The Two "Natures" of Christ Jesus

[Van]

I think looking at how they settled the this about 2000 years ago helps.

They did not seek to explain how Christ's nature worked, but instead sought to prevent others from making an error in their doctrine.

So they left the workings to "mystery". This is what they concluded:

1. Jesus is represented in two natures (divine and human).
2. These two natures are one (the union of two).
3. These two natures cannot be separated. (One cannot say Jesus did this in his human nature and that in his divine nature).
4. These natures cannot be mixed (Jesus was no more man in His humanity and no less God in His divinity).

This does not work out in human wisdom because it means Jesus is 100% God, 100% man. So they left the how up to mystery - something we can be told, believe, but also something that is beyond our finite understanding.

I disagree, I presented a clear and unambiguous view of the two natures of Christ. His flesh and blood human nature with its needs and desires, and His spiritual divine nature, as God incarnate. No mystery.

Jesus has two natures, His divine Spirit, God the Son, and His flesh and blood physical body with its needs and desires. This is easily understood or grasped, no word salad needed.

 

[JonC]

I disagree, I presented a clear and unambiguous view of the two natures of Christ. His flesh and blood human nature with its needs and desires, and His spiritual divine nature, as God incarnate. No mystery.

Jesus has two natures, His divine Spirit, God the Son, and His flesh and blood physical body with its needs and desires. This is easily understood or grasped, no word salad needed.

The "word salad" is to prevent others (not you) from straying into error.

What your definition does not prevent are those who view Jesus as having two natures (instead of represented by two natures and having a union of two natures).

 

[Van]

The "word salad" is to prevent others (not you) from straying into error.

What your definition does not prevent are those who view Jesus as having two natures (instead of represented by two natures and having a union of two natures).

I said Jesus has two natures, "His divine Spirit, God the Son, and His flesh and blood physical body with its needs and desires."
God incarnate, God in the flesh presents the hypostatic union of God the Son being the life giving Spirit of Jesus the flesh and blood human.

BTW, I did not mean to suggest your views were "word salads." I was referring the inability of the commentaries to cut through the ambiguity and present a coherent view.

 

[JonC]

I was referring the inability of the commentaries to cut through the ambiguity and present a coherent view.

I agree. I think sometimes this is related to reacting to a new or erroneous view rather than simply stating a held doctrine.

On the opposite end we get ambiguous illustration.....like the Trinity is like an apple....or an onion...

 

[CJP69]

What has the knowledge of good and evil have to do with any of this? Which you have not mentioned.

Are you on drugs or drunk?

What are you talking about?

 

[CJP69]

Let me address just this one point of your post.

1) I reject the use of the term "begotten" when it is used to mean "not begotten." In John 3:16 I think the idea is the "uniquely divine" Son of God.

Why should I care about what you reject?

2) The alternate view is Jesus did not have a fallen human spirit/soul, and therefore did not have a fallen nature.

That isn't in dispute and thus does not qualify as an "alternative view". What Christian anywhere ever suggested that Jesus had a fallen nature? That would be massively heretical.

3) Yes the doctrine of the virgin birth is foundational to Christianity, as Mary's egg was not fertilized by human sperm, but by the power of God, resulting in God incarnate!

That's a massive part of the story but the virgin birth also gives an explanation that is both reasonable and consistent with the biblical material as to how the incarnation was accomplished without Jesus inheriting the very problem He came here to fix.

 

[37818]

Are you on drugs or drunk?

What are you talking about?

Genesis 2:9 for starters.
Genesis 2:17.
Genesis 3:5.
Genesis 3:22.
And all of what it has to do with mankind's sinful condition.

 

[CJP69]

Genesis 2:9 for starters.
Genesis 2:17.
Genesis 3:5.
Genesis 3:22.
And all of what it has to do with mankind's sinful condition.

You need to start making sense.

 

[37818]

You need to start making sense.

But I did.
Genesis 2:9 for starters.
Genesis 2:17.
Genesis 3:5.
Genesis 3:22.
And all of what it has to do with mankind's sinful condition.

You know I could add the references quotes. Then it wouldn't help you understand it.

 

[37818]

It seems @CJP69 wanted to make an issue about Jesus not having an human father in order to not have a sin nature?

Jesus, the only begotten of the Heavenly Father, had no Earthly father and thus did not inherit the fallen nature of Adam's race but retained the unspoiled nature of His Father.

 

[CJP69]

It seems @CJP69 wanted to make an issue about Jesus not having an human father in order to not have a sin nature?

That is precisely what I said. The sin nature is passed through the father. This is how Jesus could be born of a woman and not have a fallen nature.

 

[Van]

Why should I care about what you reject?

That isn't in dispute and thus does not qualify as an "alternative view". What Christian anywhere ever suggested that Jesus had a fallen nature? That would be massively heretical.

That's a massive part of the story but the virgin birth also gives an explanation that is both reasonable and consistent with the biblical material as to how the incarnation was accomplished without Jesus inheriting the very problem He came here to fix.

1) Christians care about others, especially siblings in Christ.

2) Your statement [Jesus] "did not inherit the fallen nature of Adam's race but retained the unspoiled nature of His Father." presents the doctrine of biological transmission of our fallen nature from our biological father. The alternate view is Jesus is our fallen nature is not passed biologically, but because our human "spirit/soul" is made with a fallen nature, and therefore since Jesus did not have a "human spirit/soul" He had no fallen nature. Either view results in Jesus not having a fallen nature.

3) The claim the fallen nature is biologically transmitted from the biological father is inconsistent with the biblical material. As to how the incarnation was accomplished by a virgin birth is not in dispute. The reasons for the virgin birth do not include avoiding biological transmission of the fallen nature because that is not how it is transmitted.

 

[37818]

That is precisely what I said. The sin nature is passed through the father. This is how Jesus could be born of a woman and not have a fallen nature.

So how do you explain the incarnate Son in Hebrews 4:15, . . . was in all points tempted like as we are, . . .?"

 

[Van]

Returning to the topic:

The two natures of Jesus were His animating spirit, God the Son, and His flesh and blood body's needs and desires.

One argument against this view is the claim fleshly desires are corrupt. However, before Adam sinned in His un-fallen state, he had fleshly desires, such as wanting to eat, sleep, etc. The answer for why fleshly desires seem to go against God's desires, is that we (as fallen humans) are prone to address those desires with ungodly action, we might take from others, or engage in glutton and so forth.

Hebrews 4:15 says Jesus was tempted in all things, just as we humans are tempted, yet is without sin.
Since the temptation arises from our response, do the wrong thing to address a need or desire, it is our fallen "spirit/soul" response that brought about our sin, whereas Jesus' response to those same needs or desires was to do the right thing.

 

[CJP69]

1) Christians care about others, especially siblings in Christ.

Enough to tell them the truth, even when it hurts their feelings.

2) Your statement [Jesus] "did not inherit the fallen nature of Adam's race but retained the unspoiled nature of His Father." presents the doctrine of biological transmission of our fallen nature from our biological father. The alternate view is Jesus is our fallen nature is not passed biologically, but because our human "spirit/soul" is made with a fallen nature, and therefore since Jesus did not have a "human spirit/soul" He had no fallen nature. Either view results in Jesus not having a fallen nature.

The fact that everyone's human father is also their biological father does not prove that the passing of their spiritual nature is passed biologically. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. It doesn't matter in regards to my doctrine. You want to focus on biology. I see no reason to do so. I don't care whether the process by which the fallen nature is passed is biological in nature or not. Perhaps its entirely spiritual. I don't know. What I do know is that, whether biologically or otherwise, the sin nature passes through the father.

3) The claim the fallen nature is biologically transmitted from the biological father is inconsistent with the biblical material.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Even if that were the case, which I very much doubt that you could establish, it is not relevant. In fact, I'd tend to intuitively, (and therefore very tentatively) accept that the transfer of our spiritual condition is not accomplished by purely physical (i.e. biological) means.

As to how the incarnation was accomplished by a virgin birth is not in dispute. The reasons for the virgin birth do not include avoiding biological transmission of the fallen nature because that is not how it is transmitted.

You cannot know this.

Regardless, once again, whether the transmission is biological or not, it is paternal.

 

[CJP69]

So how do you explain the incarnate Son in Hebrews 4:15, . . . was in all points tempted like as we are, . . .?"

What's there to explain?

 

[CJP69]

Returning to the topic:

The two natures of Jesus were His animating spirit, God the Son, and His flesh and blood body's needs and desires.

One argument against this view is the claim fleshly desires are corrupt. However, before Adam sinned in His un-fallen state, he had fleshly desires, such as wanting to eat, sleep, etc. The answer for why fleshly desires seem to go against God's desires, is that we (as fallen humans) are prone to address those desires with ungodly action, we might take from others, or engage in glutton and so forth.

Excellent point!

Jesus is the last Adam!

It is sin that corrupts, not flesh. In fact, sin is simply a corruption of what are otherwise righteous and godly fleshly desires. It is not sin to eat. It is a sin to be a glutton. It is not a sin to desire nice things. It is a sin to covet or to steal.

Thus, there is no conflict inherent in the idea of God become flesh.

 

[Van]

SNIP "... the sin nature passes through the father."

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Even if that were the case, which I very much doubt that you could establish, it is not relevant. In fact, I'd tend to intuitively, (and therefore very tentatively) accept that the transfer of our spiritual condition is not accomplished by purely physical (i.e. biological) means.

You cannot know this.

Regardless, once again, whether the transmission is biological or not, it is paternal.

Here the biblical basis for spiritual transmission is said to be unknown, just my say so. I addressed Genesis 3:7 where the fallen nature (both their eyes were opened) was transmitted spiritually, not biologically.

Let us address a widely held assertion: "...whether the transmission is biological or not, it is paternal."

"Basis: Jesus was sinless (Hebrews 4:15, 1 John 3:5). Jesus was a descendant of Adam as per Luke 3 (in His humanity). Descendants of Adam receive original sin because they were in Adam when Adam sinned (Romans 5:12). [From Answers in Genesis]​

First the argument misstates what Romans 5:12 says. What it does convey is that Adam brought about sin (the consequence of Adam's sin) entering the world (humanity). Not in dispute. And Jesus is certainly a biological descendant of Adam. Also not in dispute. Now to the actual issue. Was Jesus ever "in Adam" and what does being "in Adam" mean. Basically if you are Christ, you are not in Adam, and if you are in Christ (a born anew believer sibling of Christ) you are not in Adam.

And the transfer from being "in Adam" (spiritually) means being transferred from the realm of darkness, spiritual dead - separated from God due to unholiness as a made sinner, into being in Christ and undergoing the washing of regeneration where the consequence of Adam's and our own sin is removed by the washing of regeneration, resulting in being made alive (not spiritually dead) together with Christ.

 

[37818]

What's there to explain?

You really do not know?

James 1:13, . . . for God cannot be tempted with evil, . . .".
The incarnate Son of God did not cease to be fully God.

 

[CJP69]

Here the biblical basis for spiritual transmission is said to be unknown, just my say so. I addressed Genesis 3:7 where the fallen nature (both their eyes were opened) was transmitted spiritually, not biologically.

Once again. This is not relevant. I simply do not care whether its biological or not.

Having said that, Genesis 3:7 has nothing to do with how the sin nature is passed to Adam and Eve's children and therefore does not even support, never mind establish, your thesis.

Let us address a widely held assertion: "...whether the transmission is biological or not, it is paternal."

Widely held? Who here beside me is making such an assertion?

In other words, you use of language doesn't impress me. Stop trying to sound intellectual and talk like a regular human being.

"Basis:

Jesus was sinless (Hebrews 4:15, 1 John 3:5). Jesus was a descendant of Adam as per Luke 3 (in His humanity). Descendants of Adam receive original sin because they were in Adam when Adam sinned (Romans 5:12). [From Answers in Genesis]

That is not the basis and no one has ever received "original sin". The doctrine of original sin is blasphemy of the highest order and cannot be rationally supported by anyone by any means. God is just, therefore the doctrine of oringinal sin is a lie.

Further, Jesus was decended from Adam through his mother Eve. Our fallen nature is not passed through the mother but through the father, by whatever means. This is why it is your father's sir name that you inherit and it is the father who names their children (biblically speaking and in most cases). Jesus' Father was God the Father. His Father is who named Him and because He had no earthly father, He did not have a fallen nature as do all the rest of us who were all begotten of an heir of Adam.

First the argument misstates what Romans 5:12 says. What it does convey is that Adam brought about sin (the consequence of Adam's sin) entering the world (humanity). Not in dispute. And Jesus is certainly a biological descendant of Adam. Also not in dispute. Now to the actual issue. Was Jesus ever "in Adam" and what does being "in Adam" mean. Basically if you are Christ, you are not in Adam, and if you are in Christ (a born anew believer sibling of Christ) you are not in Adam.

And the transfer from being "in Adam" (spiritually) means being transferred from the realm of darkness, spiritual dead - separated from God due to unholiness as a made sinner, into being in Christ and undergoing the washing of regeneration where the consequence of Adam's and our own sin is removed by the washing of regeneration, resulting in being made alive (not spiritually dead) together with Christ.

This is Calvinist gobbledygook that is not biblical. It is based on the Catholic (Augustinian) doctrine of original sin. It is perfectly in sync with their disgusting notion that God is arbitrary rather than just and the whole concept falls into dust after one single reading of Ezekiel 18 (the entire chapter).

God is just! Therefore, no one will die as a punishment of Adam's sin (other than Adam perhaps). The man who sins shall die but he who does not sin be preserved alive (spiritually speaking). This is made possible in spite of the problem of our fallen natures by means of Christ's death. Thus, Paul does not say that he was born spiritually dead but just the opposite! He rightly declares that , "I was alive once, without the law, but when the law came, sin revived and I died."

 

[CJP69]

You really do not know?

I am responding with the same level of laziness as your posts exemplify.

James 1:13, . . . for God cannot be tempted with evil, . . .".
The incarnate Son of God did not cease to be fully God.

And so you believe that James contradicts the author of Hebrews? LOL!!!!

People who read the bible as though it were only one volume of a whole stack of law books, crack me up!

Which do you deny, that Jesus is God or that Jesus was tempted?

 

[Alan Gross]

A couple of scripture examples;

the sin nature is passed through the father

"For he was yet in the loins of his father,
when Melchisedec met him." Hebrews 7:10

"...have a commandment to take tithes of the people
according to the law, that is, of their brethren,
though they come out of the loins of Abraham:" Hebrews 7:5b.

"All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt,
which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives,
all the souls were threescore and six;" Genesis 46:26.
...

A comment;

He simply became a human being with a physical body
that He never had before

Jesus' body was part of what was Elected
and Prepared for Him to Assume, in the womb of Mary.

"Wherefore when He cometh into the world, He saith,
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not,
but a body hast thou prepared Me:" Hebrews 10:5.