Jesus' humanity

[jaybo]

I ran into difficulty on another Christian forum because of my belief in Jesus' humanity. I believe that because Jesus was fully human (Hebrews 2:17 and elsewhere) He had to have been born that way, lived His life as a true human being, experiencing all that we experience, received the Holy Spirit after being baptized, took our sins on His sinless body, and was sacrificed for our sins (not His).

I was told that this was contrary to Trinitarian doctrine and was therefore false. What are your thoughts on this subject?

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

I ran into difficulty on another Christian forum because of my belief in Jesus' humanity. I believe that because Jesus was fully human (Hebrews 2:17 and elsewhere) He had to have been born that way, lived His life as a true human being, experiencing all that we experience, received the Holy Spirit after being baptized, took our sins on His sinless body, and was sacrificed for our sins (not His).

I was told that this was contrary to Trinitarian doctrine and was therefore false. What are your thoughts on this subject?

I can't imagine why what you're offered would be a source of conflict. I don't see anything REALLY wrong with what you've written.

The only thing that doesn't really gel with me is that Christ experienced all that we have experienced. This simply isn't True, but I think I get what you're saying.

 

[Free]

I ran into difficulty on another Christian forum because of my belief in Jesus' humanity. I believe that because Jesus was fully human (Hebrews 2:17 and elsewhere) He had to have been born that way, lived His life as a true human being, experiencing all that we experience, received the Holy Spirit after being baptized, took our sins on His sinless body, and was sacrificed for our sins (not His).

I was told that this was contrary to Trinitarian doctrine and was therefore false. What are your thoughts on this subject?

Well, if you believe that Jesus was only human, that is contrary to Trinitarianism, which states that Jesus is fully human and fully God, and perhaps closer to Adoptionism or Ebionism. If you believe that Jesus was also truly God, then I'm not entirely sure what problem they would have with what you've posted.

 

[jaybo]

Well, if you believe that Jesus was only human, that is contrary to Trinitarianism, which states that Jesus is fully human and fully God, and perhaps closer to Adoptionism or Ebionism. If you believe that Jesus was also truly God, then I'm not entirely sure what problem they would have with what you've posted.

Of course I believe that Jesus was fully human and fully God. I believe that He had to become fully human (as Hebrews states) in order to experience all that mortal humans experience. I believe that He voluntarily gave up His divine nature in order to fulfill His mission as Savior. He was able to lay down His life and take it up again because He was also fully God.

I'm not entirely sure what problem they had with what I posted. They made no effort to understand anything except through a strange legalistic lens, claiming that I was denying the Trinity. I will definitely not be going back there.

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

I believe that He voluntarily gave up His divine nature

I like what you've written. Say, can you explain more about the above quote? It catches my interest . . . a lot. Not many people reference the Divine Nature.

I will definitely not be going back there.

I hear you. That's how I feel as well. One reason to possibly go back is to try to help them. But, as I said, I feel as do you.

 

[Cooper]

Of course I believe that Jesus was fully human and fully God. I believe that He had to become fully human (as Hebrews states) in order to experience all that mortal humans experience. I believe that He voluntarily gave up His divine nature in order to fulfill His mission as Savior. He was able to lay down His life and take it up again because He was also fully God.

I'm not entirely sure what problem they had with what I posted. They made no effort to understand anything except through a strange legalistic lens, claiming that I was denying the Trinity. I will definitely not be going back there.

Jesus is fully man and fully God. You are right. Trinitarians divide God into three persons which is totally inappropriate, God is One tripartite being. God is body, soul and spirit the same as we are in his image, but unlike us, God is also divine, and Jesus had the divine nature. The omnipresent God is One.

I got into trouble as well.
.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Of course I believe that Jesus was fully human and fully God. I believe that He had to become fully human (as Hebrews states) in order to experience all that mortal humans experience. I believe that He voluntarily gave up His divine nature in order to fulfill His mission as Savior. He was able to lay down His life and take it up again because He was also fully God.

I'm not entirely sure what problem they had with what I posted. They made no effort to understand anything except through a strange legalistic lens, claiming that I was denying the Trinity. I will definitely not be going back there.

The only thing I would be cautious about is assuming you know what Jesus experienced as God became a man. I know theologians go deeper into this with “fully God and fully man” which is only a theoretical statement, not one we really understand. My son came up with a good analogy but first my position is Jesus was God incarnate. More than that or the details of that I cannot possibly know.

My son once explained this to someone this way. He is both American and German. He is fully both. Neither country gives him only half a passport.

 

[gordon777]

Or, we could just believe in what we are supposed to focus on, how Christ died for all, and rose again.

That means we were aware of Jesus Christ in the flesh, but now can only know Him as risen, because if we focus on Christ or anyone in the flesh, then we are yet in the flesh and not in the Spirit.

But if we only know Christ after the Spirit now, then we are in the same Spirit.




2 Corinthians 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

1 Peter 4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

 

[Cooper]

The only thing I would be cautious about is assuming you know what Jesus experienced as God became a man. I know theologians go deeper into this with “fully God and fully man” which is only a theoretical statement, not one we really understand. My son came up with a good analogy but first my position is Jesus was God incarnate. More than that or the details of that I cannot possibly know.

My son once explained this to someone this way. He is both American and German. He is fully both. Neither country gives him only half a passport.

Nice explanation from your son.
.

 

[gordon777]

The witness of Christ is better than any mans explanations..


John 5:33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.
35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

1 John 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The witness of Christ is better than any mans explanations..


John 5:33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.
35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

1 John 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

That’s true, but as man we want to understand. We just need to find out WHAT we ought to seek to understand and what is beyond us as well as unfruitful. (What Jesus experienced as fully God and fully man is beyond us and not helpful in our walk with God.)

 

[Free]

Trinitarians divide God into three persons which is totally inappropriate,

But that is how God reveals himself in Scripture.

God is One tripartite being. God is body, soul and spirit the same as we are in his image, but unlike us, God is also divine, and Jesus had the divine nature. The omnipresent God is One.

That God is one being is confirmed by the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Free]

Or, we could just believe in what we are supposed to focus on, how Christ died for all, and rose again.

That means we were aware of Jesus Christ in the flesh, but now can only know Him as risen, because if we focus on Christ or anyone in the flesh, then we are yet in the flesh and not in the Spirit.

But if we only know Christ after the Spirit now, then we are in the same Spirit.

Is that all we're supposed to "focus on"? Which Christ do you believe in--the one that is only divine, the one that is only human, the one that is both, the one that is just a mode of the Father, the one that became the Son at the Incarnation, or the one who has eternally been the Son?

With Jesus being the central figure of all of Scripture, in whose name alone we have salvation, based on his death and resurrection, do you think we can just believe whatever we want about Jesus and still be saved? If Jesus was a mere creature only, do think the sacrifice was sufficient for the salvation of all throughout history?

Jesus himself said:

Joh 8:23 And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.
Joh 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (NASB)

Note that "He" is italicized because it isn't in the Greek. Just a little bit later, Jesus says:

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." (NASB)

He also said:

Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)

To believe "in the name" is to believe in the "sum of the qualities which mark the nature or character of a person" (M. R. Vincent).

John has already mentioned similar in his prologue:

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (ESV)

Notice that those who received Christ are those "who believed in his name," and it is those alone who are the "children of God."

 

[jaybo]

But that is how God reveals himself in Scripture.


That God is one being is confirmed by the doctrine of the Trinity.

So God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one being? That disagrees with Scripture.

John 1:1-2, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

If God is one being, how can He be with Himself?

This verse is even clearer: John 15:26, [Jesus is speaking] “When the Advocate (1) comes, whom I (2) will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me."

This clearly shows that God is not "one being". Since your statement disagrees with Scripture, you are clearly wrong.

 

[Free]

So God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one being? That disagrees with Scripture.

John 1:1-2, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

If God is one being, how can He be with Himself?

This verse is even clearer: John 15:26, [Jesus is speaking] “When the Advocate (1) comes, whom I (2) will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me."

This clearly shows that God is not "one being". Since your statement disagrees with Scripture, you are clearly wrong.

You seem to have gotten too far ahead of yourself by presuming too much in the argument I made, which was addressing some specific language. Be careful about doing that and then claiming that someone's "statement disagrees with Scripture" and they are therefore "clearly wrong."

The doctrine of the Trinity is that within the one being that is God, there coexists three eternal, coequal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One being that is God is an affirmation of monotheism. If that is "clearly wrong," then the only other option is polytheism, which is false.

 

[Consecrated Life]

I believe that because Jesus was fully human (Hebrews 2:17 and elsewhere) What are your thoughts on this subject?

Could you please define " fully human " as you are referring to it ?
Specifically the spiritual nature of someone who is " fully human " ?

 

[jaybo]

You seem to have gotten too far ahead of yourself by presuming too much in the argument I made, which was addressing some specific language. Be careful about doing that and then claiming that someone's "statement disagrees with Scripture" and they are therefore "clearly wrong."

The doctrine of the Trinity is that within the one being that is God, there coexists three eternal, coequal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One being that is God is an affirmation of monotheism. If that is "clearly wrong," then the only other option is polytheism, which is false.

You seem to have gotten too far ahead of yourself by presuming too much in the argument I made, which was addressing some specific language. Be careful about doing that and then claiming that someone's "statement disagrees with Scripture" and they are therefore "clearly wrong."

 

[Free]

You seem to have gotten too far ahead of yourself by presuming too much in the argument I made, which was addressing some specific language. Be careful about doing that and then claiming that someone's "statement disagrees with Scripture" and they are therefore "clearly wrong."

Maybe it's best to leave this discussion up to those who have the maturity for it.

This post is for people who are able to think past political slogans.

Pregnancy is a very complex situation and fetal viability is by no means guaranteed There are numerous situations in which either the life of the fetus and/or the life of the mother are imperiled. Aside from such conditions as ectopic pregnancy, in which the fetus develops in the fallopian tube (outside the uterus) which a) has no chance of viability and b) if not aborted, the mother stands an excellent chance of dying, there are other conditions in which it is impossible for the fetus to survive outside the womb. One of these is that either the brain or a vital organ such as the heart, lungs, or kidneys, does not develop properly, guaranteeing that, if the fetus survives to term, it will die very shortly after birth, often in agony. It is senseless, heartless, and cruel not to abort this type pregnancy.

For those who mindless spout the political propaganda slogan that "abortion is murder", I challenge you to witness a situation in which the newborn baby dies an agonizing death. Think of the severe trauma that this causes the mother, any family members that may be present, the attending medical personnel, and others, then see how that jibes with your "Christian" values.

I can assure you from first person knowledge that the greatest majority (by far) of people in the medical profession who attend births are decent, moral, empathetic people, many, many of whom are Christians, and all of whom have devoted their professional lives to giving the best care to women and babies possible.

It is stupid and mindless to reduce the issue of abortion to a propaganda slogan that is divorced from faith and reason. I am thankful that, during this election, those issues designed to remove the rights of women, their families, and their medical caregivers, from making decisions regarding fetal viability and freedom, were overwhelmingly defeated.

What does this have to do with the humanity of Christ or the Trinity?

 

[jaybo]

Maybe it's best to leave this discussion up to those who have the maturity for it.


What does this have to do with the humanity of Christ or the Trinity?

a) I have the maturity to discuss any and every issue. How about yourself?

b) I posted this in the wrong thread. Sorry.

 

[Free]

a) I have the maturity to discuss any and every issue. How about yourself?

Then prove it by actually discussing what I said, rather than mockingly repeating. That does nothing to further the discussion.

b) I posted this in the wrong thread. Sorry.

I know. No worries. It's easy to get thinking you're in one thread when in discussions with the same user.