Fully man, Fully god? One soul or two many!

reply to post by logical7

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. -Koran 4:171

excuse me I did not to annoy my chiristian friends but Moses stood against Pharaoh and Jesus stood against corrupted Israeli leaders and the premier question is that on which side we are on. on the side of righteous and nations or on the side of wicked and pharaohs !

reply to post by logical7

The idea that Jesus pbuh is fully god and fully man gives rise to some curious questions..
>what part was man? & what part God?
>body as human and soul of God? Then nobody died
>soul of man and a soul of God? Two souls? It would be similar to God possessing Jesus pbuh the man and leaving when the man died on the cross.
>a complicated hybrid man-god soul?

Obviously, for Jesus to be god and then man, the gods and men must be very similar.

There is a thing (your person, who you are, or your individual consciousnesses, or maybe what you mean by "soul") that would have been the same, both when he was a god, and when he was a man.

The only practical change in his person-hood, from god to man, would have been his attitude, how he dealt with the environment he found himself in.

reply to post by chadderson

One can not choose 'god or satan' becuase satan is a reflection of god. Polarity, duality, and the nature of opposites, is within creation and therefore a reflection of gods will.

Satan is nothing more than another label for 'down' and not 'up', another name for 'bad', or 'evil'.

Free will is an illusion, but our awareness is not. What we are aware of is what we allow ourselves to absorb, if it is truth it is just.

When someone who can control anything and know everything is watching over your every step, you cannot be certain that your actions weren't engineered at any given point in time. And evil and good are simply labels that describe how we feel about something. They reveal more about the people using them then about the thing being described.

I'm glad someone else realizes these things - far too often, we believe that our emotions make a fitting and inarguable judgment upon the things we deal with in life, when in fact those very emotions prove that we are not trustworthy as judges.

Originally posted by NysgjerrigDame
reply to post by logical7

 

Read Collasians: 1:15-16. It clearly states that God created Jusus as his first creation. According to the Bible God is the alpha and omega. Therefore, he has no beginning and no end. If he created Jesus, which according to the Bible itself he did, how can Jesus be God, which has no beginning and no end. The Bible damns the people's belief that he is God by stating that he is a creation of God.

No, it doesn't. Jesus was begotten, not made. That was the issue that was discussed and settled on at the First Council of Nicaea (the one that conspiracy nuts think was the council that decided what books to include in the Bible.) See Arianism for information on the Fourth Century heresy that Jesus was "created" (you'd think that something decided 1600 years ago, and attested to by the billions of Christians who profess the Nicene Creed, wouldn't still be a topic of discussion, lol.)

reply to post by NysgjerrigDame

Read Collasians: 1:15-16. It clearly states that God created Jusus as his first creation. According to the Bible God is the alpha and omega. Therefore, he has no beginning and no end. If he created Jesus, which according to the Bible itself he did, how can Jesus be God, which has no beginning and no end. The Bible damns the people's belief that he is God by stating that he is a creation of God.

No beginning and no end, eh? Like a circle...

www.crystalinks.com...

I would upload the actual image, but ATS seems to be having a problem with its media skills. I don't know, maybe this computer is a piece of...ahem, anyway!

Seriously, take a look at the image. Anyone who does their research on this subject will be absolutely amazed at the implications. The circle is one of the most sacred symbols you will ever encounter.

Another thing I'd like to add is that man doesn't understand perfection, and therefore doesn't understand what it is to be godly. With this in mind, I'm not sure we're capable of really having this discussion. It's like having a conversation about calculus when none of the participants really knows anything about math.

reply to post by adjensen

(you'd think that something decided 1600 years ago, and attested to by the billions of Christians who profess the Nicene Creed, wouldn't still be a topic of discussion, lol.)

Likewise, you'd think the word of "God" would have been settled centuries ago, but here we are with atheists, agnostics, and a dozen different versions of the same religion based on the same source who can't even agree amongst each other on what exactly the Bible means.

I guess things aren't exactly as clear-cut as we treat them, yeah?

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by logical7

 

I have stated my understanding already. Jesus was a separate creation.
He was born fully man. But he was a direct creation of GOD in the manner of Adam.

No he wasn't. Adam was, supposedly, created from dust. He was created a fully developed grown man. He had no mother. Adam and Eve are the supposed parents of the human race, as therefore, we all reflect the DNA of the original couple.

Jesus, on the other hand, was supposed divinely implanted within a young woman's womb, and developed as any ancestor of Adam did. He was born of labor pains, blood and water.

If Jesus' father was indeed the "God" being of the Old Testament, then he had different DNA than that of Adam, because the sperm, or "life force" wasn't provided by a human man.

Was Jesus fully human, or superhuman, in that case?

reply to post by SimonPeter

God did say this is my Son in whom I am well pleased about Jesus . The pure vessel of Mary was chosen to birth Gods Son and remained Virgin until after Jesus was born We are in the last days .

God said that to me.too: ...."this is my Daughter in whom I am well pleased."

What, you didn't hear that?

And Mary was not a pure vessel virgin, she was a teenager who got pregnant. And, imo, Jesus was also married/dwelled with Mary Magdelene...

Here is a link explaining the understanding of Jesus as the God-man:

www.catholicbook.com...

Essentially, Christ's nature is both God and Man joined in hypostatic union, defined at follows:

Hypostatic Union

A theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers to denote reality as distinguished from appearances (Aristotle, "Mund.", IV, 21). It occurs also in St. Paul's Epistles (2 Corinthians 9:4; 11:17; Hebrews 1:3-3:14), but not in the sense of person. Previous to the Council of Nicæa (325) hypostasis was synonymous with ousia, and even St. Augustine (On the Holy Trinity V.8) avers that he sees no difference between them. The distinction in fact was brought about gradually in the course of the controversies to which the Christological heresies gave rise, and was definitively established by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person (eis en prosopon kai mian hpostasin) (Denzinger, ed. Bannwart, 148). They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united. For further explanation and bibliography see: INCARNATION; JESUS CHRIST; MONOPHYSITISM; NATURE; PERSON.

Source: www.newadvent.org...

The perfection of Christ, insofar as His human nature united with His Divine nature, is that He has two wills: Divine (The Word- 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity) and human (the Word made Flesh; perfect, and seeking only to love God).

This distinction has been lost on many and gave rise to not a few heresies. Here is an explanation on one:

The heresy that there is only one will in in the incarnate Christ is called monothelitism and arose from the Monophysite heresy (which said that there was only one nature in Christ). Christ distinguishes his will from that of his Father in John 6:38, Matt 26:39, etc. Christ's relationship of obedience to the Father only makes sense if Christ has a human will.

Athanasius said in his treatise on the Incarnation in 365 AD, "And when [Christ] says, "Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from Me; yet, not My will be done, but Yours;" and "the spirit is ready, but the flesh is weak," He gives evidence therein of two wills, the one human, which is of the flesh, and the other divine, which is of God. That which is human, because of the weakness of the flesh, shrinks from suffering. That, however, which is divine, is ready. Then too, Peter, hearing about the passion, says, "Cheer up, Lord;" but the Lord, chiding him, says, "Get behind me Satan; you are a scandal to Me, because you are mindful not of the things of God but of the things of men." This too, then, is to be understood in the suffering; but being God and, in accord with the divine substance, really being not subject to suffering, He readily accepts suffering and death" (Quotation from Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens).

The Council of Chalcedon said, "Similarly we promulgate, according to the teaching of the Holy Fathers, that in Him are also two natural wills and two natural modes of working, unseparated, untransformed, undivided, unmixed; and these two natural wills are not opposed to each other as the impious heretics maintained." (Quoted from Ludwig Ott, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," Denzinger 291)

Source: www.columbia.edu...

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by logical7

 

I have stated my understanding already. Jesus was a separate creation.
He was born fully man. But he was a direct creation of GOD in the manner of Adam.

No he wasn't. Adam was, supposedly, created from dust. He was created a fully developed grown man. He had no mother. Adam and Eve are the supposed parents of the human race, as therefore, we all reflect the DNA of the original couple.

Jesus, on the other hand, was supposed divinely implanted within a young woman's womb, and developed as any ancestor of Adam did. He was born of labor pains, blood and water.

If Jesus' father was indeed the "God" being of the Old Testament, then he had different DNA than that of Adam, because the sperm, or "life force" wasn't provided by a human man.

Was Jesus fully human, or superhuman, in that case?

edit on 26-11-2012 by windword because: grammer

Did I use the wrong terminology here?
I was trying to convey that Adam and Jesus were the only two men directly created by GOD.
I in no way was implying that Adam and Jesus had the same DNA.

I was only setting out that they were not born in the usual manner as any other man.
In whatever way it was accomplished. I have no way of knowing what it was exactly that was implanted in Mary's womb whether it also required "dust" to create an embryo or just a fully grown one when not following ordinary reproduction.
But, this was evidently important to GOD that it be in the "manner" of Adam. Else, GOD could have chosen any man in the line of David and Blessed him and called him "my Son" in that we are all here because of GOD and his family of man he set upon the ground here.

reply to post by wildtimes


Why would you say such terrible things that you know not to be true . The Magdalene lie was from one Muslim sect and was the leader was called a liar by the other Muslim leaders . Now Mohammad had a real bad reputation as reported by the Arabs .

The only thing in the scriptures that lends itself to the thought that Jesus was married was that he was called
Rabbi. A rabbi had to be a married man, not a bachelor.
Most people married by the age of 16-17 years of age.

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
The only thing in the scriptures that lends itself to the thought that Jesus was married was that he was called
Rabbi. A rabbi had to be a married man, not a bachelor.
Most people married by the age of 16-17 years of age.

Not exactly true; this was more a cultural thing and not a rule without exception.

christianthinktank.com...

However, Christ was married-- to His Bride, the Church.

reply to post by Augustine62

Essentially, Christ's nature is both God
and Man joined in hypostatic union

interesting! But wouldnt the man nature be completely lost in God nature? And to counteract that, God nature would have to be infinitisimally small to be equal to man nature and that small amount is kind of in all of us as we are created in image of God and so again Jesus pbuh would have two man natures or put it plainly just man nature.

reply to post by Augustine62


Both could be true by this standard. The bonds of matrimony end at death of one spouse.
Along with all the other marriages when one enters the Kingdom of Heaven.
You know the whole till death do us part.

There was a bit of discussion about this by Jesus himself when asked who would be the correct wife
in heaven.

I must say I am always put off by the use of the term, "The Church" as a monolithic structure.
Of, course it has been construed to mean the Catholic Church. Where there is no basis that Peter
nor any other of the Apostles chose to set up "the church" in Rome.
Why would they?

When Revelations calls out various churches it does so as individuals. The Church at Laodicea, the Church at Philidelphia, the church at Sardis, etc. There was no place set aside as THE church and if there were, it most
definitely would not have been at Rome.

reply to post by PaperbackWriter

I have stated my understanding
already. Jesus was a separate
creation.
He was born fully man. But he
was a direct creation of GOD in the manner of Adam.

from where you got this? And directly created as how? A baby inside Mary? Or by some other method like just spliting Himself in Three at the beginning of creation?

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
The only thing in the scriptures that lends itself to the thought that Jesus was married was that he was called
Rabbi. A rabbi had to be a married man, not a bachelor.

A Rabbi that was in charge of a Synagogue, yes. There was a specific rule for this.

A traveling Rabbi, such as Jesus was, no. There was a specific exemption for this.

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by NysgjerrigDame
reply to post by logical7

 

Read Collasians: 1:15-16. It clearly states that God created Jusus as his first creation. According to the Bible God is the alpha and omega. Therefore, he has no beginning and no end. If he created Jesus, which according to the Bible itself he did, how can Jesus be God, which has no beginning and no end. The Bible damns the people's belief that he is God by stating that he is a creation of God.

thank you! my point is the same. a creation cant be God.

I am not taking the position of Jesus being God, as the Pharisees seem to assume when Jesus said that the Father and he are one, in the following bible verse:

22 Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24 The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

John 10:22-39

Is Jesus saying he is Father? If not, what did he mean by "I and the Father are one?"
What did Jesus mean when he said, "... what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?"
Why did the disciples constantly refer to Jesus Christ as Lord?

Let's not be coy, logical7. You are not posting this to find out anything, you are here to argue that your most numerous opponents, the Nicene Christians, "must be" wrong about the nature of the Christ, even though you both agree that Jesus (Isa) is the "annointed one" promised to the Jewish people.

The first problem your counter-apologetics has is that it simply assumes that God and Man are necessarily exclusive categories. Creator cannot be creature, and so the largely agreed upon logical limit of God's omnipotence applies. That is, God cannot do what is necessarily nonsense. The assumption is fine, but it leaves you with literally nothing to say to anyone whose assumption is that a joint instance actually happened, once. That you think this is nonsense is untroubling to those who think otherwise.

Talking past each other is the only achievable outcome. In particular, "derived paradoxes" like

The idea that Jesus pbuh is fully god and fully man gives rise to some curious questions..
>what part was man? & what part God?
>body as human and soul of God? Then nobody died
>soul of man and a soul of God? Two souls? It would be similar to God possessing Jesus pbuh the man and leaving when the man died on the cross.
>a complicated hybrid man-god soul?

have no force whatsoever. What anomalous character they possess for you are derived from your assumption of a category mistake, not your opponents' assumption that however remarkable, a joint instance has in fact occurred. There is also an irony that your questions look like a Powerpoint slide, summarizing classical heterodox-Christian christological heresies. Your opponent has been there, done that, and washed the tee shirt many times.

You might also consider not gratuitously insulting those with whom you seek to dialog. You denigrate Jesus with the tag "pbuh," that implies that he is dead. Your opponent believes, on the contrary, that even though he did die, that he is alive, right now, and that his person manifests an intact and alive human body. That body, they believe, is like that which will appertain to all human beings, and which, even at the moment, is as fully human as my very own agnostic meat suit, but at another level of development.

If religious scruple impels you to tag someone else's Lord and God with such a dismissive token, and repeatedly rub the opponent's face in it, then you might at least consider acknowledging the issue which you force. Perhaps you would say "Jesus, pbuh in Islam" rather than just announcing that in any further conversation about Jesus you will be assuming the consequent.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Why would you say such terrible things that you know not to be true . The Magdalene lie was from one Muslim sect and was the leader was called a liar by the other Muslim leaders . Now Mohammad had a real bad reputation as reported by the Arabs .

What "terrible things" did I say, and how are they not true?

God -- the indwelling Divine part of me -- has given me strength and comfort, and is well-pleased with my efforts to be a good person. I've made mistakes, and the Divine has still accepted me as worthy. I'm here to make mistakes, to learn.

What possible difference does it make if God let me know God is "well-pleased" with me?

What is "terrible" about Jesus having lived life as a normal man, with normal desires, and consummated his love for "the Magdalene" with her in the manner intended by their made-to-fit physical designs? Does it change anything of his actual MESSAGE?

I really think that calling someone a "liar" in these matters is bad form. I could just as easily say that whoever said he physically resurrected was a "liar", that whoever told the Adam and Eve story was a "liar", whoever proclaimed that Thor was casting lightning bolts at the earth was a "liar". None of it makes sense.

Can we just believe that there is something "other than" us? "Higher" or "unseen" without having all the illogical stories attached? I don't see one thing "terrible" about using discernment to determine what stories resonate with the facts on the ground, and which are patently myths devised by naive, frightened, confused, superstitious people.

A baby thinks that when Daddy picks up his car keys, they KEYS MAKE HIM go away. An older child knows that's not the case. My neighbor lady told her grandson that his new sibling, not yet born, would be "coming out of Mommy's foot". I doubt that grandson will believe her when/if he eventually impregnates some young lady.

WHY LIE? And once one has the maturity to SEE lies for what they are -- why perpetuate them? I think the story of Adam and Eve is a myth. I think the virgin birth is also a myth.