|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 3, 2010 19:17:19 GMT -5
a human joined to God (Jesus) I think the Bible teaches that that Jesus became a human, not that he joined to a human. If you meant 'joined to God' in the sense that he loved God then I agree. But if you mean Jesus joined to a human then I think that is incorrect. That doesn't make sense to me. The part that says "this could not otherwise be done than by the life which is according to nature being united to that which had received the corruption". Why would it be true?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 3, 2010 19:54:37 GMT -5
Yes, He is the son of Adam A sinful nature was not passed from Adam to all men, but because of Adam's sin, death passed upon all men and that is why all sin. See Romans 5:12 To be dead is to not know God. Jesus did not sin because He knew God his Father. All other men sin because they do not know God. Romans 5:12 says death passed upon all men because they sinned. Not only is that simple, it's also fair and universally known (Rom 1:32). If Adamic "death" causes sin then we have an excuse for our sins. Sin is avoidable, not inevitable. People are not so estranged from God that they cannot avoid sin:"[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men ... that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." (Acts 17:26-28) People know God exists:"they knew God" (Rom 1:21) "God hath shewed it unto them" (Rom 1:19) "clearly seen, being understood" (Rom 1:20) "manifest in them" (Rom 1:19) "God in their knowledge" (Rom 1:28) This is what people know about God:"the truth" (Rom 1:18) "the truth of God" (Rom 1:25) "that which may be known of God" (Rom 1:19) "the invisible things of him" (Rom 1:20) "his eternal power and Godhead" (Rom 1:20) "the glory of the uncorruptible God" (Rom 1:22) "the Creator" (Rom 1:25) People know about our glorious, powerful, eternal, hidden, incorruptible Creator.
People know God is morally good:"knowing the judgment of God" (Rom 1:32) God's law is written in our heart/conscience:"the work of the law written in their hearts" (Rom 2:15) "their conscience also bearing witness" (Rom 2:15) "their thoughts the mean while accusing" (Rom 2:15) People have no excuse (I can't help it, I didn't know, It's too hard, etc):"they are without excuse" (Rom 1:20): "we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them" (Rom 2:2)
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Nov 4, 2010 6:32:17 GMT -5
a human joined to God (Jesus) I think the Bible teaches that that Jesus became a human, not that he joined to a human. If you meant 'joined to God' in the sense that he loved God then I agree. But if you mean Jesus joined to a human then I think that is incorrect. God became man (human) yet retained His Deity or identity as God. Fully man, fully God. Likewise the Holy Spirit (being God) joins Himself to man (indwelling) yet retains His identity as God. Man is joined to the Holy Spirit (God) yet retains his identity as a man. This is why the Church is called the "bridegroom". The parrells of being joined into "one flesh" are present throughout the scripture, though at no time does that negate the individual identity of husband and wife. This is answered in the latter part of the quote: It was therefore necessary that the Word should become possessed of a body, that He might deliver us from the death of natural corruption. For if, as ye say, He had simply by a nod warded off death from us, death indeed would not have approached us on account of the expression of His will; but none the less would we again have become corruptible, inasmuch as we carried about in ourselves that natural corruption.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 4, 2010 16:00:59 GMT -5
I agree with this. It seems that Jesus changed from divine form to human form. He was still God (God's son) in identity but his nature was now completely human. After becoming a human, his nature was no more divine than our nature is divine. He was exactly like us in every way as Hebrews says. His nature was 100% human, his identity was still the creator of the world, the son of God.
The Lord's nature was fully human. He was not divine in his nature while here on the earth but became fully human. His nature was not 100% man + 100% God. His nature was 100% human. His identity was still the same divine creator, the son of God. In that sense he remained God, but not in the 200% sense of having "two natures" and all that confusion.
These all describe the unity of more than one person. The incarnation was a change of a single person, not a unity of more than one person. Jesus did not unite with a human person. He actually became one.
I saw that but it still seems to lack an explanation.
Is the idea that we inherited mortality as a result of Adam's sin? There is no indication that Adam was non-mortal prior to his sin. In fact, he seemed to need the tree of life in order to prevent death. That would make him mortal. If so, mortality is a result of creation, not sin. The part you bolded doesn't explain any more than the part I first quoted. It's like the person was saying death could not be "warded off" because we are mortal. But death would only need to be warded off if we were mortal. So how is that an explanation?
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Nov 5, 2010 9:08:49 GMT -5
Jesus was, is and has always been fully God, to say otherwise is to deny the Trinity. I am 100% myself, 100% my wife’s husband and 100% the father of my children, that doesn’t make me 300% of anything. Same applies here.
He did not forfeit His divinity, He joined it to humanity. He is the firstfruits, making possible the union of Creator and the created. This is the continuing work of the Holy Spirit who leads us on the path paved by Jesus.
Having been created mortal (man could not be immortal and then become mortal without his first designation being false) man was separated from that which sustained life and prevented corruption (this includes the tree of life). Man being mortal and inheriting corruption (disease/death) needs redemption from that corruption even if he has never sinned. God does not do away with the nature of man by warding off death (then we would be as Satan and the demons) but rather he joins Himself to man to create a marriage that will sustain and redeem him (from corruption, death, etc.).
It’s like an immigrant marrying a natural citizen in order to become a legal member of another county. It still involves leaving the former and inhabiting the latter but the ability to do so is completely dependent upon the qualifications of the natural citizen, not qualifications of the immigrant. The natural citizen still has to agree to marry the immigrant, which is where rules of selection or qualifications are established. Our identity as Christians is dependent upon our union with God during this time of our engagement. In the resurrection, the Church celebrates the long awaited wedding that grants us citizenship in His Kingdom and allows us to dwell in His presence.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 6, 2010 11:37:55 GMT -5
Jesus was, is and has always been fully God Jesus was not omnipotent, omniscient, or immortal after becoming a man. He could rightly be called God because of his identity, in my opinion. But he definitely did not retain what we generally think of as the attributes of God. I was talking about Jesus' nature, not his relationships. Jesus' nature could not be both mortal and immortal, omnipotent and weak, omniscient and growing in wisdom, etc. Those concepts are mutually exclusive. Jesus was in the form of God prior to becoming a man. When he became a man he became like us in every way. We do not possess omnipotence, omniscience, immortality, etc. Therefore, when Jesus became like us in every way, he did not possess these things either. Jesus had glory with the Father being in the form of God from the beginning. When Jesus became a baby human he no longer had the same form nor the former glory. This has to do with rules rather than natural necessity. It is one thing to say it was proper for Jesus to become the leader of the resurrection. It is another thing to say that human mortality necessitates the incarnation in such a way that immortality "could not otherwise be" granted. Maybe we basically agree immortality "could not otherwise be" granted in the sense that Jesus leading the resurrection was the only way God saw as being proper. But you said "God does not do away with the nature of man by warding off death (then we would be as Satan and the demons)" Why devils/demons rather than angels/gods? This statement makes it seem like you think God was incapable of granting immortality apart from the incarnation of the Lord. I don't see any reason to think that.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Nov 6, 2010 12:27:28 GMT -5
It sounds as though you do not believe in the Trinity. You are saying in essence that Jesus is not God, or at least was not God during His incarnation. That is far from kenosis, it is anti-trinitarian. Until you understand that Jesus is God, and that He has never not been God, you will not understand the sentiments of Justin nor the Early Eastern Church's teachings on the incarnation. It was Jesus who made the claims to be God and one with God. One of the most basic confessions of the Fathers was that of Thomas as he looked upon Jesus: My Lord, My God.
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
This discussion is really predicated upon a basic understanding of the ancient position on the Trinity. Perhaps a better study on that would help shed some light on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 6, 2010 14:15:45 GMT -5
You are saying in essence that Jesus is not God, or at least was not God during His incarnation. ... Until you understand that Jesus is God, and that He has never not been God, you will not understand ... I didn't mean to imply that Jesus was not God. A distinction should be made between one's identity (who) and one's nature or attributes (what). When considering the incarnation, a distinction should be made between 'who' Jesus was and 'what' Jesus was. Before the Incarnation: Jesus was God. That is both 'who' he was, his identity, and also 'what' he was, his nature/form/attributes. After the Incarnation: Jesus became a man. He did not become someone else. 'Who' he was stayed the same. His identity as God stayed the same. But 'what' he was changed. His attributes/form/nature changed. Formerly Jesus had the power and knowledge to create the heavens and the earth. When he was born he didn't have enough power or knowledge to sit up straight. After the incarnation, Jesus was both God and man in this sense. God (identity) and man (nature). God (who) and man (what).
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 6, 2010 21:47:00 GMT -5
Justin Martyr wrote this about Jesus: "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures,[of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things--above whom there is no other God--wishes to announce to them." (Dialogue with Trypho) This is a bit off topic but you can see it is related to your apparent Trinitarian objection to Jesus becoming purely human in nature. I can see how Trinitarianism could make it seem impossible for the incarnation to be an actual change. My understanding about Jesus is more along the lines of Justin's quote there.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Nov 8, 2010 9:34:02 GMT -5
Kenosis is about temporarily setting aside certain aspects or attributes, but not ceasing to have access to them indefinitley. The fact that God could join humanity, suffer corruption (death) take up His life again and repeat that miracle via salvation is central to our faith.
Justin is discussing the Logos from a Stoic perspective, which was accepted by Trypho. He was making his case by pointing to Christophanies in what we refer to as the OT. He was showing that Jesus has always been one with the Father, though distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. For Justin, there was not problem with Jesus and the Holy Spirit coming forth from God before creation. Much like the question we have been addressing, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were not created beings that previously did not exist, rather they were persons within the Godhead being recognized/identified/distinguished in new ways. Justin draws on the same concept of the Logos that John drawed upon in his gospel. This position was key in articulating the doctrine of the Trinity.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 8, 2010 19:09:18 GMT -5
Kenosis is about temporarily setting aside certain aspects or attributes, but not ceasing to have access to them indefinitely. Whatever you want to call it, this is exciting, it sounds like we agree. We both believe Jesus was divine before he became a man. We both believe Jesus became a man. We both believe he was without certain former attributes for at least some amount of time. We both believe he remained God in identity. If I remember correctly, Justin said the Father and the "other God" are distinct in number. Here it is, "Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things—numerically, I mean ..." ~ Justin I think Justin is correct to call Jesus "another God" who is "numerically distinct" from God above all. We could discuss the trinity idea in a another thread if you want. It sounds like you think Jesus had different attributes than the Father had, at least for a time. That is the only thing for which I was contending. Some people, because of the Trinity idea, think that Jesus remained in heaven, trinitarianly conjoined to the Father, while his human body was walking around on the earth. I think it is important for us to be clear on Jesus being a real 100% man, like us "in every respect".
|
|