Fully God, Fully Man

Participant

Hey Martian,

You raise some good questions, but may I suggest that you are too hasty in your conclusions? If Hebrews says that the Son laid the foundation of the earth, which I hope we'll agree is something that men cannot do, that He is the same (1:12), and that He was made like His brethren in all things (2:17), what are we to conclude? These two chapters say that He is not man, for the heavens are the works of His hands, but that He also partook of flesh and blood. So the options are:

1. He was Something other than man when He created the heavens and the earth; then He changed into just a man. But this violates Hebrews 1:12, which says He is the same.
2. He was a man when He created the heavens and the earth. I would say this is impossible. But if He was already a man, then why did He later need to made like His brethren in all things? So this definitely isn't an option.
3. He was Something other than man when He created the heavens and the earth, God, since God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). He remains the same, and partook of flesh and blood and was made like His brethren in all things. So He remains God and also became man. So He has two natures, God and man.

Martian, if Jesus is only a man, then please explain how the heavens are the work of His hands? And how He is before all things (Colossians 1:17). And how all things are through Him (1 Corinthians 8:6). And how He is the first and the last (Revelation 1:17).

Maybe an example from math would help. Suppose you have a circle on the (X,Y) plane. And then you have a sphere in the (X,Y,Z) space. Provided the sphere is larger than the circle, you can translate the sphere onto the (X,Y) plane such a cross-section of it will have the same dimensions as the circle, and even the same coordinates. Now in all this the sphere does not change, but it is able to assume the same dimensions and even the same coordinates as the circle on the (X,Y) plane, such that in that space, the sphere partakes of the dimensions of the circle, and is like the circle in all things in that space.

Of course this is an imperfect analogy for the Lord. But I believe there are similar principles at work that I hope you will consider.

Tim

May 29, 2007 at 3:04 pm#53968

Participant

Quote (Tim2 @ May 29 2007,17:54)

Hey Martian,

Of course this is an imperfect analogy for the Lord. But I believe there are similar principles at work that I hope you will consider.

Tim

Let me ask a couple of questions
Do you know of any other human that has a dual nature like Jesus?
If not, then you must admit that at a fundemental level your doctrine makes Jesus different then the rest of humanity.
The old ploy of he is both 100% man and 100% god is an illogical statement. You cannot have 100% plus 100% and come up with 100% in total. It is like saying you have a pet that is 100% dog and 100% cat, It does not make sence. If you had someoen tell you that about their pet you would think them nuts yet you expect us to buy it concerning Jesus. God and man are two different species. Both in physical atributes and moral/ethical capabilities. Yoiu cannot combine the two and have them both retain the same qualities as they did individually. If God becomes a man, then he is no longer God. If man becomes a God, then he is no longer a man.
Furthermore if you fall back on the old dodge of claiming it is a mystery and we must just accept it by faith, I must say that no process of blind faith is taught in scripture.
Secondly, If He is a mystery or his nature is a mystery, then you have yourself backed into a corner of having to admit that you do not know Jesus or how he did what he did. You just denied the entire plan and purpose of God for man.

As I stated before it makes no difference what you believe scripture says if your end conclussions do not line up with the plan of God. If a conclussions works agains God's intentions or contradicts his motives then no matter what scriptures you think you understand your conclussions are wrong. You keep defending your process and I am questioning your conclussion or end result. The fact is that if you “interpret” scripture to say something that is contrary to God's intentions/plan or motives/character/attributes then your conclussions must be wrong and therefore your interpretations are wrong. In fact, from a Hebrew perspective the dual nature is taking God's name in vain. Let me explain…..
In Hebrew the term name means character trait When God's character is improperly protrayed then those responsible are taking God's name in vain.
Jesus as the messiah had two primary missions. One to be a blood sacrifice and the other to be an example of the way in which we are to walk with God. He accomplished the first on the cross and the other by being the perfect example of full/normal humanity walking with God. NOW HERE IS THE CATCH IN THE DUAL NATURE CONCEPT — We are to be judged on the basis of Jesus' walk with God. If Jesus is anything other then full and complete humanity with a single human nature then the comparison is invalid and God is comparing our walk to that of a God. this would be an unjust comparison and a slam of God's character as a fair and just God.

If you change the nature of Jesus away from a single/normal human nature then you make him fundementally a different creature. You can say that he is fully human but the fact is that you have augmented his humanity with a metaphysical/mysitcal concept outside of normal humanity.

Now if you want to admit that Jesus is non human you can make a stand there but that is the only possible result that can come from a dual nature. Any other determination with the dual nature is an illusion and unreasonable.

May 29, 2007 at 6:30 pm#53984

Participant

Hi Martian,

It seems our positions come down to …

1. You: the dual nature is illogical.
2. Me: the dual nature is explicitly taught in Scripture (because Jesus is said to do things that are impossible for man: laying the foundation of the earth, creating the heavens, all things being through Him, etc., and also being called a man).

To which you respond that our understanding of Scripture must be based on God's plan, which you say is for Jesus to be a propitiation for our sins and an example for our lives. I agree with these. But I would add to that Jesus also came to reveal God to His people by being the Father's image and the exact representation of His person. Now even though men are created in the image of God, we are not the exact representation of God, nor the radiance of God's glory. These properties are not human, yet Jesus possesses them.

I also know that it is the purpose of God to be glorified and not to share His glory with another. But Jesus is praises as our Rock, the First and the Last, the Lord of lords and King of kings, titles belonging only to God, but your theory would have us believe they are given to a mere man. That is contrary to the purpose of God.

Perhaps it would help you understand how it is possible for the dual natures to be true if you considered the sphere and the circle again? When the sphere intersects the (X,Y) plane, the cross-section of the sphere can be exactly the same as the circle. So the sphere has the same dimensions as the circle in the (X,Y) plane, but it also has spherical dimensions in the (X,Y,Z) space. So you can say, the sphere is the same as the circle in one space, and different from the circle in another space.

So if you consider a coordinate grid with two dummy variables manhood and Godhead (M, G), you could plot humans as (1,0) -Man, yes; God, no. But you could plot Jesus as (1,1) -Man, yes; God, yes. Of course, you are assuming this is impossible, but why is it impossible for God to partake of flesh?

Tim

May 29, 2007 at 7:10 pm#53990

Participant

Hi Tim 2,
You find explicit teaching where none is written.
You define what is to be assigned to God and not His Son but by whose authority?

May 29, 2007 at 9:34 pm#54012

Participant

Quote (Tim2 @ May 30 2007,06:30)

Hi Martian,

It seems our positions come down to …

Tim

You say –
It seems our positions come down to …

Response – Part of the problem is that you are reading scripture written by Hebrews and interpreting them through a western philosophical mindset. I am not inclined to give a lesson on Hebrew Culture and mindset so I will go back to functionality again.

Whoa a minute — You have made some bold matter of fact statements without proof. By what notion to you assume that humanity cannot represent God or be the radiance of His glory.

You say –
I also know that it is the purpose of God to be glorified and not to share His glory with another. But Jesus is praises as our Rock, the First and the Last, the Lord of lords and King of kings, titles belonging only to God, but your theory would have us believe they are given to a mere man. That is contrary to the purpose of God.

Response –
But God does give glory to others. Even our bodies are to be glorified. Peter is called the Rock? Lord of Lords is not a title of God. Lord is the word Kurios which means master or one in authority. Sarah called Abraham Lord. King is also not a title for God alone. The word King from a Hebrew perspective means “one who rules” Jesus as the man does rule. All authority in heaven and Earth was given to Him. Notice it was given to Him by one of more authority.

You state –
Perhaps it would help you understand how it is possible for the dual natures to be true if you considered the sphere and the circle again? When the sphere intersects the (X,Y) plane, the cross-section of the sphere can be exactly the same as the circle. So the sphere has the same dimensions as the circle in the (X,Y) plane, but it also has spherical dimensions in the (X,Y,Z) space. So you can say, the sphere is the same as the circle in one space, and different from the circle in another space.

Response –
What this amounts to is the old explanation of the Trinity by using the egg. The yoke, shell and the white. Only a little more intellectually designed and still as silly.

You insist on being doctrinal and I refuse to play in that field. I will bring you back to the same point of functionality. If Jesus is different then the rest of humanity by virtue of a dual nature then you have created within your doctrine a non-human. Not only does this contradict many scripture it also denies his ability to be our example. You refuse to deal with those points. You are still looking for scriptural proof rather then looking for true functional teaching. You need to stop looking for scripture to prove your point and examine if what you propose really works to accomplish God’s plan. Every time I point out the ridiculous conclusions derived from your interpretation process you go back to defend the process. Deal with the conclusions first. If they do not work your process is faulty.

I give you a very simple math equation to follow.
If you add 45 and 55 and get an answer of 110. You can say all day long the process by which you summed the numbers. However if you subtract 55 from 110 it is clear to see that the process broke down somewhere, because the result will be 55 instead of the original 45. Checking the conclusion is the only true unbiased test for doctrine.

A few questions to check your conclusion. You refused to deal with them prior so I post them again.
1. Do you have a dual nature or will you even obtain a dual nature?

2 Do you know any other human (besides Jesus, supposedly) that has a dual nature or will ever have one?

If you answered these questions with “no” then your doctrine portrays Jesus as a different creature then the rest of humanity. Non-human.

You cannot have it both ways. Either Jesus is human or He is not. There is no middle ground. You will have to make a choice. No other answer is reasonable or logical. As to the consequinces of a non-human Jesus? I let my earlier post on the dual nature speak of those.

May 29, 2007 at 10:24 pm#54026

Proclaimer

Participant

Jesus emptied himself and came as a man.
So he came in the flesh.
What did he empty himself of?

His privileges? His divine nature? His former glory and position?

If he indeed swapped his divine nature for human nature, then he was truly 100% man (the Word became flesh) and he could have been tempted as a man and also learned obedience to God like a man.

If he had both divine nature and flesh nature, then I find it hard to see how Christ was tempted and how he learned obedience?

If Jesus was like Adam, then he could be tempted like Adam.

Anyway, where is it written that Jesus was a dual natured when he was here?

I think everyone at least agrees that he had human nature (except those of the antichrist spirit) and scripture does say that he HAD divine nature before coming in the flesh. Where is the proof that he had divine nature while in the flesh or that any being can have 2 natures for that matter?

Philippians 2:5-11
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

May 29, 2007 at 11:50 pm#54039

Participant

Quote (t8 @ May 30 2007,10:24)

Jesus emptied himself and came as a man.
So he came in the flesh.
What did he empty himself of?

His privileges? His divine nature? His former glory and position?

If he indeed swapped his divine nature for human nature, then he was truly 100% man (the Word became flesh) and he could have been tempted as a man and also learned obedience to God like a man.

If he had both divine nature and flesh nature, then I find it hard to see how Christ was tempted and how he learned obedience?

If Jesus was like Adam, then he could be tempted like Adam.

Anyway, where is it written that Jesus was a dual natured when he was here?

I can take scriptuers out of context and form doctrines too! —

Here we go. We had better obey these scriptures.
Matthew 27:5?And casting the pieces of silver [forward] into the [Holy Place of the sanctuary of the] temple, he departed; and he went off and hanged himself.

1 John 2:6?the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

John 13:27?After the morsel, Satan then entered into him. Therefore Jesus said to him, “What you do, do quickly.”

You start from an assumed premiss and because it is false your conclussions are false. You quote some of the context of Phil but miss it's significance. The remainder of the context you do not take into consideration.

First realize that the oldest copies of this Greek text have no punctuation or cases in the letters. It was all written with capitol letters. The actual intent of punctuation is lost to time however there are clues in the context that point a different picture then the manufactured punctuation common in our bibles.

1Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves. Do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Clearly the first 5 verses details that the context of this passage is about an attitude. All the verses from 5 through 11 are tied together with words like but, and, and therefore. Although Jesus had all power in heaven and Earth He did not take anything upon himself in pride or seek his own like Adam. This section of verse is a comparison between Adam and Jesus. Adam equated himself with God. Jesus did not. As a human being Jesus wanted to live, marry, be happy but rather gave up these desires. He emptied himself.
The fact that these scriptures include phrases like made in the likeness of men or being found in the appearance of man do not prove a preexistance as God.

May 30, 2007 at 7:58 am#54103

Is 1:18

Participant

Quote (t8 @ May 30 2007,10:24)

Jesus emptied himself and came as a man.
So he came in the flesh.
What did he empty himself of?

His privileges? His divine nature? His former glory and position?

If he indeed swapped his divine nature for human nature, then he was truly 100% man (the Word became flesh) and he could have been tempted as a man and also learned obedience to God like a man.

If he had both divine nature and flesh nature, then I find it hard to see how Christ was tempted and how he learned obedience?

If Jesus was like Adam, then he could be tempted like Adam.

Anyway, where is it written that Jesus was a dual natured when he was here?

T8,
The problems you have with this interpretation of Philippians 2:7 are twofold:

1. You imply two divine being existed before the preincarnate Yeshua emptied Himself and was “found in appearance as a man”. Thus you have affirmed bi-theism was in effect throughout much of human history, at least until 2000 years ago anyway.

2. The writer of Hebrews explained that Yeshua was “made for a little while lower than the angels” (Heb 2:9). So whatever it was that was forfeited at the incarnation has now been restored. Consequently, according to your premise bi-theism is again the order of the day, two divine beings are running the Universe.

There is, and has only ever been, One divine being t8, YHWH.

May 30, 2007 at 10:05 am#54105

Participant

Hi Is 1.18,
Was not Jesus in the form of God?
Was the Word with God not God?
Are the sons of god not called gods in scripture?
Is Satan not called in scripture the god of this world?

If scripture calls these gods, and scripture cannot be broken,
why do you put your view above that of scripture?

May 30, 2007 at 4:29 pm#54118

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 30 2007,22:05)

Hi Is 1.18,
Was not Jesus in the form of God?
Was the Word with God not God?
Are the sons of god not called gods in scripture?
Is Satan not called in scripture the god of this world?

If scripture calls these gods, and scripture cannot be broken,
why do you put your view above that of scripture?

The Word that was with God and is God is not to be compared to any other sons of God who are not gods at all.

God does not share his glory as God with any other.

Yeshua alone sits in the throne and is worshipped with the Father.

Rev 5:
8 And when he had taken the book, *the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb*, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;
12 *Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing*.
13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, *Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto **him that sitteth upon the throne**, and **unto the Lamb** for ever and ever*.
14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

May 30, 2007 at 4:34 pm#54119

Not3in1

Participant

Quote (t8 @ May 30 2007,10:24)

Where is the proof that he had divine nature while in the flesh

The proof was his conception and birth.
Any son who is born inherits from his parents their biological “stuff.” What ever it is that makes God – God (his essence or quality of being, for lack of words) Jesus also got some of that mixed in with human nature.

There is no denying that Jesus stood a part from human beings, while at the same time he was one. But wasn't he a proto-type or firstfruit of the beings we are to become? Can we not also share in the divine nature now because of Jesus' life?

I am willing to admit wholeheartedly that Jesus was a human being – a man. But I am also ready to admit that he was a different kind of man than we are. He was God's biological – literal – Son. I am only adopted.

It was necessary for Jesus to be “what” he was because he made my adoption legal. Jesus as the bridge between God and man. If God was going to adopt after his own “kind” (which is what we do – we adopt after our own “kind”), then Jesus had to be a mix of both God and man; otherwise, God could not adopt me. Does this line of thinking make sense?

Ephesians 1 speaks of adoption. We are also “co-heirs” with Christ – which leads me to believe that I am just as much a child of God as Jesus is! I get what he gets when the Attorney's sit down to read the will!

May 30, 2007 at 4:35 pm#54120

Participant

Martian,

Quote

By what notion to you assume that humanity cannot represent God or be the radiance of His glory.

Only Jesus is said to be the radiance of God's glory, and the exact representation of His person. Man is said to be the image of God and the glory of God, but I think you would agree that this is said in the sense of reflecting God rather than radiating or emanating from God in the way that Jesus does. Jesus said that whoever sees Him sees the Father. He didn't say, whoever sees man sees the Father.

Quote

But God does give glory to others. Even our bodies are to be glorified. Peter is called the Rock? Lord of Lords is not a title of God. Lord is the word Kurios which means master or one in authority. Sarah called Abraham Lord. King is also not a title for God alone. The word King from a Hebrew perspective means “one who rules” Jesus as the man does rule. All authority in heaven and Earth was given to Him. Notice it was given to Him by one of more authority.

I said God does not give His glory to others; but Jesus He says He shares the same glory as the Father in John 17:5. Peter is called “Petros,” which my Bible defines as “a stone.” Jesus says He will build the church on “Petra,” which means “large rock; bedrock.” Most pastors I've heard say Jesus is talking about Himself when He says, “On this rock I will build the church.” Lord of lords and King of kings is the title given to God in 1 Timothy 6:15, as it is given to YHWH in Deuteronomy 10:17 and Psalm 136:3, and it is given to Jesus in Revelation 17:14.

Quote

Every time I point out the ridiculous conclusions derived from your interpretation process you go back to defend the process. Deal with the conclusions first. If they do not work your process is faulty.

Well I really would like you to explain how a mere man created the heavens and the earth, but since you say that we must deal with conclusions, by which you emphasize the propitiation of Jesus, I also have to ask you how a mere man served as the propitiation for the sins of the entire world? How was one man able to bear the sins of all? Psalm 49:7 says, “No man can redeem his brother or give to God a ransom for him.” So how is it that Jesus could do just that, if He were nothing but a man?

Tim

May 30, 2007 at 6:17 pm#54124

Participant

I am thankful that you posted this. It goes a long way to proving my point about your process and why I refuse to deal with you according to scripture. You have proven what is easily discernable about those who support the Trinity. They are dishonest with scripture.

You state –
Well I really would like you to explain how a mere man created the heavens and the earth, but since you say that we must deal with conclusions, by which you emphasize the propitiation of Jesus, I also have to ask you how a mere man served as the propitiation for the sins of the entire world? How was one man able to bear the sins of all? Psalm 49:7 says, “No man can redeem his brother or give to God a ransom for him.” So how is it that Jesus could do just that, if He were nothing but a man?

Response –
You are playing cut and paste theology. This is not a sound way to interpret scripture. The context of this verse is redeeming someone with money. Did Jesus try to redeem the world with money? It has nothing to do with the work God accomplished through Jesus. You cannot pull a scripture out of context and place a new meaning on it to support your doctrine. Thank you very much for proving my point.

Since you have proven that you interpretation process is faulty, I will only deal with you on the basis of functionality and conclusions. I will not be sidetracked or put on the defensive. You are the one who is not being fair with scripture and you are the one who refuses to defend your conclusions.

Again – Do you are anyone you know other then supposedly Jesus have a dual nature?
Answer the question!
If you say “no” then the conclusion has to be that Jesus is different then the rest of humanity. The dual nature doctrine makes Him non-human. You admit this and I will answer your questions about why the scripture says Jesus created the world ect.

May 30, 2007 at 6:42 pm#54126

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (martian @ May 31 2007,06:17)

Martian

You say…

Quote

This is a broad statement to make about the hearts of all Trinitarians!

Are you God? How do you know about the sincerity of all Trinitarians hearts?

m42 talks about sincerity!

As not3in1 would say… “Ha”.

May 30, 2007 at 6:52 pm#54129

Participant

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 31 2007,04:34)

Quote (t8 @ May 30 2007,10:24)

Where is the proof that he had divine nature while in the flesh

Hi not3,
So Christ was not really a man?
1Tim2
“5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”
If he was not an ordinary man transformed and empowered by God's Spirit we cannot follow him.

May 30, 2007 at 6:55 pm#54130

Participant

Hi Martian,

No, Jesus is the only person with a dual nature. The result is that Jesus is both exactly the same as the rest of humanity, and He is exactly the same as God. This is what the dual nature means. Will believers become like Him concerning His Godhead? No. Will they become like Him concerning His manhood? Yes. This doesn't make him non-human. It makes Him human and it also makes Him God. He is both.

Now will you please explain how Jesus created the world, if He is only a man?

Tim

May 30, 2007 at 7:15 pm#54134

Participant

Hi Tim2,
Did he also reveal the nature and powers of God, the Father, to men? Does that not make three?

May 30, 2007 at 10:14 pm#54148

Not3in1

Participant

If he was not an ordinary man transformed and empowered by God's Spirit we cannot follow him.
******************************************
Ya, Nick, I know. That is the problem with my theory and yours.

As I was thinking about this before I posted before, I had to admit that yes – Jesus is a man but a “different” man then those he rubbed shoulders with. After all, what we are proposing here is that he is God's Son; who else is God's only begotten?

And you are proposing that Jesus came down as an already existing spirit son and put flesh on – that is also a “different” man that is walking the earth.

We both believe in a different human being who is Jesus. The Jesus that you believe in is unlike any human who is walking the earth today (no one previously existed and then incarnated into a flesh body), and no human I know is the literal Son of God.

What to do?

May 30, 2007 at 10:21 pm#54149

Participant

Quote (Tim2 @ May 31 2007,06:55)

Hi Martian,

Now will you please explain how Jesus created the world, if He is only a man?

Tim

That is the most illogical and non-ratikonal statement I have ever heard. It is like saying a ball is completely green yet completely red at the same time. It is a logical impossibility.Since you refuse to live in the real world I see no point dibating the subject further. I DO NOT SEE ANY POINT DEBATION WITH THE NON-RATIONAL. TALK ABOUT CASTING MY PERLES BEFORE SWINE. You are operating in a non-rational manner.
SILLY RESPONSE TIM REALLY SILLY.

EARTH TO TIM, EARTH TO TIM – COME HOME WE MISS YOU.

May 30, 2007 at 10:44 pm#54153