God became a Man For us but what if to Stay as a Man Forever

a reply to: DISRAELI
The term "bodily resurrection" is used in theology to refer to the idea that the human physical body will be resurrected just like it was for Jesus according to the people who teach this.

So you can talk vaguely about (spin concerning?) "a different kind of body" if you must, but I already mentioned:

Having lived, served faithfully, and died in mortal, corruptible human bodies, the resurrected anointed ones receive an incorruptible spirit body. (1Co 15:44)

That is not part of the teaching concerning a "bodily resurrection". Also, it was not what you implied when you started your comment by saying:

Of course he is [also] still a man. His body was raised from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and there is no reason to imagine that he has lost it since.

That clearly implies Jesus' human body was raised from the dead, that Jesus was raised from the dead as a (hu)man, with a human physical body. As per the teaching of the "bodily resurrection", often taught by people who also teach that Jesus went to heaven as a man, with a human physical body, the very reason you said "he is still a man". No, Jesus is not "still a man" (in heaven), he is a spirit now with a spirit body, just like all other angels are spirits and not men. Just like God is a spirit and not a man. Numbers 23:19:

God is not a mere man who tells lies,

Nor a son of man who changes his mind.* [Or “who feels regret.”]

When he says something, will he not do it?

When he speaks, will he not carry it out?

Was Jesus a God-Man? (1956)

INCARNATION is the teaching in Christendom that “God is Man, and Man is God in the Person of Jesus Christ.” This belief is called “the central doctrine of Christianity.” Catholic and most Protestant churches thus teach that Jesus was a God-Man. But, like other doctrines taught by the clergy, this one, too, defies logic and reason. Indeed, theologians admit that no human philosophy can fully explain it. It is contradictory and it is confusing. But since the Bible says that “God is not the author of confusion,” our interest is quickened by the questions: How did the incarnation teaching originate? Does the highest authority of all, God’s Word, really teach that Jesus was Almighty God masquerading as a man?—1 Cor. 14:33.

The doctrine that Jesus was a God-Man did not crop up until long after Jesus’ death. Then the teaching developed gradually. It was crystallized A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea. At this council a pagan emperor, Constantine, directed affairs. Merrill’s Essays in Early Christian History says: “It is not likely that Constantine cared very much about what doctrine should come off victorious in the discussions and votes. He did not aspire, like Henry VIII of England, to be a theologian. But he wanted harmony in the Church for political reasons. . . . He doubtless hoped in advance that decisions might be reached acceptable to both sides.”

One of America’s noted theologians, Henry P. Van Dusen, further enlightens us as to what happened at Nicaea, in his book World Christianity (page 72): “The East was seething with more violent dispute over the correct theological interpretation of Christ’s person. Hence Constantine summoned all the bishops of the Church to assemble at Nicaea in 325. The 318 bishops who responded represented only about a sixth of the bishops of the Empire. As in all ecumenical councils, they came predominately from the East. Constantine’s principal ecclesiastical advisor, Bishop Hosius of Spain, presided, with the emperor at his right hand. The weight of imperial influence swayed the decisions. The early form of the Nicene Creed was the outcome.” Thus pagan Constantine, concerned more with politics than with religion, “swayed the decisions” and determined what Christendom in general believes to this very day. So Christendom’s acceptance of the theory of Jesus’ being a God-Man rests on a pagan emperor.

Not until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 was the incarnation doctrine defined. What is eye-opening about that council, as well as the one at Nicaea, is that they solved matters by absorption. Some said Jesus was man. Some said Jesus was God. The council, made up of deflected Christians, decided Jesus was God-Man. So each of the embattled contestants could accept the formula with reasonable satisfaction by the simple device of underscoring that phrase which embraced his own interest. Dr. Van Dusen says in his World Christianity: “The upshot of three centuries of heated controversy in two successive phases was the Catholic Church’s resolute refusal to choose—its return of a firm if somewhat befuddled ‘both . . . and’ to the disputants’ insistent ‘either . . . or.’ Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon are the successive landmarks on the tortuous route. . . . At Chalcedon a century and a half later than Nicaea the same method of solution was even more baldly employed—not ‘either . . . or’ but ‘both . . . and,’ a solution by inclusion rather than by rejection at whatever cost to logical coherence and rationality.”

Has your understanding of Christ Jesus been influenced by the Council of Chalcedon? Most professed Christians do not even know that the council was responsible for defining the doctrine; and yet “the formula of Chalcedon,” writes Dr. Van Dusen on page 75, “met its dilemma by affirming, side by side, the contradictory contentions of the two disputant parties, without serious attempt at reconciliation.” Some way out of a dilemma! And so Chalcedon’s definition of Christ’s nature (“two natures, without confusion, without division, without separation, . . . not divided or separated into two persons but one”) has been called with reason, as Dr. Van Dusen says, “to the logical mind, distilled nonsense.”

“THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION BY GOD”

Regardless of what any council or man says about Jesus’ nature, the only reliable authority is God’s Word itself, of which Jesus said: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17, NW) This Word of God reveals that Jesus is the Son of God, not Jehovah God himself. Concerning his relationship to his Father, Jesus explained: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28, NW) Jesus condemned hypocrisy; yet what glaring hypocrisy he himself would be guilty of if he had been Almighty God garbed in flesh! Jesus was not God himself, because even in his prehuman existence he was a created spirit called “the Word.” The Word was a mighty spirit creature and as such may properly be called “a god” but not “the God.” Hence an accurate translation of John 1:1 (NW) reads: “Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”

This scripture does not say that the Word always existed. Only Jehovah God is “from everlasting to everlasting.” (Ps. 90:2) There was a time when the Word was created. Jesus gave true facts concerning himself at Revelation 3:14 (NW), where he said: “These are the things the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.”

So Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was the very beginning of Jehovah’s creation. Thereafter Jehovah used the Word in producing all other creations: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, because by means of him all other things were created.” (Col. 1:15, 16, NW) When God’s “firstborn” came to earth, the life force of the Word was transferred from heaven to the egg cell in the womb of Mary. This meant that the Word had to lay aside his heavenly glory, his spirit life. This he did: “Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men.”—Phil. 2:5-7, NW.

“A LITTLE LOWER THAN ANGELS”
...
INCARNATION NULLIFIES THE RANSOM
...

On another note, but regarding a similar behaviour of inventing new words to describe mythological kinds of life:

What About Those “Ape-Men”? (Awake!—1973)

a reply to: DISRAELI
Fundamentalism—What Is It? (1997)

WHERE did fundamentalism start? At the end of the last century, liberal theologians were changing their beliefs to accommodate higher criticism of the Bible and scientific theories, such as evolution. As a result, people’s confidence in the Bible was shaken. Conservative religious leaders in the United States reacted by fixing what they called the fundamentals of faith.* Early in the 20th century, they published a discussion of these fundamentals in a series of volumes entitled The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. From this title comes the term “fundamentalism.”
...
*: The so-called Five Points of Fundamentalism, defined in 1895, were “(1) the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture; (2) the deity of Jesus Christ; (3) the virgin birth of Christ; (4) the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross; (5) the bodily resurrection and the personal and physical second coming of Christ on the earth.”—Studi di teologia (Studies of Theology).

That is after all what you were implying when you said that Jesus "is [also] still a man", if not, you can't refer to him as a man to describe his current nature or state of being. That would be contradictory and misleading to do so if you're not referring to a physical man, the only type of "man" that actually exists (even if you're describing a God-Man without spelling it out, a typical Pagan teaching). If you have a spirit body, you're no longer a man, but a spirit. The 2 are incompatable, one cannot be a spirit-man any more than anyone can be a God-man. They don't exist any more than ape-men (actually, ape-men are even more realistic, at least they are both physical creatures, but obviously, I don't believe in their historical existence either; do you believe that ape-men existed as well? Even when you don't call them as such? I.e., do you believe man is descendent from some kind of apelike creature by means of evolution?).

"Man" as used in this comment and the previous one is referring to a "human", not a "person". As is implied when you say Jesus "is [also] still a man". That Jesus "is [also] still a" human. Both God and man, both God and human, a God-Man.

Christendom’s God-Man (1960)

IN Christendom the bridge between God and man is called “Incarnation.” The sense of the word “incarnation” is that God took upon himself the nature of man in the person of Jesus Christ. He thereby became a God-man.

Although the idea of a God-man is not foreign to paganism, yet that the Logos should become flesh belongs to Christendom alone, say these religionists. [whereislogic: in so doing admitting that the idea of a God-man is not foreign to paganism, the very fact that they have to respond to any notion of it originating with paganism with this lame and weak counter-argument is quite telling] They maintain that pagan religions teach an apotheosis or glorification of man, that they do not teach an incarnation of the true God. According to the English church historian Charles Hardwick, if we purge pagan incarnations from all the lewd and Bacchanalian adjuncts that disfigure and debase them, still they come definitely short of the doctrine of incarnation as taught in Christendom, despite the striking similarities.

But merely to deny the doctrine’s paganity does not establish the teaching of incarnation as being of Christianity. In his book The Creative Christ, E. Drown associates Christendom’s concept of incarnation with pagan Greek mythology. He says: “This idea of substance . . . found its way into Christian theology from Greek sources. The result was that the Incarnation was too often interpreted in physical instead of in moral terms.”

Then there are objections of another character. An eminent professor, Dr. Charles A. Briggs, who was also a priest of the Protestant Episcopal Church, taught that the virgin birth was only a “minor matter connected with the Incarnation . . . [that it] cannot be so essential as many people have supposed.” To Adolf Harnack, German theologian and professor of theology, Jesus was not God in the flesh, but just another Jewish rabbi. Otto Pfleiderer, German Protestant theologian and professor ordinarius of theology, was amazed at the “countless parallels in the legends of pagan heroes and Christian saints,” including that of Jesus Christ.

That there should be conflicting opinions on this doctrine is not at all surprising, since the doctrine of incarnation finds no basis in the Bible, the only reliable authority for truth. (John 17:17) The ancient Jews in their long history never once declared any of their judges, kings, generals, priests or prophets to be gods. The Hebrews and the Jewish Christians utterly abhorred the defilement of heathen mythology. These facts render impossible the fanciful notion that Christian Jews absorbed the history of Jesus from pagan mythology. Neither the Bible nor faithful first-century Christians maintained the pagan concept that Jesus was a God-man. Therefore, when renegade Christians tried to sell the pagan God-man concept as Christian, they found the going rough. The doctrine itself was not crystalized until some three hundred years after Jesus’ day and not defined until A.D. 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. The noted American theologian, Henry P. Van Dusen, whose Presbyterian religion teaches that Jesus was a God-man, in his book World Christianity, page 75, calls Chalcedon’s definition of Christ’s nature “distilled nonsense.”

During the first two centuries there was considerable opposition to the doctrine of incarnation. The Ebionites, a Jewish Christian sect that began in the first century, maintained that Jesus had a natural birth, that he was not God incarnate. Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, who lived toward the beginning of the fourth century, taught that Jesus was neither coeternal nor coequal with God, that he was the head of all creation, but not “of one substance with the Father.” Docetists, a sect of Jewish Christians that flourished in the second century, believed that Jesus’ body was merely apparent, a vision, a delusion, not material. Gnosticism was a fusion of independent “Christian” beliefs. Its contention was that evil is inherent in matter and that for that reason Jesus’ body could not have been material. Valentinus, the most prominent leader of the Gnostic movement, taught that Jesus’ ethereal body passed through Mary but was not born of her. Others said Jesus had two wills, one human, the other divine, and so forth.

It was from this hodgepodge of conflicting opinions that Christendom has received her incarnation doctrine. Since some thought Jesus was man and others maintained he was God, the council at Nicaea A.D. 325 headed by a pagan political emperor, namely, Constantine, decided on a God-man to please both sides. This doctrine, though unfounded in Scripture, is generally believed by Protestants and Catholics to this day. The Catholic Encyclopedia states bluntly: “Christ is God.” A Presbyterian Church publication speaks of Jesus as “God and man.”

WAS JESUS A GOD-MAN?

Regardless of what any council or man has said about Jesus’ nature, the only reliable source of religious truth is the Bible. This Word reveals that Jesus is God’s Son and as such he was not and is not God. Jesus himself said: “I am God’s Son.” To Mary the angel Gabriel said: “What is born will be called holy, God’s Son.” Nothing is said of a God-man or a man-God. Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus called a “God-man” or “God incarnate.” Such assumptions are strictly human illusions tainted with paganism.—John 10:36; Luke 1:34, 35; 2:21.

In the Scriptures Jesus is referred to as “the beginning of the creation by God.” He is God’s first creation, called the Word of God or Logos. After Adam’s sin, the Almighty God purposed to send this only-begotten Son of his to earth to redeem man from sin. He was to become the second perfect man or second Adam. This would necessitate his laying aside heavenly life to be born a man. No incarnation, but a perfect human birth. This was accomplished by holy spirit or the power of God, as Luke 1:26-38 shows. He was born of the maiden Mary and was called Jesus, who became “the man.”—Rev. 3:14; John 1:29; 19:5; 1 Cor. 15:45.

Was Jesus flesh and blood? John tells us: “The Word became flesh and resided among us.” Of Jesus Paul said: “Since the ‘young children’ are sharers of blood and flesh, he also similarly partook of the same things.” Had Jesus been a God-man, he would have been higher than angels and man. The Scriptures tell us that he was made “a little lower than angels.” Neither was he coequal with his Father, for he himself said: “The Father is greater than I am.”—John 1:14; Heb. 2:14, 9; John 14:28; Phil. 2:5-7.

If Jesus was an incarnation, then he was not the second Adam; his life, death and resurrection would all be a lie. The Christian faith would be in vain. We would be still in our sins without hope. Thank God his Word remains true! Christ is true. He was the second Adam, a perfect man who gave his soul “a ransom in exchange for many.” Those who teach that Jesus was a God-man have no Scriptural basis for saying so. No wonder, when faced with a discussion on this incarnation doctrine, called by The Encyclopedia Americana “the central doctrine of Christianity,” the clergy scurry for cover behind the feeble reply, “It’s a mystery.”—Matt. 20:28.

a reply to: whereislogic
I mean by "bodily resurrection" what Paul means by bodily resurrection; we are raised into a body which has changed . Or we change without needing to be raised if we are living when Christ returns; in that event, would you think that we had stopped being human?
As far as I am concerned, that is enough to justify my premise that Christ was raised in a human body. Human- just not "of flesh".
A hundred pages copy=pasted from a corporation site will not be enough to change my mind on this.

Why don't you start looking for your own conclusions and putting them in your own words?

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: whereislogic
I mean by "bodily resurrection" what Paul means by bodily resurrection; we are raised into a body which has changed.

You did not bring up the term "bodily resurrection", I did. And I explained what I was referring to with it just before I allowed Paul to answer the question in regard to the resurrection of the Christian holy ones: “‘How are the dead to be raised up? Yes, with what kind of body are they coming?’ . . . What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies; and as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but a bare grain, . . . but God gives it a body just as it has pleased him . . . So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised up in incorruption. . . . It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. . . . flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption.”—1 Cor. 15:35-38, 42-44, 50.

Or we change without needing to be raised if we are living when Christ returns; in that event, would you think that we had stopped being human?

I find it hard to think anything about something so vague. Suddenly the change you speak of doesn't seem to be talking about a change from a physical body to a spiritual body anymore, or does it? It sounds like you're talking about a mental/spiritual change now.

As far as I am concerned, that is enough to justify my premise that Christ was raised in a human body. Human- just not "of flesh".
A hundred pages copy=pasted from a corporation site will not be enough to change my mind on this.

Not that surprising you're sticking to your guns (as described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 and other bible texts I've been quoting). Yet, regarding Jesus' resurrection, the Bible does not teach the raising of the human body or that Jesus is now both (hu)man and God, a God-man, in heaven. As thoroughly demonstrated from Scripture with additional historical information on the origin of the belief in God-men. Downplay these facts if you must by labeling it "A hundred pages copy=pasted from a corporation site", but they won't go anywhere. They'll be waiting right there for you to acknowledge these truths/facts if you feel like being honest about it one day.

Why don't you start looking for your own conclusions and putting them in your own words?

I did, but since your commentary was very limited and short, I kept those fairly short as well supporting them with additional background information from various sources that happened to be listed in the articles on the site you're allergic to as described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4. Their main source being the Bible. As demonstrated by the numerous quotations and referrals. All of whom you are ignoring as you express your own eisegesis and theological dogma; matching that of Christendom and correctly described in the articles about God-men and the Trinity, including by those theologians or resources in Christendom being quoted on these subjects. As mentioned somewhere in there, a good example of a correct/truthful description of the dogma that teaches that Jesus was a God-man (and still is according to many in Christendom):

The noted American theologian, Henry P. Van Dusen, whose Presbyterian religion teaches that Jesus was a God-man, in his book World Christianity, page 75, calls Chalcedon’s definition of Christ’s nature “distilled nonsense.”*

Sadly, you won't even spell out "God-man" as you teach this pagan philosophy. Even though that's clearly implied by your teachings and expressions of eisegesis. I probably shouldn't bother asking for you to spell it out either, so I'll just spell it out for ye:

You are teaching that Jesus is a God-man. Why have you avoided using that term so far in your responses? Might it have something to do with you being aware of its pagan connections and therefore there being a bit of an issue with that term? For example that it makes the connection a bit more obvious to others when the term is used to explain the teachings of Christendom? Hence the tiptoeing around it (or is that tap dancing?).

*: from before:

Has your understanding of Christ Jesus been influenced by the Council of Chalcedon? Most professed Christians do not even know that the council was responsible for defining the doctrine; and yet “the formula of Chalcedon,” writes Dr. Van Dusen on page 75, “met its dilemma by affirming, side by side, the contradictory contentions of the two disputant parties, without serious attempt at reconciliation.” Some way out of a dilemma! And so Chalcedon’s definition of Christ’s nature (“two natures, without confusion, without division, without separation, . . . not divided or separated into two persons but one”) has been called with reason, as Dr. Van Dusen says, “to the logical mind, distilled nonsense.”

... Thus pagan Constantine, concerned more with politics than with religion, “swayed the decisions” and determined what Christendom in general believes to this very day. So Christendom’s acceptance of the theory of Jesus’ being a God-Man rests on a pagan emperor.
...

...and “to the logical mind, distilled nonsense.”

a reply to: whereislogic
We're going round in circles now. I never think that "getting the last word" is important enough to worth continuing the effort.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Exactly, so tap dancing should have been my choice of words in my last edit at the end.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: GBP/JPY
...
The important point is that Christ is BOTH God AND man.
...

I.e. a God-man. You can spell it out for us. It's OK, other theologians and clergymen in Christendom spell it out all the time. Well, more often the more decades back you look. Hence those articles from the 50's and 60's. Not that the actual teaching has changed, as demonstrated here by you.

The Scriptures make it clear that Jesus was entirely human from his birth until his death. John did not say that the Word was merely clothed with flesh. He “became flesh” and was not part flesh and part God. If Jesus had been human and divine at the same time, it could not have been said that he had been “made a little lower than angels.”​—Hebrews 2:9; Psalm 8:4, 5.

If Jesus had been both God and man when on the earth, why did he repeatedly pray to Jehovah? Paul wrote: “In the days of his flesh Christ offered up supplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him out of death, with strong outcries and tears, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear.”​—Hebrews 5:7.

That Jesus was not partly a spirit when on the earth is proved by Peter’s statement that Christ was “put to death in the flesh, but . . . made alive in the spirit.” (1 Peter 3:18) Only because Jesus was wholly human could he have experienced what imperfect people experience and thus become a sympathetic high priest. Wrote Paul: “We have as high priest, not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in all respects like ourselves, but without sin.”​—Hebrews 4:15.

As “the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world,” Jesus “gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.” (John 1:29; 1 Timothy 2:6) In that way, Jesus bought back exactly what Adam had lost​—perfect, eternal human life. Since God’s justice required ‘soul for soul,’ Jesus thus had to be what Adam was originally​—a perfect human, not a God-man.​—Deuteronomy 19:21; 1 Corinthians 15:22.

Do not read too much into Bible texts. Those saying that Jesus was a God-man use* various scriptures in an effort to prove that he is a member of Christendom’s Trinity, equal with God in essence, power, glory, and duration (*: not that they can always be bothered to discuss them, as demonstrated by you, in that case, they use them more for their own eisegesis). But when we examine these texts carefully, we find that those arguing for “the divinity of Christ” view these verses as saying more than they really do.

Those who claim that God took on human existence as a God-man should note that the Bible does not even hint that Jesus viewed himself in such a way. Rather, it consistently shows that Jesus has always been inferior to his Father. When on the earth, Jesus never claimed to be more than the Son of God. Moreover, Christ said: “The Father is greater than I am.”​—John 14:28.

Paul made a distinction between Jehovah and Jesus in saying: “There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.” (1 Corinthians 8:6) Paul also said: “You belong to Christ; Christ, in turn, belongs to God.” (1 Corinthians 3:23) Indeed, even as Christians belong to their Master, Jesus Christ, so he belongs to his Head, Jehovah God.

Making a similar point, Paul wrote: “The head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3) This relationship between God and Christ will continue, for after Jesus’ Thousand Year Reign, “he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father” and “the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.”​—1 Corinthians 15:24, 28; Revelation 20:6.

Logically, he could not be called what many religionists of Christendom call him, “God incarnate,” an expression, much like “God-man”, not to be found in the inspired Bible. The clergy of Christendom are wrong in calling him “a God-man,” for, in 1 Timothy 2:5, 6, he is called “a man, Christ Jesus.” He never claimed to be, and he could not claim to be, the Most High God.​—John 20:31; Luke 1:32.

Compare with the title of this thread.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: whereislogic
...
As far as I am concerned, that is enough to justify my premise that Christ was raised in a human body. Human- just not "of flesh".
...

A "human body" is made or consists "of flesh". Hence, the above is a contradiction. Remember my recommendation and encouragement earlier?

...tellingly and typical though, they're not from God('s Word), any actual scriptures to support your eisegesis that teach any of those things? Eisegesis is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text. (Wikipedia) The interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas. (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary)

You may give a demonstration regarding the quotations you used and accompanying claims if you can't resist, your teachings are a bit hollow now as they are anyway. But it's not required nor requested nor encouraged nor recommended. Rather, “Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright. But reject empty [hollow] speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, and their word will spread like gangrene.” (2 Timothy 2:15-17; between brackets was mine) “Guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.” By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.

May the undeserved kindness be with you.” (1 Timothy 6:20,21)

“Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ”. (Colossians 2:8)

You're doing the same trick they did at Chalcedon in 451. Still the same contradiction, “at whatever cost to logical coherence and rationality.” As mentioned and quoted before from one of America’s noted theologians, Henry P. Van Dusen, in his book World Christianity:

Not until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 was the incarnation doctrine defined. What is eye-opening about that council, as well as the one at Nicaea, is that they solved matters by absorption. Some said Jesus was man. Some said Jesus was God. The council, made up of deflected Christians, decided Jesus was God-Man. So each of the embattled contestants could accept the formula with reasonable satisfaction by the simple device of underscoring that phrase which embraced his own interest. Dr. Van Dusen says in his World Christianity: “The upshot of three centuries of heated controversy in two successive phases was the Catholic Church’s resolute refusal to choose—its return of a firm if somewhat befuddled ‘both . . . and’ to the disputants’ insistent ‘either . . . or.’ Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon are the successive landmarks on the tortuous route. . . . At Chalcedon a century and a half later than Nicaea the same method of solution was even more baldly employed—not ‘either . . . or’ but ‘both . . . and,’ a solution by inclusion rather than by rejection at whatever cost to logical coherence and rationality.”

Has your understanding of Christ Jesus been influenced by the Council of Chalcedon? Most professed Christians do not even know that the council was responsible for defining the doctrine; and yet “the formula of Chalcedon,” writes Dr. Van Dusen on page 75, “met its dilemma by affirming, side by side, the contradictory contentions of the two disputant parties, without serious attempt at reconciliation.” Some way out of a dilemma! And so Chalcedon’s definition of Christ’s nature (“two natures, without confusion, without division, without separation, . . . not divided or separated into two persons but one”) has been called with reason, as Dr. Van Dusen says, “to the logical mind, distilled nonsense.”

Or if you want to be more PC about it, simply a contradiction. But if you look up "paradox" on thesaurus.com (a website for synonyms), you will see "contradiction", "mistake", "error" and "nonsense" are all listed there (albeit in different color schemes to indicate different levels of synonymous association or relationships, a slightly different connotation or nuance of meaning, but these words are still related in a synonymous manner).

Philosophers who take their ideas from pagan philosophers such as Plato or the Hindu Brahmin, have a bit of a habit with that, you can also see it in the teachings of a Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking (also copying a lot from pagan Greek philosophers, who in turn copied their reasoning style from the same philosophical sources as the Hindu Brahmin did, a reason why those philosophies are so similar as well: multiverse, eternal universe without a beginning, biological and cosmic evolution being an explanation for the designs observable in nature, fish-to-monkey-to-man evolution which turned into fish-to-ape-to-man which turned into fish-to-apelike-to-man, nature being intelligent or having the same capabilities as an intelligent being would have; in effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. Basically treating nature as Mother Nature, or as the Mother Nature- and Zeus-worshipper Plato would say, Gaia, a god).

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

originally posted by: whereislogic
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: whereislogic
...

As far as I am concerned, that is enough to justify my premise that Christ was raised in a human body. Human- just not "of flesh"

...

A "human body" is made or consists "of flesh". Hence, the above is a contradiction. Remember my recommendation and encouragement earlier?

Well; that was one well "fleshed out" dialog. Thanks to you both.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Originally posted by Lumenari
Well; that was one well "fleshed out" dialog. Thanks to you both.

Funny…Reminds me of this…



“I’m in the Woods”

“No, You’re just surrounded by trees…”

“No, I’m in the Woods, I tell Ya!!!”

- JC

a reply to: Joecroft
"The Human Condition" described perfectly.