Did jesus Lay aside his Diety When he Incarnated On the earth?

[asterisktom]

There was NEVER a mixture, nor a single nature, but TWO in complete agreement and union. We do not speak of the "natures of Christ" but the "nature of Christ" because the union cannot be separated, and cannot be dissolved.

What about the pre-incarnate Christ? Was He "two in complete union" then? How, then, can you use the word "never"?

To understand where this discussion leads brings us to the nature of the purpose of the Incarnation. It was a mission, not an eternal change in His divine nature. As has often been the case, attempts to address one wrong view of Christ, (docetism, modalism, etc.) often brings us to overreact, making equally egregious errors - positing a profound and eternal change in the divine second Person of the Trinity from Incarnation onward.

Yet Christ is unchangeable. And he,according to John 17, has again the glory He had before with the Father.

It is heretical to not view Christ as fully man and fully God. Two natures in UNION and functioning together as a single ONE Lord and Savior.

As Lord and Savior Christ had to be fully God and fully man. But what was He before the Incarnation? Do you not see that this is an important part in our understanding of how the eternal Christ is now? You wrote "Two natures in UNION and functioning together...". Yes, but when the function changes - as it has with Christ - there is no need for a continuance of how He was. This is why I believe that there is no longer a physical Christ, but a purely spiritual one.

 

[Winman]

I've seen the question asked several times in different forums. Jesus was "God in the flesh" and was as much God as He was man. If he had been just a man as some heretics believe, He couldn't have lived a sinless life since all humans have a sin nature. However, because of Him also being God, He had no sin nature.

The scriptures directly tell us what nature Jesus took on himself.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

The scriptures tell us directly that Jesus took on himself the nature of the seed of Abraham (post-fall), that he was made like his brethren (the Jews) in all things, that he suffered being tempted, that he could be touched with the "feeling" of our infirmities, and that he was tempted in "all points" as we are, yet without sin.

God cannot be tempted (Jam 1:13). Jesus inherited his flesh from his mother Mary and could be tempted like any man. Some call this a sin nature, I absolutely refuse to believe Jesus had a sin nature. No, the scriptures call it flesh. A more precise description might be a "temptation nature".

If folks ever realize that Original Sin is false doctrine and that man is made upright (Ecc 7:29), then the problem immediately disappears. Jesus was made upright, just as all men are made upright. The difference is that all men have obeyed their temptations and sinned, whereas Jesus never obeyed his temptations when they would have caused him to sin and never sinned.

 

[asterisktom]

If folks ever realize that Original Sin is false doctrine and that man is made upright (Ecc 7:29), then the problem immediately disappears. Jesus was made upright, just as all men are made upright.

You seem to be unclear on what the doctrine of original sin is. It is not that God made man anything other than upright. It is that when God made man (singular - Adam) he was able to obey or not to obey. His choice to not obey determined the lives of all those from that time on. We have all inherited a sin nature from him.

The Ecc. quote you seem to be using as if it says that men are born upright. No, the verse speaks only of Adam's time: God created man (Adam) upright. But they - Adam's fallen race - "have all sought out inventions"

Lastly, you cannot compare Jesus being "made" with our (Adam's) being made. A remarkable example of an "apples and oranges" comparison.

 

[jbh28]

Well it only took to page 3 before someone decided to start derailing the thread...

 

[asterisktom]

Well it only took to page 3 before someone decided to start derailing the thread...

It may seem like derailing when you don't see the connection.

 

[agedman]

What about the pre-incarnate Christ? Was He "two in complete union" then? How, then, can you use the word "never"?

As Lord and Savior Christ had to be fully God and fully man. But what was He before the Incarnation? Do you not see that this is an important part in our understanding of how the eternal Christ is now? You wrote "Two natures in UNION and functioning together...". Yes, but when the function changes - as it has with Christ - there is no need for a continuance of how He was. This is why I believe that there is no longer a physical Christ, but a purely spiritual one.

First, it is assumed the discussion focused upon the earthly ministry and current state of the Savior.

Now in addressing the second state (at and after resurrection) Christ is seen as still possessing the nature of humanity (less the blood - for it was shed on the cross). In the Revelation, John states that he saw the lamb as if slaughtered. The return of Christ shows Him still bearing the nature of man and God as He rules with a rod of iron.

His function has not changed as redeemer until the final judgement of humankind (great white throne); then, at the appearance of the New Heaven and New earth, Christ is completely exalted by the Father. The full glory (shining with no need of the sun) is again His.

At that time, there is no Scriptures to indicate in what form Christ appears other than beyond description being brighter than the sun.

But, what of the verse that indicates the believers nature at our translation into the heavens? "We shall be like Him;" does that pertain to the glory He currently has in heaven, the union of our new nature to Him, the glory reflected in us in the second heaven and earth...?

There really is very little the Scripture have about that estate.

 

[Winman]

You seem to be unclear on what the doctrine of original sin is. It is not that God made man anything other than upright. It is that when God made man (singular - Adam) he was able to obey or not to obey. His choice to not obey determined the lives of all those from that time on. We have all inherited a sin nature from him.

The Ecc. quote you seem to be using as if it says that men are born upright. No, the verse speaks only of Adam's time: God created man (Adam) upright. But they - Adam's fallen race - "have all sought out inventions"

Lastly, you cannot compare Jesus being "made" with our (Adam's) being made. A remarkable example of an "apples and oranges" comparison.

What kind of baloney is this? The word "they" points directly back to the word "man" showing this verse is saying all men are made upright.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

And this is not derailing the thread in any way. The topic is Jesus's nature. Jesus had the same nature as the seed of Abraham. Do I need to remind you that Abraham was born after the so called fall? Those folks who say Jesus had the same nature as pre-fall Adam are contradicting direct scripture. God is wiser than man, he made it clear that Jesus had the same nature we all do.

Now, if we are indeed born upright as Ecc 7:29 says, then where is the problem believing Jesus had the same nature as man? NONE. Men are made upright, and so was Jesus.

But if you claim all men inherited Adam's sin (which contradicts Eze 18:20), then you have to come up with all sorts of fantastic inventions to explain how Jesus did not have a sin nature. Thus, the Immaculate Conception which is nothing but medieval superstition. Now you have to baptize a baby to wash away their Original Sin. Pure nonsense.

Of course, without Original Sin Calvinism would not have a leg to stand on, so of course no Calvinist will ever abandon OS, no matter how much scriptural evidence a person provides.

It is all related. Jesus came in the flesh, and anyone who denies this is the spirit of antichrist.

1 Jhn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We are to try the spirits. Everyone who confesses Jesus came in the flesh is of God, those who deny Jesus came in the flesh are the spirit of anti-Christ.

By the way, the word flesh here is the Greek word "sarx" which the NIV translates as "sin nature" in several verses. The NIV says Jesus had a sin nature!

 

[percho]

The scriptures directly tell us what nature Jesus took on himself.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

The scriptures tell us directly that Jesus took on himself the nature of the seed of Abraham (post-fall), that he was made like his brethren (the Jews) in all things, that he suffered being tempted, that he could be touched with the "feeling" of our infirmities, and that he was tempted in "all points" as we are, yet without sin.

God cannot be tempted (Jam 1:13). Jesus inherited his flesh from his mother Mary and could be tempted like any man. Some call this a sin nature, I absolutely refuse to believe Jesus had a sin nature. No, the scriptures call it flesh. A more precise description might be a "temptation nature".

If folks ever realize that Original Sin is false doctrine and that man is made upright (Ecc 7:29), then the problem immediately disappears. Jesus was made upright, just as all men are made upright. The difference is that all men have obeyed their temptations and sinned, whereas Jesus never obeyed his temptations when they would have caused him to sin and never sinned.

Did he ever get close to sinning? I say yes for I believe this verse is speaking of Jesus. Hebrews 12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. In the Garden of Gethsemane. Also compare Heb. 5:7,8 Yet without sin. Bring about: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

 

[Winman]

Did he ever get close to sinning? I say yes for I believe this verse is speaking of Jesus. Hebrews 12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. In the Garden of Gethsemane. Also compare Heb. 5:7,8 Yet without sin. Bring about: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Well, I don't think you can come CLOSE to sinning, you either sinned or you didn't. Was Jesus tempted? Yes. He felt the pull and tug of temptation just like we do, but in every case he obeyed the word of God and not his temptations.

But I know what you are saying, it wasn't easy, he had to truly struggle against sin. Nobody wants to be beaten nearly to death and nailed to a cross to die, and he certainly couldn't have enjoyed having our sins placed on him. I think this accounts for his prayer in the garden.

Luk 22:41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

It is clear here that Jesus was not looking forward to being crucified. I think he was asking his Father if there might be some other way to save men. Nevertheless, Jesus obeyed his Father and chose to do what his Father wanted him to do, even if personally he did not want to die like this.

But he was absolutely feeling the stress and temptation to escape this painful ordeal that was ahead of him.

 

[jbh28]

It may seem like derailing when you don't see the connection.

If winman see the word "original sin" he will talk about it instead of the OP. so it's derailing.

 

[Yeshua1]

You and old regular do not seem to read the complete statements.

There was NEVER a mixture, nor a single nature, but TWO in complete agreement and union. We do not speak of the "natures of Christ" but the "nature of Christ" because the union cannot be separated, and cannot be dissolved. What effected his human nature effected the divine. They were of ONE union, and displayed as a singular Lord and Savior not one who was split into two in which one nature or the other usurped authority over the other.

Old Regular spent post after post making argument in support of the Creed(s) and Statement of Faith, never coming to an understanding that we were actually in agreement, but that he was only acknowledging the parts on two separate and complete natures and never the union into "ONE Lord and Savior."

In all that I posted a few posts ago, it is bolded that the two were UNITED; they were in union inseparable, and in my opinion without being able to be distinguished (as apply some attributes to the human nature and some to the divine as some on the BB have attempted in previous threads).

This is VERY important.

Christ did not have two hearts, two minds, two strengths, two spirits, but a UNION of the Two natures.

Here are the parts that specifically apply to the thread from the Chaldedonian and LBC (1689):

Chaldedonian Creed:

"...only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;..."​

The London Baptist Confession (1689) (this one was C. H. Spurgeon revised)

"...and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.
___ 3 The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, in the person of the Son, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge;..."​

It is heretical to not view Christ as fully man and fully God. Two natures in UNION and functioning together as a single ONE Lord and Savior.

jesus was and is fully God in nature, and Human! There two natures are one in him, as he is One being, existing with 2 natures, he is now both God/Man!

In the Incarnation, God took and assumed Humanity, sohis brain, organs, soul etc perfectly humna, along with the very nature of God in him!

 

[glazer1972]

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Yeshua1]

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What were you noing ?