The human nature of Jesus

[PaulDA]

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 is sometimes necessary, 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.

I don't think we are actually disagreeing here. The point is that, as small and insignificant as we are next to God, He loves us.
In that regard we are important to Him.
I think my comparison of God and humans with humans and mosquitoes is valid because there is no more reason for God to love such sinful creatures as ourselves as there is for us to love disease infested mosquitos.
But God does love us infinetely more than we could even love each other.
That is a miracle in itself.

[bloop]

I have to think about the mosquito comparison.  I've usually thought of it as analogous to a person who dies for his enemy.  

I'm annoyed by mosquitoes, but I know they are just brainless creatures.  If I had any real enemies, however, I would truly revile them, and that's what I think is so amazing about the grace of God and the nature of His love as opposed to my far more limited capability.

[PaulDA]

I have to think about the mosquito comparison.  I've usually thought of it as analogous to a person who dies for his enemy.  
 

God compared to a human is multi trillions of times greater difference than a human compared to a mosquito or even to an amoeba.

[danny316]

For clarification: we all agree that Jesus is fully God and fully human, right?

I'm pretty sure we all agreed there from the start, with Paul and I disagreeing about the importance of the two features.

If so, I have an analogy for my position. Say a man is Scottish, and also a Christian. He's Scottish because he was born in Scotland and has always lived there. He's a Christian because he was moved by Jesus and he wants to follow Jesus' teachings for the rest of his life. He's fully Scottish and fully Christian - but is it as important in the grand scheme of things that he's Scottish as it is that he is a Christian?

[BennieM]

He's fully Scottish and fully Christian - but is it as important in the grand scheme of things that he's Scottish as it is that he is a Christian?

Certainly. (1) God bothered to make him Scottish, and God, as Creator, knew what he was doing. (2) Being Scottish has obviously had an influence on his being a Christian. (3) The analogy breaks down, because without Jesus' humanity, there's no redemption; and with no redemption, God ceases to be fully God. The analogy would be more apt if being fully Christian depended on the man being fully Scotch--or else he'd lose what makes him Christian-like.

[Tom]

Certainly. (1) God bothered to make him Scottish, and God, as Creator, knew what he was doing. (2) Being Scottish has obviously had an influence on his being a Christian. (3) The analogy breaks down, because without Jesus' humanity, there's no redemption; and with no redemption, God ceases to be fully God. The analogy would be more apt if being fully Christian depended on the man being fully Scotch--or else he'd lose what makes him Christian-like.

yet another excellent defense of this essential doctrine; and all within one thread to boot! somebody could put together a pretty decent research paper on Jesus being fully God and fully human based on answers contained here.

i'm not sure how many more ways there are to say it...or how much tenacity we will have to keep reiterating it; but i'm happy that so many here are able to defend it. i'd say apologetics of this nature are becoming less and less common in everyday conversation. in other words, it is healthy for us to work this out and remind each other of what really matters at the essence of Christian faith.

[bloop]

I have to think about the mosquito comparison.  I've usually thought of it as analogous to a person who dies for his enemy. 
 

God compared to a human is multi trillions of times greater difference than a human compared to a mosquito or even to an amoeba.

I'm just seeing a fundamental breakdown in the analogy.  I don't even care about organism complexity comparisons, especially since they make no sense for comparing to God anyway.  My point is, God sees us as more important than we would see a mosquito, individually or collectively, so I don't think us becoming a mosquito to die a mosquito's death to save a mosquito population is particularly comparable.  It seems to me to trivialize in all the wrong places.

[PaulDA]

[danny316]

Certainly. (1) God bothered to make him Scottish, and God, as Creator, knew what he was doing. (2) Being Scottish has obviously had an influence on his being a Christian. (3) The analogy breaks down, because without Jesus' humanity, there's no redemption; and with no redemption, God ceases to be fully God. The analogy would be more apt if being fully Christian depended on the man being fully Scotch--or else he'd lose what makes him Christian-like.

(1) Right there, a Christian belief is taking control over the ability to make him Scottish. If that doesn't prove religion more important than nationality, I don't know what does.
(2) Are you serious? How does being Scottish have any influence on being a Christian? Is there something about being Scottish that makes it easier to believe in God?
(3) This has nothing to do with your first 2 points or with anything I said. For one thing, I'm simply trying to explain how one trait of something can be more important than another trait of that same thing. Nothing was said about Jesus. Nothing was said about redemption. Nothing was said that makes God this tiny creature who can't exist if he doesn't redeem things (although I suppose you're welcome to believe in that god).

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that something can not be a God unless it is a human. That, quite frankly, sounds like complete nonsense.

You already claimed that being Christian had something to do with him being Scottish. Where's your case here?  

[danny316]

yet another excellent defense of this essential doctrine; and all within one thread to boot! somebody could put together a pretty decent research paper on Jesus being fully God and fully human based on answers contained here.

i'm not sure how many more ways there are to say it...or how much tenacity we will have to keep reiterating it; but i'm happy that so many here are able to defend it. i'd say apologetics of this nature are becoming less and less common in everyday conversation. in other words, it is healthy for us to work this out and remind each other of what really matters at the essence of Christian faith.

Tom, are you even reading the same thread that I am? NOTHING was said about "this essential doctrine" in my challenge or Bennie's response. You're painting yourself and BennieM as some kind of martyrs when you're only fighting a strawman. Jesus being fully human and fully God is not being debated here. We all agree on that. Stop pretending otherwise. Stop acting as if you were on some great crusade when you're only preaching to the choir instead of acknowledging the idea that Paul and I are presenting.

If "apologetics" of this nature are becoming less and less common in everyday conversation, it's because more Christians are actually listening to what other people say instead of just repeating doctrines over and over again.

[danny316]

I have to think about the mosquito comparison.  I've usually thought of it as analogous to a person who dies for his enemy. 
 

God compared to a human is multi trillions of times greater difference than a human compared to a mosquito or even to an amoeba.

I'm just seeing a fundamental breakdown in the analogy.  I don't even care about organism complexity comparisons, especially since they make no sense for comparing to God anyway.  My point is, God sees us as more important than we would see a mosquito, individually or collectively, so I don't think us becoming a mosquito to die a mosquito's death to save a mosquito population is particularly comparable.  It seems to me to trivialize in all the wrong places.

OK, so God is infinitely complex and any two organisms have a finite amount of complexity....but isn't that the best analogy we have to God's size compared to ours? I really don't see how this is a bad analogy.

What places does it seem like this trivializes in a troubling way, and where would it be alright to trivialize?

...and to repeat the debated question, what reason is there to believe that Jesus being the Son of God is merely as important as Jesus being human? Yes, we all agree that he's fully God and fully human regardless, but what's with the dogmatic attacks on Paul and I for thinking that the God part has more significance?

[BennieM]

Nothing was said about redemption. Nothing was said that makes God this tiny creature who can't exist if he doesn't redeem things (although I suppose you're welcome to believe in that god).

 

You have understood nothing that I have said. Not just this point--the other two as well.

God's nature is such that he will redeem his creatures--or die trying. Since it appears the way to do that is for God to become fully human, it stands to reason that God's being fully human is a part of his being fully God.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that something can not be a God unless it is a human. That, quite frankly, sounds like complete nonsense.

Of course it is. I said nothing of the kind. I'm saying God is not God unless he redeems us; because God has redeemed us.

You already claimed that being Christian had something to do with him being Scottish. Where's your case here?

Because by being Scottish he was exposed to Christianity. If he were born on a deserted island all alone, that would have something to do with his being... a pagan, maybe (whatever he actually is naturally inclined to be).

It's called 'interconnmectivity', not 'causality'. And to any artist (especially to the Divine Creator, I'd imagine) it's relevant; this makes no one attribute less improtant to the artist; it's all related.

[BennieM]

...and to repeat the debated question, what reason is there to believe that Jesus being the Son of God is merely as important as Jesus being human? Yes, we all agree that he's fully God and fully human regardless, but what's with the dogmatic attacks on Paul and I for thinking that the God part has more significance?

They are not dogmatic attacks. They are simply what we think of what you've said.

And the reason for the arguments is that one part does not have more significance. We need no other. We are simply telling you why we think your words are wrong. Should there be an ulterior motive?

[danny316]

Nothing was said about redemption. Nothing was said that makes God this tiny creature who can't exist if he doesn't redeem things (although I suppose you're welcome to believe in that god).

 

You have understood nothing that I have said. Not just this point--the other two as well.

God's nature is such that he will redeem his creatures--or die trying.

I'm kind of happy that there was a misunderstanding, the next best alternative was assuming that you're a complete moron. I like to be an optimist on that kind of thing.

As for as redeeming his creatures or dying trying, you're dead wrong. That's a false dilemma, and the third possibility - that he'd do both - is clearly the biblical one. Jesus died and redeemed his creatures.

Since it appears the way to do that is for God to become fully human, it stands to reason that God's being fully human is a part of his being fully God.

Again, I am completely missing you here. Theologically, I know that Jesus humbling himself by living among us was important for redemption. However, I don't see how that's "the" way to do it. You seem to think that if God isn't the God believed in by most Christians, then He's not God at all. I'm not completely sold on the idea that the events of the gospels are the only way that an omnipotent and omniscient God could have gone about redeeming his creatures.

Also, I must point out, I'm not suggesting that Jesus wasn't human and God. I'm not seeing how he needed to be human to be God, either, but maybe that'll make more sense after another few posts.

Of course it is. I said nothing of the kind. I'm saying God is not God unless he redeems us; because God has redeemed us.

OK, I know God as we understand him as Christians is a big fan of redemption. I don't see how not redeeming something makes him any less of a God though. Yes, God has redeemed us, but again, what does that really say for your argument?

Because by being Scottish he was exposed to Christianity. If he were born on a deserted island all alone, that would have something to do with his being... a pagan, maybe (whatever he actually is naturally inclined to be).

Whoa....I see what you're saying now, but clearly we have some VERY different beliefs here. For one thing, I don't think a man can be born on a deserted island all alone. For another, I think God reveals himself to everyone in some way or another, and that even if he isn't formally exposed to Christianity, he might take belief in something like it. Further, I don't think God would create someone with no opportunity to hear the gospel. I seem to recall some verse about everyone hearing it at some point or another.  Yet further, I highly doubt that Paganism would be picked up by one guy alone on an island.

So I suppose that's some progress....I can see your reasoning, but I think all your premises are wrong.

It's called 'interconnmectivity', not 'causality'. And to any artist (especially to the Divine Creator, I'd imagine) it's relevant; this makes no one attribute less improtant to the artist; it's all related.

Well, in my book, a cause is more important than it's effect. So by explaining that causality isn't in play here, you've debunked most of my last post. However, I'm not seeing how two interconnected things absolutely must be equal in importance. You brought up art, and it can make my point too: someone can paint a painting that is rich with symbolism. The symbolic elements can be depicted in an extremely realistic way. What the symbols mean may be more important than how they are portrayed, even though both are very important to the work of art.

Or if you'd prefer, think of lyrics in music instead of symbols in the visual arts.

[BennieM]

I'm kind of happy that there was a misunderstanding, the next best alternative was assuming that you're a complete moron. I like to be an optimist on that kind of thing.

As for as redeeming his creatures or dying trying, you're dead wrong. That's a false dilemma, and the third possibility - that he'd do both - is clearly the biblical one. Jesus died and redeemed his creatures.

It wasn't meant to be a dilemma at all. It was meant to be a statement of what happened. After all, we don't think all creatures have been redeemed (unless you're a universalist). I meant what you said.

You seem to think that if God isn't the God believed in by most Christians, then He's not God at all.

That would be correct. Out of everything else on the market, no other God actually tries to claim to be super-human. I presume God is super-human and super-personal.

I'm not completely sold on the idea that the events of the gospels are the only way that an omnipotent and omniscient God could have gone about redeeming his creatures.

Me neither; but I'm sold on the idea that Incarnation was the way to go, because it's orthodox.

OK, I know God as we understand him as Christians is a big fan of redemption. I don't see how not redeeming something makes him any less of a God though.

Because it's not super-human. It is not Love.

Because by being Scottish he was exposed to Christianity. If he were born on a deserted island all alone, that would have something to do with his being... a pagan, maybe (whatever he actually is naturally inclined to be).

Whoa....I see what you're saying now, but clearly we have some VERY different beliefs here. For one thing, I don't think a man can be born on a deserted island all alone. For another, I think God reveals himself to everyone in some way or another, and that even if he isn't formally exposed to Christianity, he might take belief in something like it. Further, I don't think God would create someone with no opportunity to hear the gospel. I seem to recall some verse about everyone hearing it at some point or another.  Yet further, I highly doubt that Paganism would be picked up by one guy alone on an island.

I don't disagree with anything that you've said. (I don't even think paganism would be picked up alone. It has too long a history of development. It was just one possibility.) Since I don't disagree with what you've actually said, I'm a little fuzzy on how we have some very different beliefs...

It's called 'interconnmectivity', not 'causality'. And to any artist (especially to the Divine Creator, I'd imagine) it's relevant; this makes no one attribute less improtant to the artist; it's all related.

Well, in my book, a cause is more important than it's effect. So by explaining that causality isn't in play here, you've debunked most of my last post. However, I'm not seeing how two interconnected things absolutely must be equal in importance. You brought up art, and it can make my point too: someone can paint a painting that is rich with symbolism. The symbolic elements can be depicted in an extremely realistic way. What the symbols mean may be more important than how they are portrayed, even though both are very important to the work of art.

Or if you'd prefer, think of lyrics in music instead of symbols in the visual arts.

Please never write a song. It will suck.

But the world doesn't suck as a work of art. God knew what he was doing.

[danny316]

That would be correct. Out of everything else on the market, no other God actually tries to claim to be super-human. I presume God is super-human and super-personal.

I don't tend to think of God as super-human. You've lost me there.

Me neither; but I'm sold on the idea that Incarnation was the way to go, because it's orthodox.

You don't seem like the kind of person who'd go with something just because it was orthodox.

Because it's not super-human. It is not Love.

Wait a second, how does this work with what we said about not all creatures being redeemed?

Because by being Scottish he was exposed to Christianity. If he were born on a deserted island all alone, that would have something to do with his being... a pagan, maybe (whatever he actually is naturally inclined to be).

Whoa....I see what you're saying now, but clearly we have some VERY different beliefs here. For one thing, I don't think a man can be born on a deserted island all alone. For another, I think God reveals himself to everyone in some way or another, and that even if he isn't formally exposed to Christianity, he might take belief in something like it. Further, I don't think God would create someone with no opportunity to hear the gospel. I seem to recall some verse about everyone hearing it at some point or another.  Yet further, I highly doubt that Paganism would be picked up by one guy alone on an island.

I don't disagree with anything that you've said. (I don't even think paganism would be picked up alone. It has too long a history of development. It was just one possibility.) Since I don't disagree with what you've actually said, I'm a little fuzzy on how we have some very different beliefs...

Well, you said that being Scottish would allow him to be exposed to Christianity. I'm saying that being created by God as human being at all would expose him to Christianity, and that the Scottish part wouldn't be as important.

Or if you'd prefer, think of lyrics in music instead of symbols in the visual arts.

Please never write a song. It will suck.

But the world doesn't suck as a work of art. God knew what he was doing.

You can't claim that a song will suck just because a certain element of the song is more important than another. There's no reason why someone can't produce great melodies and even better lyrics, only to have the great melodies overlooked in favor over the lyrics. I'd argue that the artist who spent more time working on lyrics than on a melody but had both down quite well in the end knows what he or she's doing too.

[BennieM]

Because it's not super-human. It is not Love.

Wait a second, how does this work with what we said about not all creatures being redeemed?

I don't understand what your objection is. Do you mean that Love would redeem all his creatures? I'm lost.

Well, you said that being Scottish would allow him to be exposed to Christianity. I'm saying that being created by God as human being at all would expose him to Christianity, and that the Scottish part wouldn't be as important.

Why not? Being Scottish he would be exposed to a good deal of Christian theology over and over again--not just being exposed to 'Christianity' (by which we probably don't specifically mean the religion as a whole) in his conscience, etc.

You can't claim that a song will suck just because a certain element of the song is more important than another.

Sure I can, and based on my experience as a writer, I do. It just doesn't make sense to me. I may be wrong, but it makes no sense whatsoever to an artist's temperament (cf. Dorothy L. Sayers, The Mind of the Maker or stuff by Samuel Johnson or Flannery O'Connor). A work of art is good for being a whole or a good-in-itself.

[bloop]

OK, so God is infinitely complex and any two organisms have a finite amount of complexity....but isn't that the best analogy we have to God's size compared to ours? I really don't see how this is a bad analogy.

What places does it seem like this trivializes in a troubling way, and where would it be alright to trivialize?

 

Oh, I'm sure in terms of complexity, even the analogy comparing ourselves to an amoeba was an understatement.  But, from God's perspective, He wasn't dying for the equivalent of an amoeba.  He was dying for something important to Him, and I believe the importance of humanity is derived from how important God thinks we are.  Dying an amoeba's death for amoebas not only makes no sense in terms of motive, it makes Christ's death seem small and unimportant (and, incidentaly, not really much of a sacrifice to die a meaningless death only to come back and be glorified again anyway).  

We should always maintain a humble attitude that we are very small next to God, but I don't think that means we should in any way denegrate one of God's more impressive creations.  I could be reading too much into the analogy, but I think there are better ones that make sense from a motivatonal point-of-view of one willing to die a painful death.

...and to repeat the debated question, what reason is there to believe that Jesus being the Son of God is merely as important as Jesus being human? Yes, we all agree that he's fully God and fully human regardless, but what's with the dogmatic attacks on Paul and I for thinking that the God part has more significance?

If you agree that being fully human is an essential part of His nature, then I can't see how an essential part of who God is can be less important.  But, maybe you really aren't down with the idea that it is essential, but rather just true, and that could be the disconnect.

[Tom]

to briefly respond to an earlier post. i'm no martyr, as evidenced by the fact that i'm still breathing air. nor do i have a martyr complex about this issue. there are many things about Christ that are mysterious beyond words that i have no problem confessing i know nothing of. at the root, the doctrine of Theanthropos blows my mind. i truly can't fathom it, i wouldn't trust anyone who says they can.

the only reason i've posted the things i have posted here is because i sense some inconsistencies / disconnects in what we are discussing.

if we all truly agree that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man then you are 100% correct that we have no debate.

so why does this keep dragging on?

i have nothing else to say on this subject because i fear that for me to go farther than what i have previously stated would make me enter into vapid speculation and fanciful thinking. in other words, perhaps we should all agree that we agree, if that is what we are doing. everyone has said their piece, let's all shake virtual hands and be gracious about it.

can we agree on that?
 

[bloop]

[danny316]

if we all truly agree that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man then you are 100% correct that we have no debate.

so why does this keep dragging on?
 

Yes, that's correct. It keeps dragging on because the original nitpick that there's no difference in importance between Jesus' humanity and divinity still is up for debate.

However, I'm thinking it's time to give this one up. It doesn't look like anyone's mind is going to be changed, and we all agree on the essential part here. Besides, the other guy on my side of the debate's been booted. I'm not up for fighting a losing battle over a small nitpick on a topic we all generally agree on.

So, I think it's worth dropping this one, and just agreeing to agree that Jesus has both traits (which we already have) and just agreeing to disagree about how important each is to his identity (I'm happy to let you guys think they're equally important if guys can live with me continuing to think that divinity is slightly more important). Deal?