dwmoeller1
Thank you for taking the time, to banter with me like this;
With every response, I gain a little more understanding.
You said.......
“Paul is certainly addressing those who attack the Humanity of Christ - those who say Christ did not come in the flesh. However, it does not follow (nor does Paul say in the passage) that these people are concluding that Jesus was not God. Paul is addressing only the heresy which says that Jesus was certainly God BUT was not ever incarnate. Generally this heresy holds very much to the fact that Christ was God, but instead deny that He was ever human/fleshly. They hold instead that He merely appeared to be fleshly (like the angels who visited Abraham). It is a heresy called Monophysitism (or the closely related Docetism).
What needs to be clear is that an attack on Christ's nature is not always an attack on His deity. In fact, overemphasizing His deity (per Monophysitism and Docetism) is just as much an error as denying it. There is an overarching "attack on Christ's nature", but attacks on His humanity are often distinct from attacks on His deity, and vice versa. Failing to make this distinction can easily lead to a fallacy - what is true of one part of a category is not necessarily true of all parts of that category.”
I am a very simple man, therefore I stated my position in a very simply way to John.....
“Who is Christ?
Was Christ the man that walked in Israel 2000 years ago?
(Who was also the Creator of the universe)
Therefore, this Christ, was in Human Flesh!
So an attack upon His Humanity, is an attack upon His Deity!”
It is true, that we can categorize the natures of Christ, and emphasize different parts of it.
But my contention is, that any attempt to change any part of who Christ is, is VERY DANGEROUS.
--------------------------------------------------
As I said before(post #39), I might be making a mistake, by continuing to argue that what the Common English Bible does with Matthew 8:20 is an attack upon the Deity of Christ;
(Some people don’t even see it as an attack upon the Humanity of Christ
But the point I am making is, it attempts to change what the Bible says about Christ, by calling the Son of man, to the Human One.
For sure, here Christ is talking about Himself, but “human one” could be applied to God’s daughter, or God’s second cousin.
--------------------------------------------------
You also said.......
“No. That is a fallacious conclusion. Nor is such a conclusion supported by the text. An attack on His humanity is certainly an attack on His nature, but this does not logically lead to the conclusion that it is therefore an attack on His deity. That is a fallacy of composition.
You know, fallacious conclusions are not that hard to come to, because we are human beings and at any time can be incorrect in our reasoning.
But your last paragraph, gave me hope to keep up the fight........
Also, it is sufficient to say, however, that its an attack on His humanity. Sometime I get the feeling that Evangelicals think that an attack on Christ's deity is somehow worse than an attack on His humanity.”
This is “almost” exactly what I have been saying:
An attack upon one, is an attack upon the other!
