farouk
Well-Known Member
What would be the point of avoiding what the Bible crucially says about it?Is there any possibility whatsoever of a discussion here of the concept of Christ being both God and man without quoting the Bible?
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What would be the point of avoiding what the Bible crucially says about it?Is there any possibility whatsoever of a discussion here of the concept of Christ being both God and man without quoting the Bible?
Yes, I quite agree with this!
I find that word studies in the Bible itself, looking at contexts, idioms, it's all defined in the Bible itself.
Much love!
Something I've discovered on this forum in particular, there truly is a wide range of views out there.Historical orthodox trinitarianism. I was raised Southern Baptist.
It’s not possible that Jesus was a human person in trinitarian theology.
Everything I base my knowledge on is what the Bible says about God and man. Just the same, what did you want to say? I'm interested.The possibility of adding clarity. Recognition that the Bible may not say everything there is to say on the topic. Appreciation of the early Church Fathers' contributions to the subject during the patristic period. Identification of definitional as opposed to analytical objections to the concept of being both God and man.
If you cut off your arm, are you less you?If one was to cut off Jesus' arm...in that arm would it have your standard type flesh and blood, or would you believe Jesus would lose a little of God's divine essence? As you can see I am still struggling to comprehend your understanding of incarnation.
Something I've discovered on this forum in particular, there truly is a wide range of views out there.
Don't they speak of "hypostatic union" as the Divine joined to the human? I've always heard this describing Jesus' incarnation, taught by trinitarians.
Check this out farouk: The expression 'Son of man' that really doesn't need its 'S' to be capitalized, is a common local expression in that time for an average joe, like you or me. It has no glory in it and it is not a special title. just saying..."The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1.14)
"The man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2.5).
"Son of Man" is a glorious title of the Lord Jesus in Scripture.
This is the standard objection to the incarnation, I think. If you are this, then obviously you cannot be that. I don't think that's the correct answer.Since Jesus is only one person, and that person is divine, he is not / cannot be a human person.
You seem to put a lot of emphasis on "human person", what does that mean to you?
Was He human, but not a person? What do you mean?
This is the standard objection to the incarnation, I think. If you are this, then obviously you cannot be that. I don't think that's the correct answer.
Much love!
I have no idea what you mean here. What is the distinction to you?was human but not a human person.
I have no idea what you mean here.
What is the distinction to you?
No, it's your distinction between human and human person that makes no sense to me. "Person" is what the lawyers say, a man is a person, a corporation is a person, it's all legalese.Then trinitarianism must make no sense to you.
I said “you are Elohim”The possibility of adding clarity. Recognition that the Bible may not say everything there is to say on the topic. Appreciation of the early Church Fathers' contributions to the subject during the patristic period. Identification of definitional as opposed to analytical objections to the concept of being both God and man.
No, it's your distinction between human and human person that makes no sense to me. "Person" is what the lawyers say, a man is a person, a corporation is a person, it's all legalese.
What you mean, I have no idea, except that you seem to hold to a Rule that No Divine can be a Human Person, therefore, Christ was not a human person, or, I'm still having a difficult time following what you are saying.
To me this seems an arbitrary distinction, and I think we are better served using the terminology of Scripture instead of lawyers.
Jesus is the Last Adam, He is Human. Jesus is the Lord of Heaven, Jesus is the Word made flesh, Jesus is my Lord and my God.
Much love!