Two Possibilities in Explaining Christ's Divine Behavior & His Limited Human Behavior.

[Bible Highlighter]

But Jesus was tempted, but without sin. That is why Satan tempted Him. He passed the test as a man. Satan was trying to get Jesus to worship Him, or turn stones into bread, or jump off the Temple. He was basically saying-show me something "if" you are the Son of God! Trying to get Jesus to use His Divine powers, or get mad.

That is why He said He could of prayed to the Father and got 12 legions of angels when He was arrested- but He didn't. (Mat. 26:53) He was fulfilling Scripture, being the Lamb led to the slaughter. And He had to do it as a man.

I think I agreed with you that Jesus would never want to sin because He had no sin nature- if you re-read that. But that don't mean the test was not genuine, cause the Scripture says it was.

It seems I've had the same arguments with JWs that sound a lot like this? Either way, I find it hard to follow your logic. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point. God will sort it all out one day.

Well, I am far from a JW, so please do not relate our conversation with a conversation you had with a JW as being the same, my friend. I believe in the Trinity and that Jesus is 100% God. JW's deny the Trinity and they deny that Jesus is God. They erroneously believe he is Michael the archangel. So we are not even in the same ballpark.

Think Cause and Effect.
Think of the core of who Jesus was based on the good works that He did.
In other words, if Jesus only did good, that means at his core, He is good both body, and in His Eternal Spirit.

How can one be Holy and good and yet have the potential to do evil?

Is that the God you serve? A God who actually had to overcome sin? As if something was inside him tempting Him (internally) to do bad things? See, you can't be internally tempted by something without some kind of desire for the thing you are tempted with. Jesus did not even consider turning the stones into bread to be fed in the devil's temptation. Such a possibility did not exist for the Son of God because He is God and cannot think bad thoughts, or consider evil, or lust, or do sin. Jesus is Holy. Jesus did not have to contend with carnal flesh. He had to be clean. Spotless. Blameless so as to clean of our sin and be our substitute. Okay. I would like for you to do me a favor. Please ask God the meaning of this verse below several times this month, my friend.

"For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;" (Hebrews 7:26).

Believe it. Put it in your heart.
For it says that Jesus is undefiled and separate from sinners and that He is holy.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But Jesus was tempted, but without sin.

Jesus is God, right?
So if Jesus is God, then he could not be tempted to sin according to Scripture.
For James 1:13 says,
"God cannot be tempted with evil,..."

Also, as for Christ or God not able to be tempted by sin and yet Scripture saying that He was tempted:

Well, let me illustrate an example for you.

Let's say I was walking along the park and a shady looking character opens up his trench coat and says he has some hot watches that he just recently acquired that he would like to sell me. Okay, now it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that these watches were probably stolen, so I would just tell him,

"No thank you."

Now, in retrospect, I could say that this shady character was tempting me. Yet in no way was I interested at all. So one can say a person was tempted by another without them having no interest in the part of the temptation given.

In other words, Jesus was tempted externally by others but He was not internally tempted or interested in doing that sin or evil.

 

[discipler7]

So I am not sure why you quoted John 20:28. I have used that verse many times to show that Jesus is God.

What will you be doing if/when you meet the Lord Jesus Christ at His 2nd Coming to earth.?

What will you be doing if/when you meet God the Father in the kingdom of heaven, and when will that be.?

MATTHEW.7:13-14 = The Narrow Way
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What will you be doing if/when you meet the Lord Jesus Christ at His 2nd Coming to earth.?

What will you be doing if/when you meet God the Father in the kingdom of heaven, and when will that be.?

MATTHEW.7:13-14 = The Narrow Way
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

I believe in the Pre-Trib Rapture and that I must live holy in order to partake in it. So yes, I believe we need to be on the narrow way or path. But what does that got to do with the topic of this thread?

 

[Anto9us]

There really is no Theological name for what I believe in regards to Christ's nature.

I'd buy that for a dollar -- you can say that again -- I think your Christology is quite unique.

But I feel you are applying TIME LIMITATIONS to the Incarnation that are simply not true for the Pre-existent Eternal Son of God, in Origen's terms the Eternally Being generated Son of God, He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, He is the Alpha and the Omega, there never was when He was not...

He is truly God and Truly Man -- speculations as to HOW and exactly WHEN He went from
Lamb Slain from the foundation of the world
to Logos who made the worlds
to only begotten Son Incarnate who had a flesh and blood body to Glorified Christ who had/has a flesh and bone body -- HOW this duality of natures was done is simply above our paygrades;
how can we comprehend the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation anyway?

Sure, theological terms can be made up for these things -- but we don't truly KNOW the procedure/mechanisms the way we know how an alternator works in a car - they are MUSTERION

and I for one am not Sola Scriptura, but Wesleyan Quadrilateral, and Tradition and Reason aid where SCRIPTURE does not specifically say "God has three personas in one triune being" or that "Christ is truly God and truly man"; and Experience confirms it as I run into Christian after Christian, online or IRL, who believes Nicene Christology and KNOWS WHY THEY BELIEVE IT.

So I came to believe what the early church fathers worked out, and agreed with it, it is arrogant to assume that people who hold to a standard Nicene and Chalcedonian Christology as I do -- do so because they just went "went along with what they were taught from the cradle" and never questioned or researched it themselves as a Berean would --

that is something that you cannot say of those standard Trinitarian/Chalcedonian Christians, Jason; unless you would have us think that you are a mind-reader?

Do you have all knowledge of what me or others did to come to believe in what just so happens to be a normative Christology expressed in the Nicene Creed? I submit that you do not know; yes, your Christology is not something I could put a label on.

You could label the Oneness Pentecostals' Christology and non-view of the Trinity as Modalistic Monarchianism and not be too far off.

You could label the JW's beliefs as Arianism Regurgitated and not be far off.

So - fine if you have no label for your Christology - make one up yourself or else just leave it as
THE CHRISTOLOGY WITH NO NAME, like Clint Eastwood was The Man With No Name in those spaghetti westerns...

But don't presume to know how I (or anyone else) came to be a holder of Nicene and Chalcedonian Christology, I studied for years the church history concerning the decisions of what went into the Creed and the later council on Dual Natures.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Important Note:

Apollinarism is not biblical because it states that Jesus has a human soul. However, Apollinarism is closer to the truth of Scripture in the fact that it says that Jesus has one nature (Which is divine).​

I am a believer in Jesus Christ. I am a Christian. I believe in the Trinity and I believe Jesus died and was risen again on my behalf for salvation through faith by God's Word (the Bible) alone. I believe Jesus had a real physical flesh and blood body (Whose shed blood washed away my sins). However, there is one thing (besides OSAS) I have discovered that disturbs me greatly among my own brethren. What has troubled me is that my fellow fellow Christians reject the belief that Jesus had one divine nature and or one divine mind, will, or soul. They somehow oddly reject this truth.

Why do I believe this? Was it because of some creed or church told me to believe this way? No. Most surely not. It is purely based on what I have come to know the Scriptures say and by logic, and knowing the love of God, and His good ways. I believe many of my fellow brothers and sisters reject this truth in Scripture because of what they have been taught by others and they did not search the Scriptures to see whether these things be so or not for themselves (in prayer and careful study).

So here are the verses for you to consider:

#1. Hebrews 7:26 - "For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;"

Jesus is holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. He was made higher than the heavens. He became us (in the fact that he had a flesh and blood body), but he was holy. A person or being who is truly holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners does not have the capacity to sin. To say that Jesus had a human nature is to say that he had the ability to do evil. This means that in order to do evil or sin, one must have lusts or bad desires within them in order to carry out or act upon those wrong desires or lusts. Yet, the Bible says he was holy, undefiled and separate from sinners.​

#2. 1 John 2:16 - "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."

This verse states that the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30).

So if Jesus is truly one with the Father (and He is), then Jesus cannot also have any lusts of the flesh, or lusts of the eyes, or the pride of life. These things are of the world. In fact, the devil tried to offer Jesus the kingdoms of this world, but He refused his offer.​

#3. Micah 5:2 - "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

This is a Messianic prophecy that talks about how Jesus will be a ruler over Israel one day. It says that the origin of this ruler (Jesus) is from of old, from everlasting. How does this refute the popular idea in Christianity that Jesus had a human nature, soul, or spirit? Because to say that Jesus has a human nature means that He is a newly created being that did not exist before the Incarnation. He would not have technically existed from everlasting if he joined with a newly created human counterpart in the Incarnation. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. His origins are from everlasting in the fact that He is the eternal Living Word (or the Word of God as Revelation says). Jesus. He always existed.​

#4. 1 John 4:2 - "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God."

It's a pretty fair conclusion to make that Jesus was unlike us. He was unique. This verse is not saying that he was like us. This verse does not say after he came into the flesh he became known as the man called, Jesus Christ. That is not what we are to confess. We are to confess that Jesus Christ is COME in the flesh. What this verse is suggesting (like other verses) is that Jesus Christ has always existed. Jesus Christ is COME (entered) into the flesh or body of a man. In fact, Jesus was laughed at when he said he knew Abraham. But Jesus said this to them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58). After the crowd heard this: The crowd went ape crazy and they picked up stones to throw at him. In other words, Jesus is saying He has always existed. He did not come down into a newly created human soul or spirit and take on a human nature so as to potentially sin. That wouldn't make any sense.​

#5. 1 Peter 2:24 - "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."

Many believe that the atonement is denied if one does not believe Jesus had a human nature. But having a human soul or human spirit is not a requirement in order for God to redeem us of our sins. How so? Peter says that Jesus took on our sins in his body on the cross. So the human spirit and or human soul is not necessary for our salvation. Jesus's blood is what washes away our sins and not the soul or some spirit. For a high price was paid for our sins, and that was with Christ's death.​

#6. 1 Timothy 3:16 - "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

This verse says that God was manifest in the flesh. It does not say God was manifest through a human soul or human spirit along with that flesh. God was manifest in the flesh. However, if Jesus took on a human soul, and human spirit, it really wouldn't be God manifesting in the flesh because He would be like every other believer who has God living inside of them. Jesus was unique and different from us. Jesus was literally GOD. He was manifest in the flesh.​

#7. John 14:30 - "Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me."

Jesus is claiming that the devil has nothing inside of him. Meaning, Jesus does not have any of the lusts of the devil residing within himself (Which would be present in a normal corrupt human nature).

Jesus says to certain Jews, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. " (John 8:44).

So Jesus is describing something of his opponents that they do, which does not apply to Him.

For Jesus says, "If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me." (John 8:42).

So lusts do not reside in Jesus. So the false belief that Jesus could have sinned because he had a human nature does not work.

14 "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." (James 1:14-15).​

Jesus indeed had--and still has--a human soul. Otherwise, He would not be fully human.

That's the big problem with the heresy of Appolinarianism: it denies Christ's FULL human nature.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'd buy that for a dollar -- you can say that again -- I think your Christology is quite unique.

Are you quoting Robo Cop?

I recognize the reference because I used to quote this movie (among many others) when I was younger. Granted, I do not watch secular movies anymore. I primarily just watch Christian movies and educational documentaries now.

Anyways, thank you for saying my Christology is unique. All glory be to God for any knowledge He has given me.

But I feel you are applying TIME LIMITATIONS to the Incarnation that are simple not true for the Pre-existent Eternal Son of God, in Origen's terms the Eternally Being generated Son of God, He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, He is the Alpha and the Omega, there never was when He was not...

I agree that the Logos (the Word) always existed. What I disagree with is that the Incarnation changed who He was. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday (eternity's past), today, and forever. Jesus said He came down from Heaven (John 6:38). He did not say He merged with a human soul and or human spirit to boot. He did not say He is uniquely a new being within the universe. Granted, one could get around this one if they said Jesus spoke from two different natures or personalities (one being divine and other being human). But I do not think you or others believe that.

He is truly God and Truly Man -- speculations as to HOW and exactly WHEN He went from
Lamb Slain from the foundation of the world
to Logos who made the worlds
to only begotten Son Incarnate who had a flesh and blood body to Glorified Christ who had/has a flesh and bone body -- HOW this duality of natures was done is simply above our paygrades;
how can we comprehend the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation anyway?

I do not believe the duality of natures exist but we are merely witnessing the Logos experiencing things on this Earth in the flesh while His divine attribute of Omniscience was suppressed. There is no indication that He had a human soul merge with His divine soul or His divine soul co-exist perfectly in unity with some human soul. I see other verses suggesting that such thing did not happen.

As for time:

Well, I believe the time shown to us in Time Travel movies is fake.
I do not believe God exists in all points in time but He lives in the present.
Yes, I believe God perfectly knows what is going to happen before it happens with pin point precision. He knew about every detail of us long before we were born. But I do not believe God exists in all points in time. That would mean God would not have rested on the 7th day if that was the case. It would mean Jesus did not offer one sacrifice for all time, if that was the case, too.

Sure, theological terms can be made up for these things -- but we don't truly KNOW the procedure/mechanisms the way we know how an alternator works in a car - they are MUSTERION

I find learning about God's Word to be pleasurable. These debates help me to dig deeper in God's Word. Even with a subject I think I know, I keep learning more in God's Word because God keeps showing me more each time I go back to that topic. But yes, I know what you mean. There are some things we do not need to know obviously; But whatever I can learn from God's Word, I want to know it. For I know studying God's Word pleases the Lord.

and I for one am not Sola Scriptura, but Wesleyan Quadrilateral, and Tradition and Reason aid where SCRIPTURE does not specifically say "God has three personas in one triune being" or that "Christ is truly God and truly man"; and Experience confirms it as I run into Christian after Christian, online or IRL, who believes Nicene Christology and KNOWS WHY THEY BELIEVE IT.

Well, I agree with:

(1) Scripture
(2) Reason
(3) Experience

out of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (or John Wesley's four-part theological method).
But I do not agree with (4) Tradition.

I believe we are living in the last days and that many in the churches today have corrupted themselves both in belief and in deed. Granted, I am not saying everybody is wrong, but I believe many are. I am not saying I am perfect, but I strive to be for the Lord. Nothing is more important than following Jesus. But this is simply not the reality for most. God is just a Sunday time moment for many; Or they think they can serve God and their sin, too. Granted, that is not to say that I do not read tons of articles from Christians to gain insight into God's Word. But I look to Scripture and I pray. What Wesley leaves out on His method above is Prayer. IMO - This should be #4, instead. Also, there are different ways to study God's Word so as not to fall into error, as well. Looking at the context, believing God's Word plainly in what it says (Unless there is an indication in the text or another verse that suggests otherwise), looking at cross references, and sometimes the original languages.

So I came to believe what the early church fathers worked out, and agreed with it, it is arrogant to assume that people who hold to a standard Nicene and Chalcedonian Christology as I do -- do so because they just went "went along with what they were taught from the cradle" and never questioned or researched it themselves as a Berean would --

I wish that were so. Most I talk with do not really read the verses or points I put forth to them. This means they are latching onto a previous ingrained belief that is hard to let go. I am not exclusively talking about this topic or discussion here. I have talked on many topics in God's Word before, and I just see many deny or change what God's Word says. Granted, I am not infallible. I have been known to be wrong on rare occasion and I will admit when I am wrong about something. But I need the Scriptural evidence. That is how I discuss these things.

that is something that you cannot say of those standard Trinitarian/Chalcedonian Christians, Jason; unless you would have us think that you are a mind-reader?

I have been around the block a few times. I know how these discussions work. If folks insult me and the do not use Scripture and I make great points that they keep ignoring and they just keep insulting me, chances are pretty good that I am in the right.

Do you have all knowledge of what me or others did to come to believe in what just so happens to be a normative Christology expressed in the Nicene Creed? I submit that you do not know; yes, your Christology is not something I could put a label on.

You could label the Oneness Penetcostals' Christology and non-view of the Trinity as Modalistic Monarchianism and not be too far off.

I am not here to quarrel with anyone or to offend. My goal is to seek the truth with Scripture and these debates help me to get more in the Word of God. If you believe I have misjudged folks, then by all means I can understand that is your perspective, but from my perspective, I feel I am correct. I would not judge a wrong belief unless I have sufficient evidence in God's Word to condemn such a belief.

You could label the JW's beliefs as Arianism Regurgitated and not be far off.

I have ran into a few JW's before. We have to pray for them.

So - fine if you have no label for your Christology - make one up yourself or else just leave it as
THE CHRISTOLOGY WITH NO NAME, like Clint Eastwood was The Man With No Name in those spaghetti westerns...

It is kind of funny you say that. I was actually thinking today that I need to come up with a Theological name for what I believe. Thank you for the encouragement. Oh, and hey. Speaking of Westerns. Did you see the Christian Western Movie called, "The Redemption of Henry Myers?" Great film!

If you like this Christian film recommendation, I have a few others that I really like (that you should check out).

See this thread here:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-you-find-to-be-the-most-rewatchable.8055027/

But don't presume to know how I (or anyone else) came to be a holder of Nicene and Chalcedonian Christology, I studied for years the church history concerning the decisions of what went into the Creed and the later council on Dual Natures.

I do not regard man made History as being all that helpful to me in my faith. I see man made History only helpful if it is supported only by lots of Scripture. For I take man made history with a grain of salt. For men can lie. But God cannot lie. His Word is true.

Here is a short animated video to help you to understand where I am coming from.

 

[Anto9us]

I did not see that western, Jason, neither can my poor computer do the trailer right now.

Yes, I was quoting from RoboCop about "I'd buy that for a dollar".

Usually the the only movies I go to these days are Super-Hero Movies, last one being Ant-Man and the Wasp, I thought it was great -- they were relatively minor characters in the Marvel world -- but were in the Avengers at one time.

I would not dismiss Tradition altogether from being a factor in guiding us - the 4 legs of the stool re-inforce each other, and as a matter of fact it is your Tradition that designates the SCOPE of your SCRIPTURE. Iow, 66 books in Protestant Bible, a handful more in Catholic or Orthodox, although I really don't think there is any doctrine to speak of in the Deuterocanonicals that one would HAVE TO HAVE - I do read Orthodox Study Bible and have read all of what some Protestants would call Apocrypha, but RCC and Ortho's probably prefer the designation Deuterocanonical.

Non-Human Pseudo-Apollinarism?
Non-Chalcedonian LeftHanded Apollinarism?
Non-Merged Logo-Perpetualism?
Fraid I am no help.

But on the Quadrilateral - Experience is the only thing added to the old Catholic and Anglican formula of Scripture-Tradition-Reason -- there is a whole sub-forum here at CF of those guys.

In the 1960's a theologian named Albert Outler said the QuadriLateral was "what Wesley would have said" about how he arrived at decisions (of course you are right, Prayer should have been in there).
So Wesley never really knew that he had a Quadrilateral named after him. Scripture always primary, Reason, Experience and Tradition as supportive.

 

[Anto9us]

I got my dying PC to play the movie trailer, not the other one...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jesus indeed had--and still has--a human soul. Otherwise, He would not be fully human.

Please give me one verse that says or strongly suggests without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus took on a human soul. That's all I ask.

That's the big problem with the heresy of Appolinarianism: it denies Christ's FULL human nature.

I updated the OP. I technically do not believe in Apollinarism because it also teaches that Jesus had a human soul (of which I disagree with). What I agree with in Apollinarism is that it teaches that Christ had one nature (Which was divine). But technically there is no Theological name for what I believe. Perhaps I will call my belief:

Christo's Sola Diviné Soule (or)
Christo's Sola Diviné Soule-ism (or)
Christ's One and Only Divine Soul.

For I believe the Bible teaches that Jesus only had a divine soul only;
For I believe it is highly probable that before the creation of the world, the glory that Jesus shared with the Father was His divine attribute of Omniscience unrestrained (See John 17). For when Jesus walked this Earth in a flesh and blood body, I believe it was the Eternal Logos who suppressed His divine attribute of Omniscience.

 

[Anto9us]

Heb 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15
And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Heb 2:16
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but

he took on him the seed of Abraham.

 

[Anto9us]

The earlier part of Hebrews two was talking about MAN _ - as described by the Psalmist- Psalm 8 I think, anyway:

Heb 2:6
But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7
Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Heb 2:8
Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
Heb 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Heb 2:10
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Heb 2:11
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

 

[Anto9us]

Heb 2:17
Wherefore
in all things

it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren,

that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I did not see that western, Jason, neither can my poor computer do the trailer right now.

You can get a Firebox TV and rent it through Amazon Prime. Firebox TV is a little box that is about 40 bucks (not the cube version) at Amazon. You can watch trailers on Firefox browser on the FireTV box with your TV.

Yes, I was quoting from RoboCop about "I'd buy that for a dollar".

My memory is better than I thought.

Usually the the only movies I go to these days are Super-Hero Movies, last one being Ant-Man and the Wasp, I thought it was great -- they were relatively minor characters in the Marvel world -- but were in the Avengers at one time.

I watched all the Marvel movies and series (Excluding Deadpool and Dr. Strange) up until October of 2016 (with the Luke Cage Series being the last thing I watched). After that point, I gave up my secular movie watching. So I am well aware of Marvel films and I used to be a huge fan of the comics when I was a kid. Now, I strive to be a sole fan of Jesus Christ instead. For He is the way the truth and the life.

I would not dismiss Tradition altogether from being a factor in guiding us - the 4 legs of the stool re-inforce each other, and as a matter of fact it is your Tradition that designates the SCOPE of your SCRIPTURE.

Tradition comes from a specific church. No church I have seen follows exactly what Jesus and the disciples did. There are little alterations and additions on things. We are not going to be judged by God for not partaking in made made church traditions. We are going to be judged by the Word of God by Jesus Himself.

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48).

The word which Jesus has spoken shall judge a person in the last day.
Not church tradition.
In fact, Jesus had a problem with man made religious traditions.

Iow, 66 books in Protestant Bible,

I wouldn't say the Protestants have the sole right to say that they are the ones who believe in the 66 book cannon alone. But I believe the 66 books is what makes up Scripture or God's Word. God's Word (the 66 books) has proven itself time and again that it is divine in origin. See my blog article here for the many evidences that back up God's Word.

http://lovebranch.blogspot.com/2017/02/evidences-for-word-of-god.html

a handful more in Catholic or Orthodox, although I really don't think there is any doctrine to speak of in the Deuterocanonicals that one would HAVE TO HAVE - I do read Orthodox Study Bible and have read all of what some Protestants would call Apocrypha, but RCC and Ortho's probably prefer the designation Deuterocanonical.

All false additions obviously because they contradict Scripture.

Non-Human Pseudo-Apollinarism?
Non-Chalcedonian LeftHanded Apollinarism?
Non-Merged Logo-Perpetualism?
Fraid I am no help.

Thanks, but I came up with...

Christo's Sola Diviné Soule (or)
Christo's Sola Diviné Soule-ism (or)
Christ's One and Only Divine Soul.

 

[Anto9us]

Heb 2:18

For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

 

[Anto9us]

Christo's Sola Diviné Soule (or)
Christo's Sola Diviné Soule-ism (or)
Christ's One and Only Divine Soul.

I like the last one.

Any thoughts on the references I put up from Hebrews 2 ?

Sure seem to paint a human Christ to me.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The earlier part of Hebrews two was talking about MAN _ - as described by the Psalmist- Psalm 8 I think, anyway:

Heb 2:6
But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7
Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Heb 2:8
Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
Heb 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Heb 2:10
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Heb 2:11
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Heb 2:17
Wherefore
in all things

it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren,

that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

He was made LIKE unto His brethren. The word "like" in that passage does not mean an exact replica or copy. For surely Jesus did not take on the sin nature of Adam by the male seed. Hence, why He had a virgin birth. I believe this to be talking about his body and not his human soul. In the Incarnation: He was made a little lower than the body of angels and took on human flesh and blood by way of the virgin Mary.

As for Jesus calling them brethren: Who does Jesus consider as His brethren? Those who struggle with sin their whole lives and or who are in sin? No. Jesus says,

"...whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." (Matthew 12:50).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I will admit that Hebrews 2 and Hebrews 4 are the strongest pieces of Scripture that suggest that Jesus may have had a human soul. But the passages in Hebrews 2 and Hebrews 4 can just as easily be read from my perspective, as well.

 

[Anto9us]

Psa 8:3
When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
Psa 8:4
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Psa 8:5
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Psa 8:6
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

The Psalmist considers the majestic creation of God, and at first thinks of MAN as nothing beside it, then goes on the state that God has crowned Man with glory and honor, and "put all things under his feet" - the phrase attributed to Jesus in Hebrews.

 

[Anto9us]

For surely

Jesus did not take on the sin nature of Adam by the male seed.

Heb 2:16
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but

he took on him the seed of Abraham.