Hebrews 1 makes it pretty clear that Jesus was not an angel.
quote:Originally posted by def59:
Raf
You said Hebrews 1 convinced you that Jesus is Not God.
That's not what I said. Read it again.
quote:The point I keep bringing up is that we were in a group called a cult for a reason. Our doctrines were not God-inspired. Stop rebelling and find your way back to the orthodox faith.
It was a cult because of the way it mistreated people. I reject your standard of what makes a "cult." It's not disagreeing with you on doctrine: it's mistreating people. (I use cult according to its common usage, not its historic).
quote: Stop rebelling and find your way back to the orthodox faith.
Doncha just _love_ it hearing crap like this? ... And this usually coming from the same people who *urged* us to think for ourselves and **free** ourselves from the mind bending and controlling 'cult'!!
-->
And frankly, I don't think there *is* a 'standard' and well reasoned usage of the 'cult' term. Not without there being 'exceptions to the rule' (usually of the mainstream variety), excuses, high emotionalism and other socially accepted forms of flatulance that go along with it.
They controlled your mind so that you weren't thinking for yourselves. Now come think like us and everything will be okay because if you don't we're gonna call you NAMES!
quote: And frankly, I don't think there *is* a 'standard' and well reasoned usage of the 'cult' term.
I went to a couple of sessions of a group run by a psychologist specializing in helping people who have been in a 'cult'. His term for this was "high-demand organization". Seems to me, that place in Ohio would qualify.
quote: His term for this was "high-demand organization". Seems to me, that place in Ohio would qualify.
Would that then mean that the 'cult' term could also apply to say, political organizations, especially religio-conservative ones that expect a high level of acceptance of its dogmas/policies, and treat those who question its party planks as 'unpatriotic' and 'immoral'?
:D-->
But seriously, what I was talking about as there being no 'standard' for the 'cult' term, was its oft-selective usage, illustrated by the often exemption of mainstream examples, coupled with the religious rantings of 'unorthodox heresy', or the psycho-babble of 'mind control', loosly bandied about and applied to questionable groups.
In the Jewish religion, there are many sects which believe we were alive in a spirit form before being born into our human form. This too could explain how someone could exist before they were born. It would also explain how someone could come back in a spirit form and converse with someone who was in human form.
Additionally, many Jewish people do not see the Old Testiment texts as "God Breathed" but as an inspired and historical record of humanity. They also do not take everything written literally, but believe much of it may be symbolic
quote: I have no problem with Christ's preexistence.
Believer's Trumpet -- I do. If Christ "pre-existed" in one form or other (other than in the fore-knowledge of God, he would be different from you and I, and then could not be a "complete" Saviour, tempted in all points like us.
Don't know about you, but I was never "around" before I was born, except perhaps in the foreknowledge of God. I certainly did not pre-exist my birth, and since that is the case (for me), my Saviour could not have been different.
If He was to be "just like us", I take that to mean "just like us", without any excuses to the contrary -- spiritual, or physical.
"1. The Father is greater than the Son and therefore they are not equal.
2. The Father has (or had) knowledge of the timing of future events that He did not share with the Son.
3. Points 1 and 2 lead me to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is not God."
I get the point, but it's slightly flawed. The correct conclusion is that points 1 & 2 mean that Jesus is not THE FATHER.
Thus your condemnation of the Trinity amounts to the old straw man, that of accusing Trinitarians making Jesus the Father. They do nothing of the kind. They declare the Father to be God. And they declare Jesus to be God. None of which I have a problem with.
The Holy Spirit? I won't even go there right now! Suffice to say I don't buy the trinitarian position...
Actually, it's not a straw man. There are other counterarguments to my position that I won't get into, but straw man is not a legitimate one.
My argument is that if the Father is greater than the Son, they are not co-equal, and therefore Jesus Christ is not God because there's something greater than him. You can argue against that, which is fine, but it's not straw man.
The second point is that if there's something the Son does not know, then he is not God. Again, the point can be argued, but my position is not straw man.
I used to delight in the trinitarian-unitarian argument. I no longer delight in it, so if anyone wants to argue with my position, have at it. Just don't be surprised if I don't engage as vigorously as I've been known to engage on other threads, k?
the Word (the Son) was with God, thus distinct from God, in the beginning (John 1:1);
the Word (the Son) was God in the beginning (John 1:1).
Orthodox and informed Trinitarianism commonly uses a nature-being/persons-relations distinction to speak of the Triune God and the persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It can, thereby, recognize all the above statements to be unequivocally and simultaneously true.
How can all such statements be true?
Such statements are true if:
the Father is greater than his Son in some aspect (relation/function);
the Son is equal to his God and Father in some other aspect (divine nature);
the Son is distinct from God in some aspect (person/relation aside his personal/relational Father and God);
the Son is identical with God in some other aspect (himself existing in the nature of God and having all the fullness of the single, undivided being of God).
In the dogmas of Arians and Socinians all these things that Scripture indicates could never really be true. Among such people, some of these statements whereby Scripture attests of Christ must be deconstructed.
quote: But wouldn't Jesus still be far from being "just like us" if he was a perfect, sinless man?
In a word -- No. If He was "fashioned" like Adam was, He would have had God as His Father, and still been human, tempted in all ways like we are, and He would have had the choice to either obey or disobey.
The fact that He was a "perfect, sinless man" is a testament to His choice of following "It is written", instead of "It is what I want".
"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
NIV Acts 2:23
This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
NIV Acts 17:31
For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
NIV 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
NIV Romans 5:15
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man (Adam) how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
The word for “Man” here is Anthropos:
444 a;nqrwpoj anthropos {anth'-ro-pos}
Meaning: 1) a human being, whether male or female 1a) generically, to include all human individuals 1b) to distinguish man from beings of a different race or order.
Anthropos is used to describe Adam, the first man. In the same verse (Romans 5:15) it is used to describe Jesus. If words mean anything, you have to believe that Jesus was a flesh and blood human being just like Adam.
There you have it Oak. :)--> This is from the friendly folks at
quote: But wouldn't Jesus still be far from being "just like us" if he was a perfect, sinless man?
In a word -- No. If He was "fashioned" like Adam was, He would have had God as His Father, and still been human, tempted in all ways like we are, and He would have had the choice to either obey or disobey.
The fact that He was a "perfect, sinless man" is a testament to His choice of following "It is written", instead of "It is what I want".
But neither you nor I (nor anyone else here) were "born" via a miraculous virgin conception(according to the canonical gospels).
Wouldn't this had made Him in some way physically and mentally perfect and sinless - unlike "just like us"? And entering into the world via miraculous conception could hardly be regarded as having been a "choice" on His part, (unless perhaps, He had pre-existed in some form and made that choice Himself).
I think the point is that once Jesus was here, he was indistinguishable from any other human. Same skin, same bones, same blood. Contrast that with typical accounts of angels as being obviously nonhuman when they revealed themselves fully, or the account of when God Himself spoke to Moses through the burning bush. God didn't appear as Jesus, or as a white-haired geriatric, or even a twelve-foot tall winged angel. He took on no even-remotely-human form. After Christ's resurrection, he still appeared completely human to everyone who saw him. He could have done the old burning-bush bit from there on, too, but didn't for some reason.
It's impossible to tell if Christ pre-existed his birth, or if any of us did. If we did, then no one remembers, and no one can explain how spirit works well enough to come up with a solid theory. Plus, there's an awful lot of verses that equate the born-again with Christ--equal abilities, equal inheritance, etc. Goes back to the old Tom Burke song that said "We're God's sons and daughters, you and me/So if Jesus Christ is God, then so are we."
Personally, I have no trouble seeing Christ as the bridge between God and Man, the firstborn of our new-birth family, and Lord of all Creation, subject only to the will of the Father. It does not diminish Christ in the slightest to be #2 when God Almighty is #1. Who else could even come close to claiming that princely honor? Certainly no other man who ever drew breath!
If there is one term that accurately describes the measure of divinity allocated to Christ, it would have to be "plenipotentiary", that is, one who is fully empowered by a higher entity to speak and act on that entity's behalf. Much like an ambassador who can enter his country into an agreement with another country without further grant of authority from his government. Christ has plenipotentiary power to speak for and act for God Almighty--but it is subject to God's will. Jesus prayed for the cup to pass from him, yet he could not bring that to pass on his own. That alone should be the conclusive argument that God is superior to Christ and therefore not equal.
Still, an awful lot of theology has been conjured up to justify the trinitarian two-willed paradox, so it's hard to get people to see if they simply refuse to. If Jesus' body had just been a convenient sock-puppet for God, he'd have skipped happily all the way to Golgotha. Why waste time at Gethsemane if God was wearing His Jesus suit? Bottom line is that it is far easier to reconcile the verses that seem to intimate that Jesus was God if he isn't than to reconcile the ones that make it impossible for Jesus to be God if he is. No other account in the Bible requires as much illogical and contradictory rationalization to be true as does the trinitarian doctrine. 99% of the Bible is amazingly straightforward and up front, and not difficult at all to believe. It does not stand to reason that the very essence of God Himself would take such a convoluted stretch of theology to express when the rest of the Bible stands at face value.
When you think about it, we lose absolutely nothing by having Jesus as #2 in the universe instead of 1/3 of #1. Whoever he prayed to is certainly good enough for any of us mere folk to pray to as well.
I came across this question in a book recently. I'll skip the context in order to keep it short.
How could Jesus have been tempted in all things, like we are, if he had never been married or had children?
How could he have had a complete experiential knowledge and understanding of the unique temptations which occur within the scope of a marriage or within the reality of being a parent?
And while I'm asking questions, remember the wedding in Cana, the one where he turned the water into wine? Just why was his mother acting as a "hostess" and telling Jesus they were out of wine and he needed to see to getting more? Jesus even initially responded as if he didn't want to deal with the wine situation but eventually did after his mother's insistant urging.
What you presented was that Jesus was called a man. You then define a man in such a way that it eliminates God being incarnated as a man, or him being pre-existant.
But does it say anywhere in the bible that your definition of man is the correct one? What definition in the bible eliminates the possibility that the messiah could have been a man who pre-existed? Or was an avatar of God?
Just for the record, I don't think that the bible teaches that Jesus was God in any way shape or form, but there are a lot of verses that don't fit well into the "Jesus didn't exist before his birth in Bethlehem" mold.
Another point that has been brought up by others is the fact that Jesus was, according to what we were taught, of perfect blood, and therefore without a "sin nature". In other words, while theoretically capable of sin, and tempted to engage in it, it was not in his nature to do so.
So on one hand we have your opinion that the perfect blood and sinless nature did not disqualify him from being fully a "man", and on the other your opinion that being pre-existant did. (I would agree that being God disqualifies him as being a man, although one trinitarian formula describes him as "fully God and fully man".)
But can you document your opinion? I don't think Weirwille did when he said "if Jesus Christ is God then we are not redeemed".
"1. The Father is greater than the Son and therefore they are not equal."
I agree that they are not equal in strength or power.
def- the Father and the son are not the same person, but they share a level of equality as part of the Godhead."
Cool, and since Jesus is my brother, and I am told to think of myself as Jesus thought of himself, and Jesus and I are equal; then I am a part of the Godhead too. Wow.
Joint-heirs is such a cool idea, neither heir is above or below any other heir, all having the same claim to power and authority. Exactly equal to each other.
Another point that has been brought up by others is the fact that Jesus was, according to what we were taught, of perfect blood, and therefore without a "sin nature". In other words, while theoretically capable of sin, and tempted to engage in it, it was not in his _nature_ to do so.
(snip)
In terms of COMMITTING sin, that hardly forms a barrier between him and sin.
The first Adam lacked this "sin nature", was theoretically-and practically-
capable of sin, but it was not in his "nature" to sin. However, when tempted,
he DID sin. So, freewill allows the POSSIBILITY of sinning. Angels fell for
sinning as well, you know...
The first Adam had a choice, sinned, and failed.
The second Adam had a choice, obeyed, and succeeded.
Dan, and Oak -- I get a chance to answer two folks with one post. Will wonders never cease! :D-->
After reading your posts (both VERY good, with honest, well-asked questions, and pointed observations), I got to thinking about who Jesus was created like. As Wordwolf just pointed out, Jesus was the 2nd Adam. If Jesus was "a man", it would follow to me that he was created as God intended man to be in the first place.
So Oak -- I guess my understanding (definition) of man is going back to the original man, Adam. He was certainly not "pre-existant", yet he was a very real entity once he appeared on the scene.
He (Adam) had the choice to not sin, yet he did. He was not pre-existant. Jesus (the 2nd Adam) had the same choice afforded Him, yet He did not sin. If He (Jesus) were pre-existant, wouldn't it make sense that He "had an advantage" over Adam? Honest question here.
And Dan -- I guess the "just like us" phrase is not entirely correct. Mabey it should be said "just like Adam", since that is who I believe Jesus was "fashioned" after. But then again, after Adam fell, we became like Adam also.
The difference is that Jesus (imho) was made in the likeness of man, before sin entered into the world .
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
44
33
28
45
Popular Days
Feb 7
41
Feb 21
24
Feb 9
21
Feb 10
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 44 posts
Tzaia 33 posts
Steve Lortz 28 posts
dmiller 45 posts
Popular Days
Feb 7 2005
41 posts
Feb 21 2005
24 posts
Feb 9 2005
21 posts
Feb 10 2005
14 posts
Raf
That's not what I said. Read it again.
It was a cult because of the way it mistreated people. I reject your standard of what makes a "cult." It's not disagreeing with you on doctrine: it's mistreating people. (I use cult according to its common usage, not its historic).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Doncha just _love_ it hearing crap like this? ... And this usually coming from the same people who *urged* us to think for ourselves and **free** ourselves from the mind bending and controlling 'cult'!!
And frankly, I don't think there *is* a 'standard' and well reasoned usage of the 'cult' term. Not without there being 'exceptions to the rule' (usually of the mainstream variety), excuses, high emotionalism and other socially accepted forms of flatulance that go along with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Exactly.
They controlled your mind so that you weren't thinking for yourselves. Now come think like us and everything will be okay because if you don't we're gonna call you NAMES!
Phooey.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheManOfa Thousand ScreenNames
I went to a couple of sessions of a group run by a psychologist specializing in helping people who have been in a 'cult'. His term for this was "high-demand organization". Seems to me, that place in Ohio would qualify.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Would that then mean that the 'cult' term could also apply to say, political organizations, especially religio-conservative ones that expect a high level of acceptance of its dogmas/policies, and treat those who question its party planks as 'unpatriotic' and 'immoral'?
But seriously, what I was talking about as there being no 'standard' for the 'cult' term, was its oft-selective usage, illustrated by the often exemption of mainstream examples, coupled with the religious rantings of 'unorthodox heresy', or the psycho-babble of 'mind control', loosly bandied about and applied to questionable groups.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
In the Jewish religion, there are many sects which believe we were alive in a spirit form before being born into our human form. This too could explain how someone could exist before they were born. It would also explain how someone could come back in a spirit form and converse with someone who was in human form.
Additionally, many Jewish people do not see the Old Testiment texts as "God Breathed" but as an inspired and historical record of humanity. They also do not take everything written literally, but believe much of it may be symbolic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Believer's Trumpet -- I do. If Christ "pre-existed" in one form or other (other than in the fore-knowledge of God, he would be different from you and I, and then could not be a "complete" Saviour, tempted in all points like us.
Don't know about you, but I was never "around" before I was born, except perhaps in the foreknowledge of God. I certainly did not pre-exist my birth, and since that is the case (for me), my Saviour could not have been different.
If He was to be "just like us", I take that to mean "just like us", without any excuses to the contrary -- spiritual, or physical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
and BTW -- I support CES with financial contributions monthly -- with part of those contributions designated to the sole promotion of the site
www.biblicalunitarian.com
so that it shows up faster on search engines for those who wish to see the fallacy behind the trinity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
But wouldn't Jesus still be far from being "just like us" if he was a perfect, sinless man?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Posted by Raf a good long while ago:
"1. The Father is greater than the Son and therefore they are not equal.
2. The Father has (or had) knowledge of the timing of future events that He did not share with the Son.
3. Points 1 and 2 lead me to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is not God."
I get the point, but it's slightly flawed. The correct conclusion is that points 1 & 2 mean that Jesus is not THE FATHER.
Thus your condemnation of the Trinity amounts to the old straw man, that of accusing Trinitarians making Jesus the Father. They do nothing of the kind. They declare the Father to be God. And they declare Jesus to be God. None of which I have a problem with.
The Holy Spirit? I won't even go there right now! Suffice to say I don't buy the trinitarian position...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Evan,
Actually, it's not a straw man. There are other counterarguments to my position that I won't get into, but straw man is not a legitimate one.
My argument is that if the Father is greater than the Son, they are not co-equal, and therefore Jesus Christ is not God because there's something greater than him. You can argue against that, which is fine, but it's not straw man.
The second point is that if there's something the Son does not know, then he is not God. Again, the point can be argued, but my position is not straw man.
I used to delight in the trinitarian-unitarian argument. I no longer delight in it, so if anyone wants to argue with my position, have at it. Just don't be surprised if I don't engage as vigorously as I've been known to engage on other threads, k?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Inequality, Equality, Relation, Ontology
Scripture indicates:
the Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28);
the Son is equal to God (John 5:18);
the Word (the Son) was with God, thus distinct from God, in the beginning (John 1:1);
the Word (the Son) was God in the beginning (John 1:1).
Orthodox and informed Trinitarianism commonly uses a nature-being/persons-relations distinction to speak of the Triune God and the persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It can, thereby, recognize all the above statements to be unequivocally and simultaneously true.
How can all such statements be true?
Such statements are true if:
the Father is greater than his Son in some aspect (relation/function);
the Son is equal to his God and Father in some other aspect (divine nature);
the Son is distinct from God in some aspect (person/relation aside his personal/relational Father and God);
the Son is identical with God in some other aspect (himself existing in the nature of God and having all the fullness of the single, undivided being of God).
In the dogmas of Arians and Socinians all these things that Scripture indicates could never really be true. Among such people, some of these statements whereby Scripture attests of Christ must be deconstructed.
*****
Whom did Isaiah (Isaiah 6:1-5, 8-10; John 12:37-41) see?
He saw Christ, whom he identified him (Isaiah 6:5) by the single divine name, "Jehovah."
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
In a word -- No. If He was "fashioned" like Adam was, He would have had God as His Father, and still been human, tempted in all ways like we are, and He would have had the choice to either obey or disobey.
The fact that He was a "perfect, sinless man" is a testament to His choice of following "It is written", instead of "It is what I want".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Where does the bible say that Christ had to be "one of us" in all particulars in order to have been our redeemer?
I mean, say it to the extent that God or a pre-existant spirit being incarnated would not have fit the bill.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Cynic -- good verses, but that was all in a vision -- right??
Mount of Transfiguation -- a vision -- were Moses and Elijah really there when it happened?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
There you have it Oak.
:)--> This is from the friendly folks at
www.biblicalunitarian.com
I am of the opinion that if Jesus Christ pre-existed His birth, He could not be called "man" as Adam was, and as we are.
Yours was a good question. Maybe this did not answer it totally, but I hope it helps.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
But neither you nor I (nor anyone else here) were "born" via a miraculous virgin conception(according to the canonical gospels).
Wouldn't this had made Him in some way physically and mentally perfect and sinless - unlike "just like us"? And entering into the world via miraculous conception could hardly be regarded as having been a "choice" on His part, (unless perhaps, He had pre-existed in some form and made that choice Himself).
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
I think the point is that once Jesus was here, he was indistinguishable from any other human. Same skin, same bones, same blood. Contrast that with typical accounts of angels as being obviously nonhuman when they revealed themselves fully, or the account of when God Himself spoke to Moses through the burning bush. God didn't appear as Jesus, or as a white-haired geriatric, or even a twelve-foot tall winged angel. He took on no even-remotely-human form. After Christ's resurrection, he still appeared completely human to everyone who saw him. He could have done the old burning-bush bit from there on, too, but didn't for some reason.
It's impossible to tell if Christ pre-existed his birth, or if any of us did. If we did, then no one remembers, and no one can explain how spirit works well enough to come up with a solid theory. Plus, there's an awful lot of verses that equate the born-again with Christ--equal abilities, equal inheritance, etc. Goes back to the old Tom Burke song that said "We're God's sons and daughters, you and me/So if Jesus Christ is God, then so are we."
Personally, I have no trouble seeing Christ as the bridge between God and Man, the firstborn of our new-birth family, and Lord of all Creation, subject only to the will of the Father. It does not diminish Christ in the slightest to be #2 when God Almighty is #1. Who else could even come close to claiming that princely honor? Certainly no other man who ever drew breath!
If there is one term that accurately describes the measure of divinity allocated to Christ, it would have to be "plenipotentiary", that is, one who is fully empowered by a higher entity to speak and act on that entity's behalf. Much like an ambassador who can enter his country into an agreement with another country without further grant of authority from his government. Christ has plenipotentiary power to speak for and act for God Almighty--but it is subject to God's will. Jesus prayed for the cup to pass from him, yet he could not bring that to pass on his own. That alone should be the conclusive argument that God is superior to Christ and therefore not equal.
Still, an awful lot of theology has been conjured up to justify the trinitarian two-willed paradox, so it's hard to get people to see if they simply refuse to. If Jesus' body had just been a convenient sock-puppet for God, he'd have skipped happily all the way to Golgotha. Why waste time at Gethsemane if God was wearing His Jesus suit? Bottom line is that it is far easier to reconcile the verses that seem to intimate that Jesus was God if he isn't than to reconcile the ones that make it impossible for Jesus to be God if he is. No other account in the Bible requires as much illogical and contradictory rationalization to be true as does the trinitarian doctrine. 99% of the Bible is amazingly straightforward and up front, and not difficult at all to believe. It does not stand to reason that the very essence of God Himself would take such a convoluted stretch of theology to express when the rest of the Bible stands at face value.
When you think about it, we lose absolutely nothing by having Jesus as #2 in the universe instead of 1/3 of #1. Whoever he prayed to is certainly good enough for any of us mere folk to pray to as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I came across this question in a book recently. I'll skip the context in order to keep it short.
How could Jesus have been tempted in all things, like we are, if he had never been married or had children?
How could he have had a complete experiential knowledge and understanding of the unique temptations which occur within the scope of a marriage or within the reality of being a parent?
And while I'm asking questions, remember the wedding in Cana, the one where he turned the water into wine? Just why was his mother acting as a "hostess" and telling Jesus they were out of wine and he needed to see to getting more? Jesus even initially responded as if he didn't want to deal with the wine situation but eventually did after his mother's insistant urging.
Hmmmmm...........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Abi: I don't take that to mean Jesus suffered every single possible temptation, merely those that are universal among humankind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
dmiller:
What you presented was that Jesus was called a man. You then define a man in such a way that it eliminates God being incarnated as a man, or him being pre-existant.
But does it say anywhere in the bible that your definition of man is the correct one? What definition in the bible eliminates the possibility that the messiah could have been a man who pre-existed? Or was an avatar of God?
Just for the record, I don't think that the bible teaches that Jesus was God in any way shape or form, but there are a lot of verses that don't fit well into the "Jesus didn't exist before his birth in Bethlehem" mold.
Another point that has been brought up by others is the fact that Jesus was, according to what we were taught, of perfect blood, and therefore without a "sin nature". In other words, while theoretically capable of sin, and tempted to engage in it, it was not in his nature to do so.
So on one hand we have your opinion that the perfect blood and sinless nature did not disqualify him from being fully a "man", and on the other your opinion that being pre-existant did. (I would agree that being God disqualifies him as being a man, although one trinitarian formula describes him as "fully God and fully man".)
But can you document your opinion? I don't think Weirwille did when he said "if Jesus Christ is God then we are not redeemed".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
def59:
"and Galen, et al.
"1. The Father is greater than the Son and therefore they are not equal."
I agree that they are not equal in strength or power.
def- the Father and the son are not the same person, but they share a level of equality as part of the Godhead."
Cool, and since Jesus is my brother, and I am told to think of myself as Jesus thought of himself, and Jesus and I are equal; then I am a part of the Godhead too. Wow.
Joint-heirs is such a cool idea, neither heir is above or below any other heir, all having the same claim to power and authority. Exactly equal to each other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In terms of COMMITTING sin, that hardly forms a barrier between him and sin.
The first Adam lacked this "sin nature", was theoretically-and practically-
capable of sin, but it was not in his "nature" to sin. However, when tempted,
he DID sin. So, freewill allows the POSSIBILITY of sinning. Angels fell for
sinning as well, you know...
The first Adam had a choice, sinned, and failed.
The second Adam had a choice, obeyed, and succeeded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Dan, and Oak -- I get a chance to answer two folks with one post. Will wonders never cease!
:D-->
After reading your posts (both VERY good, with honest, well-asked questions, and pointed observations), I got to thinking about who Jesus was created like. As Wordwolf just pointed out, Jesus was the 2nd Adam. If Jesus was "a man", it would follow to me that he was created as God intended man to be in the first place.
So Oak -- I guess my understanding (definition) of man is going back to the original man, Adam. He was certainly not "pre-existant", yet he was a very real entity once he appeared on the scene.
He (Adam) had the choice to not sin, yet he did. He was not pre-existant. Jesus (the 2nd Adam) had the same choice afforded Him, yet He did not sin. If He (Jesus) were pre-existant, wouldn't it make sense that He "had an advantage" over Adam? Honest question here.
And Dan -- I guess the "just like us" phrase is not entirely correct. Mabey it should be said "just like Adam", since that is who I believe Jesus was "fashioned" after. But then again, after Adam fell, we became like Adam also.
The difference is that Jesus (imho) was made in the likeness of man, before sin entered into the world .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.