The human nature of Jesus

[bloop]

I was reading this thread earlier today.
and a few times in the thread, Paul says "^You cannot talk about Jesus in just a human sense. He is God, His humaness is secondary and was only done to save humans who don't deserve to be saved, like you and me".  If he is saying that Jesus is only human in a secondary way, then he's sounding a lot like heretical "Christian" cults of the early days of the faith.

If he is indeed calling Jesus's humanity "secondary", as if it is of lesser importance, then he is off base and I will lose my respect for him.

(I won't really, but you're catching my drift)

[Aaron]

You hit the nail on the head there. Nothing else I can add that wouldn't be parroting.

[Tom]

the theological term that is the best attempt to describe the nature of Jesus on earth is: theanthropos = fully God, fully man
this is a mystery to the human mind, but nonetheless true. it had to be so.

[bloop]

the theological term that is the best attempt to describe the nature of Jesus on earth is: theanthropos = fully God, fully man
this is a mystery to the human mind, but nonetheless true. it had to be so.

Precisely - that's the orthodox Christian view on Jesus's place in the Godhead.

[Rough Draft]

I have a question. God incarnate is fully human and fully divine. Does that attribute of Jesus apply to Christ completely? What I mean is, Jesus is Christ for 33 years on Earth, as far as we know. But Christ existed since the beginning. So does that attribute of Jesus's apply to Christ? Do you think it matters?  

[PaulDA]

Jesus was the Word and always existed. He was human for 33 years.
The two are not comparable either time wise or volume wise.
He may be 'fully human and fully divine' in the sense He has a human body now,
but the main part of Him is still God.
The 'fully God' part is billions of trillions times greater than the 'fully human' part.
In other words, just because He is 'fully God and fully man'
doesn't mean He is 50% God and 50% man.
It's more like 99.9999999999999999999% God
and .00000000000000000001% man.

[dgp11776]

[bloop]

I have a question. God incarnate is fully human and fully divine. Does that attribute of Jesus apply to Christ completely? What I mean is, Jesus is Christ for 33 years on Earth, as far as we know. But Christ existed since the beginning. So does that attribute of Jesus's apply to Christ? Do you think it matters?

Imago dei.

And yes, I think it matters because the truth matters.  Does it matter to one's salvation that they get this bit of theology right?  Well, probably not, which is why I said I wouldn't really lose all respect for Paul.

[PaulDA]

Jesus was the Word and always existed. He was human for 33 years.
The two are not comparable either time wise or volume wise.
He may be 'fully human and fully divine' in the sense He has a human body now,
but the main part of Him is still God.
The 'fully God' part is billions of trillions times greater than the 'fully human' part.
In other words, just because He is 'fully God and fully man'
doesn't mean He is 50% God and 50% man.
It's more like 99.9999999999999999999% God
and .00000000000000000001% man.

That whole post is complete and utter rubbish, save the first sentence.
 

It's not utter rubbish.
It is what I believe and if you don't like it, that is tough.
I did not say Jesus is NOT fully man and fully God,
I said the two are not equal in scope. God is God, man is man.
Being 'fully human' will never equal being 'fully God'.
Being God is much more important than being a human.
I don't give a rat's butt WHAT orthodox Christianity says.
Orthodox Christianity, with all of it's ridiculous denominations and differing beliefs on ANY subject in the Bible has been so deceived by Satan that they don't know what is correct and what isn't. Orthodox Christians think just because a majority of people believe something that is MUST be Biblically true.
The opposite is probably true in many instances.

[dgp11776]

It's not utter rubbish.
It is what I believe and if you don't like it, that is tough.
I did not say Jesus is NOT fully man and fully God,
I said the two are not equal in scope. God is God, man is man.
Being 'fully human' will never equal being 'fully God'.
Being God is much more important than being a human.
I don't give a rat's butt WHAT orthodox Christianity says.
Orthodox Christianity, with all of it's riduculkous denominations and differing beliefs and any subjst in the Bible has been so deceived by Satan that they don't know what is correct and what isn't. Orthodox Christians think just because a mjaority of people believe something that is MUST be Biblically true.
That is probably the opposite.

Remind me to never try to have an intelligent discussion with you again.  Instead of offering counterproof to my post, you just said the whole "it's what I believe" instead of "this is what the Bible says."  

You often say you are more like conservative Christians like Dr. Dobson.  Well, your point-of-view here is quite liberal, I must say.

[bloop]

You often say you are more like conservative Christians like Dr. Dobson. Well, your point-of-view here is quite liberal, I must say

Side note, but it's not even a liberal interpretation, which would deny Jesus's divinity altogether.

(I've also heard something like he became God through his life, but I really don't know how I'd classify that belief, other than to say it's wrong).

[Tom]

hmmm. i want to think that perhaps it is semantics that are creating this impasse here.

let me try phrasing it this way.

Christ had to be fully Divine and perfect in order appease the wrath of God Who demands perfect justice. no mere human could have born the punishment for the sin of mankind.

Christ also had to be fully human, so that He could be found faithful in keeping and fulfilling all of the law on our behalf...our human behalf.

this is a mystery because you cannot simply state this incarnation of Christ mathematically. i.e. to say that Christ was 50% God and 50% human (or any other percentile) is not sufficient because for the very act of His atonement to be sure, He had to be 100% God and 100% man at the same time. in human terms, this is an impossibility. in Divine terms, nothing is impossible.

the defect is not in this interpretation, it is in our finite capacity to comprehend it rationally. so it must be accepted by faith, supernaturally.

similar mysteries exist in other aspects of God. the Trinity for example is basically another twist on the same mind boggling principle.

even a man and woman in marriage are called one flesh...

please be careful in condemning a teaching merely because it has been labeled 'orthodox.' one aspect of the the word orthodox does imply 'tradition' but the other aspect implies 'established belief.'

the reason this particular belief has become 'orthodox' is because adherents to Biblically Christianity overwhelmingly agree on this point.

a prevalent fallacy that certain un-studied members of the charismatic movement perpetuate is that all established creeds and confessions are bad, simply because they are established creeds and confessions. they then say things like "but i have a new word from the Lord that says..." be very careful when 'teachers' do this. test them out Scripturally. you shouldn't believe anything about God that isn't born out of or implied by Scripture. much of this 'orthodoxy' that you're bashing was wrought from men and women who placed Jesus Christ and His Word above all things. many of them died in the attempt to make certain that as belivers we would be united in the essential, saving truths of Christianity.

some things that are established ARE wrong. but just because something is established does not MAKE it wrong.

[PaulDA]

It's not utter rubbish.
It is what I believe and if you don't like it, that is tough.
I did not say Jesus is NOT fully man and fully God,
I said the two are not equal in scope. God is God, man is man.
Being 'fully human' will never equal being 'fully God'.
Being God is much more important than being a human.
I don't give a rat's butt WHAT orthodox Christianity says.
Orthodox Christianity, with all of it's riduculkous denominations and differing beliefs and any subjst in the Bible has been so deceived by Satan that they don't know what is correct and what isn't. Orthodox Christians think just because a mjaority of people believe something that is MUST be Biblically true.
That is probably the opposite.

Remind me to never try to have an intelligent discussion with you again.  Instead of offering counterproof to my post, you just said the whole "it's what I believe" instead of "this is what the Bible says."  

You often say you are more like conservative Christians like Dr. Dobson.  Well, your point-of-view here is quite liberal, I must say.

You called my post 'utter rubbish' and then spouted orthodox Christian doctrine to try and disprove it. Just as I am not affiliated with any political system or party, I do not affiliate myself willynilly with orthodox Christian beliefs either. I can be very conservative on some issues, middle of the road on others and liberal on othes. I do not believe everything Dr. Dobson says nor do I belive everything Hank Hannagraff says.
My personal belief is orthodox Christianity is so confused, muddled, so convoluded, so mixed up that it barely resembles the early church.
 

[PaulDA]

Also, the Bible backs me up on everything I said.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that being 'fully human' is equal to being 'fully God'.
George Bush is 'fully President' and 'also 'fully citizen' but the preident part is a million times as powerful as just being a citizen.

[Tom]

Also, the Bible backs me up on everything I said.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that being 'fully human' is equal to being 'fully God'.
 

i give... perhaps we're just on different planets? did you even read what i posted?

[bloop]

I'm with you, Tom.  Good post!

George Bush is 'fully President' and 'also 'fully citizen' but the preident part is a million times as powerful as just being a citizen.

No one is denying that God is more powerful than man, Paul, but that Jesus was not human in some kind of secondary way.

Like most analogies, btw, this doesn't do the mystery of which Tom spoke justice at all, but I have yet to see an analogy that works when looked at carefully when it comes to things like Jesus's nature or the trinity.

[Tom]

thanks Bloop.

i just wish i could make the point more clear, but honestly i don't know how to say it any better.

[PaulDA]

thanks Bloop.

i just wish i could make the point more clear, but honestly i don't know how to say it any better.

Christians who hold an orthodox view have to get it through their heads that everyone isn't going to agree with all of their interpretations no matter how many Bible verses  they spout or try to connect together. Everyone says "I prayed to God and He helped me interpret this or that verse", yet 100 other people prayed to God and got different interpretations!
Even orthodox Christians disagree on almost every doctrine, and they try to get around it by saying, "Oh, we agree on the essential doctrines, all the dozens of other doctrines we don't agree with are non essentials". Yeah right....
They have to say that because otherwise it's just one big farce....
God telling people hundreds of different interpretations!
In general, either God is actually guiding people to different interpretations or the majority of people are not right with God and He's not guiding them the right interpretations.
It has to be one or the other.

[BennieM]

Like most analogies, btw, this doesn't do the mystery of which Tom spoke justice at all, but I have yet to see an analogy that works when looked at carefully when it comes to things like Jesus's nature or the trinity.

May I recommend The Mind of the Maker  by Dorothy L. Sayers, then?

[bloop]

May I recommend The Mind of the Maker  by Dorothy L. Sayers, then?

Sure, thanks.  I can't promise I'll get to it (or that i even mind some things remaining mysterious), but I'll try.

[Rough Draft]

Imago dei.

And yes, I think it matters because the truth matters. Does it matter to one's salvation that they get this bit of theology right? Well, probably not, which is why I said I wouldn't really lose all respect for Paul.

Hey, Bloop. I'm sorry...I don't think I understand your answer. "Image of God"?

I was under the impression that when people spoke of an "orthodox" Christian view, in this way, they meant "traditional." Common ground, shared by Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians. I mean, the Catholic G.K. Chesterton wrote a book called Orthodoxy. Established belief. Hopefully, as un-heretical as possible.

[bloop]

Hey, Bloop. I'm sorry...I don't think I understand your answer. "Image of God"?
 

I was semi-randomly musing aloud.  It wasn't really an answer.  God is thought of as a person from the beginning - saying man was created in his image assigns a person's characteristics to God, as we read the Scripture.  I wrote a note to think about how that plays, or doesn't, into the discussion on Christ's humanity, and John 1.  It wasn't a conclusion, just an idea.

I was under the impression that when people spoke of an "orthodox" Christian view, in this way, they meant "traditional." Common ground, shared by Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians. I mean, the Catholic G.K. Chesterton wrote a book called Orthodoxy. Established belief. Hopefully, as un-heretical as possible.

OK, yes, that's my understanding of the word, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[BennieM]

I mean, the Catholic G.K. Chesterton wrote a book called Orthodoxy.

Chesterton was Anglican when he wrote Orthodoxy (1908-ish). But The Everlasting Man is equally ecumenical and was written after his conversion to the Roman Catholic Church.

[PaulDA]

Chesterton was Anglican when he wrote Orthodoxy (1908-ish). But The Everlasting Man is equally ecumenical and was written after his conversion to the Roman Catholic Church.

Personally, I don't put much stock in any Christian who converts to the Roman Catholic Church.
My opinion is people should be leaving the Roman Catholic Church, not gravitating to it.

[bloop]

That might hold in a different situation, but Chesterton wrote about those things that are orthodox, he didn't make them so.  Those that know his writing, is that a fair statement?

Also, it's a good thing that Protestants and Catholics agree on certain things, such as the virgin birth, Christ's divinity, etc.  A person shouldn't be considered any less just because he happens to be Catholic, particularly since these are areas in which he agrees with the Protestants.

[BennieM]

That might hold in a different situation, but Chesterton wrote about those things that are orthodox, he didn't make them so.  Those that know his writing, is that a fair statement?

For sure; that's the whole thesis to his orthodoxy-based writing.

Slightly more prosaically, he says in Orthodoxy that there are two ways to live at home. You can stay there and never leave; or you can walk far enough away looking for Lady Philosophy, turn around and realise that your house was sitting on her all along. Or, in his more poetic moment, he says to imagine a man who sets off to find a new world in a boat, gets thrown about at sea, and lands back in Brighton (or somewhere). That is how he found orthodoxy. I think it's pretty clear in both examples that land masses are not created by travellers.

[danny316]

I think I'm going to side with Paul. I agree that Jesus should be seen as fully human and fully divine, but I also don't see why the divinity shouldn't be emphasized more than the humanity. Jesus would not have the authority he does if he wasn't believed to be divine. I think the best arguments for Paul's case though is this: Christ is, was, and always will be, a divine member of the trinity. He was only a human being on Earth for a relatively short amount of time. Yes, he had an extremely influential human lifespan, but ultimately, he is not with us physically today, but he is with us in a divine sense. So in some sense, the divinity is more important.

However, with Christmas around the corner, I doubt there's any way we could (or would want to) forget that he was also fully human, and that his life should be celebrated. I just think that, in the grand scheme of things, it's more important that he was fully divine - in spite of the fact that both elements of him are very important.
 

[BennieM]

I just think that, in the grand scheme of things, it's more important that he was fully divine - in spite of the fact that both elements of him are very important.

Without his humanity, Redemption is pointless. Christianity is nothing without Redemption. How is his humanity less important, then?    

[PaulDA]

Without his humanity, Redemption is pointless. Christianity is nothing without Redemption. How is his humanity less important, then?  

Because we are not important. In the whole scheme of things, we are infintessimal compared to God. From our point of view, it is imortant that God became human but from God's point of view we are a very tiny fraction of everything.
It's like saying the entire human race is a grain of sand and the rest of God's attention is given to a blue whale.
 

[Tom]

Hebrews 4:15 "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin."

How could Jesus have been tempted in every respect as we are if He had not been fully human? Yes, we all totally get the point that God is better than man, nobody here in this thread has ever argued against that. That is why Christ's humility in taking on our fragile form was so amazing. He had to take on our form in order to be tested as we are and, (since He was fully God as well) be found faithful to the law ON OUR BEHALF.

This is what makes us legally righteous in the eyes of God: That we have faith that Christ's sinlessness is credited to our account when we accept that His sacrifice, (His spilt blood) flowed to make us personally clean even though we have broken the law. By humbling Himself in being fully human, fully God, He tore down the veil that seperated us from communing with God. He is now our mediator.

The reason I keep trying to explain this is because I feel it is very important that Christians hold to this as dearly as they know how.

This may be the final thing I post in this thread because we're going in circles. My challenge to those who don't agree with Jesus being [Fully God, Fully man] while on earth is this: Show me Scripturally how this is abberant! Unless you can show that the Bible proves otherwise all the words in the world will not suffice to defend your position.

[bloop]

Because we are not important

God apparently disagrees, considering that His plan was to suffer and die for humanity Himself.  Think about it - how many unimportant things are you willing to die a slow, painful death for?

[dgp11776]

God apparently disagrees, considering that His plan was to suffer and die for humanity Himself.  Think about it - how many unimportant things are you willing to die a slow, painful death for?

bloop, you nailed it.

[PaulDA]

We are NOT important in the grand scheme of things, which is why what Jesus did for us was so wonderful. We are like a bunch of gnats to God. Mere specks.
Would you be willing die to keep some gnats from being killed?

[dgp11776]

We are NOT important in the grand scheme of things, which is why what Jesus did for us was so wonderful. We are like a bunch of gnats to God. Mere specks.
Would you be willing die to keep some gnats from being killed?

How do you reconcile John 3:16?  That verse says that God gave His only Son because He loved the world...not that He loved the world after He gave His Son.

[PaulDA]

How could Jesus have been tempted in every respect as we are if He had not been fully human? Yes, we all totally get the point that God is better than man, nobody here in this thread has ever argued against that. That is why Christ's humility in taking on our fragile form was so amazing. He had to take on our form in order to be tested as we are and, (since He was fully God as well) be found faithful to the law ON OUR BEHALF.

My challenge to those who don't agree with Jesus being [Fully God, Fully man] while on earth is this: Show me Scripturally how this is abberant! Unless you can show that the Bible proves otherwise all the words in the world will not suffice to defend your position.

Christians who agree that Jesus is in fact 'fully God and full man' do not agree on what being 'tempted' means.

One group of Christians thinks that it means that Jesus wanted to do certain sins but was able to control Himself through praying.

Others think being 'tempted' meant that things were put in front of Jesus that could have tempted Him but He was never tempted because He was God and cannot sin.
In otherwords, if I have no intention of stealing, and someone tries to tempt me by putting a wallet full of money near me, even though i have no desire to steal it, that would be 'temptation'.

So that, as with most things in the Bible, is not clear to everyone.

[Brenden]

We are NOT important in the grand scheme of things, which is why what Jesus did for us was so wonderful. We are like a bunch of gnats to God. Mere specks.
Would you be willing die to keep some gnats from being killed?

If I loved those gnats enough, sure.

We are certainly not deserving of Christ's sacrifice, which is what makes it so wonderful. God Himself dies to save the people who've turned their backs on him because He loves them.

[PaulDA]

We are NOT important in the grand scheme of things, which is why what Jesus did for us was so wonderful. We are like a bunch of gnats to God. Mere specks.
Would you be willing die to keep some gnats from being killed?

How do you reconcile John 3:16?  That verse says that God gave His only Son because He loved the world...not that He loved the world after He gave His Son.

I don't think we are understanding each other here.
I didn't say God doesn't love us.
The fact that He loves us even though we are miniscule in comparison to God is what is so fantastic about God's love.
It is easy for The Father to love Jesus or the Holy Spirit.
Just like it is easy for us to love another human.
But it is mindboggling that God would love us that much to put Himself through hell to redeem us when we don't even deserve it!
That would be like us trying to save a bunch of mosquitos that carry malaria!
Unthinkable! But God died for us even though we are a war mongering, back biting, selfish sinful group of organisms!

[PaulDA]

We are NOT important in the grand scheme of things, which is why what Jesus did for us was so wonderful. We are like a bunch of gnats to God. Mere specks.
Would you be willing die to keep some gnats from being killed?

If I loved those gnats enough, sure.
 

Exactly! But the point is you don't love those gnats enough!
Even the whacko ebnvironmentalists who try to ban construction to keep some species from being evicted would not die to save some gnats.

[bloop]

I think we're talking past each other.  You're speaking of the importance of humans relative to the importance of God Himself, and of course we're miniscule on that continuum.  However, I think our importance is derived from how important God thinks we are, and it's pretty apparent to me that we are more important to Him than you're letting on (as I said before.  Just like people die for things that are important to them, God died for people, which is something important to Him).

Yes, we are a trifle next to God Himself, yes, we are small in volume next to the universe He created, but the notion that we are unimportant because the former is good to keep our egos in check, but, Biblically-speaking, God doesn't derive our importance in that way, and the latter just sounds more like Carl Sagan than Almighty God.

In a nutshell, your frame of reference for what is important doesn't seem to be one in the same with God's if we believe as Christians do about His sacrifice.

[Brenden]

We are NOT important in the grand scheme of things, which is why what Jesus did for us was so wonderful. We are like a bunch of gnats to God. Mere specks.
Would you be willing die to keep some gnats from being killed?

If I loved those gnats enough, sure.
 

Exactly! But the point is you don't love those gnats enough!
Even the whacko ebnvironmentalists who try to ban construction to keep some species from being evicted would not die to save some gnats.

They'd be the first to swat them, though.  =D