The dual effort in the creation of the God-Man

[BCsenior]

What if the early church doctrine isn’t accurate? Is that possible?

More than possible.
Scripture says much will be revealed to man in the last days!

 

[BCsenior]

Have I missed anyone commenting on ...
the dual effort to "produce" the God-Man, Jesus?
(Let's not use the word "create".)

The dual effort was made (and accomplished) by
the Word and the Holy Spirit.

Why were both necessary to accomplish this?
The Word became flesh after the Holy Spirit made Mary conceive?

Oh sorry, I forgot ... all of this was figured out many centuries ago!

 

[BBAS 64]

Of course he received DNA from his mother (Mary).

Good Day, Albion

Indeed the DNA flesh. Augustine and Ambrose referred to this as Mary's defective stock . The immaculate conception of Christ removes him from the sin nature of Adam and he did not receive the defect of Mary with regard to her sin nature from her Father which was a son of King David.

"'Therefore as man He was tried in all things, and in the likeness of men He endured all things; but as born of the Spirit, He was free from sin. For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin." (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin)

In Him,

Bill

 

[BCsenior]

Good Day, Albion, who posted: "Of course he received DNA from his mother (Mary)."
Indeed the DNA flesh. Augustine and Ambrose referred to this as Mary's defective stock . The immaculate conception of Christ removes him from the sin nature of Adam and he did NOT receive
the defect of Mary with regard to her sin nature from her Father which was a son of King David.
"'Therefore as man He was tried in all things, and in the likeness of men He endured all things;
but as born of the Spirit, He was free from sin. For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin." (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin)

Okay, are you saying that miraculously Jesus did NOT receive Mary's DNA?

 

[Albion]

Good day, Bill.

It looks like we are in agreement except that I did not address the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Anyway, that controversial doctrine is not dependent upon Mary being sinless, but rests upon the fact that God, by his nature, cannot have sin.

The immaculate conception of Christ removes him from the sin nature of Adam and he did not receive the defect of Mary

 

[BBAS 64]

Okay, so miraculously Jesus did NOT receive Mary's DNA, correct?

Good day, BC

you may have missed it Indeed the DNA flesh is from Mary.

In Him,

Bill

 

[BCsenior]

The immaculate conception of Christ removes him from the sin nature of Adam
and he did NOT receive the defect of Mary with regard to her sin nature
from her Father which was a son of King David.

Indeed the DNA flesh is from Mary.

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

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day, Bill.

It looks like we are in agreement except that I did not address the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Anyway, that controversial doctrine is not dependent upon Mary being sinless, but rests upon the fact that God cannot sin.

Good Day, Albion

Agreed only mentioned that given some of the posts here and the logical progression of heresies that appear in here outright and in (seed) form in this thread.

In Him,

Bill

 

[His student]

That is not what is communicated in Philippians. There is no evidence in the text God the Son emptied Himself of Deity.........

I didn't say that He did. Where are you getting that?

I said that "He emptied Himself of divine rights and functioned fully as a man only."

Everyone believe that.

.........The Divine Logos existed eternally with the Father before the foundations of the earth. Before created time and space and matter. John 1 makes this quite clear.

I have not said otherwise.

Even Oneness theologians (whom I am not one of) agree about that.

You seem to be projecting straw men beliefs on others.

 

[Albion]

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

Mary's father was Joachim (or at least that is the best guess we have).

 

[Albion]

I didn't say that He did. Where are you getting that?

I said that "He emptied Himself of divine rights and functioned fully as a man only."

Everyone believe that.

I don't think so. There is much in Jesus' life that shows more than what is normal for a human. Some of the 'proofs' of his divine origin are, in fact, in that category--healing the sick with a touch, walking on water, etc.

 

[His student]

Recently, I spent about 2 weeks on the Pentecostal Oneness forumtrying to get them to accept John 1.
No cigar ... they refused to accept John 1 ... end of story.

No - I wasn't there - but I'll bet they refused to accept your rendition that says that the Logos was an alleged God the Son person previous to the Logos being incarnate in Jesus Christ.

I have about 20 NT verses, each of which mentions the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
Each verse mentions all Three.....

No doubt you do.

I, myself continue to see the Trinity view as having a bit more validity than the Oneness view. But I don't see anything in (accurately portrayed) Oneness theology that equates to Heresy.

Just another powerful proof of the Triune Godhead, the Trinity.

No - not a "proof" but evidence to be used in an argument for the Trinitarian view.

Other Christians have a different slant on what those scriptures are showing about the nature of God as Father, as Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, and as the Holy Spirit Who proceeds from both Father and Son.

 

[His student]

I don't think so. There is much in Jesus' life that shows more than what is normal for a human. Some of the 'proofs' of his divine origin are, in fact, in that category--healing the sick with a touch, walking on water, etc.

Both of which were accomplished through faith in God by the man Peter.

If the man Jesus, (who existed "in every way as His brethren") accomplished even moe than these things, it is because He did not have a fallen nature through which He constantly grieved the Spirit of God and He possessed the Spirit without measure.

 

[Albion]

Both of which were accomplished through faith in God by the man Peter.

Uh, no. You may have misunderstood something if you think Jesus walked on water only because Peter imagined that he saw him doing that. In any case, there are many miracles that Christ worked and they are often taken to be evidence of his divine nature.

If the man Jesus, (who existed "in every way as His brethren") accomplished even moe than these things, it is because He did not have a fallen nature through which He constantly grieved the Spirit of God and He possessed the Spirit without measure.

Is that a denial of him being God?

 

[His student]

Uh, no. You may have misunderstood something if you think Jesus walked on water only because Peter imagined that he saw him doing that. In any case, there are many miracles that Christ worked and they are often taken to be evidence of his divine nature.

I have no idea where you get that I said that.

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).

Is that a denial of him being God?

No - of course not.

"Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." Hebrews 2:17

Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.

But He lived His perfect life as a man who relied on God to overcome sin and minister God's truth just as we should.

He grew in knowledge and stature through the study of the Word of God and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit just as we should.

Obviously in His case He grew a lot more than we will.

 

[Albion]

I have no idea where you get that I said that.

I said that Peter walked on water by faith in God's Word

Sorry. I was thinking that you were referring to Peter seeing Christ walking. That is what I had referred to before. Peter's own walking is not germane to this particular point.

...and that it had nothing to do with him being God in the flesh (which as a mere man he obviously wasn't).

I see. If you believe that, you are not permitted to post on this forum (see the rules).

 

[His student]

I see. If you believe that, you are not permitted to post on this forum (see the rules).

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).

Peter not God - not Jesus not God. Try to keep up.

Honestly - I'm not sure if you really don't understand or if you are being purposefully obtuse in order to argue about something.

Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.

 

[BCsenior]

There is much in Jesus' life that shows more than what is normal for a human.

Of course, anyone walkin' around who is fully God won't act like a human.

 

[BCsenior]

... it had nothing to do with him being God in the flesh (which as a mere man he obviously wasn't).
... Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.

WOW, we certainly do have some confused people here, don't we!
Or ... do you mean ...
IF He was a mere man he obviously wasn't God in the flesh?

 

[Albion]

Peter not God - not Jesus not God. Try to keep up.

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--especially when it happens again and again.