Derail: Two Natures of Christ

[Mountain Man]

Why so? Is a Christian not a son of God? How could claim to be a "son of God" be blasphemy? Is a Christian not consecrated and sent into the world? Jesus does not portray himself as "uniquely" consecrated - uniquely does not appear in the text. " What need would Jesus have to be consecrated/sanctified if he was God? The people who said he was making himself God were of the same kind that said he was a sinner, demon possessed, {a glutton, drunkard, and friend of sinners}, mad: hardly credible witnesses. He didn't admit the allegation, he didn't say "I am God:" he said "I am the son of God." Also he states in verse 25, the the works he does are done in the Father's name.



He was asked to show them the Father, and he said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." While "God" is sometimes used when referring to the Father, there is no occasion when Father is used to mean God. Again - Jesus was not claiming to be the Father when he spoke those words, and there is no justification whatever for reinterpreting "Father" to mean "God."



I do believe that Jesus bestowed that authority after the resurrection. There is no viable argument that I can see in favour of claiming that Jesus was not God after the resurrection: post resurrection he is assuredly God.

First point, yes, a Christian is a son of God, but he is not the Son of God "whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world". Again, there is nothing in the text to suggest that the Pharisees misunderstood his meaning when they accused him of claiming to be God.

Second point, who is "the Father" referring to if not God?

Third point, the idea that Jesus was not God prior to the resurrection is simply not supported by scripture for the reasons I've given, and Sparko has brought up a number of other excellent points, such as Jesus performing miracles in his own name, and allowing people to worship him which would be a violation of the First Commandment if Jesus was merely a man.

[tabibito]

10:5 goes to the idea that He "took on" flesh, rather than "became" flesh.

It can be so read.

13:8 would also depend on whether "yesterday" was intended to extend as far into the past as "forever" extends into the future.

Resolution becomes possible when the start point of Jesus' existence is taken into account. There was a time when the man did not exist. For all that Logos exists eternally past and future, I don't think that it would be possible to support the idea that Jesus existed in past eternal.

Placement w.r.t. angels is also problematic for harmonization. Matthew and Mark note that angles arrived to serve Him during or immediately after His testing in the wilderness. Matt. 26:53 has Jesus saying He could have "twelve legions" of angels at His disposal immediately merely by asking, but apparently He *would* need to *ask*.

And Heb. 1:14 says the angels are sent to serve "those who will inherit salvation," which would seem to mean "believers."

These ministering spirits are sent to serve those who are about to inherit salvation, so yes, believers.

So it's unclear when and how He was "lower" than angels, and the extent to which His status differed from ours w.r.t. angels.

The "lower" (ἐλαττόω) refers to demotion (in status, rank, or influence) - so Logos was demoted. It seems that angels are sent to serve/minister_to humans. And Jesus was made to be in all things the same as his brothers. His status wrt angels was therefore the same as ours. (as I work it out)

You probably already know this, but some won't. When working out what the scriptures say, start with explicit and unambiguous statements, not with can-be-read-as's.

Start with John 1:14 and Philippians 2:6-8: they state beyond doubt what happened when Logos became flesh. He became a man in morphé, in schema, and in homoiōma. Not one of those in isolation is definitive, but taken in combination, the sum states that he became a human. He was in form God: He became in form a servant. That is an unambiguous declaration of a transformation - his form changed, and not only his form.

The Koine Greek of vv 6-8 is far more explicit than the English, and contains information that is not translated, but the standard translation gets the point across well enough without it.
(The Koine Greek reads: Though being God in form (morphé), he counted the ^(his) existence as God no trophy ⁷ but emptied himself, taking the form (morphé) of a servant. Becoming a man in image (omoioma), ⁸ and being found in figure (schema) as a man ...)

Continue with Hebrews 2:17: It was necessary that he be made IN ALL THINGS like his brothers. All of those are straightforward.

Jesus' own statement that he did not have the glory that he had with the father is not quite straightforward - it needs to be assessed (certainly no longer equal with God, if only in that one aspect.)
Also needing assessment: He was made lesser than the angels (that's a demotion.)
and possible supporting points that need interpretation: the sense is not immediately apparent (Disagreements between readers will reasonably arise.)

Can't think of any offhand

And then there are the explicit counter points which need to be reconciled, (points and counterpoints are interchangeable)
The counter points that need to be assessed and reconciled

Acts 20:28 God secured the church with his own blood. (I'm in two minds about whether it might belong to the explicit counter point category)

and possible counter points that need interpretation before anything can be done with them (Again, disagreements will reasonably arise.)

Hebrews 10:5 is one that I cannot just now work out. It is certainly possible that your interpretation is correct.

,

[tabibito]

First point, yes, a Christian is a son of God, but he is not the Son of God "whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world".

Adam was said to be the son of God, and the presence of the definite article is not particularly significant anyway.

Again, there is nothing in the text to suggest that the Pharisees misunderstood his meaning when they accused him of claiming to be God.

Except that Jesus did not affirm the allegation, instead pointing out that he was the son of God, and pointing out further that the scripture calls even those who received the scriptures sons of God. It's quite a stretch, trying to make his response conform with a claim to be God.

Second point, who is "the Father" referring to if not God?

The first person of the trinity. The Holy Spirit is also God, but he is not the Father. If Jesus had said "God" there might have been support for your argument.

Third point, the idea that Jesus was not God prior to the resurrection is simply not supported by scripture for the reasons I've given, and Sparko has brought up a number of other excellent points, such as Jesus performing miracles in his own name, and allowing people to worship him which would be a violation of the First Commandment if Jesus was merely a man.

I have addressed the points that Sparko raised already. The significance of "worship" is a matter of interpretation, the same word is used when paying due respect to a person of higher status (a "worship" that is not disapproved), particularly when that person has done one a kindness, or if one is requesting a kindness. That is where the Syro-Phoenician woman brought rebuke on herself (by my assessment).
Disciples refused worship from other people on grounds that they were equals, but Jesus was their acknowledged superior.

As I noted in my reply to Norrin Radd above, ambiguous and uncertain statements need to be interpreted in the light of explicit and unambiguous statements.

[Mountain Man]

Adam was said to be the son of God, and the presence of the definite article is not particularly significant anyway.



Except that Jesus did not affirm the allegation, instead pointing out that he was the son of God, and pointing out further that the scripture calls even those who received the scriptures sons of God. It's quite a stretch, trying to make his response conform with a claim to be God.



The first person of the trinity. The Holy Spirit is also God, but he is not the Father. If Jesus had said "God" there might have been support for your argument.



I have addressed the points that Sparko raised already. The significance of "worship" is a matter of interpretation, the same word is used when paying due respect to a person of higher status (a "worship" that is not disapproved), particularly when that person has done one a kindness, or if one is requesting a kindness. That is where the Syro-Phoenician woman brought rebuke on herself (by my assessment).
Disciples refused worship from other people on grounds that they were equals, but Jesus was their acknowledged superior.

As I noted in my reply to Norrin Radd above, ambiguous and uncertain statements need to be interpreted in the light of explicit and unambiguous statements.

Again, there is nothing in the text that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the Pharisees misunderstood Jesus' claim to be God.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, three persons in one. The disciples asked, "Show us the Father," and Jesus' answer suggests very clearly that he and the Father are one being.

There is nothing ambiguous about passages in which people worship Jesus. They are clearly showing him the reverence that belongs exclusively to God, and yet Jesus does not rebuke them. Again, this would be blasphemy if Jesus was a merely human.

[tabibito]

Again, there is nothing in the text that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the Pharisees misunderstood Jesus' claim to be God.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, three persons in one. The disciples asked, "Show us the Father," and Jesus' answer suggests very clearly that he and the Father are one being.

There is nothing ambiguous about passages in which people worship Jesus. They are clearly showing him the reverence that belongs exclusively to God, and yet Jesus does not rebuke them. Again, this would be blasphemy if Jesus was a merely human.

προσκυνεω - meanings (LSJ dictionary)
make obeisance to the gods or their images, fall down and worship
prostrating oneself before kings and superiors
greet
welcome respectfully, respect.

Of course, a person who believes that Jesus was deity will interpret proskuneo as worship where Jesus is concerned. A person who does not believe that Jesus was deity will choose a different interpretation.

Which of the possible interpretations is correct depends on whether it is established beforehand and on the basis of available evidence whether Jesus was or was not deity.

[Sparko]

People did claim that is what he was doing. He scotched the claim. In fact, given that he no longer had the glory of God (John 17:5), it is evident that he was not equal to God or the Father.



And again, Jesus stated that people would be doing the same works that he did and even greater works. He did not say that the Father would be doing greater works through them.



Yet Jesus attributed Peter's ultimate failure to a lack of faith only. Peter walked on water, went glug, Jesus rescued him.



There was worship of him as the son of God, not as God. Given that Koine Greek doesn't distinguish between worship and honour, the ambiguity can cause problems.



Yet the Magi were worshipping the one they considered to be "born the king of the Jews." Nothing suggests that they were worshipping him as God - and the ambiguity of "worship" remains.



Likewise, in the first century, "son of God" was not understood to be anything other than a human



You have seen "the son of Man," an appellation that applies only to humans, and not even necessarily prophets.



As did the person I referred to. Prophets (and others who might from time to time prophesy) don't always get their information from visions, sometimes it is almost as though they are dredging up their own forgotten memories.



And conferred that same authority upon his disciples.



As would anyone else in similar circumstances. The man who had been blind from birth, whom Jesus healed, also said "I am" when people were questioning whether he might in fact be the same man who had been blind from birth. It is reasonable to assume that the healed man was not claiming to be God.



As noted earlier, it is clear that Jesus was God prior to his conception. However, that particular citation doesn't show Jesus claiming to be God, just that he had existed since before Abraham.



"You rightly call me teacher and lord, and I am ^{exactly that}" (John 13:13) ... and I tell you these things so that "you will believe that I am." ("he" is not present in the Koine text).

Would you think that Jesus was claiming to be God if you did not already believe that Jesus was God? Another sensei could readily make the same claims - he might be considered somewhat arrogant, but would anyone think such a person was claiming to be God?






The meaning of Joshua doesn't change. One of the early church Fathers made a very strong comparison between Jesus/Joshua and Joshua son of Nun,



And claims that Jesus retained godhood come close to being demolished on that one "became" alone, even without the other texts being brought into play. (I won't make any further comment about "Logos" being rendered as "God the Son")




And another verse is indeed brought into play. Athanasius was not the only early Church theologian who made the claim that, during his incarnation as a man, Christ remained God. To the best of my knowledge, every one of the early theologians who made the claim explicitly denied that Logos (the Word) actually became flesh. (In ordinary English, the speaker would say "flesh and blood."

I am not going to dig through that wall of text. Most of that seems to be (as H_A usually says) your opinion, without any backup at all.

What do you suppose the point of John 1 was when describing the Word as God and becoming flesh and lived among us? You seem to think that this only happened AFTER the resurrection when Jesus went back to heaven. He didn't "live among us" after the resurrection.
If Jesus was just a man during his life growing up until he was crucified, then where was the Word? Your position just makes no sense, not to mention it makes you unorthodox.

And your statement above "As noted earlier, it is clear that Jesus was God prior to his conception".

If Jesus (the man) was not God during his life, how can you say "Jesus was God prior to his conception?" - before his conception Jesus did not exist. Only the Son, the Word, who you claim was NOT Jesus.

[tabibito]

I am not going to dig through that wall of text. Most of that seems to be (as H_A usually says) your opinion, without any backup at all.

That "wall of text" is comprised of point by point responses to the content of your own post, and its length is not much different. Very little of it lacks for scriptural references.

What do you suppose the point of <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=John+1&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.John.1" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">John 1</a> was when describing the Word as God and becoming flesh and lived among us?

John's point was that Logos had become a man. He described Logos as God who went on to become flesh. As Philippians 2:6 shows, Logos did not cease to exist, he simply ceased existence as God.

You seem to think that this only happened AFTER the resurrection when Jesus went back to heaven. He didn't "live among us" after the resurrection.

No -- I have indicated that Christ was restored to godhood after resurrection and at that point became both God and Man.

If Jesus was just a man during his life growing up until he was crucified, then where was the Word? Your position just makes no sense, not to mention it makes you unorthodox.

More unorthodox than Athanasius? or less? He claimed that Christ could rightly be called a man, but that in reality Logos had not become a man (i.e. he claimed that the scriptures don't mean what they say) - According to Athanasius, Logos simply occupied human flesh as he might have a temple.

And your statement above "As noted earlier, it is clear that Jesus was God prior to his conception".

If Jesus (the man) was not God during his life, how can you say "Jesus was God prior to his conception?" - before his conception Jesus did not exist. Only the Son, the Word, who you claim was NOT Jesus.

"He was" in the sense of "he had been." A lapse of formally correct grammar that I will be more careful to avoid in future.



Just as a BTW: I do assert the truth of the Nicene Creed, so terming me "unorthodox" isn't quite correct.

[tabibito]

Addition to prior post...

And your statement above "As noted earlier, it is clear that Jesus was God prior to his conception".

"He was" in the sense of "he had been." A lapse of formally correct grammar that I will be more careful to avoid in future.

If Jesus (the man) was not God during his life, how can you say "Jesus was God prior to his conception?" - before his conception Jesus did not exist. Only the Son, the Word, who you claim was NOT Jesus.

You're saying that Jesus existed before he was conceived? And how could you get a claim that "the Word ... was not Jesus" from the statement that Logos was not Jesus before his conception as Jesus?

[tabibito]

10:5 goes to the idea that He "took on" flesh, rather than "became" flesh.

There are two issues:

In what sense "prepared"?
The person having entered (or having been brought) into the world says "you have prepared a body for me."
Is this "prepared" a matter of constructing something new, or of making something that already exists fit for purpose?

The other one, who did not desire sacrifice, prepared the body.

Whatever the interpretation, is there enough assurance to allow the claim that it modifies or contradicts unambiguous passages?


i

[tabibito]

Sparko has brought up a number of other excellent points, such as Jesus performing miracles in his own name

It took a while to find it, but Acts 2:22 seems to have a small amount of relevance there.

[Sparko]

That "wall of text" is comprised of point by point responses to the content of your own post, and its length is not much different. Very little of it lacks for scriptural references.



John's point was that Logos had become a man. He described Logos as God who went on to become flesh. As Philippians 2:6 shows, Logos did not cease to exist, he simply ceased existence as God.

That is unscriptural . God can't cease to exist.

No -- I have indicated that Christ was restored to godhood after resurrection and at that point became both God and Man.

As the bible shows, he was still God while on earth. That was the whole point. God with us. Emmanuel. The Sanhedrin understood what he was claiming and crucified him for it.

More unorthodox than Athanasius? or less? He claimed that Christ could rightly be called a man, but that in reality Logos had not become a man (i.e. he claimed that the scriptures don't mean what they say) - According to Athanasius, Logos simply occupied human flesh as he might have a temple.

I have no idea what Athanasius believed. But if you are claiming that Jesus was not both fully God and Man from the conception forward then you are indeed unorthodox and should change your faith designation on this site.

"He was" in the sense of "he had been." A lapse of formally correct grammar that I will be more careful to avoid in future.

So you are claiming that the Trinity became a "Binity" during Jesus's life? That God's nature changed from three divine persons who are fully God to two persons who was fully God?

Just as a BTW: I do assert the truth of the Nicene Creed, so terming me "unorthodox" isn't quite correct.

Not really. You are taking advantage of a bit of vagueness in the creed to insert your unorthodox belief into it.

Where it says, "he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,and became man." - you are claiming it means he was only a man, and no longer God. That is NOT what it means.

[Mountain Man]

It took a while to find it, but Acts 2:22 seems to have a small amount of relevance there.

Keep reading. Peter goes on to reference prophecies spoken by King David which imply Jesus' eternal godhood.

[tabibito]

That is unscriptural . God can't cease to exist.

Philippians 2:6 is unscriptural?? At the least (assuming only for the sake of argument - strictly for the sake of argument only) if even the English translation is accepted, Logos gave up equality with God: not equal to God is not God.
God died, according to (a logical interpretation of) Acts 20:28 - Is that also not scripture? Or is "God died" a heresy too? If so you'll need to deal with John Wesley's bones.
When Logos was demoted, becoming lesser than the angels - and therefore lesser than God - is that also not scripture?
My argument is that ceasing to exist as God does not mean ceasing to exist. Likewise, when a human dies he just loses his body - he doesn't cease to exist. So then - there is never a time when Logos was not; there was a short time when he was not God.

As the bible shows, he was still God while on earth. That was the whole point. God with us. Emmanuel.

His name was Emmanuel (God is with us), and Jesus (Y'hoshua) means "The Lord is salvation" - There are plenty of Immanuels and Joshuas running around even today.

The Sanhedrin understood what he was claiming and crucified him for it.

The Sanhedrin also understood that he cast out demons only by the prince of demons, that he was a glutton+drunkard+friend of sinners. They had him crucified for the crime of being the Messiah - by first century Jewish understanding, a man. They couldn't convict him on religious charges, that's why Rome was brought into the fray.

I have no idea what Athanasius believed.

You do - you just haven't known that he was the prime mover in promoting the "traditional" concept of Trinity.

But if you are claiming that Jesus was not both fully God and Man from the conception forward then you are indeed unorthodox and should change your faith designation on this site.

If you (or anyone else) show me where the scripture demonstrates where I am wrong, I will alter my viewpoint. If not, it might be better to consider Gamaliel's advice. Gamaliel = The Lord is my reward.

So you are claiming that the Trinity became a "Binity" during Jesus's life? That God's nature changed from three divine persons who are fully God to two persons who was fully God?

There was demonstrably a change in God: the second person of the trinity was human - whether or not he remained God: that is something that no member of the Trinity had previously been.

Not really. You are taking advantage of a bit of vagueness in the creed to insert your unorthodox belief into it.

Where it says, "he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,and became man." - you are claiming it means he was only a man, and no longer God. That is NOT what it means.

As you have noted, the creed is vague. Scripture is not - nowhere does it claim that Logos remained God when he became man - it does say that he became lesser than the angels, and that God worked miracles through him, and that he did nothing on his own authority, and that he was in no way different from his brothers, and that he did not have the glory that he had when he was with the Father.

[tabibito]

Keep reading. Peter goes on to reference prophecies spoken by King David which imply Jesus' eternal godhood.

I note that God raised him up again. So, he had been dead.

[Mountain Man]

I note that God raised him up again. So, he had been dead.

Yes, God the Father did miracles through Jesus, but Jesus also performed miracles on his own. Such is the mystery of Jesus' dual nature as essentially God, and essentially human. You can only arrive at your unorthodox point of view that Jesus was only human between his birth and resurrection by willfully ignoring those passages which clearly establish that he was God.