Luke 1:35 And The Real Human Nature of Jesus Christ

[SavedByGrace]

Your quotations are unreliable. Every one of them are old and use early modern English and are unreliable.

The only early names on your list are Tertullian and Cyprian in any apparatus that I can find. Show us a credible apparatus that shows what Fathers cite the words not early unreliable editions.

""The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God;" Luke 1:35"

IRENAEUS (A.D.130-200) - Adv Her Bk III.xxi.4, CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.21 (St. Irenaeus)

 

[SavedByGrace]

Your quotations are unreliable. Every one of them are old and use early modern English and are unreliable.

The only early names on your list are Tertullian and Cyprian in any apparatus that I can find. Show us a credible apparatus that shows what Fathers cite the words not early unreliable editions.

"wherefore that which shall be born of you shall be called holy" HIPPOLYTUS (A.D.170-236) - Adv all Her VI. xxx

CHURCH FATHERS: Refutation of All Heresies, Book VI (Hippolytus)

 

[Van]

SNIP
He was the Seed of the Woman.
SNIP
No it's not. Mary descended from Abraham. Her seed is the seed of Abraham.
SNIP

LOL, of course Jesus descended from Mary and Mary from the line of Abraham, that is why her DNA made up part of His DNA fulfilling the "seed" of Abraham prophecy.

My use of consubstantial was to explain the word's meaning, because the big word appeared in the OP.

 

[SavedByGrace]

LOL, of course Jesus descended from Mary and Mary from the line of Abraham, that is why her DNA made up part of His DNA fulfilling the "seed" of Abraham prophecy.

It is only the "human nature" of Jesus Christ that is "out of" The Virgin Mary. apart from any sin

 

[Van]

It is only the "human nature" of Jesus Christ that is "out of" The Virgin Mary. apart from any sin

The orthodox view is Jesus is 100% human and 100% God, together in the hypostatic union. So if by "nature" you include his physical essence (His human essence) you are in bounds.

 

[37818]

Luke 1:35 is not alone, the same thing is said by Matthew in chpater 1, where he writes in verse 16, "ἐξ ἧς", which is both in the singular number, and feminine gender, "out of whom", which can only mean Mary, and excludes Joseph as Jesus' actual father.

Matthew 1:16, ". . . And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. . . ." And is not at issue. Nor is Galatians 4:4. Again, the only purpose that reading in Luke 1:35 to serve is to say Mary was told of this too by the Angel. That reading to be in Luke is not needed.

 

[AustinC]

Hebrews 2 gives clarity to the humanness of Jesus. In Hebrews we see Jesus as fully God and fully man.

Hebrews 2:9-18
What we do see is Jesus, who was given a position “a little lower than the angels”; and because he suffered death for us, he is now “crowned with glory and honor.” Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone. God, for whom and through whom everything was made, chose to bring many children into glory. And it was only right that he should make Jesus, through his suffering, a perfect leader, fit to bring them into their salvation. So now Jesus and the ones he makes holy have the same Father. That is why Jesus is not ashamed to call them his brothers and sisters. For he said to God, “I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters. I will praise you among your assembled people.” He also said, “I will put my trust in him,” that is, “I and the children God has given me.” Because God’s children are human beings—made of flesh and blood—the Son also became flesh and blood. For only as a human being could he die, and only by dying could he break the power of the devil, who had the power of death. Only in this way could he set free all who have lived their lives as slaves to the fear of dying. We also know that the Son did not come to help angels; he came to help the descendants of Abraham. Therefore, it was necessary for him to be made in every respect like us, his brothers and sisters, so that he could be our merciful and faithful High Priest before God. Then he could offer a sacrifice that would take away the sins of the people. Since he himself has gone through suffering and testing, he is able to help us when we are being tested.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Hebrews 2 gives clarity to the humanness of Jesus. In Hebrews we see Jesus as fully God and fully man.

Hebrews 2:9-18
What we do see is Jesus, who was given a position “a little lower than the angels”; and because he suffered death for us, he is now “crowned with glory and honor.” Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone. God, for whom and through whom everything was made, chose to bring many children into glory. And it was only right that he should make Jesus, through his suffering, a perfect leader, fit to bring them into their salvation. So now Jesus and the ones he makes holy have the same Father. That is why Jesus is not ashamed to call them his brothers and sisters. For he said to God, “I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters. I will praise you among your assembled people.” He also said, “I will put my trust in him,” that is, “I and the children God has given me.” Because God’s children are human beings—made of flesh and blood—the Son also became flesh and blood. For only as a human being could he die, and only by dying could he break the power of the devil, who had the power of death. Only in this way could he set free all who have lived their lives as slaves to the fear of dying. We also know that the Son did not come to help angels; he came to help the descendants of Abraham. Therefore, it was necessary for him to be made in every respect like us, his brothers and sisters, so that he could be our merciful and faithful High Priest before God. Then he could offer a sacrifice that would take away the sins of the people. Since he himself has gone through suffering and testing, he is able to help us when we are being tested.

true, but this passage does not, like Luke 1:35, and Matthew 1:16, teach that Jesus in His "human nature", is consubstantial with us, as He in reality took this "nature" from Mary, and not as the early heretics taught, that God Created this and placed it in Mary, without actually "taking" anything from Mary.

 

[37818]

true, but this passage does not, like Luke 1:35, and Matthew 1:16, teach that Jesus in His "human nature", is consubstantial with us, as He in reality took this "nature" from Mary, and not as the early heretics taught, that God Created this and placed it in Mary, without actually "taking" anything from Mary.

Both Genesis 3:15 and Galatians 4:4 explicitly teach Jesus has a true human nature. And we know He is sinless, Luke 19:18. Therefore the only necessity of the reading that was added in Luke 1:35 is to claim the angel told Mary of this.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The orthodox view is Jesus is 100% human and 100% God, together in the hypostatic union. So if by "nature" you include his physical essence (His human essence) you are in bounds.

Therefore the only necessity of the reading that was added in Luke 1:35 is to claim the angel told Mary of this.

nonsense, this is part of what Luke wrote, whether you or some of the others can accept it, is not an issue. There is evidence in the OP that is beyond any dispute to those who understand teaxtual studies, that Luke, under the Guiding of the Holy Spirit, wrote, “ἐκ σοῦ".

 

[37818]

nonsense, this is part of what Luke wrote, whether you or some of the others can accept it, is not an issue. There is evidence in the OP that is beyond any dispute to those who understand teaxtual studies, that Luke, under the Guiding of the Holy Spirit, wrote, “ἐκ σοῦ".

The evidence does not prove it was in Luke originally. Most manuscripts do not have the reading. And it is not a necessary reading in order to prove Jesus was fully human. Genesis 3:15 and Galatians 4:4 are examples as to why this is so. So the only necessity, if any, is to claim Mary was told of this by the angel. Why would that be important?

 

[37818]

Why would that be important?

To a KJ-Onlyist.

 

[AustinC]

true, but this passage does not, like Luke 1:35, and Matthew 1:16, teach that Jesus in His "human nature", is consubstantial with us, as He in reality took this "nature" from Mary, and not as the early heretics taught, that God Created this and placed it in Mary, without actually "taking" anything from Mary.

sbg, you seem to want 1 century persons to understand 21st century medicine and science.
Paul tells us this:
1 Corinthians 15:21-23,45-49
So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man. Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life. But there is an order to this resurrection: Christ was raised as the first of the harvest; then all who belong to Christ will be raised when he comes back.

The Scriptures tell us, “The first man, Adam, became a living person.” But the last Adam—that is, Christ—is a life-giving Spirit. What comes first is the natural body, then the spiritual body comes later. Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth, while Christ, the second man, came from heaven. Earthly people are like the earthly man, and heavenly people are like the heavenly man. Just as we are now like the earthly man, we will someday be like the heavenly man.

We see that Jesus is fully God and fully human. What we will not know is whether God used Mary's genome or whether God did what he did with the first Adam...created a human.
Since Jesus is identified as the second Adam, a human created with no sin nature, but capable of being tempted in all things like the 1st Adam, I have no problem with God not using Mary's genome, but instead creating a new genome for His Son to have. Either way, it takes nothing away from Jesus being fully God and fully man.

 

[Van]

nonsense, this is part of what Luke wrote, whether you or some of the others can accept it, is not an issue. There is evidence in the OP that is beyond any dispute to those who understand teaxtual studies, that Luke, under the Guiding of the Holy Spirit, wrote, “ἐκ σοῦ".

Sounds like you and Aaron are siblings, whatever you are selling is right, and any alternate view is wrong. Got it...

 

[SavedByGrace]

sbg, you seem to want 1 century persons to understand 21st century medicine and science.
Paul tells us this:
1 Corinthians 15:21-23,45-49
So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man. Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life. But there is an order to this resurrection: Christ was raised as the first of the harvest; then all who belong to Christ will be raised when he comes back.

The Scriptures tell us, “The first man, Adam, became a living person.” But the last Adam—that is, Christ—is a life-giving Spirit. What comes first is the natural body, then the spiritual body comes later. Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth, while Christ, the second man, came from heaven. Earthly people are like the earthly man, and heavenly people are like the heavenly man. Just as we are now like the earthly man, we will someday be like the heavenly man.

We see that Jesus is fully God and fully human. What we will not know is whether God used Mary's genome or whether God did what he did with the first Adam...created a human.
Since Jesus is identified as the second Adam, a human created with no sin nature, but capable of being tempted in all things like the 1st Adam, I have no problem with God not using Mary's genome, but instead creating a new genome for His Son to have. Either way, it takes nothing away from Jesus being fully God and fully man.

why should anyone who believes that the Holy Bible is The Word of God, have any problem with Luke writing “ἐκ σοῦ”, and Matthew ἐξ ἧς, both Teach that Joseph is not the actual father of Jesus Christ, and that Mary the actual mother. How else can you account for Mary being the actual mother of Jesus?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Sounds like you and Aaron are siblings, whatever you are selling is right, and any alternate view is wrong. Got it...

and you continue to show your ignorance of textual studies. Got it!

 

[SavedByGrace]

To a KJ-Onlyist.

I am NOT KJVO!

 

[SavedByGrace]

The evidence does not prove it was in Luke originally. Most manuscripts do not have the reading. And it is not a necessary reading in order to prove Jesus was fully human. Genesis 3:15 and Galatians 4:4 are examples as to why this is so. So the only necessity, if any, is to claim Mary was told of this by the angel. Why would that be important?

why did Luke write “ἐκ σοῦ”, and Matthew ἐξ ἧς?

 

[SavedByGrace]

I repeat the importance from the OP

“The doctrines of Valentinus are described fully by Irenæus (I. cap. i.) from whom S. Cyril takes this account. Valentinus, and Basilides, and Bardesanes, and Harmonious, and those of their company admit Christ’s conception and birth of the Virgin, but say that God the Word received no addition from the Virgin, but made a sort of passage through her, as through a tube, and made use of a phantom in appearing to men.” (Theodoret, Epist. 145.)

"To docetic thinkers the divinity of Christ presented no difficulties. It was the humanity (with its close relation to matter) that they could not acknowledge. It was only the channel by which He came into the world 'Jesus', they said, 'passed through Mary as water through a tube'. He was 'through' or 'by means of', but not 'of' Mary; that is to say, He derived from her no part of His being. 'For, just as water passes through a pipe, without receiving any addition from the pipe, so too the Word passed through Mary, but was not derived from Mary" (J F Bethune-Baker; Early History of Christian Doctrine, pp.80-81)

 

[37818]

why should anyone who believes that the Holy Bible is The Word of God, have any problem with Luke writing “ἐκ σοῦ”, and Matthew ἐξ ἧς, both Teach that Joseph is not the actual father of Jesus Christ, and that Mary the actual mother. How else can you account for Mary being the actual mother of Jesus?

Only one reason. That reading was not original to Luke. Neither the Majority Text nor Critical Text textual criticism supports that reading. And the only other reason to believe it was original to Luke would be some necessity for Mary to have known it from the angel. What is it?