Do our systems of thought teach that Jesus is really the One True God?

[JonC]

Again, quite a choice of words. You did not say the fullness of God dwells BODILY in the Son. Why is this important? Because the Son existed both prior and after the incarnation but the "bodily" aspect did not. So what is the container for the Godhead prior to the existence of a body? If the whole entire Godhead (Father, Son and Spirit) dwelt in bodily form rather than the entire attributes (pleroma) that make God to be God then how can you escape the obvious conclusion to that line of thinking that the entire Godhead (Father, Son and Spirit) continue to dwell in a body rather than just the Son of God? Either the term "Godhead" includes all three Persons or it does not. If the meaning is only the PLEROMA or all attribues that make God to be God, whether in the Father, or in the Son or in the Spirit dwell within the body of Christ that is one thing but to claim the Father, Son and Spirit dwell in the body of Christ is quite another thing.

I never claimed that 5he Father, Son, and Spirit dwelled in Jesus' body. I am saying that the One God dwells bodily in Christ. I would even say the Godhead. But not the individual Persons of the Godhead.

In other words, there is NOTHING of God that exists outside of the Son (or the Father, or the Spirit). The Father and Son are One.

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you beleive "the Father became flesh and dwelt among us"?
Do you beleive "the Spirit became flesh and dwelt among us"?
Do you believe "the Godhead (Father, Son and Spirit) became flesh and dwelt among us?

If so, then why does the bible use seperative language that only includes the Son, the Word becoming flesh if the entire Godhead became flesh?

 

[The Biblicist]

I never claimed that 5he Father, Son, and Spirit dwelled in Jesus' body. I am saying that the One God dwells bodily in Christ. I would even say the Godhead. But not the individual Persons of the Godhead.

In other words, there is NOTHING of God that exists outside of the Son (or the Father, or the Spirit). The Father and Son are One.

Ok, then explain how the humanity of Jesus born of a virgin Mary in Bethlehem relates to the nature of God by incarnation so that neither loses its distinctive nature? So that humanity cease to be humanity and becomes deity or deity ceases to be deity but becomes humanity or a totally new nature comes into existence as a hybrid God/human nature?

 

[The Biblicist]

I never claimed that 5he Father, Son, and Spirit dwelled in Jesus' body. I am saying that the One God dwells bodily in Christ. I would even say the Godhead. But not the individual Persons of the Godhead.

Ok, so the term Godhead is not inclusive of the three persons but only the God nature or the pleroma of attributes that make God to be God.

 

[JonC]

Do you beleive "the Father became flesh and dwelt among us"?
Do you beleive "the Spirit became flesh and dwelt among us"?
Do you believe "the Godhead (Father, Son and Spirit) became flesh and dwelt among us?

If so, then why does the bible use seperative language that only includes the Son, the Word becoming flesh if the entire Godhead became flesh?

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.

Hope that helps.

 

[JonC]

Ok, so the term Godhead is not inclusive of the three persons but only the God nature or the pleroma of attributes that make God to be God.

I am using the term "Godhead" refers to God (as opposed to speaking of individual Persons).

Otherwise you end up with three separate gods in practice.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am using the term "Godhead" refers to God (as opposed to speaking of individual Persons).

Otherwise you end up with three separate gods in practice.

Ok, but you never responded to my following questions:

Ok, then explain how the humanity of Jesus born of a virgin Mary in Bethlehem relates to the nature of God by incarnation so that neither loses its distinctive nature? So that humanity cease to be humanity and becomes deity or deity ceases to be deity but becomes humanity or a totally new nature comes into existence as a hybrid God/human nature? The answers would speak directly to the question or assertion of the OP would it not?

 

[The Biblicist]

Diety did not sin, humanity sinned. Hence, the Father's wrath is not directed or in response to the sin of deity but directed toward and in response to the sin by humanity. Isn't the purpose of the incarnation to provide a sacrifice suitable to the nature of the beings that sinned? If that sacrifice does not satisfy God's just wrath toward sin and sinful humanity then what does? God's wrath was not directed toward the person of the lamb as it was without blemish but toward what it legally represented when presented on the altar. God's wrath is not against His Son as His son was without blemish but toward what he legally represented when presented on the cross - our sins.

 

[JonC]

Ok, then explain how the humanity of Jesus born of a virgin Mary in Bethlehem relates to the nature of God by incarnation so that neither loses its distinctive nature?

God became flesh. God knows by experience what it is to be human and by becoming flesh and dying as a human being mankind is reconciled to God so men can be.

So that humanity cease to be humanity and becomes deity or deity ceases to be deity but becomes humanity or a totally new nature comes into existence as a hybrid God/human nature?

No. Or not exactly. It is not God but man that changes. Jesus' nature did not change when he became man. But man's nature does change when through Christ he 8s reconciled to God. This does not make us "man-God" but it does make us new creations in Christ.

 

[JonC]

Think of it this way - when men encounter God it is never God that is changed.

 

[The Biblicist]

God became flesh. God knows by experience what it is to be human and by becoming flesh and dying as a human being mankind is reconciled to God so men can be.

Nothing to argue here.

No. Or not exactly. It is not God but man that changes. Jesus' nature did not change when he became man. But man's nature does change when through Christ he 8s reconciled to God. This does not make us "man-God" but it does make us new creations in Christ.

The issue is not about our human nature or man in general or non-preexistent entities as the new birth and glorification certainly changes us. The issue is about the human nature of Christ, did it change or cease being human nature when the incarnation occurred? Is there a continuing co-existence of humanity with deity without one becoming the other or mixing with the other so that some kind of hybrid between natures occur?

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you believe that Deity could atone for sin or that deity had to "prepare a body" and take upon himself a nature foreign, distinct and separate from his eternal nature as God? If so, then why do you object the continuation of that logic with the natural conclusion that his deity did not provide atonement but it was provided in the adopted nature?

 

[JonC]

The issue is about the human nature of Christ, did it change or cease being human nature when the incarnation occurred?

Did the human nature of Christ change when he became flesh? Christ's nature did not change at all. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He did not have two natures.

Is there a continuing co-existence of humanity with deity without one becoming the other or mixing with the other so that some kind of hybrid between natures occur?

If you are asking if Christ is the "Firstborn of many brethren", then yes. Jesus exists with a resurrected body that he did not have before the Resurrection. But his nature never changed - there never was a "hybrid nature". Even with men our old natures die.

 

[JonC]

Do you believe that Deity could atone for sin or that deity had to "prepare a body" and take upon himself a nature foreign, distinct and separate from his eternal nature as God? If so, then why do you object the continuation of that logic with the natural conclusion that his deity did not provide atonement but it was provided in the adopted nature?

I believe that God became man to redeem man. The reason I reject a continuation of the reasoning is I believe it flawed (I believe it seeks a back door to the Atonement other than Christ and is not theological at all but philosophical).

I do not believe that God changed his nature in becoming man.

 

[The Biblicist]

Did the human nature of Christ change when he became flesh? Christ's nature did not change at all. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He did not have two natures. If you are asking if Christ is the "Firstborn of many brethren", then yes. Jesus exists with a resurrected body that he did not have before the Resurrection. But his nature never changed - there never was a "hybrid nature". Even with men our old natures die.

You are either not understanding my question or avoiding it. Did the preexistent divine nature upon incarnation merge with human nature or did both natures remain distinctly different, one distinctively divine with all divine attributes and one distinctively human with all human attributes (besides the sin principle) both co-existing in one Person but without ceasing to be what they are by nature?

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not believe that God changed his nature in becoming man.

So, God's nature did not take upon human nature as a hybrid nature? So, human nature taken on by Christ did not merge with the divine nature but both natures remained distinct but coexistent in one person??

I believe that God became man to redeem man. The reason I reject a continuation of the reasoning is I believe it flawed (I believe it seeks a back door to the Atonement other than Christ and is not theological at all but philosophical).

How can it be flawed when the divine nature is unable to provide a sin offering for man? if it is necessary to take upon a human nature to provide that atonement does it no naturally lead to the conclusion that it was his human nature that provided the atonement without denying the coexistent union with the divine nature?

 

[JonC]

You are either not understanding my question or avoiding it. Did the preexistent divine nature upon incarnation merge with human nature or did both natures remain distinctly different, one distinctively divine with all divine attributes and one distinctively human with all human attributes (besides the sin principle) both co-existing in one Person but without ceasing to be what they are by nature?

I understand the question. I am not sure I am explaining my answer well (for that I'm sorry).

What I am saying is I believe the two natures of Christ (a human nature and a divine nature) did not exist separately or combined. I believe He did not have two natures.

 

[The Biblicist]

(I believe it seeks a back door to the Atonement other than Christ and is not theological at all but philosophical).

.

How can it be a "back door" to the Atonement when deity cannot provide atonement but only humanity can??? Rather than a "back door" it becomes the only possible avenue to achieve that goal. Neither does it deny Christ made the atonement or that diety is co-existent with humanity in one Person. Satisfaction is not found in His deity but in his humanity because deity has no legal libability with regard to sin or sinners nor could provide any legal basis for atonement in behalf of humanity.

It is not inconsistent with the coexistent natures found in one person to distinguish between humanity that is mutable and impotent in contrast to his deity that is immutable and omnipotent because the Scriptures declare both equally.

 

[The Archangel]

He did not have two natures.

That statement certainly runs afoul of Chalcedon.

ETA: As does this:

What I am saying is I believe the two natures of Christ (a human nature and a divine nature) did not exist separately or combined. I believe He did not have two natures.

The Archangel

 

[The Biblicist]

I understand the question. I am not sure I am explaining my answer well (for that I'm sorry).

What I am saying is I believe the two natures of Christ (a human nature and a divine nature) did not exist separately or combined. I believe He did not have two natures.

That is like saying ice is neither cold or hot or both. The scriptures say he "took upon himself" which is the formula for addition not non-distinction as your position demands.