The Inevitable "Nature of Christ" thread

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

PLEASE respect one another. We will all probably differ.

What do you believe about the nature of Christ. Did He take the flesh of Adam before the Fall? If so, how, seeing as He inherited DNA from a post-fall female (Mary)? Or did He take the flesh that all of us sinners have, but managed to live without sinning at all? Or do you believe something entirely other than these two ideas?

Post what you believe about it here, and PLEASE use scripture to substantiate your position if possible. If you don't have specific scriptures in mind just post your reasoning and logic behind what you believe and any pertinent theological truths (from which others can probably deduce the scriptures applicable).

Moriah bes really interested to know what each of us here as members of the P/M/FA subforum believes about this. Thanks!

 

[Pythons]

"Natures" of Christ. A Divine Nature and a Human Nature united into the ONE Person of Jesus Christ.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

"Natures" of Christ. A Divine Nature and a Human Nature united into the ONE Person of Jesus Christ.

Elaborate plz?

 

[catmommy]

I believe he took the flesh of Adam before the fall. To take on the form of Adam after the fall, he would have to be born in sin and shaped in iniquity. Who would have shaped him in iniquity-not possible.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Elaborate plz?

No one can even explain how God could become a human, it is like explaining how God creates. We have no idea. All we have is logic and philosophical ideas. For instance we conclude (most Christians anyway) that Jesus was 100% divine and 100% human. In that equation, all powerful God combined with the human creature which nature would rule?

Now what would be the purpose of God becoming human. If this is God then the purpose is to reveal God in a way that humans can see. It serves no purpose for God to become human and show that He can keep the laws of God perfectly, because He is God we expect He can follow His own rules, no surprise there.

Surprisingly Adventism has discounted the God of the incarnation and focused upon the man of the incarnation. The only reason for this however is to support the idea of last generation perfection...because it is pretty obvious that even if Jesus lived the perfect life to show we can do it no one has in the last nearly 2000 years done that. It is a faulty premise.

See my recent article:
Jesus' Divinity, A Philosophical Necessity

 

[AndrewK788]

Surprisingly Adventism has discounted the God of the incarnation and focused upon the man of the incarnation. The only reason for this however is to support the idea of last generation perfection...because it is pretty obvious that even if Jesus lived the perfect life to show we can do it no one has in the last nearly 2000 years done that. It is a faulty premise.

I'm not an expert on the traditional view of the nature of Christ, but I think I tend to agree with you. If Jesus was showing how we could live a perfect life, as if it were possible, why did he even come at all? The point was it is not possible. I think that his life wasn't to show us what we needed to try to become, but to show us that we were entirely incapable of it. Thus to be saved we must rely fully on Christ, because a human can never be perfect.

 

[StormyOne]

One other point, God did not need to come to earth to save humankind.... that premise is also faulty from this standpoint, it would have you believe that the Creator of the whole universe and everything in it had to come and live among humans to save humans.... I don't think so....

Christ coming might have been to show humans who got it wrong what God was really like.... the church leaders did not like the God who showed up so they plotted to kill him....

 

[sentipente]

One thing is certain, we don't understand this thing we call sin. Just consider that it is popular, and incorrectly, taught that the first "sin" occurred when Eve ate a piece of fruit when no penalty was attached to the warning that they not eat of the tree. That misconception has spilled over into our discussions about the nature of Christ.

 

[AndrewK788]

One thing is certain, we don't understand this thing we call sin. Just consider that it is popular, and incorrectly, taught that the first "sin" occurred when Eve ate a piece of fruit when no penalty was attached to the warning that they not eat of the tree. That misconception has spilled over into our discussions about the nature of Christ.

Maybe I'm not following you, but if that was not the first "sin," what was?

 

[AndrewK788]

One other point, God did not need to come to earth to save humankind.... that premise is also faulty from this standpoint, it would have you believe that the Creator of the whole universe and everything in it had to come and live among humans to save humans.... I don't think so....

Christ coming might have been to show humans who got it wrong what God was really like.... the church leaders did not like the God who showed up so they plotted to kill him....

I know what you mean. That viewpoint is basically putting restrictions on what God can or cannot do.

My opinion is this: God could have saved us any way He chose, but He chose a method that would require Him to come to earth. God could also have chosen to never let sin even appear, but He didn't.

But now as a result, we will see who caused sin, what it does, and who God truly is as a result.

 

[sentipente]

Maybe I'm not following you, but if that was not the first "sin," what was?

You need to ask why it is that you believe what others have told you about it being the first sin.

 

[sentipente]

My opinion is this: God could have saved us any way He chose, but He chose a method that would require Him to come to earth. God could also have chosen to never let sin even appear, but He didn't.

So you are still insisting that this is why He came to earth. I guess it depends on what we think it means to save man. When I redeem something from the pawnshop I don't have to go inside the glass case with the merchandise in order to redeem it.

 

[Mankin]

Jesus said himself that the spirit is willing but the body is weak. Jesus was both fully human and fully God. It was through his Divine connection with God that he was able to lead a perfect life. He was the Spirit made flesh. He was still God but God in a human form. He willing allowed death to take him. He gave up his spirit. He knew the price that had to be paid. He took on all the sins which caused separation from him and God. Then he allowed death to take him.

He said himself he had authority over all things even his own death.

 

[sentipente]

What do you mean by "he allowed death to take him?"

 

[Mankin]

In other words he had power over his own death. He gave up his spirit. In other words he chose to die.

 

[sentipente]

In other words he had power over his own death. He gave up his spirit. In other words he chose to die.

Then He would no longer have the power to raise Himself from the dead.

 

[AndrewK788]

You need to ask why it is that you believe what others have told you about it being the first sin.

Well, unless you're referring to the rebellion in heaven as being the first sin, I don't know what would be the "first" sin. As far as I can see, it was the first human sin.

If this still isn't what you were getting at, by all means, enlighten me.

 

[AndrewK788]

Then He would no longer have the power to raise Himself from the dead.

Senti, I honestly wonder what you believe. I'm not ragging on you or anything, but so far you've posted questions and statements intended to question the beliefs of other posters, but have not actually listed any of your own. So I'm a little in the dark as to where you're coming from and where you're going with this.

A little direction would be appreciated.

 

[sentipente]

Andrew, it has been two thousand years since JC left earth and the Second Coming is still a distant light in the future. Something has to be wrong with the picture we have. Insisting that the bus is coming after standing for two days at the same old bus stop borders on the lunatic.

 

[sentipente]

Well, unless you're referring to the rebellion in heaven as being the first sin, I don't know what would be the "first" sin. As far as I can see, it was the first human sin.

If this still isn't what you were getting at, by all means, enlighten me.

How can that be the first human sin? There was not penalty attached to it. And what purpose would that test serve? How can you test something after you declare that it is good? We are actually saying that God is less intelligent than we are. None of us would declare something to be good before we test it.