Jesus had a human nature?

[HankD]

Concerning separating the "could not" from the "would not" sin:

Jesus as 100% man had the Spirit of God; Jesus spoke the true and perfect Word of God, He did not receive the Spirit by measure, and in this was also fully God. He came from above in the nature of God and all things were given in His hand. That said:
.
On one hand Omnipotent God “could” and did truly come to earth in the nature of a man, in the Person of Jesus Christ, 100% flesh and blood man, and “could” as a truth be tempted to sin in this nature of a man, as this is a truth of the nature in which man exists from creation. (Something to look at is Jesus existed before creation as God, but not as a man.) Although, this subject (mystery) easily begins going beyond my comprehension; Jesus limited Himself in becoming man in order to truly fulfill the law, and Jesus Christ in His righteousness did fulfill it as a 100% man for this to be truth, but He did it IN the Spirit/Nature of God. It seems if to say Jesus “could not sin” it might be mistaken as a denial of Him being truly 100% man. I am not implying that you would ever say that Hank :saint: , but just trying to clarify. Your point of internal/external is well taken and looked at by me in the light of the “eternal.” (I agree with what I’ve heard concerning this, said, “That to deny the humanity of Christ is just as much a heresy as to deny His Divinity.”)

On the other hand, Jesus was also 100% God and therefore “would not sin” as that is the true nature of God, (that He is only Good.) and part of the truth is Him having the 100% Spirit of God in the nature of a man. In that light, He would be incapable of sinning, and therefore, with the two natures combined I feel it could also be properly said that He “could not sin.”

1)Could Jesus sin? Yes and no. (One Person having two natures is a mystery to me, but true none the less.)
2)Would Jesus sin? No!

Yes, it's an issue that people get embroiled about.

One the one hand I have seen those who say

"If He could sin He wasn't fully God"

On the other hand we have those who say :

"If He couldn't sin He wasn't fully human" .

My "gut" says He could not sin (as I believe the Scripture teaches), yet I still maintain that He is/was fully and perfectly human.

Personally, I don't even like the compromise "well, let's just say He didn't sin" because it leaves the door open to the possibility that He might have sinned had He wanted to do so.


HankD

 

[psalms109:31]

Powerful

The Spirit of God veiled in the flesh of man so we can see God. Shows us we to can defeat this flesh through Jesus.

There is no other way man can see God and not die is veiled in flesh. Now we can all know God and see Him through Jesus Christ. The flesh is weak , but the Spirit of God is strong. We to can receive this same Spirit after we believe, but before that the Spirit is in the words of Jesus knocking on the door of our hearts asking to open the door and let Him in.

To receive a new heart that does not want to condemn the world, but it might be saved through Jesus Christ

We cannot save ourselves, so we are going to have to trust someone else to and the only one who can save us is Jesus Christ. He defeated the flesh, He is God champion.

Romans 5:
Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Corinthians 15:
12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

 

[Salamander]

Dr. Morris is a better biologist than a theologian, and he has forgotten the fact that Mary conceived in her womb. Jesus was not only born of a woman, he was conceived in her as well. Her flesh was used to make Christ's body.

Seems you forgot that God is control and hasn't left the flesh to do hap-hazardly do whatever. God used the flesh of Mary, a virgin, to provide the womb necessary for the incarnation of Christ. You make it sound as if the flesh of Mary had some sort of control over the mortal body of Christ.

He also has a false impression of sin. He sees it as something that is passed on by the parents like a genetic trait. As a biologist, he should think of sin like a genetic mutation, which is not the addition of genetic information, but the loss thereof. In the same way sin is not a thing, but the lack of a thing, and that thing is spiritual life. It is something that our natural parents cannot give us.

Um, it seems you forget what the Bible already said that in the first Adam, all have sinned, it is then considered a genetic trait passed down from the first man/ Adam.

Adam wasn't born dead in tresspasses and sins, neither was the Last Adam born in them either. yet the first Adam did sin and launched the entire human race into sin by passing that sin nature to every man who has an earthly father. Jesus has only God the Father. Adam sinned because of human frailty. Jesus could never have sinned because of Divine Nature.

We receive the Divine nature in the Holy Ghost and are indwelt, yet we have inherited the sin nature and the controversy began at salvation. Jesus never had that controversy of a wanting to sin verses the Divine nature which cannot sin. He knew no sin/ he could never have sinned. His flesh was weak and alone he could have sinned, but we find Jesus never alone and without the Father.

The only exception we could find to his being alone is when he became sin for us and was forsaken of the father who can not look upon sin wihtout judging that sin, and He did.

When Adam and Eve disobeyed and ate of the forbidden fruit, they died just as God said they would. Therefore, every one of their offspring are stillborn. Spiritually speaking, we're all monsters. A spiritual freakshow if you will. We have to remember that Mary was part of that freakshow, being dead in sins and trespasses as well. She was just as powerless to impart innocence as well.

You would make the Lord unjust by that estimation. To aptly convince one of sin they must be confronted with sin and thereby be accountable for that sin.

Your estimation would make the Lord tyrannical in that he then would send the yet innocent and unknowing of sin to die and go to a devil's hell for somethuing they never had any real recognition of before.

I serve the merciful God, y'know, the ONLY TRUE GOD! He's not a tyrant!

Christ's sinlessness is a virtue of who He was, is and always will be—God, so it was not of necessity that Christ was born of a Virgin as if the sin nature is something that is "passed" by the male only, or that some special creation had to occur to leave it out. That kind of thinking leads to such superstitious thinking like the Immaculate Conception (in reference to Mary's sinlessless), and DeHaan's "divine blood" foolishness (which denies Christ's humanity), and even worse, God's DNA.

Mary was born of a human descendent. The IC was that Christ was of the Seed of the Father, not as you make it out to be.

Dr. MR DeHaan has it right and doesn't deny the humanity of Christ, he only emphasises the Divine Inception of the Blood

Christ was indeed born of a virgin, but that had nothing to do with His sinlessless, or His divinity, except as a sign.

Almost, it had to do with the prophetic occurence of the Divine Instance of the conception by a virgin. It is of Divine nature and importance as a fulfillment. His sinlessness is therefore made more evident in his being conceived from Divine origin. It is nothing less than another factor of proof of His sinlessness altogether: human/Divine!:godisgood:

Your ideas seem well thought out, but have omitted some important features that would ultimately cause you to change your beliefs concerning this matter.:godisgood:

 

[Marcia]

Almost, it had to do with the prophetic occurence of the Divine Instance of the conception by a virgin. It is of Divine nature and importance as a fulfillment. His sinlessness is therefore made more evident in his being conceived from Divine origin. It is nothing less than

Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit but also had a genetic tie to Mary. He was not just placed in her womb separate from her. It was not a "rent the womb" situation. His humanity came from Mary. I am not sure if you are saying this or not.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit but also had a genetic tie to Mary. He was not just placed in her womb separate from her. It was not a "rent the womb" situation. His humanity came from Mary. I am not sure if you are saying this or not.

The Word of God declares He was placed in her womb when it says "A body thou hast prepared me." God prepared a body for the Son and placed that body in Mary's womb.

He created Adam from the dust of the ground without any help, and now He needs someone else's genetics?

Scripture says God sent His Son, He certainly did... In a body that He had prepared Him

 

[Marcia]

The Word of God declares He was placed in her womb when it says "A body thou hast prepared me." God prepared a body for the Son and placed that body in Mary's womb.

He created Adam from the dust of the ground without any help, and now He needs someone else's genetics?

Scripture says God sent His Son, He certainly did... In a body that He had prepared Him

The phrase "A body thou has prepared me" simply refers to the fact that Jesus would incarnate, meaing he would be human. It does not mean he was transferred into a body. The Bible tells us Jesus became man. If he had simply just put on a body like putting on a suit, he would not have been man. This is the nature of the incarnation.

God didn't "need" genetics but this was how God sent the Savior, incarnated as man.

 

[psalms109:31]

Priest

A Levite priest would prepare a body for sacrifice, but no man prepared Christ body for sacrifice it's God Himself who prepared Christ body for sacrifice.

My question would be where was Christ body prepared was it in the womb or was it prepared outside the womb or was it the whole process from alpha?

 

[Salamander]

Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit but also had a genetic tie to Mary. He was not just placed in her womb separate from her. It was not a "rent the womb" situation. His humanity came from Mary. I am not sure if you are saying this or not.

I would have to say, in reply, that Mary was the vessel of delivery and sustenance of the human form in which Jesus would become, being her body was to nourish and cleanse the "fetus" as any mother's body does for her child. It may be a matter of "artificial insemination" except the origin is Divine. I cannot attribute anything to mary except she was a chosen vessel AMONG women. I believe she in no way contributed anything to his humanity.

 

[Marcia]

I would have to say, in reply, that Mary was the vessel of delivery and sustenance of the human form in which Jesus would become, being her body was to nourish and cleanse the "fetus" as any mother's body does for her child. It may be a matter of "artificial insemination" except the origin is Divine. I cannot attribute anything to mary except she was a chosen vessel AMONG women. I believe she in no way contributed anything to his humanity.

So Mary was not really his mother? You are saying Jesus had no biological mother. I would have to strongly disagree. This takes away from his humanity.

If Jesus was not really Mary's son, then doesn't that mean God had to create Jesus as a baby, which means Jesus was created? But Jesus is not created. He incarnated, adding humanity to deity. I think there is a difference.

 

[Joe]

What seems to make the most sense imho is that our Lord used Mary's body (flesh) as a vessell to birth Jesus yet used Eve's egg (pre-fall) & Adam's sperm (pre-fall) to overshadow Mary, causing her to conceive.

Jesus is called the Second Adam.

Only Adam & Eve came alive without a sin nature, and without blemish. Without diseases and mutations which are passed down lineage thru time.

Eve's seed and Adams Sperm was perfect to create Jesus. Made of the seed of a woman doesn't mean it was Mary's seed. She had a sin nature, disases and sicknesses which could be passed.
Mary was the chosen vessel.



Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

 

[Amy.G]

What seems to make the most sense imho is that our Lord used Mary's body (flesh) as a vessell to birth Jesus yet used Eve's egg (pre-fall) & Adam's sperm (pre-fall) to overshadow Mary, causing her to conceive.

Jesus is called the Second Adam.

Only Adam & Eve came alive without a sin nature, and without blemish. Without diseases and mutations which are passed down lineage thru time.

Eve's seed and Adams Sperm was perfect to create Jesus. Made of the seed of a woman doesn't mean it was Mary's seed. She had a sin nature, disases and sicknesses which could be passed.
Mary was the chosen vessel.


Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

That won't work.


Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "[The] Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.


Christ is the Son of God, not the son of Adam.

 

[Salamander]

So Mary was not really his mother? You are saying Jesus had no biological mother. I would have to strongly disagree. This takes away from his humanity.

If Jesus was not really Mary's son, then doesn't that mean God had to create Jesus as a baby, which means Jesus was created? But Jesus is not created. He incarnated, adding humanity to deity. I think there is a difference.

I think you're placing too much emphasis on the "mother" and forget God has power over all flesh, including Mary's.

All you're doing is adding supposition. Jesus could have been a grown man at incarnation, or any age or developement.

A mother isn't required for one to be human, just ask Eve!:laugh:

I'm saying Jesus didn't NEED a biological mother, yet God chose to bring His Son into the world this way. To do so is by proving it with the virgin conceiving is to fulfill the prophecy of Is 9, not to prove his humanity!

You cannot take away from the humanity of Jesus unless you think Jesus is an object rather than God.:godisgood:

 

[Salamander]

What seems to make the most sense imho is that our Lord used Mary's body (flesh) as a vessell to birth Jesus yet used Eve's egg (pre-fall) & Adam's sperm (pre-fall) to overshadow Mary, causing her to conceive.

Jesus is called the Second Adam.

Only Adam & Eve came alive without a sin nature, and without blemish. Without diseases and mutations which are passed down lineage thru time.

Eve's seed and Adams Sperm was perfect to create Jesus. Made of the seed of a woman doesn't mean it was Mary's seed. She had a sin nature, disases and sicknesses which could be passed.
Mary was the chosen vessel.



Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Strange, just strange.

"Made of a woman" doesn't mean created, it means her body was incorporated to sustain the life of his mortal body.

I may make a car, one of my own making, means I made it, not created it.

 

[Joe]

That won't work.


Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "[The] Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.


Christ is the Son of God, not the son of Adam.

Yes, it could possibly work :thumbsup:

Read this slow ok....

God could have used Adam's sperm before he was created (like a sperm bank but the he hadn't been created yet)

to create himself (GOD) in the human flesh... to be born carrying two identities (himself as God and his son)

Otherwise, God didn't use a man. He only used Mary's egg as most here believe. I'll keep searching for scripture on this...

 

[Joe]

Strange, just strange.

"Made of a woman" doesn't mean created, it means her body was incorporated to sustain the life of his mortal body.

I may make a car, one of my own making, means I made it, not created it.

Ok, that makes sense

 

[Amy.G]

Yes, it could possibly work :thumbsup:

Read this slow ok....

God could have used Adam's sperm before he was created (like a sperm bank but the he hadn't been created yet)

to create himself (GOD) in the human flesh... to be born carrying two identities (himself as God and his son)

Otherwise, God didn't use a man. He only used Mary's egg as most here believe. I'll keep searching for scripture on this...

Hi Joe,
If God used the egg of Mary or Eve and the sperm of Adam, then Jesus was human but not God. Where did the divinity of Jesus come from?
The divine nature of Jesus came from God. Jesus did not have an earthly father.

 

[Aaron]

Part of the problem here is that we're attempting to wrap our little imaginations around something too big to comprehend. Taken at face value the Scriptures teach that a virgin would conceive and bear a child.

Who conceived? The virgin.

This was not an implantation, it was a conception. I gotta go with the Scriptures on this and conclude that Mary was truly the mother of Christ, not a surrogate.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

A surrogate is a mother whether by implantation or otherwise.

 

[Amy.G]

Part of the problem here is that we're attempting to wrap our little imaginations around something too big to comprehend. Taken at face value the Scriptures teach that a virgin would conceive and bear a child.

Who conceived? The virgin.

This was not an implantation, it was a conception. I gotta go with the Scriptures on this and conclude that Mary was truly the mother of Christ, not a surrogate.

Total agreement here. :thumbs:

 

[Aaron]

A surrogate is a mother whether by implantation or otherwise.

That's beside the point. You're saying that the virgin didn't conceive.