Discussions on Jesus (combining Was Jesus God & Jesus in the Bread)

Loutzenhiser's picture

Both these threads are covering about the same territory now and getting long again. Continue both threads here.

michael_legna's picture

You need to address those verses you keep avoiding

duu1der said -
Paul says in Rom 5: 17 – 19 that Jesus was a man… a human, since He is equated to Adam, who was merely human.

ML said: "No Paul taught that Jesus had a human nature, this teaching does not rule out the possibility that He also had a divine nature. Not unless we want to place limits on God as you seem to want to do."

duu1der said -
Paul called Jesus a Man... not a human nature. The Greek word means "human" not human-nature. So you "assume" to know what Paul meant.

No I don't assume I deduce, I look at the rest of scripture and I find one and only one truth which is consistent with all the inerrant truths contained in scripture and that is that Jesus was both God and man, fully God and fully human. You would see this too if you sincerely wondered about these issues and had not already made up your mind.

duu1der said -
Since Jesus did nothing that mere mortals did both before His birth and after His death,

ML said: "No we have been over this before - and you continue to claim this as if it had not been disproven. Jesus did indeed do things which no man had done before - He died on the cross for the sins of all mankind"

duu1der said -
You have said this a couple of times, but, the only reason Christ could die on the Cross for our sins is because God said so.

And God's saying so is based on His characteristic of infinite justice. So the price that needed to be paid for the eternal punishment that was due all men for all time, was more than a man could pay. Thus the Son of God had to die for our sins.

duu1der said -
God foreordained Him as demonstrated in the Isaiah prophecies especially Isaiah 42:1-8 where God calls Jesus His Servant, the Elect One whom God "put My Spirit upon Him".

Yes, but again you are only talking about one nature of His. You keep going back to these as if they tell the whole story and you admit refusing to address the verses which prove the existence of His divine nature. No wonder you can't see the truth.

duu1der said -
God also says "I am the Lord, taht is My Name; and My glory i will not give to another" (v:8);

And since Jesus was God and not another god, He has all the glory of God and it is not given to another.

duu1der said -
Isaiah 53:1-12 again describes the horrible death that Jesus faced for us, way before it happened, and for which God states "therefore, I will divide Him a portioin with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He poured out His soul unto death..." (v:12); Isaiah 61:1-3 (which Jesus quoted in Luke 4:16-21 when He announced Himself to the synagogue in Nazareth), where Jesus proclaims "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me..." (v:1).


So? That only proves that Jesus divine nature would have known in advance what was planned.

duu1der said -
God had a purpose for Jesus and anointed Him for that purpose, just like He anointed Mary for the purpose of bearing the Savior. Neither act equated Mary or Jesus to being equal with God,

You are right but then once again you are focusing on one aspect and purposely ignoring all the rest which do speak specifically to Jesus being God.

ML said: "Here is my position -
God is God and is always God, but He can choose not to act like God and so the divine nature can co-exist with a human nature and not interfere with the behavior of that human nature even while in the same being so that the being behaves completely humanly, including being subject to temptation. The natures act independently and we end up with two natures but still just one being."

duu1der said -
As I said before, God is One, and is always One.

And I agree God is one, but that does not mean there cannot be three persons in one God.

duu1der said -
God cannot be tempted by evil.

But Jesus' human nature could be tempted even if His divine nature could not be.

duu1der said -
God can act like anything He chooses to act like, but never ceases to be God, therefore, in order for Jesus to be tempted by evil He can not be God.

No because His divine nature could choose not to act so as to prevent the human nature from being tempted - as this is well within God's power.

duu1der said -
To say that God's "human" nature can act independently of God so that Jesus could be tempted is to say that, either, God has a split personality, or, that Jesus is not God.

I did not say "God's" human nature - I said Jesus' human nature could act independently - you simply are never going to understand if you do not state these positions accurately. Jesus' human nature was tempted and Jesus is fully God and fully human. No split personality because there are two natures in one being.

duu1der said -
To limit God to having to pay the price for sin because no "human" could live right,

It is more than just living right which was required - that is a small part of it. The price was so high that no human (even if they lived right) could pay it.

duu1der said -
demeans the entire concept of "Let us create Man in our own image" to live in dominion of all other created beings, as stated in Gen 1.

How does a denial of man's inability to die for anyone's sins other than his own in anyway demean the concept of man being created in the image of God (which if you notice is referred to as "our" image implying multiple persons in one God).

duu1der said -
The Trinity doctrine removes the need to "live and grow by faith" and reduces it to the common belief that we are "only" sinners who have to grovel at the cross of Jesus day in and day out.

No it does not, not if you understand that salvation is not by faith alone and that obedience to the Gospel (which requires growth) is needed as well - just as scripture says.

duu1der said -
God accepted the sacrifice of Jesus "once for all" and has removed the barrier that seperated the Almighty from the created. Therefore, if we have accepted that gift, and choose to live "according to the Spirit and not the flesh" we are God's children, anointed with His Holy Spirit. "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ [the anointing]have put on Christ [the anointing]"

Yes, as long as you have accepted the gift properly - which includes a proper understanding of the Gospel - part of which is recognizing Jesus as God.

duu1der said -
You have taken “words” that are translated by the same word in English and applied them wrongly in your understanding,

ML said: "I assume you are referring to the term begotten here and in that case I just used the term as the men who wrote the Creeds used it. It may not match your 20th century understanding of the term but that is not my problem it is yours. The truth of the matter is when someone says "begotten" and then immediately contrasts it to "and not made" it is clear they are using begotten to mean something other than born of a creature - since then they would be speaking of something made. Therefore you modern definition simply does not apply."

duu1der said -
Again, you assume wrong. I was referring to your attaching YAHWEH to Jesus and "assuming" that it is applied to the Holy Spirit as well. I was referring to the way you tried to tie the Old Testament to the New Testament based on English words that donot fully convey the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek in order to try to "prove" a connection that doesn't exist.

If you admit it is applied to Jesus then that is enough to verify Jesus is God. You have not idea if these English words convey a proper meaning or not since you admitted to having not reviewed them so as to prepare a response.

duu1der said -
and since the Trinity doctrine is a doctrine developed by men under questionable circumstances (as displayed through history),

ML said:"A history as presented by men with a bias is nothing more than a revisionist history."

duu1der said -
So only the history presented by the Catholic church is the correct history?
By comparing the histories presented by several authors, historians, scholars and theologians, the resounding conclusion is that, just as today in the Catholic church, if the "church" disagrees with the "theology" or "Christology" that a member declares they will be excommunicated ".

No only history which can be supported by quotes from reputable independent and unbiases historians should be accepted. Excuse me for not accepting your comparison as leading to any kind of reliable conclusion resounding or not.

johanjj said -
Regarding Hans Kung's excommunication, was it because of "teaching contrary to the Gospel," or simply because he could no longer justify all the teachings of the Roman Catholic church? I agree with him when he says, "Rightly understood, even today Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical basic attitudes are no longer exclusive but complimentary. And this is not just a postulate but a fact: all over the world, even now countless Christians, communities, and groups are in practice living out an authentic ecumenicity centered in the gospel -- despite all the resistance in the church structures. It is a great and important task for the future to convince more and more Catholics of this" (Kung in "The Catholic Church" 2001:207). His opening words for his books states his intent and attitude clearly. "I want to say quite openly, right at the beginning, that despite all my experiences of how merciless the Roman system can be, the Catholic Church, this fellowship of believers, has remained my spiritual home to the present day" (Kung 2001:xvii).

ML said: "Kung of course has his own defense but the Church acted as it did for a reason and that had to do with him teaching doctrines contrary to the position of the Church. That is the same in the eyes of the Catholic Church or any Church teaching contrary to their understanding of the Gospel and is an excommunicatable offense."

duu1der said -
Yes, the Catholic church welcomes open dialogue, as long as you say what the "Church" approves of. That is exactly the same situation that existed during the Great Councils, and was so much more intensely used during the Great Inguistion" when the "Church" abused its authority to such a wide decree.

Kung was allowed a long period in which he taught and was highly regarded in the Church until he began to express idea contrary to established dogmas of the Church - so yes then he was ex communicated by the Church just as he would have been from any other Church if he had taught contrary to their doctrines.

duu1der said -
People like Luther didn't rebel against a system that worked... but one of abuse. That same attitude exist in the "Church" as constantly demonstrated by the "threat" of exorcism.

Luther did, in the beginning, only rebel against abuses, but once the political forces of the day got their hooks into him and offered him a way to avoid defending his doctrines before a tribunal (just so they could break free of the Church's control over their intended abuse of their subjects) then Luther went on to express more doctrinal concerns and beliefs. That is why Luther was ex communicated.

duu1der said -
The Trinity doctrine was founded by a small number of available Bishops and inforced through political, both government and religious, means more than by Theological consent.

Again a claim of history with no support provided.




Advertisements