Physical Divinity of Christ

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Oh He was divine. He was just concealing it.

My understanding from Scripture is that we must consider that our Lord's Divine nature was revealed at the appropriate times in accord with God's Divine Will.

Be mindful of the Biblical account of the Transfiguration, as well as all those who saw him after He rose from the dead; also, do not forget His Ascension.

He was conceived by the Holy Spirit; God is His Father. His Transfiguration shows us that not only in His Spirit did the human and Divine natures exist, but His body was also human and Divine at the same time; the human nature made it possible for His body to die; His Divine nature made it impossible to stay dead. After He rose from the dead, His body retained all of the wounds of His suffering and death, so even after His rising, His body still retained His human nature as well as His immortal Divine nature.

 

[Jpark]

My understanding from Scripture is that we must consider that our Lord's Divine nature was revealed at the appropriate times in accord with God's Divine Will.

Be mindful of the Biblical account of the Transfiguration, as well as all those who saw him after He rose from the dead; also, do not forget His Ascension.

He was conceived by the Holy Spirit; God is His Father. His Transfiguration shows us that not only in His Spirit did the human and Divine natures exist, but His body was also human and Divine at the same time; the human nature made it possible for His body to die; His Divine nature made it impossible to stay dead. After He rose from the dead, His body retained all of the wounds of His suffering and death, so even after His rising, His body still retained His human nature as well as His immortal Divine nature.

Scripture does not say anything about His status in ascension.

But you're right that He had a human nature perhaps even in His resurrection.

 

[PaladinValer]

Scripture does not say anything about His status in ascension.

But you're right that He had a human nature perhaps even in His resurrection.

Not perhaps.

Jesus=Incarnation of God the Son.

Incarnation is defined as a divine being manifest in a material form.

Therefore, unless it isn't Jesus anymore, then He still has a human nature, not just at the Resurrection but also when He Ascended and even now as He sits at the right of God the Father.

All else is contrary to the Nicene Creed.

 

[Jpark]

Not perhaps.

Jesus=Incarnation of God the Son.

Incarnation is defined as a divine being manifest in a material form.

Therefore, unless it isn't Jesus anymore, then He still has a human nature, not just at the Resurrection but also when He Ascended and even now as He sits at the right of God the Father.

All else is contrary to the Nicene Creed.

Interesting what Acts 2:33 says:

Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.

John 12:32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.



John 3:13-15 No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

1 Cor. 15:45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Heb. 5:9 And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,



John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
John 6:68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.
John 6:62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

John 3:34 For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; because He does not give the Spirit by measure.
35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand.
36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life...

John 1:15-17 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has become before me, for He existed before me.’” For of His fullness we all received, and grace for grace. For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came to be through Jesus Christ.

BibleGateway.com - Keyword Search: measure grace

1 Peter 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

In the first two, there is only measure. But in obedience and in repentance, there is fullest measure.

Jesus became called God because He obeyed God all His life (Phil. 2:8-9). Jesus was and is God because He had the Holy Spirit in full measure from the very beginning (John 3:34-35), and not just because of His obedience. His resurrection is clearly something above human (1 Cor. 15:45) so even if He isn't a spirit, He's a type of spirit. Because to be resurrected is phrased as 'made alive in the spirit' and yet on earth, that happens and is referred to as 'born again'.

 

[PaladinValer]

Excuse me:

Saying Jesus became God (called, etc) in any way, shape, or form, is a rejection of the Nicene Creed, which specifically states that Jesus IS God.

Not became...IS.

 

[Goinheix]

Can some of you clarify what is being said?
Was Jesus body/flesh divine? In wich way?
Probably you have noticed that I am participating in some threads discussing kenosis...what it really means. But this is more like hypostasis; nothing to do with kenosis. I know, and all we know that Jesus of Nazareth is/was God the Son. Apparently you are discussing if Jesus body was as divine as his spirit (the Holy Spirit) or not. In that case...what makes a body divine?
Because I have found few christians believing that even before incarnation, before his birth, God the Son already had a flesh body.
Can you please clarify your positions please?

 

[PaladinValer]

Can some of you clarify what is being said?
Was Jesus body/flesh divine? In wich way?
Probably you have noticed that I am participating in some threads discussing kenosis...what it really means. But this is more like hypostasis; nothing to do with kenosis. I know, and all we know that Jesus of Nazareth is/was God the Son. Apparently you are discussing if Jesus body was as divine as his spirit (the Holy Spirit) or not. In that case...what makes a body divine?
Because I have found few christians believing that even before incarnation, before his birth, God the Son already had a flesh body.
Can you please clarify your positions please?

My position is the Nicene Creed, the only acceptable statement of orthodoxy.

Jesus is the Incarnation of God. I have given the definition of what an incarnation is earlier.

If Jesus is the Incarnation of God the Son, then He is truly human, complete and without any changes. Otherwise, He could not be the Messiah, for God became human so that humanity could be reconciled to Him.

It also means that He must be completely God, for the exact same reason above.

A common explanation of the Incarnation is the Definition of Chalcedon, which was dogmatized at the Fourth Ecumenical Council and definitely defined the Incarnation and condemned all unorthodoxy that deviated from it.

Here it is in English:
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;in all things like unto us, without sin;begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸ&#957, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

 

[Jpark]

Excuse me:

Saying Jesus became God (called, etc) in any way, shape, or form, is a rejection of the Nicene Creed, which specifically states that Jesus IS God.

Not became...IS.

I said "Jesus became called God", that is, "Jesus was/is called God".

Jesus was already the same substance as God and then He became man abandoning (or more accurately, giving up) that substance, and then when He was resurrected, He has a spiritual body, the resurrection body, and when He ascended, He is the same substance as God. That's what I'm trying to say.

But there's also authority. He previously had it, He laid it aside (so He calls Himself the Son of God), then He demonstrated that it was rightfully His and reclaimed it and He is called God.

What I did was basically separate the two things that make Him God (authority and substance)

based on this Scripture:

Phil. 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

I am not saying that He was, at one time, not God, as He had the Holy Spirit in Him (hence the John 6 quotes) and He demonstrated that He had the authority that belongs to God alone.

 

[Goinheix]

My position is the Nicene Creed, the only acceptable statement of orthodoxy.

Jesus is the Incarnation of God. I have given the definition of what an incarnation is earlier.

If Jesus is the Incarnation of God the Son, then He is truly human, complete and without any changes. Otherwise, He could not be the Messiah, for God became human so that humanity could be reconciled to Him.

It also means that He must be completely God, for the exact same reason above.

A common explanation of the Incarnation is the Definition of Chalcedon, which was dogmatized at the Fourth Ecumenical Council and definitely defined the Incarnation and condemned all unorthodoxy that deviated from it.

Here it is in English:
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;in all things like unto us, without sin;begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸ&#957, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

I have change into grey some statements that have to do with Jesus as being God. I did it in orther to focus in Jesus as man. We are discussing - if I understood - the physical and not spiritual divinity of Jesus.

I have changes into blue something that need to be highligted. Chalcedon is saying that God the Son was God from the beggining; before all ages. Few words later it say that the same God the Son did birth as man. That is: God the Son had not physical body before birth. Jesus body comes to exist at birth (we can asume that it means in the conception in Mary, 9 months before).

God the Son, before birth did have not body.
That makes Jesus body not eternal.
Also Jesus body was not omnipresent.
Then - keepiong kenosis out of this topic - what it means to have a divine body?
The definition you did provide of incarnation is not enough, and include pagans incarnations.

 

[PaladinValer]

I have change into grey some statements that have to do with Jesus as being God. I did it in orther to focus in Jesus as man. We are discussing - if I understood - the physical and not spiritual divinity of Jesus.

I'm sorry, but then you are promoting Nestorianism, which is also a rejection of the Nicene Creed.

Jesus is ONE PERSON, not two. There is no "Jesus the Man" and "Jesus the Divine." There is only Jesus. When a person looks at Jesus, one sees Him in His Entirety. Just because Jesus is completely human and complete God doesn't mean they are separate "parts" of Him.

The Nicene Creed is clear when it says "for us and for our salvation, He came down from heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit, He became INCARNATE from the Virgin Mary, and was made man."

See my definition of what an incarnation is.

I have changes into blue something that need to be highligted. Chalcedon is saying that God the Son was God from the beggining; before all ages. Few words later it say that the same God the Son did birth as man. That is: God the Son had not physical body before birth. Jesus body comes to exist at birth (we can asume that it means in the conception in Mary, 9 months before).

1. Birth isn't conception. Conception is roughly nine months before birth when the egg is fertilized.
2. God the Son was spirit before He was incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth. However, that isn't to say He didn't have a "form." The angels, who are also celestial beings, are with form as well. Look at St. Raphael in Tobit or St Gabriel in St. Luke.

God the Son, before birth did have not body.
That makes Jesus body not eternal.

Dead wrong. His Body is just as Divine as His Soul. Proof of that is the Transfiguration atop Mount Tabor. Also undeniable proof is His Ascension in Acts.

Also Jesus body was not omnipresent.

Nestorianism. There are not two persons, the Man and the Divine, but ONE PERSON who is both human and God.

The definition you did provide of incarnation is not enough, and include pagans incarnations.

Hate to tell you this, but incarnation isn't a Christian-only theological concept.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Scripture does not say anything about His status in ascension.

But you're right that He had a human nature perhaps even in His resurrection.

Let's not forget that he also ate and drank after His rising.

 

[Jpark]

Let's not forget that he also ate and drank after His rising.

Angels can do the same thing.

I'm aware that the resurrection body is of the same nature. But Jesus was more than a resurrected man.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Angels can do the same thing.

I'm aware that the resurrection body is of the same nature. But Jesus was more than a resurrected man.

No argument there.

While there are two natures; divine and human, Christ's body, it would seem from Scripture retained its mortal characteristics (the wounds, the ability to eat and drink, and that it could be physically touched), yet was immortal. Scripture tells us that we will be raised with perfect, immortal bodies. Will we still have scars? Will we get back the hair so long absent on our bald heads? I don't know.

I also believe that when I receive the Eucharist that I receive Christ's body that was given into death for me, yet the fact that Christ provides this body for us today, tells me that it is more than just His mortal body present in, with, and under the bread.

God tells us what He wants us to know; what we need to know in Scripture. God does not tell us everything that we want to know. He wants us to have faith, if we knew everything, we would not need faith, would we?

God has given us many mysteries to ponder, and through the Holy Spirit, both faith, and the patience and devotion to ponder these mysteries; I know that I have more than enough pondering to do for this lifetime!

Praise God!

 

[Jpark]

No argument there.

While there are two natures; divine and human, Christ's body, it would seem from Scripture retained its mortal characteristics (the wounds, the ability to eat and drink, and that it could be physically touched), yet was immortal. Scripture tells us that we will be raised with perfect, immortal bodies. Will we still have scars? Will we get back the hair so long absent on our bald heads? I don't know.

I also believe that when I receive the Eucharist that I receive Christ's body that was given into death for me, yet the fact that Christ provides this body for us today, tells me that it is more than just His mortal body present in, with, and under the bread.

God tells us what He wants us to know; what we need to know in Scripture. God does not tell us everything that we want to know. He wants us to have faith, if we knew everything, we would not need faith, would we?

God has given us many mysteries to ponder, and through the Holy Spirit, both faith, and the patience and devotion to ponder these mysteries; I know that I have more than enough pondering to do for this lifetime!

Praise God!

The reason why I say Jesus is a Spirit is because there has to be something that distinguishes Him from those who are His. He is the first fruits of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:22-23) + God. He was called God because He was obedient and humble and because He was the first man to be 100% filled with the Holy Spirit and the fullness of God.

But He has transcended not only death, but resurrection and become what He was before:

John 6:62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

Matt. 8:20 Jesus said to him, “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.”

Ephesians 4:10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)

And most importantly, John 1:14:

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt [Or tabernacled; i.e. lived temporarily] among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

It should be known that God has no permanent dwelling. Even the highest heavens are temporary. God preferred living in Jerusalem and prefers living with the humble. Dwelt signifies pitching one's tent. And resting.

John 14:19 After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also.

2 Cor. 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.

 

[Goinheix]

to PaladinValer:

You presnt yourself as Orthodox Christian. Also I have noticed that very easely you acuse others of being heretic of claim that some posts don fit with the Nicene Creed. For your information the fount of the true faith is in the Bible and not in any creed. In this Forum, those techings not fitting with Nicene will be moved into not orthodox, but it dont mean that are false. Not only that, but you not even understand what Nicene is saying; and in many ocations you just use it despite Nicene not saying anything about the topic in question. If somebody is saying something contrary to your believe, you asume that is contrary to Nicene - without checkinjg Nicene - and label it as heretic.

Well...I have news for you: I am not an heretic, I am not nestorian; and until today I didnt know of that christialogy. Today I did check Wikipoedia and found:
"Nestorianism is a Christological doctrine advanced by Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople from 428–431. The doctrine, which was informed by Nestorius's studies under Theodore of Mopsuestia at the School of Antioch, emphasizes the disunion between the human and divine natures of Jesus. Nestorius' teachings brought him into conflict with some other prominent church leaders, most notably Cyril of Alexandria, who criticized especially his rejection of the title Theotokos ('Mother of God") for the Virgin Mary. Nestorius and his teachings were eventually condemned as heretical at the First Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451, leading to the Nestorian Schism in which churches supporting Nestorius broke with the rest of the Christian Church. Afterward many of Nestorius' supporters relocated to Sassanid Persia, where they affiliated with the local Christian community, known as the Church of the East. Over the next decades the Church of the East became increasingly Nestorian in doctrine, leading it to be known alternately as the Nestorian Church".

The most amusing founding is that you are mentioning both natures of Jesus. Aparently who is Newstorian is you. If you claim not to be nestorian you should never mention both natures of Jesus. Jesus had one nature and that is all (unless you are nestorian)

The second founding is the reason why nestorians have been declared heretics. It is because you want Mary to be the Mother of God. Not just the mother of the body of Jesus, but the mother of God, the mother of the trinity. And that is an herecy big as the Universe. Then we have two herecies: the nestorianism and the chalcedonims. Because in the East Chrucu, chalcedonims is concider an herecy.

Another herecy is the theokokism. All protestant churches concider theokokism as an herecy. Mary, the Mary on the Bible is not other than the woman that delivered Jesus baby. God is eternal and creator. Before God, it was not Mary to give birth to Him. Theokokism is an herecy from paganism, worshiping pagan godess in the disguise of Mary.

 

[Goinheix]

Jesus is both God and Man.

Nestorianism

 

[Goinheix]

Jesus is both God and Man.

nestorianism

 

[Goinheix]

He still has a human nature.

nestorianism

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Another herecy is the theokokism. All protestant churches concider theokokism as an herecy. Mary, the Mary on the Bible is not other than the woman that delivered Jesus baby. God is eternal and creator. Before God, it was not Mary to give birth to Him. Theokokism is an herecy from paganism, worshiping pagan godess in the disguise of Mary.

So are you saying the the RCC, EO, OO, Lutheran, Anglican, Moravian, and a bunch more are heritics honoring Mary as Theotokos, Mother of God, Mother of our Lord? That would be the vast majority of Christians, Christians who have held this belief from the very beginning.

Be mindful of our rules here at CF when you answer this question. Likewise, speaking against the Statement of Faith, the Nicene Creed, is also against the rules; rules which you agreed to when you became a member here.

 

[Mark_Sam]

Nestorianism

You are getting your Christologies mixed up.

Nestorianism: Jesus Christ is (are?) two persons and two natures; the human Jesus and the Divine Word (Logos), which are loosely connected. This was condemned as heresy at the first council of Ephesus in 431.

Eutychianism: Jesus Christ is one person in one nature, and this nature is the human nature blended with the Divine nature. This was condemned as heresy at the council of Chalcedon in 451.

Docetism: Jesus Christ is one person in one nature, the Divine, and His human body was only an illusion. This Gnostic teaching was condemned by the Christian community long before the council of Nicaea (325).

Adoptionism: Jesus is a human being, and was adopted by the Father at His Baptism, when the Word (Logos) entered Him. This teaching too was condemned by the Christian community prior to the council of Nicaea (325).

Apollinarianism: Jesus Christ is one person with a human body and Divine mind. This was condemned as heresy at the first council of Constantinople in 381.

Chalcedonian Christology: Jesus Christ is one person in two natures; human and Divine. The Word, the second Person in the Trinity, is both fully God and fully man. These two natures are not mixed, yet not separated. This is the historic orthodox teaching, best explained in the Athanasian creed and the Chalcedonian definition.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but this is a general overview. So PaladinValer is not a Nestorian. To say so would either be a red herring, or sheer ignorance.

BTW, which of the above definitions fits your Christological view?

Regarding "Theotokism": "Theotokism" (calling Mary the "God-bearer") only affirms that for ca. 9 months, Mary had Jesus Christ in her womb. She is in no way the originator of Jesus Christ's Divinity; she only bore it (or, brought it into the world). Here's a syllogism:

1. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.
2. Mary carried Jesus Christ in her womb.
C. Therefore, she carried God in her womb.

I understand that it might sound a little pagan to call her God-bearer and Mother of God, but to deny this would be to deny orthodox Christology. If Jesus Christ is fully God, Mary have to be the mother of He who is fully God. And there's nothing pagan about that. To say that she is only the mother of His human nature, would be Adoptionism or Nestorianism.