Sorry, I can't drop it. Maybe it's important!

The same place the rest of his body came from.

Since I am not privy to the secrets of the Lord Jesus' genes, and the Bible is silent on the process of parthenogenesis, I can only assume: half Mary, half miracle. If God can create an entire universe in a week, I have no problem believing he can come up with 23 male chromosomes.

[ September 06, 2002, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

I must admit, I can see merit in the arguments, on both sides of this issue. I'll also admit, that I was taught that Christ blood was divine, and never really had any scripture jump out, and convict me otherwise. But, like I said, I can see merit on both sides. If it is alright with y'all, I'd like to ask some questions. Keep in mind, that I am asking this from a biased position, because I was raised in a church that taught that the blood was divine. Also, I have never been to seminary, and in earlier post I indicated that this was "way too deep" for me...but it has been on my mind, and would like the pro human blood camp, to answer my questions in a manner, that it isn't debate, but trying to convince a person of your position. Because, I'll be the first to admit, that I can't debate this. If anyone is interested...just nod

 

[nodding]

 

I would like to point out that in 5 pages of this topic, no passage has been brought up to indicate that Christ had divine blood. It is just a teaching of many misguided people about the nature of Christ's blood.

One crystal clear passage has been brought up to refute the "divine (again, whatever that is) blood" theory.

SBG, Sheeagle, and others for this position, the burden of proof has been from the beginning and will continue to be on you to show us from Scripture our error.

Out like the usefulness of the United Nations.

 

Thanks Ransom! Anyone that responds, please provide scripture for me to reference. Thanks.

1. Was Jesus 100% man?

2. Was Jesus 100% God?

 

SBG, yes.

 

Preach, I don't understand why it has to be this way. I am being completely honest, when I said that I see the merits of both, and right now I am on the fence, so to speak. So edify a brother...but, if you wish not to participate, I understand.

 

Preach,
So I can be a Berean, could you provide the scripture you base that on?

 

SBG, I list the following in support of Christ being 100% God:

Titus 2:11-13
John 1:1-3
John 8:24
John 8:58

SBG, I list the following in support of Christ being 100% Man:
Hebrews 2:11-14
John 1:14

I will look some more. I can't remember any more right now.

 

Thanks Preach!

Are we(humans), one being, made up of body, soul and spirit?

 

SBG asked:

1. Was Jesus 100% man?

Yes. This is of course obvious from the life of Jesus: he hungered, thirsted, and became tired; wounded, he died. However, Heb. 2:14 also says explicitly that "as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same."

2. Was Jesus 100% God?

Yes. "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9).

 

Some scriptures for Christ's Deity:

John 1; 10:30; 14:7-9; 20:28; Heb. 1:3; Col. 1:15-20; 2:9; Phil. 2:5-11

Some Scriptures fro Christ's full and uncompromised humanity:

Lk. 2:52; matt. 4:2; Mark 4:38; Jn. 1:14; 4:6; 19:28; 19:34 1Jn. 4:2,3; Heb 2: 9-18; 10:5 2Co. 8:9; Phil. 2:6; 1Tim. 3:16.

As an aside I would like to point out why teh humanity of Christ is important, something I am sure that all will agree to. I hoe that, by offering the reminder, we will see the perils of diluting that humanity in any way.

Ultimately the significance of the humanity of Christ is soteriological. That is, the humanity of Christ is vital to our salvation.

God is not man. He is other than man. Man cannot bridge tha gap to know God; only God can bridge that gap to make Himself known to man. If God doe not do something to make Himself known, we cannot know God. We are utterly dependant on God's self-revelation for our salvation.

Furhter we have a distance from God that goes beyond the differnce between being Creator and Creation. There is a a moral gaop as well. We as fallen creatures, not just creatures, cannot elevate ourselves. We have fallen and we can't get up, so to speak. Only God can come "down" to our level. If we want to have the gap bridged, God has to build the bridge. That is what we understand happened in the Incarnation. Deity and humanity were united in the one person of Christ.

But if Jesus is NOT fully human, then the bridge is gone. You can't say to have built a bridge between two places (say the US and Canada) if the bridge doesn't actually connect to both places. (For example, no bridge can be said to be between Canada and Hawaii, even though Hawaii is part of the U.S.) In the same way Jesus cannot be said to have bridged the gap between God and that which he did not become.

Athanasius, who, practically on his own, stood against the Arian heresy of his day (which we know to be the error of Jehovah's Witnesses) put it this way: That which was not assumed in the Incarnation cannot be atoned for on the cross. The body (our body) of flesh/sin cannot be said to be crucified in Christ's body of Christ's body were not truly flesh of our flesh.

So the stakes are high. This is not a minor point. If Christ was not human then he did not atone for humanity. We cannot say that Christ was OUR subsitute on the Corss if He was not one of us. This is part of the argument of Hebrews 2 (especially perhaps v.11,12). And it is significant that in Heb 2, the full humanity is not seen to be something that cheapens Jesus. Indeed not! The Authro fo Hebrews actually argues for the surpassing glory and greatness of Jesus BECAUSE of His full humanity! if the author of Inspired, Inerrant Scripture did not fear to make that case, then neither should we!

(Steps down from the pulpit....)

 

Thanks Lat for the references.

I appreciate the explanation, but where specifically does the Bible say this? Where can I read that Jesus had to be "fully human", to be a "bridge"?

 

SBG, are you reading the references?

Hebrews 2:9-18 state that Christ had to be a partaker of the same flesh and blood to be our High Priest.

Also, Phil. 2:5-9 states that He set aside His divine rights and took upon Himself the form of a man.

 

If you are looking for a direct staemetn in those words you won't find it. It is however a necessary implication.

The best example is from Heb 2:11: "For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from the one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren." (NASB)

The work of Jesus that sanctifies is obviously the Cross. The work of the Cross depends on His death. Death depends on humanity. No humanity, no death, no death, no work, no work, no salvation.

The basic idea in v. 11 is that Jesus' qualification to be High Priest (cf, v.17) is predicated on His being like us, sharing in our humnaity. It is the sharing in our humanity that forms the basis for his being the brthren of those whom He sanctifies.

Christ is dientified with human beings in this verse, as per the Incarnation.

Think of it also this way. We agree that Christ's work is a "substitutionary" atonement, right? Can Jesus be OUR substitute if he is not like us?

 

Yes Preach, I am reading them. Please give me time to study....trying to figure this out.

Lat, what you are saying sounds reasonable, but, you did say that it is implied.

For Jesus to be our substitution does he have to be "just" like us, or a close representation?

Did Jesus consist of Body(duh), soul and spirit?

 

Man, does this remind me of Theology classes in college or what? Personally, I think y'all are beating a dead horse. If, and we are not told specifically, God created a special sperm to unit with Mary's egg then because of the genes that came from here Jesus would have human blood and flesh. If I had a disease that could be transmitted from my sperm to my offspring and they found a way to cleanse it from my sperm, would my my offspring still be mine or not? Yes, they would. Would they not also still be offspring of the mother? Yes, they would. So, if God only created a human sperm without the disease of sin in it would not Jesus still be all human? Sure. Because the soul/spirit of the second person of the Godhead indwelled that body He would then indeed be totally divine. And if God created a sperm that was indeed unique because it was God's then by uniting with Mary the Child would still be human as well as divine. This is why it is called a miracle. Can we in our pea brains dissect and throughly understand a miracle? No, or else we would be God.

I remember reading how that while Constantinople was being overrun by the, the theologians were in great debate over what color eyes the Blessed Virgin had. If the Word says that He was God in the flesh and that his sacrifice was accepted then why the great debate? Just rejoice in it!

 

Hebrews 2 says he had to be like us in "all things".