The dual effort in the creation of the God-Man

BCsenior said:

They say Jesus was “fully God” and “fully Man”.
All human beings are created …
and since Jesus was “fully Man”, wasn’t He also created?

The Word was God who became flesh (Jesus)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God” (John 1:1)

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14)

The Holy Spirit who is God caused Mary to conceive

The angel Gabriel said to Mary: “The Holy Spirit will
come upon you, and the power of the Most High will
overshadow you. So the Baby to be born will be holy
and He will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35)

The angel Gabriel said to Joseph: “For the Child within her
was conceived by the Holy Spirit. And she will have a Son,
and you are to name Him Jesus” (Matthew 1:20-21)

“… while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant
through the power of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:18)

IMO, Jesus was called “the Son of God” because
the Holy Spirit “played the role of His father”.
(He was the “father”, Mary was the mother.)

So, why was this dual effort to create Jesus required?

Who is the only true God?

“And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” (John 17:3)

“… and we are in Him (Father God) who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God and eternal life.” (1 John 5:20)

All Scriptures are from the NKJV.

Click to expand...

Yes. Our justification is based upon the obedience of the man, not the divinity.

Albion said:

I am almost certain that if a sentence doesn't say what the writer meant it to say, that is not the reader's fault--....

Click to expand...

His student said:

I said that Peter walked on water by faith in God's Word and that it had nothing to do with him being God in the flesh (which as a mere man he obviously wasn't).

Click to expand...

It seems pretty clear to me - especially with my tendency to capitalize all words pertaining to God and not to men.

Apparently you thought I was saying that God's Word wasn't God in the flesh????

OK - I don't see how you could have missed the meaning. But OK - at least we have that clear up now.

The point for you is that you have been saying that these miracles (like walking on water) only happened in the life of Jesus because He was fully God.

While it is true that Jesus was indeed fully God - Peter certainly wasn't God and yet he did that miracle through trust in God's Word and not because he was fully God as well as fully man.

Capeesh?

Albion said:

......especially when it happens again and again.

Click to expand...

Any examples?

His student said:

It seems pretty clear to me - especially with my tendency to capitalize all words pertaining to God and not to men.

Apparently you thought I was saying that God's Word wasn't God in the flesh????

OK - I don't see how you could have missed the meaning.

Click to expand...

LOL You don't see how "had nothing to do with him being God in the flesh (which as a mere man he obviously wasn't)" would be seen as meaning that he was a mere man...and also not God in the flesh??



You have a nice day, hear?

BCsenior said:

Or ... do you mean ...
IF He was a mere man he obviously wasn't God in the flesh?

Click to expand...

No - that would be another answer to another question.

The question before us was whether Jesus could walk on water only by virtue of Him being God as well as man.

If you removed that "if" highlighted above (and did the "H" is lower case to indicate Peter rather than Jesus) and said just what follows - it would be a good answer to the sentiment put forth by Albion that only those who are God can do such miracles.

[

Albion said:

LOL You don't see how "had nothing to do with him being God in the flesh (which as a mere man he obviously wasn't)" would be seen as meaning that he was a mere man...and also not God in the flesh??

Click to expand...

Of course I do. Peter was indeed a mere man and he wasn't also God in the flesh. See? I was clear.
QUOTE="His student, post: 74428988, member: 416198"]I said that Peter walked on water by faith in God's Word and that it had nothing to do with him being God in the flesh (which as a mere man he obviously wasn't).[/QUOTE]
There is the quotation.

Neither Jesus nor anyone other than Peter is the antecedent to which what follows in the sentence refers.

If you saw it otherwise - sorry about that. But at least we have it cleared up now don't we?

We also have your previous misconception concerning the idea that Jesus could only do miracles as God cleared up.

Jesus (operating as a mere man) did not need to drawn on His divinity to walk on water anymore than Peter did. Faith in God is what allowed it- which Jesus had in spades having the Spirit of God without measure..

His student said:

Jesus (operating as a mere man) did not need to drawn on His divinity to walk on water anymore than Peter did. Faith in God is what allowed it- which Jesus had in spades having the Spirit of God without measure..

Click to expand...

Is this a claim that Christ was NOT God? Or that he was, but only some of the time?

BCsenior said:

Please clarify what you believe. Thanks.
Also, Mary's father was not the Father, correct?

Click to expand...

How can I do that?? Jesus was of the same flesh as Mary from the line of David ensuring the Davidic line of Kingship. With out the sin nature that Mary got from her father.

Does that help??

Bill

His student said: ↑
Jesus (operating as a mere man) did not need to drawn on His divinity to walk on water anymore than Peter did. Faith in God is what allowed it- which Jesus had in spades having the Spirit of God without measure..

Albion said:

Is this a claim that Christ was NOT God? Or that he was, but only some of the time?

Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? Are you just looking for some way to argue with me about anything you can come up with because I have said something in the past that offended you?

We have been talking about the concept of Jesus operating as a man while overcoming sin and ministering while on earth rather than drawing on His divine prerogatives. I have never been talking about His being God as well as man or not being God as well as man.

His student said earlier: ↑
Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.

Perhaps my writing the above in such big letters a few posts ago is what threw you off.

His student said:

His student said: ↑
Jesus (operating as a mere man) did not need to drawn on His divinity to walk on water anymore than Peter did. Faith in God is what allowed it- which Jesus had in spades having the Spirit of God without measure..

What on earth are you talking about?

Click to expand...

We have been talking about the concept of Jesus operating as a man while overcoming sin and ministering while on earth rather than drawing on His divine prerogatives. I have never been talking about His being God as well as man or not being God as well as man.

His student said earlier: ↑
Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.

Click to expand...

There is nothing coherent about that mess of contradictions and "weasel-words."

If you want to be understood, state your belief. I don't care to debate with anyone who is not a Trinitarian. There's a place for that, but this isn't it, and not with me.

Albion said:

In terms of whether 1) Jesus was God or 2) merely a Man or 3) some version/modification of one or the other of those...

...what is your belief??

Click to expand...

Jesus was and always will be fully God and man.

He is God in the flesh and in Him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form.

His emptying Himself of divine prerogatives while living His life on earth in order to overcome sin in the flesh as the last Adam the representative of every man - in no way indicates that He was not God manifest in the flesh.

But every theologian who understands the hypostaic union even basically understands that God was not tempted in the wilderness and was not tempted in every way just as we are and that God did not die at Calvary.

Not sure why you have singled me out for your attacks when I have said nothing that any good theologian whether Calvinist or Arminian including Anglican would not also say.

edit:

In the paragraph with the highlighted words above - I meant to say that Jesus was not tempted and crucified while acting as God but as a man. That is the subject at hand. I don't want it to be thought that I am teaching that Jesus was not also fully man (something I have fully endorsed several times here).

His student said:

Not sure why you have singled me out for your attacks when I have said nothing that any good theologian whether Calvinist or Arminian including Anglican would not also say.

Click to expand...

No one singled you out in any way and no one attacked you.

If you had said before what you said here, you would certainly have been understood then.

Good-bye.

Albion said:

No one singled you out in any way and no one attacked you. If you had said before what you said here, you would certainly have been understood then. Good-bye.

Click to expand...

You first engaged me by saying in effect that Jesus walking on water was an indicator that He was God in the flesh.

I rejoined that Peter was not God in the flesh and he walked on water just as Jesus did.

I.e. - Jesus could well have (and did IMO) do His miracles such as walking on water while operating only in His capacity as a Spirit filled man of faith.

You misunderstood what I was saying and away we went.

There was not a reason to say to you what I said in my last post because you did not ask me the question and there was no reason to tell you, as an Anglican, what you already or should already know and that I have known from my youth.

Good-bye brother. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

BCsenior said:

Thanks, God's feelings also! ... But, you must be replying to another thread.

Click to expand...

No, I am replying to your thread. My point is that our salvation is based upon the obedience of the created man. His divinity within him, and the perfect replication of the eternal Word as a created man, was the guarantee that the created man would be obedient even unto the death of the cross.

Otherwise the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane becomes meaningless. It was the man who wanted the Father to provide another way, not the Word in him. And, it is my belief, that on the cross when sin came on him his divinity completely left him, and the created man was the sacrificial lamb. God can not die, but the created man could.

BCsenior said:

Is there anyone here who does NOT believe that Jesus was/is God?
IMO, no.

Click to expand...

God is eternal and has neither beginning or ending, Christ is the same way. Infact Paul exposes that truth about Christ speaking about how he is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, who had no parents.
Read about this in Hebrews 7

Hebrews 7 New King James Version (NKJV)
The King of Righteousness
7 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

AlexDTX said:

No, I am replying to your thread. My point is that our salvation is based upon the obedience of the created man. His divinity within him, and the perfect replication of the eternal Word as a created man, was the guarantee that the created man would be obedient even unto the death of the cross.

Otherwise the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane becomes meaningless. It was the man who wanted the Father to provide another way, not the Word in him. And, it is my belief, that on the cross when sin came on him his divinity completely left him, and the created man was the sacrificial lamb. God can not die, but the created man could.

Click to expand...

In the best case scenario this is Nestorianism, in the worst case it is Apollinarianism.

There is no dividing the humanity from the divinity, or the divinity from the humanity. It is the undivided Person, the Divine Word, Jesus Christ, who is also man who was obedient unto death. That is why the Apostle writes that Christ, though God, humbled Himself. The One who humbles Himself is God, becoming human, and even more than that, a servant, becoming obedient even to the point of death, even death on the cross. The One who empties Himself, becoming a servant, suffering, dying, being humiliated is the one undivided Person of Jesus Christ. It is God who humbles Himself, God who becomes a servant, God who is obedient, God who is humble, God who suffers, God who dies. Because the One who did all of this is Himself truly God.

The Word did not dwell within Christ. The Word is Christ, Christ is the Word.

So we must speak of the Person, not natures. A nature did not suffer, a Person did. A nature did not sweat drops of blood in Gethsemane, a Person did. A nature was not flogged, mocked, and nailed to a cross, a Person was.

That Person is the One who existed from all eternity as God of God; the One by Whom all things were made.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

In the best case scenario this is Nestorianism, in the worst case it is Apollinarianism.

There is no dividing the humanity from the divinity, or the divinity from the humanity. It is the undivided Person, the Divine Word, Jesus Christ, who is also man who was obedient unto death. That is why the Apostle writes that Christ, though God, humbled Himself. The One who humbles Himself is God, becoming human, and even more than that, a servant, becoming obedient even to the point of death, even death on the cross. The One who empties Himself, becoming a servant, suffering, dying, being humiliated is the one undivided Person of Jesus Christ. It is God who humbles Himself, God who becomes a servant, God who is obedient, God who is humble, God who suffers, God who dies. Because the One who did all of this is Himself truly God.

The Word did not dwell within Christ. The Word is Christ, Christ is the Word.

So we must speak of the Person, not natures. A nature did not suffer, a Person did. A nature did not sweat drops of blood in Gethsemane, a Person did. A nature was not flogged, mocked, and nailed to a cross, a Person was.

That Person is the One who existed from all eternity as God of God; the One by Whom all things were made.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

I was waiting for someone to point out the "heresy" of my opinion. Well, Crypto. Guess what? I am a still a born again, Spirit filled Christian who knows Jesus and I am absolutely positive about my own salvation and my going to heaven with everlasting life.

Such doctrinal labels are meaningless. It had no impact on my salvation nor my work in sharing the Gospel in serving the Great Commission. It is a way of forcing one group of people's opinions on others by making such a claim is wrong, when in truth no one but God and Jesus really know.

And frankly, the word heresy from the Greek hairesis has a primary meaning of disunion or division, not error, and I think the labeling of people as heretics is much more dividing of the body of Christ than the doctrine - which has no interference in the ability to be saved - called an heresy.

In truth it is a way of strutting academic pride in the knowledge of the person calling something heresy.