-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Luke 1:35 And The Real Human Nature of Jesus Christ
- Thread starter SavedByGrace
- Start date
Whoah. You're no one to be judging others as heretics it seems.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Whoah. You're no one to be judging others as heretics it seems.
meaning what?
You're basically saying Christ, as a human, was basically Mary's filtered life force?
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
You're basically saying Christ, as a human, was basically Mary's filtered life force?
I am saying, that Jesus Christ, Who is Almighty God from all eternity, at his Conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary, actually took His human nature from hers, as she was His actual mother. However, it could not have been the fallen nature of Mary, which all humans are born with, or else Jesus Christ in His human nature, would be a sinner! There can be no doubt about this.
Where do you guys come up with this stuff? This is really close to DeHaan's superstitious nonsense about 'divine blood.' Nothing was created anew to make a body for the Son. The egg cell in a woman is whole, not really needing additional genetic information to develop into a child. God merely has to flip the switch, which can only happen naturally in humans in the family way. At the very most, God rearranged the flesh in Mary.
It was said in the beginning, that the One to crush the head of the Serpent would be the seed of the Woman.
So Jesus entered this world at conception, and like His brothers, was conceived and and grew in the womb, and was born of a woman.
How is his human nature different than His Person?
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Do you not believe that in the One Person, Jesus Christ, after His Incarnation, there are two distinct "natures", One fully God, and One fully Man, except sin?
When Paul writes in Philippians 2:6, "ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ", and verse 7, "μορφὴν δούλου", in both places means, "the very nature", the "essential", and not the outward, which "σχήματι" refers to.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
you reject the evidence because of some Greek manuscripts, and say that all of the Church fathers, from the late 1st century, are lying?
You have not a clue about textual studies
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
explain
No. I don't think there was a dualism. You get into all kinds of superstitious mumbo jumbo like the OP trying to explain it. The Incarnation is a mystery, and I'm content to leave it as such.
The only thing Christ got from Mary was His flesh and bone.
Like God rearranged dirt into flesh and bone.
Well, Van is right that you don't understand human nature.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Here is a thought.
Did the virgin Mary bring forth the Son of God, in her conceived out of Spirit as holy and in nine months, not having been known by her husband, brought forth the son of her, the firstborn, who they named Jesus, the holy one, without blemish and without spot, thus;
Romans 8:3 KJV For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:?
I might also ask; Was the baby who they named Jesus, in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin, because he was conceived in the virgin, out of spirit, and brought forth out of the virgin?
Last edited:
Thanks. It seems he agrees with me:
There is, in the first place, the absence of all evidence of a twofold personality in Christ.
Are you asking was Jesus without sin because He was born of a virgin?
No. Jesus was and is without sin because He is the uncorruptible God.
So relative to the birth of Jesus Christ, the virgin was moot, not necessary? Was, woman of any kind necessary to the birth of Jesus Christ?
Let's say that Joseph did not quite do what the Angel said, but took her to wife and immediately knew her? Would the firstborn son she brought forth have been called the Son of God? Would they have named him Jesus? Would they call his name Emmanuel ?
I just had a thought. Your thoughts on this.
Acts 13:34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Does the likeness of sinful flesh have anything to do with no more to return to corruption?
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Jesus Christ is sinless in His human nature, which He actually took from Mary, because of the Work of the Holy Spirit when He caused Mary to become pregnant.
Jesus' human Conception had to be from a woman who was a virgin, to ensure that He did not have a human, biological father, which would have made Him fully human, and not the God-Man.
The Greek grammar used by Paul in Romans 8:3, is very important. Had Paul written, "κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τὴν ἐν τῇ σαρκί", with the additional Greek article "τὴν", this would have made the "flesh" of Jesus Christ, "sinful". However, by writing, "κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί", Paul removes this possibility, and means that the condemnation of OUR sins took place on Jesus Christ.