Son of God~

The Word, who is God, joined a human nature in the person of Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:1-3,14)~This is the great mystery of godliness – God Himself was manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16).  Jesus Christ is also known as Emmanuel – God with us (Isaiah 7:14 cp Matthew 1:23).  Jesus Christ is the human body and nature indwelt by the fullness of the Godhead (Col 2:8-9).  Simply stated: God was manifested in likeness of sinful flesh~please note the words: "Likeness of"!

Incarnation is the Key to preserve the deity of Jesus Christ, it cannot be done in any other way, period!   Jesus was truly and fully God – Scripture affirms plainly and unequivocally. The Word is God without qualification; the Word became Jesus of Nazareth by joining His flesh.  It is another straw man argument of Rome to accuse us of denying the full deity of Jesus Christ, for it is their doctrine of a begotten god that corrupts the Bible message of His full Godhead. Incarnation is the Key that only can say that Jesus Christ's divine nature is fully Jehovah God without qualification.  They must say that His divine nature is begotten and generated, yielding a begotten God. 

God is a Spirit. Jesus Christ had a body. Jesus Christ is God, but God is not Jesus Christ.  The humanity of Jesus Christ – He is truly and fully man – Scripture also unequivocally teaches.  Mary conceived and bore a human child similar to all other mothers (Matt 1:18-20; Luke 2:23).  The only mediator between God and man is the man Christ Jesus (I Timothy 2:5 cp Job 9:32-33).  God assumed flesh and blood to destroy Satan's work and be our high priest (Hebrews 2:14-17).  Jesus was made in the likeness of men after having been in the form of God (Philippians 2:5-11).  Incarnation is the hypostatic union combination of God the Word and a human nature in a single Being.   God is a Spirit (John 4:24), but a human body was prepared for God to possess (Hebrews 10:5).  This is the biblical Incarnation definition.  Neither Christ's divinity (John 8:58) nor His humanity (Heb 4:15) was changed by their union.  But He is not fully Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour without His body (Luke 2:12; 24:39).

As we have said many times before~Jesus of Nazareth is the complex Person of God and man – He possesses both complete natures. This point is very important to properly understand God's record of His Son Jesus Christ.  The attributes of one nature are often ascribed to a name derived from the other nature.  Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, so His Person involves divine and human characteristics.  Jesus Christ fully experienced all the aspects of human growth, weakness, and temptation.  Jesus Christ, referred to as God, a Spirit, purchased the church with His BLOOD (Acts 20:28).  Jesus Christ, the Son of God, DIED (Gal 2:20).  But only His humanity died (I Tim 1:17; 6:16) Jesus, the Son of man, was OMNIPRESENT John 3:13. Only His Deity could be so (Jer 23:24).  Jesus, the Son of man, WAS WITH GOD (John 6:62).  (This will answer one of your questions) Only His divinity could be so (John 1:1).  Jesus, the Son, is SUBJECT TO GOD (I Cor 1:28). Only His humanity will be subject to God.  Jesus, the Son, had a MOTHER NAMED MARY (Matt 1:21). Mary is not the mother of God!  Jesus claimed to be BEFORE ABRAHAM (John 8:58). Only His Deity was eternal (Micah 5:2).  Jesus grew in WISDOM AND STATURE (Lu 2:52). Only His humanity was ignorant (Col 2:3).  Jesus slept (Mark 4:38), but only in His humanity; for His Deity could not sleep (Psalm 121:4).  Jesus thirsted, ate, and did all the things a human nature does, but which Deity cannot do.

Consider our use of names or titles regarding actions or relationships prior to that name or title

We may say, "Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees." But it was truly Abram, who left (Gen 12:1,4).  We may say, "The apostle Paul persecuted the church," but he was Saul at the time (Acts 9:1).  We may say of our wives, "My wife began kindergarten when she was only four years old."  We may say of our parents, "My father was born in the Piedmont of North Carolina in 1917 ."
We may say, "Joe died and was buried" (Luke 16:22). However, we know his soul still lives.  With a retrospective view, we may Scripturally ascribe actions of the Word to Jesus Christ.

This should cover all of your question concerning how we understand the term Incarnation, or the incarnate Sonship of Jesus, the Son of the Living God.

The next fourteen questions I trust will be shorter.

 
« Last Edit: Tue Feb 04, 2014 - 07:33:12 by Red Baker »

Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Hi Red,

It will be hard to hold off to the end, but I will try.  Thank you for your first installment.  If I may, would you jump ahead to the questions regarding "what is a nature" and "what is a person"?  I'm having a hard time understanding your use of these terms because they seem to be confused in your first response above, at least by the definition of the words which I have come to know.

Also, perhaps the question "should someone worship Jesus" would be a good one.  Because I am more confused now.  You seem to speak of Jesus as God in the present tense, but elsewhere you write that Jesus is just a man at the right hand of God.

Thanks,

Andre

Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
    • View Profile
Quote
just a man

God man! He is the True God and eternal life, but as much man as you and I, except, in a glorified body, that we too will have one day.  And, he is as much God as his Father is, no different whatsoever, other than, God is an eternal Spirit that no man or angel has ever seen, or will see! 

One day we will worship him as the King of kings, and Lord of lords.  But, I will  do as you requested.  It will be much different that Catholicism teaches.  But, that being said, I would never use this a measuring stick to determine one's eternal standing before God~if I did so, then eternal life would depend on one's knowledge of spiritual truth, and that is not according to the truth.

Andre, I am convinced that you believe in God, that you love God, and fear him~ I have no reason to believe otherwise.  Your godly words in your many post has convinced me of this, so regardless where this take us, it will not change my thoughts of you.  I have given this subject many years of consideration, and you believe that you have history and church tradition supporting you, so let see where this shall go.
« Last Edit: Tue Feb 04, 2014 - 18:37:28 by Red Baker »

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Thanks for the kind words.  I am really just trying to understand what you believe about this.  In your first post in the thread you wrote:

"There is a 100% man at the right hand of God"

that to me sounded like you were saying that Jesus is only a man now.  Which you might be able to tell from my questions.  But now I believe you are saying that Jesus has retained both his human and divine nature and has a glorified body in heaven.  That he remains the God-man and same person but with a glorified body.  If this is accurate then you can disregard several of my questions.  In particular, questions #1-3 of my final set.  Because that is what Catholics believe as well so I have no need to clarify any differences with regard to Jesus' nature as he is right now.

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
    • View Profile
Quote
  If this is accurate then you can disregard several of my questions.

It is accurate

Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline Red Baker

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

Good morning Andre,

Let me go into details concerning these two questions, more so the fourth one, because herein is where so many good people are confused, and may have never even consider these two questions.

Give me a little time today to consider how to break it down and keep it short, but at the same time, get the truth out and errors expose.  I thought your questions were very good, and needed to be discussed.  Be back shortly, the Lord willing.

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
    • View Profile
I am going to give my personal confession of whom Jesus is, before I say very much more, because, as with any truth, the truth is always without exception rejected by the majority as some strange doctrine.  One would not think this would not be so after two thousand years removed from Jesus' time on this earth, but, I believe it more so now, than any time since he was here, because such scriptures as 2 Timothy 3:1-4:5.  Truth is always in the minority, never with the majority.  Truth has always been hated, and that will never change.  Since the world begun, God's elect have been persecuted and hated, and killed, were the misfits of their society, and why should be expect anything different?  There are ways that you can kill a person without actually taking their life.  Matthew 5:21,22; Revelation 11

Jesus asked his apostles~ (Matt 16:13-17) "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven"

If the God of heaven does not reveal Jesus to a man, then they will spend their life in darkness and ignorant, thereby, without truth concerning  Jesus Christ. I would dare say, that most who truly understands Jesus being the True God and eternal life, are much like the apostles, just plain ordinary men, men who for the most part, uneducated, and very simple, in comparison to mighty and noble men of this earth. 1 Corinthians 1:27-31; 12:3; and Luke 10:22

Jesus asked the Pharisees, the most conservatives Jews~(Matt 22:41-46)

 "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions".

Jesus identified Himself as David's Lord to these ignorant theologians from their own scriptures (Ps 110:1). Since He truly was the Son of David, biologically through Mary and legally through Joseph, the only way He could also be David's Lord was to be David's Creator God. The Pharisees could not answer His divine wisdom and neither can the many other false cults, the likes of: JW, Muslims, Mormons, and sad to say, many of God's own children are not a little confused, concerning Jesus' Deity, and how to protect it.

First, Jesus was no ordinary man. He was not even a special man. He was God in human flesh. One of His names was Immanuel, meaning, God with us (Is 7:14; Matt 1:23). Another prophecy by Isaiah called Him, "Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Is 9:6). Jesus is so much God that He was called, The mighty God, and The everlasting Father. There is no question about it ~ Jesus is fully Jehovah God.

In His human nature, He grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men (Luke 2:52). In His divine nature, or His deity, He created the worlds (Eph 3:9; Heb 1:2). In His human nature He is the only Mediator between God and men (I Tim 2:5). In His divine nature, He is the eternal God (Heb 1:8; John 20:28)


The divine nature of Jesus Christ is the Word of God, Who made all things, and without Him was not anything made that was made (John 1:1-3). In time the Word of God took on a fleshly human nature through the virgin birth of Mary (John 1:14; Luke 1:35; Gal 4:4). Men call this the incarnation, and it is a great mystery of the gospel, which can only be known by scripture and the Holy Spirit (I Tim 3:16).

Without God revealing Jesus, men will say and do terrible things against Him.

I Corinthians 2:7-8

"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (I Cor 2:7-8).  "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" .

Confession to be continue

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
    • View Profile
Confession completed............

My confession is the same as Peter's and it is~"As the Son of man, Jesus was the Son of God, conceived in the womb of a virgin named Mary, by the power of the Highest, the Holy Ghost.  Thereby, his human nature was conceived, or, begotten~His Divine Nature, was the Word that was in the beginning with God, that had no beginning, and shall have no end.  In and by his Divine Nature, all things were created, that are in heaven, in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him. He was before all things, and by Him all things consist, and have their being.  Colossians 1:16,17~He made the worlds. Hebrews 1:2~When we shall see God according to Matthew 5:8;  it will be Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whom his Father has made higher than the kings of this earth;  for he is King of kings, and Lord of lords.  He will be the Only God we shall ever see~the reason being is two fold:  first, Jesus is the express image of whom God is, without any qualification, other than this, and this is the second reason: God is a Spirit that shall ever dwell in eternity, that no angel or man has seen or will ever see.  Jesus Christ is indeed the TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE~1 John 5:21"

This is the sum of my confession.  We earnestly contend that the human nature of Jesus was generated, or conceived by the power of the Highest in the womb of Mary~not his Eternal Divine Nature, which is the I AM THAT I AM!  Emmanuel was NOT CONCEIVED, Jesus, the Son of God was.  A tremendous difference. 

Luke 1:31,32 is God's record concerning the conception of his only begotten Son.  To believe and teach any other record, other than Luke 1:31-35, is heresy and one will destroyed Jesus' Deity, of being the I am That I am. 

We believe and hold to the "Incarnate Sohship" of Jesus, and reject the eternal Sonship of Jesus. The Holy Ghost has given to us the record of how it took place, and WHEN it took place.  The scriptures very carefully protect Jesus' Deity and so will we. Men have robbed Christ of his Godhead, by saying that he was eternally generated by the Father, and that the Spirit proceeded from  them two!  They use terms that they themselves can not explain; terms that are self contradictable.   

I was taught the eternal Sonship (or, Jesus being eternally generated) and accepted it without ever considering the ramifications of the doctrine. I come to realized that I could not truly refute the JW's of Jesus being a begotten god, because the eternal Sonship defaults to that very same doctrine and actually gives it strength.   

 
« Last Edit: Wed Feb 05, 2014 - 15:50:09 by Red Baker »

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
    • View Profile
People betray shameful ignorance, or, very great dishonestly when dealing with the subject of when Jesus became the Son of God.  All one needs to do is to read behind men, and even many great men in the faith and very godly, if I may add my opinion, for whatever that is worth.  It's hard for men to break from tradition, not only Catholics, but, others well.  Catholics get blame for things that others are just as guilty of, and maybe more so.

Many men betray a lamentable inconsistency when speaking of the Son of God being eternally generated by God the Father.  I might add, that it get even more so lamentable, when they begin to explain to you how this act (Jesus being eternally begotten) actually happened.  Read the great Jonathan Edwards' account of it and then listen to his discombobulated jargon as he trys explain the act of it, in eternity!  I for one, do not believe that he was purposely laboring to deceive his followers, yet this good man was speaking outside of God's revelation to us concerning the birth of his Son, or when Jesus begin to be the Son of God in actuality, and according to God's testimony to us.  All of God's children should reject anything that they cannot prove with the word of God, period.  It cannot be called the TRUTH, if it cannot be supported by God's word.  We should have the very same spirit that the apostle Thomas had, when he refused to believe without proof~regardless if we beleive that Thomas was right or wrong, his spirit was not going to be deceived by man's opinion of something.  I for one, find that to be very noble~Acts 17:11.  We live by every word that proceeds out of God's mouth, for he alone cannot lie.

I would like to give a few reasons why I reject creeds written by men, that have turned the church away from the truth concerning Jesus' Sonship.   

To be continue...

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14276
  • Manna: 189
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
People betray shameful ignorance, or, very great dishonestly when dealing with the subject of when Jesus became the Son of God.  .... Many men betray a lamentable inconsistency when speaking of the Son of God being eternally generated by God the Father.  I might add, that it get even more so lamentable, when they begin to explain to you how this act (Jesus being eternally begotten) actually happened.  Read the great Jonathan Edwards' account of it and then listen to his discombobulated jargon as he trys explain the act of it, in eternity!  I for one, do not believe that he was purposely laboring to deceive his followers, yet this good man was speaking outside of God's revelation to us concerning the birth of his Son, or when Jesus begin to be the Son of God in actuality, and according to God's testimony to us. 

People raised with a western mindset it seems are afraid of unanswered questions so they go to great lengths to make up an answer where none exists. 

Why do we need to know WHEN or HOW the Son of God became the Son of Man? I read the word to say HE is the same, yesterday today and forever.  That should be good enough.

Does any answer beyond that affect how I obey His word?  How I pray? How I function in His body?  No.

IOW - irrelevant to my walk with the Lord.

Paul writes in 1 Cor 13 that we see in a glass dimly/darkly.  That means that not everything is revealed YET.  We should be comfortable with that fact.
« Last Edit: Thu Feb 06, 2014 - 10:22:02 by DaveW »

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14276
  • Manna: 189
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
There is a Jewish folk tale about a man who runs into the synagogue one day before Shakarit (early morning prayers) [pronounced shock-uh-REET] and excitedly tells the Rabbi "I have just published a book with the answers to EVERY ONE of the questions of our faith!"

The rabbi takes the book from the man's hand and starts hitting him over the head with it.  "You Idiot! Don't you realize that every question is worth MUCH MORE than the answer?"

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Hi Red, thanks for giving your personal confession of who Jesus is. I think I understand your position better.  And I believe that I understand the root of our differences.  And I believe that that root is in the understanding of exactly the difference between what a "person" is and a "nature" is.

In my understanding, and I believe the classical understanding (where the term comes from), is that a nature describes what a being can do, not what a person is made of.  That is, these are the powers of the soul, which are sometimes acted out through a physical body, but not always.  For example God has a divine nature.  More precisely God has the divine nature, as there is only one God, there is only one nature which is divine.  All men (and women, using general language naturally) have a human nature.  That is, they can do what a human can do.  They can use reason.  They can make choices.  They can laugh and find humor in things.

A "person" (or more generally, a "being") is an entity which has a nature.  My dog, Mattie, is Mattie the dog.  Mattie has a dog nature.  Someone else's dog, say "Fido" is Fido the dog.  Fido also has a dog nature.  However Mattie is not Fido.  But they both have a dog nature.

Jesus is a special case, something that we struggle to understand, because Jesus had two natures, human and divine.  Because he had a human nature, he had a human body and a human soul.  And the power of the human soul contains an intellect and a will.  Because he had the divine nature, he was in Spirit God and also had a divine intellect and divine will.  One man, two intellects, two wills.  But this is key: he is not two persons.  He is one person with two natures.

I hope this distinction I have made clear as to what we believe.  And if I were to re-write your confession as we believe, I would use more specific terms which clarify certain distinctions between Jesus the person and the natures Jesus has. 

Certain paragraphs you wrote jump out at me. Allow me to rewrite to reflect the Catholic understanding.

Yours (differences highlighted in Red, for "Red" naturally):

Quote
In His human nature, He grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men (Luke 2:52). In His divine nature, or His deity, He created the worlds (Eph 3:9; Heb 1:2). In His human nature He is the only Mediator between God and men (I Tim 2:5). In His divine nature, He is the eternal God (Heb 1:8; John 20:28)

Catholic (differences highlighted in Green):

Quote
In His human intellect, He grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men (Luke 2:52). Through His divine nature, or His deity, He created the worlds (Eph 3:9; Heb 1:2). In His person He is the only Mediator between God and men (I Tim 2:5). In His person, He is the eternal God (Heb 1:8; John 20:28)

We believe that Jesus the person is a fusion between human nature and divine nature.  Not separate in person, as if the two natures were operating with different persons at their control, but in one person.

And that person is the same person who is the second person of the Most Holy Trinity.  A new person was not created on Earth to co-operate with the second person of the Trinity.  But rather the Second person of the Most Holy Trinity assumed also a human nature, and thereby took flesh in the womb of the virgin, fusing humanity with divinity, in that moment, in the person which we call Jesus but could also call the Word, because they are the same person.

Another comparison, using the same format.

Red:
Quote
My confession is the same as Peter's and it is~"As the Son of man, Jesus was the Son of God, conceived in the womb of a virgin named Mary, by the power of the Highest, the Holy Ghost.  Thereby, his human nature was conceived, or, begotten~His Divine Nature, was the Word that was in the beginning with God, that had no beginning, and shall have no end.  In and by his Divine Nature, all things were created, that are in heaven, in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him. He was before all things, and by Him all things consist, and have their being.  Colossians 1:16,17~He made the worlds. Hebrews 1:2

Catholic:
Quote
My confession is the same as Peter's and it is~"As the Son of man, Jesus was the Son of God, conceived in the womb of a virgin named Mary, by the power of the Highest, the Holy Ghost.  Thereby, his human nature was assumed and the person we know as Jesus, begotten~His person was the Word that was in the beginning with God, that had no beginning, and shall have no end.  In and through his Divine Nature, The Word created all things, that are in heaven, in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him. He was before all things, and by Him all things consist, and have their being.  Colossians 1:16,17~He made the worlds. Hebrews 1:2

A person can not and does not "conceive" a human nature.  A person can only "conceive" an individual being.  The nature of that being comes along with that person through conception but it is not correct to say that a nature is conceived.  The divine nature which Jesus had is not a conceived nature, but is just the divine nature which is attributed to a person, we would agree in this at least, the person of "The Word".  Where we differ, if you consider terms this way, is that Catholics believe that Jesus is that same person, "The Word", not two persons, and that The Word, a person, assumed flesh (a human nature) in the womb of the virgin and that the person Jesus was then "conceived" in the flesh of the womb.

The concept of "conception" also seems to be a differing point.  I think that most people think of conception in the wrong way, which is that (for example) one being gives rise to another through some means within time, where it is assumed that the "parents" precede the "child" in time.  But this should be re-examined for theological accuracy in light of the Bible and what we know about God.

We know, as Christians, and even some pagans have admitted this fact, and that is that the human person is both body AND soul.  The soul is purely intangible, however, and therefore is not of the material realm, but of the spiritual realm, yet it is objectively necessary to have in order than anything on Earth is alive.  And while reproduction definitely has a natural, material component, there can be no natural component which creates a new soul.  It must be created by something of the higher nature, the spiritual realm.  And we confess as Christians that the soul is created by God.  At least I hope we do.

Something we are correct in as Christians is that one of the names we give to the participants in the conception is Father, and one of the words we correctly attribute to the one conceived is "Son".  This is an important concept, because through it we can understand part of the relationship between God the Father and His Son the person Jesus, though not all of it, even through our human relationships of Father and Son.  The Father conceives a person who is the Son, and they have a Father-Son relationship.

However where we err is to believe that "conceiving" is equivalent to "creating".  The JW's and Mormons believe that Jesus is a created being.  Not so.  That Jesus was eternally begotten of the Father speaks to Jesus' uncreated-ness.  Someone that is eternal has no beginning and no end.  It rather speaks to their relationship that always exists, that is, exists out of time. Thereby we can still gain some understanding of God in calling part of that relationship in the Trinity as "being conceived" because it demonstrates that relationship, but we must not take the analogy too far, and the Catholic Church doesn't. 

One could also take the analogy of the Word too far.  In the beginning God said: "Let there be light".  Here you see, God creates with His Word, but that doesn't imply that before God "said" something, there was no Word.  The Word existed eternally with the father.  The Word should not be considered "everlasting" which precisely means/implies that the Word had a beginning and no end.  No, the Word is eternal, which means, no beginning and no end, existing outside of time.

The Word proceeded from the Father from all eternity; there was never a time when He did not proceed and there will never be a time when He does not proceed.  In this eternal procession, we can speak of the relationship as "eternally begotten".  Or "eternally spoken" as we know that with the Word souls are still being created to this day.

It was only within space and time that the Word assumed a human nature.  In assuming human that human nature God bound himself to humanity IN the person of Jesus.  That is why Jesus the person, in his person, is the One Mediator between God and man: because Jesus himself is a fusion of both the human and the divine.  Within his person: his blood! the new covenant exists, whereas before a covenant was between two parties, God and man, Jesus is perfectly both within himself and so is the Mediator of the Covenant between God and all men.

I hope that this post explains the Catholic position, which, at least in my understanding of what you have written, you seem to misrepresent in your understanding.  I say this in a spirit of dialog, not criticism.  When we consider these things and express our positions, sometimes things can become clearer to us.

Offline Red Baker

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


Why do we need to know WHEN or HOW the Son of God became the Son of Man? I read the word to say HE is the same, yesterday today and forever.  That should be good enough.

Does any answer beyond that affect how I obey His word?  How I pray? How I function in His body?  No.

IOW - irrelevant to my walk with the Lord.

Dave your reasoning is without biblical support.  The Jehovah Witnesses have as much right to make their statement concerning Jesus being a begotten god, as you do, and then say that it really does not affect how they worship Jehovah.  Your affiliation in your religion is most likely the reason why you would make such a Christ dishonoring statement.  If God gave us his record concerning his Son's birth, then it is very important. Not so, if you personally believe in the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ, then you are holding to doctrine that robs him of his Deity.  It can easily be proven to any unbiased heart.  You are more than welcome to give your understanding at any time you so desire.  Let us test it with the scriptures.  Just because you have no confidence in defending Jesus' Sonship, does not make it unimportant.  All people defend certain truths that they themselves consider important.  To me, there is no greater doctrine than Jesus' Sonship, and his eternal Godhead, both being perfectly preserved, in the word of God.  Jesus must thought it was important, by the question he asked Peter, and basically asked the most conservative sect of his day, the same question.  So, is Matthew 22:41-46 important or not, to have proper worship of the Godhead?   
« Last Edit: Thu Feb 06, 2014 - 12:24:27 by Red Baker »

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14276
  • Manna: 189
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Who said I had no confidence in defending HIS sonship? 

There are plenty of scriptures that state that fact. 


Here is a question for you: Who ate lunch with Abraham?

(answer: it was Jesus in the flesh)

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
 Hi RB,
 
I’ve been following your exchange with Catholica and I have a couple of questions as there seem to be a couple of ambiguities in your replies.
 
1. You say:
“Jesus was God's Son conceived in the womb of a young virgin woman named Mary.  Before he was conceived, he did not exist!”
 
but you also say:
“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,”
 
So my question is – did the child in Mary’s womb become the Son of God at the moment of conception or at the moment of birth?

2. You said:

“Scripture also unequivocally teaches.  Mary conceived and bore a human child similar to all other mothers (Matt 1:18-20; Luke 2:23).”
 
Does the “similar to all other mothers” apply to both the “conceived” and  “bore” or just to the “bore”. I ask because if she conceived similar to all other mothers then Jesus must have been conceived by intercourse with a human and Jesus would have a human father.
 
Sorry if these questions seem a bit picky but I don’t want to misconstrue what you are saying.
 
Thanks
 
 
« Last Edit: Thu Feb 06, 2014 - 15:32:09 by winsome »

Offline Red Baker

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

Here is a question for you: Who ate lunch with Abraham?

(answer: it was Jesus in the flesh)

Wrong! So, you do have trouble defending Jesus' Sonship, which does not surprise me. 

You are saying that, because, that is what you have heard others say, not because it is in the scriptures.  Prove your statement.  You are saying more than Christ ever revealed to us.  It was angels who took a body and did God's will. 

Hebrews 13:1b

"...........for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."

Where in the NT or OT, can you prove you position?  Jesus, God's Son was conceived and born around two thousand years ago.  We have God's testimony concerning this in Luke 1.  It is a mystery that you still are not correct on.  I have heard preacher say just what you said, many times over, yet, they too are just repeating what they heard some other preacher say. 

Jesus' body was made of a woman named Mary, period. It was made in God's fullness of time~Galatians 4:4 We will have much more to say concerning these things.
« Last Edit: Fri Feb 07, 2014 - 05:14:31 by Red Baker »

Offline Red Baker

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

I will answer you tomorrow, the Lord willing.

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
    • View Profile
Hi RB,
 
I’ve been following your exchange with Catholica and I have a couple of questions as there seem to be a couple of ambiguities in your replies.
 
1. You say:
“Jesus was God's Son conceived in the womb of a young virgin woman named Mary.  Before he was conceived, he did not exist!”
 
but you also say:
“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,”
 

 
So my question is – did the child in Mary’s womb become the Son of God at the moment of conception or at the moment of birth?

Thanks

Well, since I believe life starts at conception, base upon the scriptures~Exodus 21:22,23 then I would say according to scriptural definition of when life begins~ say, conception. Luke 1:31,35

Quote
2. You said:

“Scripture also unequivocally teaches.  Mary conceived and bore a human child similar to all other mothers (Matt 1:18-20; Luke 2:23).”
 
Does the “similar to all other mothers” apply to both the “conceived” and  “bore” or just to the “bore”. I ask because if she conceived similar to all other mothers then Jesus must have been conceived by intercourse with a human and Jesus would have a human father.
 

Of course similar would be limited to her egg being overshadowed by the power of the Highest, causing her pregnancy, apart from human copulation.   Nothing more than that.  Jesus, as we both know, had no earthly father, but the Holy Ghost.

Quote
Sorry if these questions seem a bit picky but I don’t want to misconstrue what you are saying.
 

It really pretty much cut and dry.  Not too deep.

Matthew 1:20b

"................for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." 

So said an angel of the LORD.
« Last Edit: Fri Feb 07, 2014 - 17:56:09 by Red Baker »

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14276
  • Manna: 189
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
I’ve been following your exchange with Catholica and I have a couple of questions as there seem to be a couple of ambiguities in your replies.
 
1. You say:
“Jesus was God's Son conceived in the womb of a young virgin woman named Mary.  Before he was conceived, he did not exist!”
 
but you also say:
“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,”[/b]
 
So my question is – did the child in Mary’s womb become the Son of God at the moment of conception or at the moment of birth?
Well, since I believe life starts at conception, base upon the scriptures~Exodus 21:22,23 then I would say according to scriptural definition of when life begin~ say, conception. Luke 1:31,35

Proverbs 30:4  Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son’s name? Surely you know!

Apparently Solomon knew the Lord had a son almost a millennium before Mary was born. So He existed as the Son back then.

John 1.1-2 calls the Son the Word, and tells us He was in the beginning with God (i.e. the Father) and that he WAS God.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.

and a few verses later:

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

These verses state flat out that HE (Jesus/Yeshua) existed AS GOD'S Son from the beginning.

And since Hebrews 13:8 tells us this:

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

we can know that He had the human flesh from the beginning as well.  Fully God and Fully Human from the beginning.

God the Father is described as a non-corporeal spirit that can have no image. What part of "God" was Adam made in the image of? Clearly that had to be Yeshua/Jesus.

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
    • View Profile
Quote
Proverbs 30:4  Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son’s name? Surely you know!


1.~Solomon in Proverbs 8 continues to teach godly wisdom. He is not teaching eternal generation!

2.~He is continuing a personification of wisdom, Lady Wisdom, from the context (Pr 8:1-21; 9:1-6).

3.~Any begotten God from here must be a daughter, for the pronouns throughout are feminine!

4.~This type of false allegorizing to develop theology and doctrine was Origen's favorite method, without other scriptures supporting such a out of control allegorizing,and I will add~ you cannot find support here in Proverbs 8.  You are leaving the context of Solomon's main subject throughout Proverbs, in order to believe something that someone told you that it was so. You cannot yank scriptures out of their context to teach a position in order to justify one doctrine, and that is what you have done. 

Quote
Apparently Solomon knew the Lord had a son almost a millennium before Mary was born. So He existed as the Son back then.


He did know (to what degree, I do not know) that God had promised his father David a son that would sit upon his throne, and rule Israel forever!

That is heresy, and will be proven to be such.  Question for you to answer: Can you explain how he became a Son before he actually was born?  And, who was his mother?

Quote
John 1.1-2 calls the Son the Word,

Wrong.  You are saying that, because you have been taught that lie.  The Word was God, not the Son! The Son was conceived and born, thereby, is not eternal. Jesus was indeed God, but God was NOT JESUS! Just because you cannot understanding or accept this, does not not make it a lie, it is a lie to believe otherwise. The ONLY WAY POSSIBLE to preserve Jesus' Deity is to received the testimony from His Father to us.  The Word in the beginning JOINED himself to the tabernacle of the Son of God, and walked among men, and preached unto them, and for the first time, God was seen by angels! 1 Timothy 3:16!  Jesus was (and still IS) a complex person~fully man, and fully God.  Thereby, Jesus was the I AM that I AM~ the eternal God, the everlasting FATHER!~ God who is a Spirit, will ever remain such.  This is this mystery of godliness!  I have no other record to believe as truth, other than the word of God~and I will not believe anything concerning the Godhead, except I read it from the word of God.
« Last Edit: Fri Feb 07, 2014 - 14:29:26 by Red Baker »

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
    • View Profile
Quote
we can know that He had the human flesh from the beginning as well.  Fully God and Fully Human from the beginning.

God the Father is described as a non-corporeal spirit that can have no image. What part of "God" was Adam made in the image of? Clearly that had to be Yeshua/Jesus.

I will address these two statements the tomorrow, the Lord willing.

The first statement is one strange position, but actually not new.   

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Hi RB,
 
I’ve been following your exchange with Catholica and I have a couple of questions as there seem to be a couple of ambiguities in your replies.
 
1. You say:
“Jesus was God's Son conceived in the womb of a young virgin woman named Mary.  Before he was conceived, he did not exist!”
 
but you also say:
“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,”
 

 
So my question is – did the child in Mary’s womb become the Son of God at the moment of conception or at the moment of birth?

Thanks

Well, since I believe life starts at conception, base upon the scriptures~Exodus 21:22,23 then I would say according to scriptural definition of when life begins~ say, conception. Luke 1:31,35

Quote
2. You said:

“Scripture also unequivocally teaches.  Mary conceived and bore a human child similar to all other mothers (Matt 1:18-20; Luke 2:23).”
 
Does the “similar to all other mothers” apply to both the “conceived” and  “bore” or just to the “bore”. I ask because if she conceived similar to all other mothers then Jesus must have been conceived by intercourse with a human and Jesus would have a human father.

 
Of course similar would be limited to her egg being overshadowed by the power of the Highest, causing her pregnancy, apart from human copulation.   Nothing more than that.  Jesus, as we both know, had no earthly father, but the Holy Ghost.

Quote
Sorry if these questions seem a bit picky but I don’t want to misconstrue what you are saying.
 

It really pretty much cut and dry.  Not too deep.

Matthew 1:20b

"................for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." 

So said an angel of the LORD.

Hi RB,

If the child that Mary conceived was the Son of God, both God and Man, then Mary cannot be described as conceiving and bearing a human child “similar to all other mothers”. I know of no other mother who conceived and bore a child that was both human and divine.

Another point
You say “Jesus was God’s Son”
You also say “Jesus Christ is also known as Emmanuel”
You say “She [Mary] gave birth to the Son of God" (=Jesus Christ = known as Emmanual).
You also say “Mary did not give birth to Emmanuel”

There is a contradiction here.

I have another question, but I will wait for your response to Catholica's last post as it might be answered in that.

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
    • View Profile
Quote
If the child that Mary conceived was the Son of God, both God and Man, then Mary cannot be described as conceiving and bearing a human child “similar to all other mothers”. I know of no other mother who conceived and bore a child that was both human and divine.

If the child that Mary conceived was the Son of God, both God and Man, then Mary cannot be described as conceiving and bearing a human child “similar to all other mothers”. I know of no other mother who conceived and bore a child that was both human and divine.  Another point
You say “Jesus was God’s Son”
You also say “Jesus Christ is also known as Emmanuel”
You say “She [Mary] gave birth to the Son of God" (=Jesus Christ = known as Emmanual).
You also say “Mary did not give birth to Emmanuel”

There is a contradiction here.

These are fair questions~but, you are fishing for a fish, that does not exist, and one that you will not catch from me.

Again the mystery of godliness is that God was manifested in the flesh, through his Son.  The Word in the beginning joined himself to the tabernacle of the Father's Son.  Emmanual was not conceived, Jesus the Son of God was.  Emmanuel is Eternal both ways; does not have a beginning, nor does He have a End.   Jesus is not eternal both ways, as far as his human nature goes.   He had a beginning, when he was conceived in the womb of Mary, a woman that was indeed highly favoured, and blessed among women.  Jesus of Narareth, was conceived by the Holy Ghost as far as his human nature goes.  He was both God and man, but God was not conceived! That is an impossibility! True Divinity cannot be derived or propagated.  The very thought of this is blasphemy against the God of the holy scriptures.  What is real Divinity of the Most High God? The following attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it: Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, an infinity in every possible way that is imaginable to the human mind.    Jesus, the Son of man, did not posses these attributes~ Jesus, the Son of God, did!

As I said, I agree that Mary was highly favoured and blessed among woman by the fact God chose her to give birth to the greatest human that ever lived in this world, even the very Son of the Highest, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.  Jesus was conceived not God~given birth and conception are not one and the same. They are two different operations totally, even though you and your religion want them to be one and the same.   Mary was indeed different than any woman that has lived, in that she is the only woman that had God's only child.  He was Jesus who was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.  That is what God conceived in Mary!  Nothing more.

« Last Edit: Sun Feb 09, 2014 - 13:31:32 by Red Baker »

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Quote
If the child that Mary conceived was the Son of God, both God and Man, then Mary cannot be described as conceiving and bearing a human child “similar to all other mothers”. I know of no other mother who conceived and bore a child that was both human and divine.

If the child that Mary conceived was the Son of God, both God and Man, then Mary cannot be described as conceiving and bearing a human child “similar to all other mothers”. I know of no other mother who conceived and bore a child that was both human and divine.  Another point
You say “Jesus was God’s Son”
You also say “Jesus Christ is also known as Emmanuel”
You say “She [Mary] gave birth to the Son of God" (=Jesus Christ = known as Emmanual).
You also say “Mary did not give birth to Emmanuel”

There is a contradiction here.

These are fair questions~but, you are fishing for a fish, that does not exist, and one that you will catch from me.

Again the mystery of godliness is that God was manifested in the flesh, through his Son.  The Word in the beginning joined himself to the tabernacle of the Father's Son.  Emmanual was not conceived, Jesus the Son of God was.  Emmanuel is Eternal both ways; does not have a beginning, nor does He have a End.   Jesus is not eternal both ways, as far as his human nature goes.   He had a beginning, when he was conceived in the womb of Mary, a woman that was indeed highly favoured, and blessed among women.  Jesus of Narareth, was conceived by the Holy Ghost as far as his human nature goes.  He was both God and man, but God was not conceived! That is an impossibility! True Divinity cannot be derived or propagated.  The very thought of this is blasphemy against the God of the holy scriptures.  What is real Divinity of the Most High God? The following attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it: Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, an infinity in every possible way that is imaginable to the human mind.    Jesus, the Son of man, did not posses these attributes~ Jesus, the Son of God, did!

As I said, I agree that Mary was highly favoured and blessed among woman by the fact God chose her to give birth to the greatest human that ever lived in this world, even the very Son of the Highest, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.  Jesus was conceived not God~given birth and conception are not one and the same. They are two different operations totally, even though you and your religion want them to be one and the same.   Mary was indeed different than any woman that has lived, in that she is the only woman that had God's only child.  He was Jesus who was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.  That is what God conceived in Mary!  Nothing more.



I'm not fishing RB, I’m trying to work my way through what appear to me to be ambiguous and/or contradictory statements.

You said that “Jesus Christ is also known as Emmanuel”

Yet you also say
  “Emmanuel is Eternal both ways; does not have a beginning, nor does He have a End.”
And by contrast:
  “Jesus is not eternal both ways, as far as his human nature goes.”

Now they are your words not mine.


To help me, in advance of your reply to Catholica, because I’m struggling to understand this so I apologise if my questions seem a bit stupid:
You have used five names/titles:
Jesus Christ
Son of God
Emmanuel
The Word
Jehovah God

Are these one person, two persons, three persons, four persons or five persons?

If they are not one of five which ones are synonymous?



 
« Last Edit: Sun Feb 09, 2014 - 09:55:44 by winsome »

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
    • View Profile
Sorry, forgive me for saying that~  I understand.  I must run to take some grandchildren back to their mother, I ll be back later. I just noticed that I left out the word NOT in my first sentence to you, so I just added it,  It does not change anything, and it seems you already figure it.  I hate get older because of things like that!
« Last Edit: Sun Feb 09, 2014 - 13:33:21 by Red Baker »

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14276
  • Manna: 189
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Quote
Here is a question for you: Who ate lunch with Abraham?

(answer: it was Jesus in the flesh)
Wrong! So, you do have trouble defending Jesus' Sonship, which does not surprise me. 

You are saying that, because, that is what you have heard others say, not because it is in the scriptures.  Prove your statement.  You are saying more than Christ ever revealed to us.  It was angels who took a body and did God's will. 

While it is true that 2 angels accompanied Him, (and Lot hosted them unaware they were angelic) the One that promised the birth of Isaac and stayed behind to negotiate the fate of Sodom could ONLY be God Himself and NOT an angel. No angel has that authority.  And since He was in the flesh - it could not be the Father or the Spirit.  It had to be the SON.

Offline Red Baker

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

To help me, in advance of your reply to Catholica, because I’m struggling to understand this so I apologise if my questions seem a bit stupid:
You have used five names/titles:
Jesus Christ
Son of God
Emmanuel
The Word
Jehovah God

Are these one person, two persons, three persons, four persons or five persons?

If they are not one of five which ones are synonymous?

I will answer this and one for Dave later.  I am not feeling well, and going to take some time to rest a little.  Maybe tomorrow, we shall see.

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
    • View Profile
Quote
Emmanuel
The Word
Jehovah God

Is God in his eternal Divinity~the I am that I am.

Quote
Jesus Christ~Son of God


Was born in the likeness of sinful flesh~was both the Son of Man and the Son of God, begotten by the power of Highest in the womb of Mary. His humanity was begotten, not his eternal Deity.  He was the promise Messiah, that was to come into the world.  The Word in the beginning joined himself to the tabernacle of Jesus of Nazareth.  There is a Eternal Spirit called by different names in the scriptures: (Isaiah 9:6, just to named some) and there is the promised Saviour/Messiah that was born as the second Adam, to redeem his people.  This Godhead is One, yet revealed to us as three, according to  their particular work in the redemption of the chosen seed, and according to creation and the affairs of this world.  Yet, when we shall see God, it will be Jesus, the Son of God, who is the very express image of his Father, the eternal Spirit that inhabit eternity.  Whom no man has ever seen, or will ever see, not even angels! Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:5; Isaiah 57:15; John 1:18; 1 Corinthians 15:28 This is a simple and as short as I can say it.


Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Quote
Emmanuel
The Word
Jehovah God

Is God in his eternal Divinity~the I am that I am.

Quote
Jesus Christ~Son of God


Was born in the likeness of sinful flesh~was both the Son of Man and the Son of God, begotten by the power of Highest in the womb of Mary. His humanity was begotten, not his eternal Deity.  He was the promise Messiah, that was to come into the world.  The Word in the beginning joined himself to the tabernacle of Jesus of Nazareth.  There is a Eternal Spirit called by different names in the scriptures: (Isaiah 9:6, just to named some) and there is the promised Saviour/Messiah that was born as the second Adam, to redeem his people.  This Godhead is One, yet revealed to us as three, according to  their particular work in the redemption of the chosen seed, and according to creation and the affairs of this world.  Yet, when we shall see God, it will be Jesus, the Son of God, who is the very express image of his Father, the eternal Spirit that inhabit eternity.  Whom no man has ever seen, or will ever see, not even angels! Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:5; Isaiah 57:15; John 1:18; 1 Corinthians 15:28 This is a simple and as short as I can say it.



Red, I don't know whether you are still working on answering my questions, but I think that this is at the heart of things:  Essentially you believe that Jesus is two persons who are joined together.  Am I wrong in thinking this? 

The two persons are "Jesus Christ, Son of God" and "Emmanuel, Jehovah God, The Word".  Correct?

Offline Red Baker

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Manna: 86
  • Gender: Male
  • Galatians 2:16~Justifed by the faith of Christ
    • View Profile
Quote
Essentially you believe that Jesus is two persons who are joined together.

Yes, Jesus of Nazareth, whom the scriptures called, the Son of man~was a complex person, both man, and God.  The Word which was God in the beginning, or from eternity, joined   the tabernacle of the child conceived in Mary's womb by the power of the Highest and lived in this world.  Jesus was both the Son of man through and by his humanity, and the Son of God, through and by the begotten of the Highest.  I am being very careful with my wording, so as to protect his Divinity, and so as not to make Mary the mother of God, because God cannot be conceived, and still be eternal, the I am that I am.  Here is something for you to consider:  Most believe (RCC, and many, many more.) that Jesus was the Word in the beginning, the second person of the Godhead.  That is not so, and cannot be so, and no where does the scriptures even hint that this is so.  Jesus is not the second person of the Godhead, he is the FIRST! God the Father is the FIRST; God the Holy Ghost is the FIRST!   The Lord our God is ONE LORD, revealed to us as three, accordingly to their distinct roles in creation and the affairs of this world, specially in the redemption of the elect seed of Jesus Christ.  I am a son, husband, a father, grandfather, yet only one person.  There is so much more, but I'll wait until questions come up.
« Last Edit: Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 18:07:32 by Red Baker »

Offline Charlie24

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Manna: 37
  • Gender: Male
  • For by grace through faith you are saved!
    • View Profile
Quote
Essentially you believe that Jesus is two persons who are joined together.

Yes, Jesus of Nazareth, whom the scriptures called, the Son of man~was a complex person, both man, and God.  The Word which was God in the beginning, or from eternity, joined   the tabernacle of the child conceived in Mary's womb by the power of the Highest and lived in this world.  Jesus was both the Son of man through and by his humanity, and the Son of God, through and by the begotten of the Highest.  I am being very careful with my wording, so as to protect his Divinity, and so as not to make Mary the mother of God, because God cannot be conceived, and still be eternal, the I am that I am.  Here is something for you to consider:  Most believe (RCC, and most many more.) that Jesus was the Word in the beginning, the second person of the Godhead.  That is not so, and cannot be so, and no where does the scriptures even hint that this is so.  Jesus is not the second person of the Godhead, he is the FIRST! God the Father is the FIRST; God the Holy Ghost is the FIRST!   The Lord our God is ONE LORD, revealed to us as three, accordingly to their distinct roles in creation and the affairs of this world, specially in the redemption of the elect seed of Jesus Christ.  I am a son, husband, a father, grandfather, yet only one person.  There is so much more, but I'll wait until questions come up.
You are exactly right Red! Jesus is all God and all man at the same time. You are also correct in carefully protecting His Divinity.

The Apostle Paul warns us of those who will try to turn the Divinity of Christ into vain philosophy.

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
 
For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Col. 2:8-9

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Quote
Essentially you believe that Jesus is two persons who are joined together.

Yes, Jesus of Nazareth, whom the scriptures called, the Son of man~was a complex person, both man, and God.

But that would be a "no".  That's saying that he was one person.  Or perhaps you are saying that Jesus contained another person, that person being God.  But that means that Jesus is not that other person.  Just like a pregnant mother contains a child but is not the child.  You can't at once say that Jesus IS God and that God used Jesus' body as a tabernacle.  There is a contradiction here.

The Word which was God in the beginning, or from eternity, joined   the tabernacle of the child conceived in Mary's womb by the power of the Highest and lived in this world.

What support do you find in the scriptures to say that "God joined the tabernacle of the child conceived in Mary's womb"?  The closest thing I know if is the passage "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."  Not "the Word was joined to the tabernacle of Jesus".

Jesus was both the Son of man through and by his humanity, and the Son of God, through and by the begotten of the Highest.  I am being very careful with my wording, so as to protect his Divinity, and so as not to make Mary the mother of God, because God cannot be conceived, and still be eternal, the I am that I am.

Your care to "protect" the divinity of Jesus, while admirable, is dividing Jesus into two persons:  A person containing another person.  Is the divinity truly integral Jesus, or is the divinity actually a different person, the Word, who has glommed on to this miraculously conceived person?

On a separate note, if I may ask, for what reason do you believe that God "cannot be conceived"?  What about "conception" cannot apply to a divine person?

Here is something for you to consider:  Most believe (RCC, and many, many more.) that Jesus was the Word in the beginning, the second person of the Godhead.  That is not so, and cannot be so, and no where does the scriptures even hint that this is so.

I believe it does.  If Jesus is the Word made flesh, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, then it very easily works out.  And the distinction of "second" merely designates the causality within the Trinity, which I will cover later.  It is a human term, to be sure, but it is correct when understood in the context of causality.

Either God assumed a human nature in the womb of the virgin Mary (the Word became flesh) or God simply used another person, and that makes two persons.  Which means that Jesus himself is not divine, but only has a divine person glommed on to him.

This question is very important and related I believe.  What, in your understanding, made it so important that Jesus died on the cross?  By this I mean, if Jesus himself was not the Word, then wasn't he just a human sacrifice?  Why would the death of Jesus the man bring redemption?  If it was because he was perfect, then why wouldn't, say, the death of a new born baby, or perhaps a new believer in God (newly regenerated) bring redemption to the world?  If Adam had been brutally murdered by Eve before he took the fruit, would his death have redeemed the world?

Jesus is not the second person of the Godhead, he is the FIRST! God the Father is the FIRST; God the Holy Ghost is the FIRST!   The Lord our God is ONE LORD, revealed to us as three, accordingly to their distinct roles in creation and the affairs of this world, specially in the redemption of the elect seed of Jesus Christ.  I am a son, husband, a father, grandfather, yet only one person.  There is so much more, but I'll wait until questions come up.

You are a son, a father, grandfather, and only one person.  This is true.  But these are roles of one person, not three persons.  The Trinity is Three persons, and they are designated as first, second, and third to demonstrate that they are not the same person.  Now, the Holy Spirit has many roles, but is one person: "Advocate", "Comforter" for example, but that doesn't make the Holy Spirit more than one person, or some kind of duality within himself.  That is a completely different concept.  Yes, the Holy Spirit is not separate from Jesus as they are united in the one divinity: one God.  And in fact the three persons all share these same tasks and roles to some extent as well.  But there are three distinct persons, each known for his primary roles, but still distinct.

Calling the  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the first, second and third persons of the Holy Trinity doesn't indicate a priority or temporality, meaning that the Father did not come first, the Son second and the Spirit after, as if the Son and Spirit were created by the first.  Rather the Father is simply the "cause" of the Son and the Spirit.  This type of "cause" doesn't imply that the Father preceded the Son and Spirit in time but rather indicates more about the relationship between the Father and the Son, the Lover and the Beloved, and the Spirit, who is like the love between them who, being of God is no less than God himself.

You say that one of the persons of the Holy Trinity is called the "Word".  But a Word requires a Speaker, just like a Son requires a Father.  It is no more incorrect to say that the Word was "spoken" by God the Father than it is to say that the Son was "begotten" by God the Father.  Yes, in our narrow human understanding, this designation implies temporal causality, but in the eternal realm, there is no temporality.  There is only causality.  And causality in the divine, I believe, can be best understood as happening simulataneously, not temporally.  All three persons of the Trinity exist eternally, but somehow the fact that God is a Trinity indicates a distinction between the persons and also a relationship and also a procession.

Thus, properly understood as surpassing human ability to correctly compare to our experience and fit into human language, it is still correct to say that the Father is the Speaker and the Word is the Spoken, and also that the Son is begotten of the Father.  They just aren't perfect analogies.  Nothing would be, but they are useful for us to comprehend some portion of the incomprehendable God.
« Last Edit: Mon Feb 17, 2014 - 09:50:38 by Catholica »

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14276
  • Manna: 189
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Jesus is not the second person of the Godhead, he is the FIRST! God the Father is the FIRST; God the Holy Ghost is the FIRST!   The Lord our God is ONE LORD, revealed to us as three, accordingly to their distinct roles in creation and the affairs of this world, specially in the redemption of the elect seed of Jesus Christ.  I am a son, husband, a father, grandfather, yet only one person. 

Red - that is modalism. Different roles (modes) instead of distinct persons. Exactly the same as the so-called "Jesus Onlys." It has been considered heresy for at least 1600 years.

 

     
anything