Luke 1:35 And The Real Human Nature of Jesus Christ

[SavedByGrace]

Thanks. It seems he agrees with me:

There is, in the first place, the absence of all evidence of a twofold personality in Christ.​

You have misunderstood what I am saying. I am NOT arguing for 2 PERSONS in Jesus Christ, but 2 NATURES, the Divine and the Human, in the One Person.

 

[Aaron]

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?

The virgin birth is a sign only, visible only to the eyes of faith.

 

[Aaron]

You have misunderstood what I am saying. I am NOT arguing for 2 PERSONS in Jesus Christ, but 2 NATURES, the Divine and the Human, in the One Person.

Again, the only thing Jesus took from Mary was His flesh and bone.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Again, the only thing Jesus took from Mary was His flesh and bone.

you mean that Jesus Christ was not really "human" in any way? How do account for Him being tired, needing to eat and rest? So, you probably also believe in the early heresy, that Jesus had only one "will", the Divine? And no "human spirit"?

 

[Aaron]

you mean that Jesus Christ was not really "human" in any way?

Puhleeze.

How do account for Him being tired, needing to eat and rest?

Yes, He made himself weak enough to come into our world.

So, you probably also believe in the early heresy, that Jesus had only one "will", the Divine? And no "human spirit"?

You're an idiot. The testimony is that the Word became flesh, meaning meat and bone. He did not take upon himself the carnal corruptible nature of man. In other words, His life did not descend from Adam. He is Adam's maker.

You need to stop your foolishness.

 

[Conan]

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

It is really, really arrogant of you to accuse people who study the text of the New Testament of not having a clue because they disagree with you. Especially when they have the strength of witnesses behind them and you do not.
What is this another place in the KJV from the Latin Vulgate that has no real textual support?

1:35. Omit "of thee" after "born". S E G Lm T Tr A W WH N NA HF


S Stephens 1550 (Estienne 1550)
E Elzevir 1624
G Griesbach 1805
L Lachmann 1842
T Tischendorf 1869
Tr Tregelles 1857
A Alford 1849 as revised in 1871
W Wordsworth 1856 as revised in 1870
WH Westcott & Hort 1881
NA Nestle-Aland 1979 (Aland et al. 1979)
HF Hodges & Farstad 1982 as corrected in 1985

It is noteworthy that even the "Textus Reptus" is here divided, some for some against.
Also the Majority Text is against the extra words.
The evidence is nothing to lightly sneeze at.

 

[Aaron]

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.

In other places, you have asserted that Jesus was "fully human." Here you say not really.

I have never used the term "God-Man." That smacks of the Greek demigods. He is not the "God-man." He is a divine person. He never shed His divinity.

I think perhaps that before you presume to instruct others in the Incarnation, you need to get a grip on it yourself.

 

[Conan]

Wow. Also against the extra words. All of these Bibles are from "Textus Receptus" Bibles.

Interlinear Bible: Luke 1:35 - Textus Receptus Bibles

Tyndale Bible 1534
And the angell answered and sayd vnto her: The holy goost shall come apon the and the power of the hyest shall over shaddowe the. Therfore also that holy thinge which shalbe borne shalbe called the sonne of god.

Matthew's Bible 1537
And the aungell aunswered and sayd vnto her: The holye ghoste shall come vnto the, and the power of the hyest shall ouer shadowe the. Therfore also that holye thynge whiche shall be borne shalbe called the sonne of God.

Coverdale Bible 1535
The angell answered, & sayde vnto her: The holy goost shal come vpon the, & the power of the Hyest shal ouershadowe the. Therfore that Holy also which shalbe borne (of the) shalbe called the sonne of God

The Great Bible 1539
And the angell answered, & sayde vnto her. The holy goost shall come vpon the, and the power of the hyest shall ouer shaddowe the. Therfore also that holy thynge which shalbe borne, shalbe called the sonne of God

Bishops Bible 1568
And the Angel aunswered, & saide vnto her: The holy ghost shall come vpon thee, & the power of the hyest shall ouershadowe thee. Therefore also that holy thyng whiche shalbe borne, shalbe called the sonne of God

Young's Literal Translation 1862
And the messenger answering said to her, `The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God

 

[SavedByGrace]

It is really, really arrogant of you to accuse people who study the text of the New Testament of not having a clue because they disagree with you. Especially when they have the strength of witnesses behind them and you do not.
What is this another place in the KJV from the Latin Vulgate that has no real textual support?

1:35. Omit "of thee" after "born". S E G Lm T Tr A W WH N NA HF


S Stephens 1550 (Estienne 1550)
E Elzevir 1624
G Griesbach 1805
L Lachmann 1842
T Tischendorf 1869
Tr Tregelles 1857
A Alford 1849 as revised in 1871
W Wordsworth 1856 as revised in 1870
WH Westcott & Hort 1881
NA Nestle-Aland 1979 (Aland et al. 1979)
HF Hodges & Farstad 1982 as corrected in 1985

It is noteworthy that even the "Textus Reptus" is here divided, some for some against.
Also the Majority Text is against the extra words.
The evidence is nothing to lightly sneeze at.

The evidence of the early Church fathers is 100% stronger

 

[SavedByGrace]

In other places, you have asserted that Jesus was "fully human." Here you say not really.

I have never used the term "God-Man." That smacks of the Greek demigods. He is not the "God-man." He is a divine person. He never shed His divinity.

I think perhaps that before you presume to instruct others in the Incarnation, you need to get a grip on it yourself.

What you say is heresy

 

[SavedByGrace]

In other places, you have asserted that Jesus was "fully human." Here you say not really.

I have never used the term "God-Man." That smacks of the Greek demigods. He is not the "God-man." He is a divine person. He never shed His divinity.

I think perhaps that before you presume to instruct others in the Incarnation, you need to get a grip on it yourself.

How Can Jesus Be God and Man?

 

[Conan]

The evidence of the early Church fathers is 100% stronger

Your making that up. The reading came into the KJV From Beza's Latin Text no doubt. The words are missing in all the early Reformation Bibles with the exception of the Geneva, which used Beza's Text. It is also missing from the Majority of all Greek manuscripts. The KJV usually has the strength and support of The Majority of all Greek manuscripts, but here it has departed from the Greek for the Latin, through Beza's influence.

Although the KJV has excellent Textual support, and is usually correct, it is not so in a few places. This is one of those places.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Your making that up. The reading came into the KJV From Beza's Latin Text no doubt. The words are missing in all the early Reformation Bibles with the exception of the Geneva, which used Beza's Text. It is also missing from the Majority of all Greek manuscripts. The KJV usually has the strength and support of The Majority of all Greek manuscripts, but here it has departed from the Greek for the Latin, through Beza's influence.

Although the KJV has excellent Textual support, and is usually correct, it is not so in a few places. This is one of those places.

Read the evidence that I have posted in the OP

 

[Van]

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.

Your speculation must be right and our speculation must be wrong. Got it...

The transmission of the fallen nature of the human spirit is transmitted spiritually, not biologically. Additionally Christ's spirit was the Second Person of the Trinity, thus God incarnate.

The phrase "out of you" or by you or from you appears to be found in only a few places and so most consider the phrase to be a scribal addition.

However, the correct view is Jesus had Mary's DNA combined with DNA supplied supernaturally. This is required by the doctrine that Jesus was the "seed" of Abraham.

Thus Jesus was consubstantial with the Father (same divine essence) and with Mary (same human essence).

Last point, just because an addition to the inspired text is true, does not make it inspired.

 

[robycop3]

Thing is, GOD CAN DO ANYTHING. He had His Son who was already wholly God become wholly man & wholly God at the same time in the same body. I don't pretend to know the mechanix of how He did it; I only know He did it!

While "God can do anything" seems to be a catchphrase & an excuse for many things, it's still true! While we all can name things God WON'T do, no one can name anything He CAN'T do!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Thing is, GOD CAN DO ANYTHING. He had His Son who was already wholly God become wholly man & wholly God at the same time in the same body. I don't pretend to know the mechanix of how He did it; I only know He did it!

While "God can do anything" seems to be a catchphrase & an excuse for many things, it's still true! While we all can name things God WON'T do, no one can name anything He CAN'T do!

You make it sound like God the Father is somehow superior in the Godhead to Jesus Christ? This is impossible

 

[Yeshua1]

You make it sound like God the Father is somehow superior in the Godhead to Jesus Christ? This is impossible

All of the Trinity are Yahweh!

 

[Yeshua1]

In other places, you have asserted that Jesus was "fully human." Here you say not really.

I have never used the term "God-Man." That smacks of the Greek demigods. He is not the "God-man." He is a divine person. He never shed His divinity.

I think perhaps that before you presume to instruct others in the Incarnation, you need to get a grip on it yourself.

Jesus is fully God, and at same time Fully sinless human, unique even among the trinity!

 

[SavedByGrace]

All of the Trinity are Yahweh!

Yes which means that in the eternal Godhead, the Three Persons are 100% coequal. No subordination of any of the Persons

Anything else is RANK HERESY

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes which means that in the eternal Godhead, the Three Persons are 100% coequal. No subordination of any of the Persons

Anything else is RANK HERESY

Jesus accepted temp subordination in the Incarnation, but that ceased once He ascended!