Derail: Two Natures of Christ

[tabibito]

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.

Answering strictly from the text, who was performing great wonders in Acts 6:8?

[Mountain Man]

Answering strictly from the text, who was performing great wonders in Acts 6:8?

God. But you will also not find elsewhere in scripture where Stephen claimed to be God, claimed to do miracles by his own power, or allowed people to worship him.

Your arguments seem to rely on taking verses in isolation and drawing as many conclusions from them as you can while ignoring other passages that challenge those conclusions.

[tabibito]

God. But you will also not find elsewhere in scripture where Stephen claimed to be God, claimed to do miracles by his own power, or allowed people to worship him.

Your arguments seem to rely on taking verses in isolation and drawing as many conclusions from them as you can while ignoring other passages that challenge those conclusions.

If your answer were precisely that which was expected, it would be disappointing, but it even goes beyond what was expected.

It has already been explained, with a copy of the relevant dictionary entry posted, that proskuneo means worship only in particular circumstances. As also has been explained: unless it has FIRST been established that Jesus was God, it is not possible to deny that he was not accepting a mere being honoured.

The scripture states that Stephen performed great wonders; and you say it is not so.
The scripture states that Jesus was a man through whom God performed miracles; and you say it is not so.

but you claim that I am the one who denies what the scriptures say - or engages in cherry picking.

What other scriptures are wrong according to you? Let's see now ...

The one that says Jesus cast out demons by the finger of God. (not explicitly, but close enough to be undeniable).
The one where Jesus says the disciples will do the same works that he does, and greater.
The one that says Logos was made for a time lesser than the angels.
The one where Jesus says that he does nothing on his own ... (and to which is added "authority" or similar in most translations)
The one where Jesus says to his disciples, if you have faith you can say to a mulberry tree "be cast into the sea" and it will obey you.
That doesn't exhaust the list.

And where is the scripture that says Jesus performed miracles by his own power/authority (whatever might indicate that he was not empowered to perform miracles from on high) - nowhere to be found.
All you will find is record that he performed miracles.

According to your story, Jesus made claims to be God so explicitly that even his most hostile opponents could understand it - yet his disciples thought that he was a prophet (Prophets can, even in the Old Testament record, be termed "sons of God.) As to messiah - that's someone whom God has anointed; it's pretty hard to make a case that a messiah is God.

[tabibito]

Transferred from H_A's (something or other in French) thread.

Jesus prays:

that the disciples be one, in the same way that Jesus and the Father are one:-

he is not praying that the disciples combine with each other to become a single (ontological) entity.

that the disciples become one with the Father in the same way that Jesus and the Father are one:-

he is not praying that the disciples combine with the Father to become a single (ontological) entity.

that the disciples become one with Jesus in the same way that Jesus and the Father are one:-

he is not praying that the disciples combine with Jesus to become a single (ontological) entity.

When Jesus says that he and the Father are one, there is no reason to believe that Jesus is saying He and the Father are a single (ontological) entity. His use of "the same way" or "just as" (translator's choice) preclude the possibility.

[Mountain Man]

If your answer were precisely that which was expected, it would be disappointing, but it even goes beyond what was expected.

It has already been explained, with a copy of the relevant dictionary entry posted, that proskuneo means worship only in particular circumstances. As also has been explained: unless it has FIRST been established that Jesus was God, it is not possible to deny that he was not accepting a mere being honoured.

The scripture states that Stephen performed great wonders; and you say it is not so.
The scripture states that Jesus was a man through whom God performed miracles; and you say it is not so.

but you claim that I am the one who denies what the scriptures say - or engages in cherry picking.

What other scriptures are wrong according to you? Let's see now ...

The one that says Jesus cast out demons by the finger of God. (not explicitly, but close enough to be undeniable).
The one where Jesus says the disciples will do the same works that he does, and greater.
The one that says Logos was made for a time lesser than the angels.
The one where Jesus says that he does nothing on his own ... (and to which is added "authority" or similar in most translations)
The one where Jesus says to his disciples, if you have faith you can say to a mulberry tree "be cast into the sea" and it will obey you.
That doesn't exhaust the list.

And where is the scripture that says Jesus performed miracles by his own power/authority (whatever might indicate that he was not empowered to perform miracles from on high) - nowhere to be found.
All you will find is record that he performed miracles.

According to your story, Jesus made claims to be God so explicitly that even his most hostile opponents could understand it - yet his disciples thought that he was a prophet (Prophets can, even in the Old Testament record, be termed "sons of God.) As to messiah - that's someone whom God has anointed; it's pretty hard to make a case that a messiah is God.

"Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people."

Do you think Stephen could have performed great wonders and signs if he was not full of God's grace and power? Do you think the phrase "a man full of God's grace and power" was a superfluous addition by the writer as opposed to identifying the source of the wonders and signs? Do you know of any passages where Stephen performs a miracle that is attributed to no one but himself? Did Stephen ever make a statement that his listeners clearly understood as claiming to be God? Is there a verse where Stephen instructed others to pray in his name? Did any writer of the gospels or the epistles ever identify Stephen as God come to us in human flesh?

We can find all of that about Jesus, so unless you can find similar passages about Stephen, then your argument fails.

Now for your laundry list:

• The one that says Jesus cast out demons by the finger of God. (not explicitly, but close enough to be undeniable).
• The one where Jesus says the disciples will do the same works that he does, and greater.

I don't see how either of these contradicts other passages which clearly identify Jesus as God incarnate.

• The one that says Logos was made for a time lesser than the angels.

Lower than the angels in the sense that he took on physical form and endured suffering, and not lower in the sense of lacking authority over them. Nothing here contradicts other passages which clearly identify Jesus as God incarnate.

• The one where Jesus says that he does nothing on his own ... (and to which is added "authority" or similar in most translations)

Jesus is declaring his willing submission to the Father. Once again, this does not contradict other passages which clearly identify Jesus as God incarnate.

With regard to Jesus' disciples mistaking him for a mere prophet, it's an interesting detail that the gospels pull no punches with the disciples, often depicting them as dull witted and slow on the uptake. Honestly, it should come as no surprise that the pharisees, who were learned men and experts in the law, were the ones who immediately grasped the significance of Jesus' claims about himself. I will note that you still have not presented a good argument to support your premise that the pharisees misunderstood Jesus when they declared, "You, a mere man, claim to be God!"

[tabibito]

"Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people."

Do you think Stephen could have performed great wonders and signs if he was not full of God's grace and power? Do you think the phrase "a man full of God's grace and power" was a superfluous addition by the writer as opposed to identifying the source of the wonders and signs?

No, I don't, but there is another verse plainly refers to miracles performed by "a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him"
So which one is more explicit in saying that the man did not perform the miracles on his own?

Do you know of any passages where Stephen performs a miracle that is attributed to no one but himself?

Stephen, no.
Who is said to have prayed and performed a miracle afterward - without any mention that the power was not his own?

Did Stephen ever make a statement that his listeners clearly understood as claiming to be God?

Jesus didn't either, so the answer would resolve nothing. (then again, it did happen to Paul and Barnabas: wrong gods though)

Is there a verse where Stephen instructed others to pray in his name?

Well that IS about the best argument that you would have available, and points to no more that a particular, perhaps even unique, status for Jesus, but it comes nowhere near to a declaration that Jesus is God.

Did any writer of the gospels or the epistles ever identify Stephen as God come to us in human flesh?

I don't recall ever making the claim or even intimating that Jesus was not Logos become flesh - but the only passage I can think of that refers to "coming in (human) flesh" actually shows Jesus doing so. There is a passage that Logos was revealed in flesh of Jesus, not by names but the implication is inescapable.

We can find all of that about Jesus, so unless you can find similar passages about Stephen, then your argument fails.

Well, we can draw inferences to that effect about Jesus, but those inferences conflict with explicit claims (until meanings are actually wrested.)
Jesus being lesser than the angels, and the Father being greater the Jesus, and Jesus being in every way like his brothers, and Jesus not having the glory that he had when he was with the Father, and Jesus' direct statement that he can do nothing on his own. (ever wonder why so many translations add "authority" or similar after that "own"?)

[tabibito]

"Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people."

Do you think Stephen could have performed great wonders and signs if he was not full of God's grace and power? Do you think the phrase "a man full of God's grace and power" was a superfluous addition by the writer as opposed to identifying the source of the wonders and signs? Do you know of any passages where Stephen performs a miracle that is attributed to no one but himself? Did Stephen ever make a statement that his listeners clearly understood as claiming to be God? Is there a verse where Stephen instructed others to pray in his name? Did any writer of the gospels or the epistles ever identify Stephen as God come to us in human flesh?

We can find all of that about Jesus, so unless you can find similar passages about Stephen, then your argument fails.

Now for your laundry list:

• The one that says Jesus cast out demons by the finger of God. (not explicitly, but close enough to be undeniable).
• The one where Jesus says the disciples will do the same works that he does, and greater.

I don't see how either of these contradicts other passages which clearly identify Jesus as God incarnate.

• The one that says Logos was made for a time lesser than the angels.

Lower than the angels in the sense that he took on physical form and endured suffering, and not lower in the sense of lacking authority over them. Nothing here contradicts other passages which clearly identify Jesus as God incarnate.

(you do realise that the word "made_lower" refers to demotion, yes?

• The one where Jesus says that he does nothing on his own ... (and to which is added "authority" or similar in most translations)

Jesus is declaring his willing submission to the Father. Once again, this does not contradict other passages which clearly identify Jesus as God incarnate.

With regard to Jesus' disciples mistaking him for a mere prophet, it's an interesting detail that the gospels pull no punches with the disciples, often depicting them as dull witted and slow on the uptake. Honestly, it should come as no surprise that the pharisees, who were learned men and experts in the law, were the ones who immediately grasped the significance of Jesus' claims about himself.

Not so dull witted that they don't understand what everyone around them clearly does. Their "dull-wittedness" is a matter of not understanding things that aren't readily apparent. But when he addressed the crowd during Pentecost, Peter refers to Jesus as having been a man acting with God's authority. If the claim that Jesus was not such a man were true, that would amount to Peter promoting a false gospel.

I will note that you still have not presented a good argument to support your premise that the pharisees misunderstood Jesus when they declared, "You, a mere man, claim to be God!"

Unreliable witnesses making false claims about what a person has said - especially when the witnesses have an axe to grind - is something we see a lot of on TWeb. The same kinds of witnesses also claimed that Jesus cast out demons only by the prince of demons, that he was a glutton+drunkard+friend of sinners, just as a sample. It is useful to pay attention to just who is making claims when assessing the scriptures. And - oh yes - Jesus did point out that they didn't know their scriptures. If they had, apparently, they would have known that there were no grounds for making the accusation.

[Sparko]

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.




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 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.



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



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.



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.



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.

OK I am still confused about what you actually believe about the incarnation so I am going to ask you to clarify it.

Orthodox Christianity believes that at the incarnation God the Son added a human nature to his divine nature, he became both fully God and fully man. But while on earth during his life, he suppressed using his God nature in order to be human, so other than at certain times when he showed himself to still be divine, like raising the dead, using his omniscience to know things a human couldn't, he was as human as we are. He could be killed because he allowed it. But only his human nature died, not his divine nature, and his human nature was resurrected and glorified and Jesus still remains both fully God and fully man in heaven today. At no point did God the Son stop existing.

So please try to explain what you believe and how it differs from that.

[Mountain Man]

No, I don't, but there is another verse plainly refers to miracles performed by "a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him"
So which one is more explicit in saying that the man did not perform the miracles on his own?


Stephen, no.
Who is said to have prayed and performed a miracle afterward - without any mention that the power was not his own?


Jesus didn't either, so the answer would resolve nothing. (then again, it did happen to Paul and Barnabas: wrong gods though)



Well that IS about the best argument that you would have available, and points to no more that a particular, perhaps even unique, status for Jesus, but it comes nowhere near to a declaration that Jesus is God.



I don't recall ever making the claim or even intimating that Jesus was not Logos become flesh - but the only passage I can think of that refers to "coming in (human) flesh" actually shows Jesus doing so. There is a passage that Logos was revealed in flesh of Jesus, not by names but the implication is inescapable.



Well, we can draw inferences to that effect about Jesus, but those inferences conflict with explicit claims (until meanings are actually wrested.)
Jesus being lesser than the angels, and the Father being greater the Jesus, and Jesus being in every way like his brothers, and Jesus not having the glory that he had when he was with the Father, and Jesus' direct statement that he can do nothing on his own. (ever wonder why so many translations add "authority" or similar after that "own"?)

Your argument seems to be "Yes, but..." where you attempt to use one passage of scripture suggesting that God performed miracles through Jesus to discount another passage that identifies Jesus as God. I'm arguing, "Yes, and..." where I accept that both passages are true.

Not so dull witted that they don't understand what everyone around them clearly does. Their "dull-wittedness" is a matter of not understanding things that aren't readily apparent. But when he addressed the crowd during Pentecost, Peter refers to Jesus as having been a man acting with God's authority. If the claim that Jesus was not such a man were true, that would amount to Peter promoting a false gospel.


Unreliable witnesses making false claims about what a person has said - especially when the witnesses have an axe to grind - is something we see a lot of on TWeb. The same kinds of witnesses also claimed that Jesus cast out demons only by the prince of demons, that he was a glutton+drunkard+friend of sinners, just as a sample. It is useful to pay attention to just who is making claims when assessing the scriptures. And - oh yes - Jesus did point out that they didn't know their scriptures. If they had, apparently, they would have known that there were no grounds for making the accusation.

You're desperately spinning "just so" stories to prop up your unorthodox beliefs. The pharisees said, "You, a mere man, claim to be God!" and Jesus didn't correct them. On the contrary, he doubled down on his claim, identifying himself as uniquely consecrated by God and sent into the world and again asserted his godhead, saying, "Even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father," and again they tried to seize him. So, no, there is nothing in that passage to suggest that the pharisees misunderstood what Jesus was saying.

[tabibito]

OK I am still confused about what you actually believe about the incarnation so I am going to ask you to clarify it.

Orthodox Christianity believes that at the incarnation God the Son added a human nature to his divine nature, he became both fully God and fully man. But while on earth during his life, he suppressed using his God nature in order to be human, so other than at certain times when he showed himself to still be divine, like raising the dead, using his omniscience to know things a human couldn't, he was as human as we are. He could be killed because he allowed it. But only his human nature died, not his divine nature, and his human nature was resurrected and glorified and Jesus still remains both fully God and fully man in heaven today. At no point did God the Son stop existing.

So please try to explain what you believe and how it differs from that.

There is no doubt that Christ has been both God and man since the resurrection, or soon thereafter (Thomas' acknowledgement is undeniable). However, during the incarnation, any explicit portrayal shows him to have been a man. Those portrayals are quite extensive, but the basics are:

The scriptural descriptions of Christ’s nature show that Logos himself[1] became flesh[2]. Counting existence as God no trophy, he emptied himself[3] to become a man no different from any other[4] – yet without sin even though he was tempted[5]. This person was consistently referred to as a man: messiah[6], son of man[7], son of God[8], prophet[9], and said to have been for a time made lesser (ηλαττωμενον - getting reduced in rank; demoted) than the angels[10]. Being God in form (μορφη), he became in form (μορφη) a servant: a man in form, shape, and likeness[11]. Of him, on the day of Pentecost, Peter said that he was a man attested by God in the miracles that God did through him[12].

---

[1] John 1:1.

[2] John 1:14.

[3] Philippians 2:6-7. Grammatical structure in Koine Greek does not support ‘equality with God,’ but the basics are well enough presented in English translations.

[4] Hebrews 2:17.

[5] Hebrews 4:15 affirmed by Athanasius, §17:2 (final sentence)

[6] In OT records, messiah (LXX: Christ) is not God but human: whether individuals 1Sam 24:10, 2Sam 19:21 or a people Hab 3:13.

[7] “Son of man” is, in the OT, a reference to humans though Daniel 7:13 does refer to one who is like a son of man.

[8] “Son of God” is a term for peace-makers (Matt 5:9).

[9] Luke 24:19.

[10] Hebrews 2:9: which Athanasius cites in Incarnation §10 without comment.

[11] Philippians 2:7-8. Taken individually, form (morphé), shape (schema), and likeness (homoiōma) are ambiguous. but the combination leaves no part of being human logically unaccounted for (see BDAG under headwords: εικων, μορφή, ὁμοίωμα, σχῆμα). Christ is also the image (εικων) of God (Col 1:15), as is any man (1 Cor 11:7).

[12] Acts 2:22

[Sparko]

There is no doubt that Christ has been both God and man since the resurrection, or soon thereafter (Thomas' acknowledgement is undeniable). However, during the incarnation, any explicit portrayal shows him to have been a man. Those portrayals are quite extensive, but the basics are:

The scriptural descriptions of Christ’s nature show that Logos himself[1] became flesh[2]. Counting existence as God no trophy, he emptied himself[3] to become a man no different from any other[4] – yet without sin even though he was tempted[5]. This person was consistently referred to as a man: messiah[6], son of man[7], son of God[8], prophet[9], and said to have been for a time made lesser (ηλαττωμενον - getting reduced in rank; demoted) than the angels[10]. Being God in form (μορφη), he became in form (μορφη) a servant: a man in form, shape, and likeness[11]. Of him, on the day of Pentecost, Peter said that he was a man attested by God in the miracles that God did through him[12].

---

[1] John 1:1.

[2] John 1:14.

[3] Philippians 2:6-7. Grammatical structure in Koine Greek does not support ‘equality with God,’ but the basics are well enough presented in English translations.

[4] Hebrews 2:17.

[5] Hebrews 4:15 affirmed by Athanasius, §17:2 (final sentence)

[6] In OT records, messiah (LXX: Christ) is not God but human: whether individuals 1Sam 24:10, 2Sam 19:21 or a people Hab 3:13.

[7] “Son of man” is, in the OT, a reference to humans though Daniel 7:13 does refer to one who is like a son of man.

[8] “Son of God” is a term for peace-makers (Matt 5:9).

[9] Luke 24:19.

[10] Hebrews 2:9: which Athanasius cites in Incarnation §10 without comment.

[11] Philippians 2:7-8. Taken individually, form (morphé), shape (schema), and likeness (homoiōma) are ambiguous. but the combination leaves no part of being human logically unaccounted for (see BDAG under headwords: εικων, μορφή, ὁμοίωμα, σχῆμα). Christ is also the image (εικων) of God (Col 1:15), as is any man (1 Cor 11:7).

[12] Acts 2:22

Please be clear about what you think was the situation during Jesus's life on Earth from Conception to Resurrection. Was Jesus merely a man chosen by God to join with the Son at the resurrection? Or did the Son stop being God and became merely a human being during Jesus' life, meaning that God was no longer a divine Trinity during that time? Or did God change from a Trinity of three divine persons to Two Divine persons and a Human being? I am looking for a clear explanation without the dodging and attempted justifications.

[Juvenal]

So please try to explain what you believe and how it differs from that.

Okay, so yeah, I did see this thread earlier, but it's primarily a Biblical debate where H_A's is primarily historical. Tbh, glancing at it last week, I assumed it was in a Christian-only area because of the subject.

(I was busy, so I didn't look too closely. In case anyone's interested, Mr. "can't roll out of bed and launch a browser to get there on time, got whacked, and then wanted to whine endlessly in my email" ... dropped. Color me not especially disappointed.)

And with that said, I think there's overwhelming evidence that each of the disparate authors of the Biblical texts brought their own vision of the nature of Jesus into their writing, not necessarily in agreement even with themselves, and even less so with their fellow tradents. Binding Christopher Marlowe with T.S. Eliot into the same book makes it easy to draw comparisons, but doesn't miraculously make their writings univocal.

It took centuries for Jesus to be well-established as identical, in some sense, with God, and as this thread shows, in a sense that remains a subject of active debate.

But like a good play, it's still possible to discuss the motivations of the characters without being overly bound by the weaknesses of the author. The earliest author who unequivocally equated the historical, human Jesus with some aspect of God, namely the Logos, was "John," the author of the gospel associated with that name, from my reading.

Paul, writing earlier, described an ethereal Jesus, a Jesus of the shadows darting in and out of common reality, communicating from the spirit realm. Amusingly enough, when Paul's own disciples assumed the same license, an exasperated Paul found it necessary to declare in unwitting self-abnegation that Paul's vision-messengers from above could not be used to contradict Paul himself. Higher than the angels, indeed.

I'd still like to discover how Muhammad came to believe the Christian trinity was composed of the Father, Mary, and Jesus. I can't believe that thought originated with him.

[rogue06]

I'd still like to discover how Muhammad came to believe the Christian trinity was composed of the Father, Mary, and Jesus. I can't believe that thought originated with him.

Weird misunderstandings can come from many sources. I once heard someone say that the Trinity consisted of Abraham, Moses and David (he was an elderly Hindu with what could be described as having a very poor understanding of Christianity). I seriously doubt he got that idea from a Christian unless it was one with a particular sense of humor.

[tabibito]

[QUOTE=Sparko;n1409332]

Please be clear about what you think was the situation during Jesus's life on Earth from Conception to Resurrection.

Was Jesus merely a man chosen by God to join with the Son at the resurrection?

Geh? What?! NO!

Or did the Son stop being God and became merely a human being during Jesus' life

The explicit scriptures are clear enough on that point, and I haven't included all of them in the precis. Logos abdicated from godhood. He did not cease to be, which means that

"Was it that God was no longer a divine Trinity during that time? Or did God change from a Trinity of three divine persons to Two Divine persons and a Human being?

not being a question that I have considered, it is not one that I cannot definitively answer; though "change from a Trinity of three divine persons to Two Divine persons and a Human being" might be viable.
Offhand, I can't think of any scriptures that address the issue.

I am looking for a clear explanation without the dodging and attempted justifications.

No dodging or attempted justifications have been advanced - not by me anyway. All I have done is affirm what the scriptures themselves reveal.

[Sparko]

[QUOTE=tabibito;n1409342]

Please be clear about what you think was the situation during Jesus's life on Earth from Conception to Resurrection.



Geh? What?! NO!



The explicit scriptures are clear enough on that point, and I haven't included all of them in the precis. Logos abdicated from godhood. He did not cease to be, which means that



not being a question that I have considered, it is not one that I cannot definitively answer; though "change from a Trinity of three divine persons to Two Divine persons and a Human being" might be viable.
Offhand, I can't think of any scriptures that address the issue.

The bible is pretty clear that God's nature doesn't change. Malachi 3:6
So I don't see how one of the three divine persons could stop being divine. They hypostatic union is clear that God's nature remained the same and added the human nature of Jesus to the Son. But your version has the Son's divine nature to stop existing, and become merely human.

What you are proposing seems to be a form of Nestorianism. Or maybe a hybrid of Nestorianism and Adoptionism.

Nestorianism (5th Century)
This heresy taught Mary only gave birth to Jesus’ human nature. The founder of the heresy, Nestorius, did not even want Mary to be called “Mother of God” but instead wanted her to be called “Mother of Christ”. In essence, the heresy maintained Jesus was really two separate persons, and only the human Jesus was in Mary’s womb. If that was true, then Jesus was not God incarnate while in the womb.

Adoptionism (2nd Century)
This heresy denies the pre-existence of Christ and therefore denies His Deity. It taught Jesus was simply a man who was tested by God and after passing the test was given supernatural powers and adopted as a son (this occurred at His baptism). Jesus was then rewarded for all He did (and for His perfect character) with His own resurrection and adoption into the Godhead.
https://coldcasechristianity.com/wri...ture-of-jesus/

No dodging or attempted justifications have been advanced - not by me anyway. All I have done is affirm what the scriptures themselves reveal.

And yet you keep ignoring the verses that show he was God incarnate while on Earth.