God the Son didn't have a human nature.—RC Sproul

[Cappadocious]

Was Jesus actually tempted?

Yes.

He resisted it completely, even resisting fantasizing about it.

But he was really tempted.

 

[Calminian]

No, I don't, because the Bible does not teach that Jesus has two natures.

And yet you describe it perfectly. You admit that Jesus was God and man. You admit that God and man are distinct. You admit that Jesus is one person.

Sorry, but you're guilty of believing that which you're arguing against.

The Bible teaches that Jesus has one nature.

No, the Bible teaches that He is one person. This is getting back to your conflation of terms. You think nature means person, but that's not what nature means. This is what's making you think you disagree with the historical idea of the deity of Christ, but in fact you agree with it.

So far, I'll I'm getting from anyone on this "orthodox" site, is assumptions, opinions, and theories.

It's no longer a theory. I've proven it by your own words.

I'm not the least bit confused about any of this.

On issues like these, no one's understanding is perfect, but on this particular thread, you are indeed the most confused.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes.

He resisted it completely, even resisting fantasizing about it.

But he was really tempted.

Thank you.

My apologies for not putting it all in one post, but that's how I took it too.

If Jesus was tempted - then how can He not have a human nature? God Himself cannot be tempted.


I for one am more than thankful that God Himself became fully man. If not, then how can He redeem us? He had to share fully in our human-ness, body and nature, in order to fully redeem all that we are. Right?

 

[NorrinRadd]

Isn't it a questionable translation that He was tempted "as we are, yet without sin," since the "we are, yet" are not literally present in the Greek? Was He really tempted "as we are"? Since He was not tainted with "original sin," how could His experience of temptation really have been the same as ours?

 

[sozo]

I have no idea what your "rules" are, so if you consider someone who believes that Jesus is God in the flesh, who died for the sins of the whole world, was buried, and raised again on the third day, to be a "heretic" and not allowed to challenge the "orthodox" view of a man-made "creed", then by all means, ban me. I'm certain you allow many who deny that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world (Reformed theology) to spread their false religion all over this site.


In any case, here is a quote from the CARM website defining what it means for Jesus to have two natures:

The Christian doctrine concerning Jesus' two natures is called the hypostatic union. It is the teaching that the Divine Word of God (John 1:1) "became flesh and dwelt among us," (John 1:14). Therefore, Jesus is both divine and human in one person (Col. 2:9); He has two natures: human and divine. But some who oppose the Trinity and Jesus' incarnation (the Divine Word becoming a man) say that if Jesus is God in flesh, this must mean that God's nature changed because God added a human nature to His divine nature. This would violate Malachi 3:6 which says that God does not change. But, the union of the two natures of Jesus in one person does not constitute a change in the nature of God.

Since the hypostatic union teaches that in the one person of Jesus there are two natures, the divine nature of Jesus is not affected by union with the human nature because there is no fusion of the two natures. That is, the divine nature is not combined with the human nature to make a third thing. This would be the error known as monophysitism. Jesus is not a new third thing with a fused-together new nature. Instead, it is a union. An example of a union is marriage between a man and a woman. Each is separate, but in marriage " . . . they shall become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24), yet they remain two distinct individuals. They are not blended into a new third thing. Fusion, on the other hand, can be illustrated by combining copper and zinc together to form a new third thing called brass. In this case, the two elements lose their identity and are merged together into something new. But in a union, the elements do not lose their identity or nature. The hypostatic union is not a hypostatic fusion, and the two natures of Jesus do not lose their distinction; and they are not altered.

Furthermore, within the union of the two natures in the one person of Christ, the divine nature is still divine; and the human nature is still human. One is not altered by the presence of the other anymore than my spirit in me is altered in nature by its indwelling a physical body. Likewise, the divine Word is not altered by indwelling human flesh.

Finally, the doctrine of the Trinity is that God is three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This does not mean three gods. There is only one God. The Trinitarian nature of God is not altered by the union of the Word with humanity since it was the divine Word that humbled Himself to become a man (John 1:1, 14; Phil. 2:5-8)--not the Father or the Holy Spirit. Therefore, by definition, the Trinity is unaffected by the union of the Word with humanity in the incarnation of Jesus.

The parts in I highlighted in bold are in contradiction with the sentence I highlighted in red.

I have spoken with a number of "orthodox creed followers" who accept CARM's explanation as an accurate description of the "hypostatic union". I find it to be not only heretical, in light of the biblical evidence, but clearly descriptive of a group of people who deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

The writer of Hebrews tells us plainly that it was God who tasted death for every man Heb 2:9. There is no "distinct individual", with a "human nature" that tasted death, but God Himself, in the flesh, the man Christ Jesus, who tasted death.

I have much more I can say, but as yet, I have not met anyone on this site who can reason rationally, or provide support for their "two-nature, double-minded" Jesus.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

I have no idea what your "rules" are, so if you consider someone who believes that Jesus is God in the flesh, who died for the sins of the whole world, was buried, and raised again on the third day, to be a "heretic" and not allowed to challenge the "orthodox" view of a man-made "creed", then by all means, ban me. I'm certain you allow many who deny that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world (Reformed theology) to spread their false religion all over this site.


In any case, here is a quote from the CARM website defining what it means for Jesus to have two natures:

The Christian doctrine concerning Jesus' two natures is called the hypostatic union. It is the teaching that the Divine Word of God (John 1:1) "became flesh and dwelt among us," (John 1:14). Therefore, Jesus is both divine and human in one person (Col. 2:9); He has two natures: human and divine. But some who oppose the Trinity and Jesus' incarnation (the Divine Word becoming a man) say that if Jesus is God in flesh, this must mean that God's nature changed because God added a human nature to His divine nature. This would violate Malachi 3:6 which says that God does not change. But, the union of the two natures of Jesus in one person does not constitute a change in the nature of God.

Since the hypostatic union teaches that in the one person of Jesus there are two natures, the divine nature of Jesus is not affected by union with the human nature because there is no fusion of the two natures. That is, the divine nature is not combined with the human nature to make a third thing. This would be the error known as monophysitism. Jesus is not a new third thing with a fused-together new nature. Instead, it is a union. An example of a union is marriage between a man and a woman. Each is separate, but in marriage " . . . they shall become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24), yet they remain two distinct individuals. They are not blended into a new third thing. Fusion, on the other hand, can be illustrated by combining copper and zinc together to form a new third thing called brass. In this case, the two elements lose their identity and are merged together into something new. But in a union, the elements do not lose their identity or nature. The hypostatic union is not a hypostatic fusion, and the two natures of Jesus do not lose their distinction; and they are not altered.

Furthermore, within the union of the two natures in the one person of Christ, the divine nature is still divine; and the human nature is still human. One is not altered by the presence of the other anymore than my spirit in me is altered in nature by its indwelling a physical body. Likewise, the divine Word is not altered by indwelling human flesh.

Finally, the doctrine of the Trinity is that God is three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This does not mean three gods. There is only one God. The Trinitarian nature of God is not altered by the union of the Word with humanity since it was the divine Word that humbled Himself to become a man (John 1:1, 14; Phil. 2:5-8)--not the Father or the Holy Spirit. Therefore, by definition, the Trinity is unaffected by the union of the Word with humanity in the incarnation of Jesus.

The parts in I highlighted in bold are in contradiction with the sentence I highlighted in red.

I have spoken with a number of "orthodox creed followers" who accept CARM's explanation as an accurate description of the "hypostatic union". I find it to be not only heretical, in light of the biblical evidence, but clearly descriptive of a group of people who deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

The writer of Hebrews tells us plainly that it was God who tasted death for every man Heb 2:9. There is no "distinct individual", with a "human nature" that tasted death, but God Himself, in the flesh, the man Christ Jesus, who tasted death.

I have much more I can say, but as yet, I have not met anyone on this site who can reason rationally, or provide support for their "two-nature, double-minded" Jesus.

And therein is your misconception. You think nature means mind. It has more to do with the make up of a person. Meaning what he is made of. His very essence.

If you are unaware of the rules it's as easy as reading them to correct that issue.
No comment on Matt Slick's CARM. But thank you for proving that Christ has two natures.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I have no idea what your "rules" are, so if you consider someone who believes that Jesus is God in the flesh, who died for the sins of the whole world, was buried, and raised again on the third day, to be a "heretic" and not allowed to challenge the "orthodox" view of a man-made "creed", then by all means, ban me. I'm certain you allow many who deny that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world (Reformed theology) to spread their false religion all over this site.


In any case, here is a quote from the CARM website defining what it means for Jesus to have two natures:

The Christian doctrine concerning Jesus' two natures is called the hypostatic union. It is the teaching that the Divine Word of God (John 1:1) "became flesh and dwelt among us," (John 1:14). Therefore, Jesus is both divine and human in one person (Col. 2:9); He has two natures: human and divine. But some who oppose the Trinity and Jesus' incarnation (the Divine Word becoming a man) say that if Jesus is God in flesh, this must mean that God's nature changed because God added a human nature to His divine nature. This would violate Malachi 3:6 which says that God does not change. But, the union of the two natures of Jesus in one person does not constitute a change in the nature of God.

Since the hypostatic union teaches that in the one person of Jesus there are two natures, the divine nature of Jesus is not affected by union with the human nature because there is no fusion of the two natures. That is, the divine nature is not combined with the human nature to make a third thing. This would be the error known as monophysitism. Jesus is not a new third thing with a fused-together new nature. Instead, it is a union. An example of a union is marriage between a man and a woman. Each is separate, but in marriage " . . . they shall become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24), yet they remain two distinct individuals. They are not blended into a new third thing. Fusion, on the other hand, can be illustrated by combining copper and zinc together to form a new third thing called brass. In this case, the two elements lose their identity and are merged together into something new. But in a union, the elements do not lose their identity or nature. The hypostatic union is not a hypostatic fusion, and the two natures of Jesus do not lose their distinction; and they are not altered.

Furthermore, within the union of the two natures in the one person of Christ, the divine nature is still divine; and the human nature is still human. One is not altered by the presence of the other anymore than my spirit in me is altered in nature by its indwelling a physical body. Likewise, the divine Word is not altered by indwelling human flesh.

Finally, the doctrine of the Trinity is that God is three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This does not mean three gods. There is only one God. The Trinitarian nature of God is not altered by the union of the Word with humanity since it was the divine Word that humbled Himself to become a man (John 1:1, 14; Phil. 2:5-8)--not the Father or the Holy Spirit. Therefore, by definition, the Trinity is unaffected by the union of the Word with humanity in the incarnation of Jesus.

The parts in I highlighted in bold are in contradiction with the sentence I highlighted in red.

I have spoken with a number of "orthodox creed followers" who accept CARM's explanation as an accurate description of the "hypostatic union". I find it to be not only heretical, in light of the biblical evidence, but clearly descriptive of a group of people who deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

The writer of Hebrews tells us plainly that it was God who tasted death for every man Heb 2:9. There is no "distinct individual", with a "human nature" that tasted death, but God Himself, in the flesh, the man Christ Jesus, who tasted death.

I have much more I can say, but as yet, I have not met anyone on this site who can reason rationally, or provide support for their "two-nature, double-minded" Jesus.

So ... is it your point that it is impossible that God (the Son) was not altered by becoming human (by being placed in union with a human nature)?

If I understand your objection, it would require a "blending" of natures, would it not, in order for the nature of God (the Son) to be changed, which we do not hold?

Just trying to understand your point.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

So ... is it your point that it is impossible that God (the Son) was not altered by becoming human (by being placed in union with a human nature)?

If I understand your objection, it would require a "blending" of natures, would it not, in order for the nature of God (the Son) to be changed, which we do not hold?

Just trying to understand your point.

I don't see what he's getting at either. Except that he sees a nature as a state of mind. Which is incorrect.

 

[hedrick]

I'm still not entirely sure the Sozo is heretical. The CARM explanation seems a bit unbalanced to me. It suggests, without quite saying, that the natures are separate individuals. Rejecting it is not necessarily a sign of problems.

It seems to me that Sozo would like Athanasius. While some of us may think Athanasius was a borderline Apollinarian, he was certainly considered orthodox.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

I'm still not entirely sure the Sozo is heretical. The CARM explanation seems a bit unbalanced to me. It suggests, without quite saying, that the natures are separate individuals. Rejecting it is not necessarily a sign of problems.

It seems to me that Sozo would like Athanasius. While some of us may think Athanasius was a borderline Apollinarian, he was certainly considered orthodox.

The Carm quote would have been good if it had stopped at the first paragraph. I agree it got rather iffy after that. Kind of like they were trying to have it both ways.

 

[Knee V]

...Carm ... would have been good if it had stopped...

That's more like it.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

That's more like it.

I think if I'd said all I felt, the filter would have blown a fuse. Let's just say, I am not a fan of Mr.Slick and call it an understatement.

 

[sozo]

And therein is your misconception. You think nature means mind. .

*sigh*. No, I do not, and if that is what you discerned from my post, then let me say that I am sorry for taking up your time, breaking your "rules", and challenging you to think inside your ortho-box. My mistake. Good day.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

*sigh*. No, I do not, and if that is what you discerned from my post, then let me say that I am sorry for taking up your time, breaking your "rules", and challenging you to think inside your ortho-box. My mistake. Good day.

Let's get something strait. My rules don't matter. This is not my site. I try to adhere to the rules as the site owner has asked that we do such. (I don't always succeed at it either). But when I enter a man's home and he ask me not to use the fancy hand towels as they are decoration, I also don't use them in place of toilet paper.

So perhaps you could just flat out say what you are meaning. So far I don't think anyone has a grasp on your meaning. You say Christ does not have two natures but your posting shows something to the contrary.

If i'm misreading you it's because of what you are posting. Did you or did you not equate two natures with being double minded in post #187? Now what am I supposed to deduct from that? I am not a mind reader.

I was a Baptist for forty years. I can see outside of my "Ortho-box' (whatever that is).

 

[Calminian]

...Christ does not have two natures but your posting shows something to the contrary…..

My take on the sozo mystery: He's just using certain words in different ways, causing the confusion. It all comes down to the conflating of nature and person. With the key, the riddle is pretty easy to solve.

Is he a heretic? Probably not. Confused? Just a bit.

 

[x141]

I have much more I can say, but as yet, I have not met anyone on this site who can reason rationally, or provide support for their "two-nature, double-minded" Jesus.

The two natures are relative to soul/feminine/earth and spirit/masculine/heaven (etc.) and can be seen in the difference between the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, though they in truth are one, much like Adam was the picture of in the context of this in the beginning (the process of the seed and a woman).

One is an absolute the other the on going testimony of that absolute which relates to the kingdom of whose increase in us has no end.

(As something relative to God) To ask, can God sin is the same as to ask, can God die.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

My take on the sozo mystery: He's just using certain words in different ways, causing the confusion. It all comes down to the conflating of nature and person. With the key, the riddle is pretty easy to solve.

Is he a heretic? Probably not. Confused? Just a bit.

I can't say if he's confused or me from trying to understand what he's saying.
But I've been known not to understand what things are about at times. I have an example of one of those:

Blues Brothers - Rubber Biscuit - YouTube

Now would someone explain to me what Dan is singing about?

 

[Calminian]

I can't say if he's confused or me from trying to understand what he's saying.
But I've been known not to understand what things are about at times. I have an example of one of those:

Now would someone explain to me what Dan is singing about?

Had to crank that a couple times. Thanks for posting. In a word the song is about poverty.

"Rubber Biscuit" is a doo-wop song by The Chips, recorded in 1956.

It was famously covered by The Blues Brothers (on their debut album, Briefcase Full of Blues), among many other artists[1] as well as featuring in the 1973 film Mean Streets. Label credit for writing the song was given to Chips lead singer Charles Johnson and Adam R. Levy. Levy, though, was the son of label owner Morris Levy, who was notorious for adding either his or his son's names to songwriting credits in order to claim partial, or in some cases all composer royalties on songs they did not write. There is no evidence that Morris or Adam ever wrote any songs.

Few of the lyrics can actually be understood, as they are sung in the scat manner. The scat is interrupted every few bars for short one-liners, most of which are implicit references to the singer's poverty and the low-grade food he eats: a "wish sandwich" (where one has two slices of bread and wishes for meat), a "ricochet biscuit" (which is supposed to bounce off the wall and into one's mouth, and when it doesn't, "you go hungry"), a "cold-water sandwich" and a "Sunday-go-to-meeting-bun". The song closes with the question "What do you want for nothing? A rubber biscuit?"

"Rubber Biscuit" became the theme tune to Jimmy's Food Factory, a programme about supermarket's food tricks on BBC One. It is The Chips' version that is played at the beginning and end of each show. It was also featured in the 1990 John Waters film, Cry-Baby.

The Chips were teenage friends in New York: Charles Johnson (lead vocal), Nathaniel Epps (baritone), Paul Fulton (bass), Sammy Strain and Shedrick Lincoln (tenors). "Rubber Biscuit" started life as Johnson's answer to the marching rhythms of the Warwick School For Delinquent Teenagers while he was an intern there.

When Josie Records heard the tune they signed the group and the record was issued in September 1956. Although it did not chart, "Rubber Biscuit" became an instant east coast radio favourite, and saw its performers touring alongside The Dells, The Cadillacs and Bo Diddley, but the momentum gained by their debut single was waning and the group broke up at the end of 1957. Only Sammy Strain went on to success in the music industry, as a member of Little Anthony & The Imperials from about 1961 to 1972, when he left to join The O'Jays. Strain left the O'Jays in 1992 to return to The Imperials, where he remained until his retirement in 2004.​

Source

 

[Cappadocious]

Isn't it a questionable translation that He was tempted "as we are, yet without sin," since the "we are, yet" are not literally present in the Greek?

καθὁμοιότητα is good enough for me.

 

[NorrinRadd]

καθὁμοιότητα is good enough for me.

Huh?