The nature of Christ

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: The issue of the incarnation, and to the nature of it, has been brought into question. It is purported that Jesus did not have the same ‘sin nature’ as man. This should provide fodder for a lively discussion on the nature of Christ and His physical lineage. It would appear to me, that if in fact Christ did not partake of the nature all men are born with, He could not be tempted in all ways as men are. He could not be a man ‘like unto us’ for He has not our nature. Such a notion would also destroy the clear Scriptural lineage presented of Christ as being a direct physical descendant of his earthly father Joseph.

Scripture is clear. He took not upon Himself the nature of angels, but took upon Himself the nature of men. Christ had a physical lineage tracable back to Adam.

Those believing that Christ did not in fact take upon Himself the nature of men, should establish that fact by Scripture.

 

[Matt Black]

I John 1:1-2; II John 7 are good enough for me - both Scriptures written against the gnostic heresy of docetism ie: that Jesus wasn't really a man, He just appeared to be one

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Matt: I John 1:1-2; II John 7 are good enough for me - both Scriptures written against the gnostic heresy of docetism ie: that Jesus wasn't really a man, He just appeared to be one

HP: What is amazing to me is the spin some do with the genealogy of Christ, trying to eliminate the physical tie Scripture states existed between Joseph and Jesus.

 

[BD17]

HP: The issue of the incarnation, and to the nature of it, has been brought into question. It is purported that Jesus did not have the same ‘sin nature’ as man. This should provide fodder for a lively discussion on the nature of Christ and His physical lineage. It would appear to me, that if in fact Christ did not partake of the nature all men are born with, He could not be tempted in all ways as men are. He could not be a man ‘like unto us’ for He has not our nature. Such a notion would also destroy the clear Scriptural lineage presented of Christ as being a direct physical descendant of his earthly father Joseph.

Scripture is clear. He took not upon Himself the nature of angels, but took upon Himself the nature of men. Christ had a physical lineage tracable back to Adam.

Those believing that Christ did not in fact take upon Himself the nature of men, should establish that fact by Scripture.

Christ was not a direct physical descendant of Joseph, because Joseph did not sleep with Mary, He is a physical descendant of Mary because she carried him. If you look at the geneology in Matthew you will see that it is Joseph's geneology, why is this important... because the Jews only recognize the heir to the throne as coming from the fathers side, so Joseph's lineage would be the one recognized as the true heir, but if you look at Mary's lineage in Luke you will see that she is a descendant of the Nathan the son of David, who was the actual heir to the throne. Even though Solomon was the named heir.

Since Solomon was the named heir Jesus' earthly father had to be a descendant from him in order for the Jews to recognize His claim, and since Mary was a descendant from Nathan the actual heir Jesus' claim to be king is covered from both sides of His family so the Jews have no way to deny Him.

Since Christ is not PHYSICALLY descended from Joseph, and born of Mary whom God called righteous, He was not born into sin as we are.

35And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[e] will be called holy--the Son of God. 36And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37For nothing will be impossible with God." 38And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant[f] of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.


The son will be called holy the Son of God. Why was he holy because he was the son of God not born from the seed of sinful man.

 

[J. Jump]

physical tie Scripture states existed between Joseph and Jesus.

There can't be any physical tie to Joseph or Jesus would be the seed of Joseph not the seed of the woman. Joseph had nothing to do with the physical birth of Jesus. It was only between Mary and the Holy Spirit.

Joseph was just His earthly father, but not in a physical relational sense.

As to the difference between the genealogies they are trying to show that in the reality of things Joseph was the one that was in line to receive the throne of David as he came down through David and then Solomon and so forth.

But Jesus was still the son of David, because Mary was born of David, she just came down through Nathan.

The point of the matter is that if Jesus would have been born of Joseph (which is an impossibility anyway) then God would be breaking a promise that after one of the sons in the David/Solomon line He said no more will rule after that one - again can't remember the exact chapter and verse reference on that one.

But He did still keep His promise in that Jesus was still of the seed of David.

God truly is AMAZING!!!

 

[BD17]

HP: What is amazing to me is the spin some do with the genealogy of Christ, trying to eliminate the physical tie Scripture states existed between Joseph and Jesus.

Physical for the sake of apperance and legality, not actual blood and flesh. If you say that Jesus was of the same blood and flesh of Joseph then you have to deny that Christ was conceived of the Holy spirit. Christ was physically of Mary's blood.

There is no spin, for you to say otherwise is the spin.

 

[BD17]

There can't be any physical tie to Joseph or Jesus would be the seed of Joseph not the seed of the woman. Joseph had nothing to do with the physical birth of Jesus. It was only between Mary and the Holy Spirit.

Joseph was just His earthly father, but not in a physical relational sense.

As to the difference between the genealogies they are trying to show that in the reality of things Joseph was the one that was in line to receive the throne of David as he came down through David and then Solomon and so forth.

But Jesus was still the son of David, because Mary was born of David, she just came down through Nathan.

The point of the matter is that if Jesus would have been born of Joseph (which is an impossibility anyway) then God would be breaking a promise that after one of the sons in the David/Solomon line He said no more will rule after that one - again can't remember the exact chapter and verse reference on that one.

But He did still keep His promise in that Jesus was still of the seed of David.

God truly is AMAZING!!!

Thank you JJ this is what my above post was saying. It is truly amazing how God keeps his promises and ties everything together.

 

[Matt Black]

Physical for the sake of apperance and legality, not actual blood and flesh. If you say that Jesus was of the same blood and flesh of Joseph then you have to deny that Christ was conceived of the Holy spirit. Christ was physically of Mary's blood.

There is no spin, for you to say otherwise is the spin.

But do you affirm that He was 100% human (as well as 100% divine)?

 

[J. Jump]

But do you affirm that He was 100% human (as well as 100% divine)?

If you mean by 100% human that Christ had a sin nature then no I don't agree with that, but I believe He was/is all human and all God. Christ didn't have a sin nature, because that is spread through the father and He didn't have an earthly father.

 

[BD17]

But do you affirm that He was 100% human (as well as 100% divine)?

Of course I believe he was 100% human and 100% divine. His humaness comes from Mary not Joseph, his divinity comes from God. Once again since he was not born from the seed of sinful man(Joseph) he was not born into a sin nature as we are.

 

[BD17]

If you mean by 100% human that Christ had a sin nature then no I don't agree with that, but I believe He was/is all human and all God. Christ didn't have a sin nature, because that is spread through the father and He didn't have an earthly father.

Creepy JJ are posts have been almost identical!!:thumbs:

 

[J. Jump]

Creepy JJ are posts have been almost identical!!:thumbs:

:type: Great typists think alike :laugh:

 

[Matt Black]

But He was born of Mary, a sinner (unless you're claiming the Catholic and Orthodox belief that Mary was sinless?), and therefore genetically He was descended from Adam

[ETA - this is a reply to BD17's last post on the previous page]

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Lu 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

HP: Now before we get all worked up and start drawing conclusion as to what this heavenly pilgrim must in fact believe if he claims that Jesus had a direct physical tie to Joseph, shall we read the Scriptures and believe it’s testimony? If this lineage given was not a physical lineage, and subsequent physical tie, what is it good for?

Scripture has two facts, not one to reconcile. It states by this passage and others that indeed Christ was the physical descendant of Adam, and elsewhere clearly states that Joseph did not have intercourse with the virgin Mary. I believe there are several possible answers that would harmonize these seeming conflicting ideas, without taking out your scissors to cut out the one you don’t desire to address, or to explain one of them away with conjecture that in effect does the same thing.

 

[J. Jump]

HP the record in Matthew gives the geneaology of Joseph and the one in Luke is the geneaology of Mary. Jesus was a descendant of David through Mary and He was a descendant of Adam through Mary.

He was not a direct descendant through Joseph and could not be or He would just be a he just like you and me.

 

[BD17]

But He was born of Mary, a sinner (unless you're claiming the Catholic and Orthodox belief that Mary was sinless?), and therefore genetically He was descended from Adam

[ETA - this is a reply to BD17's last post on the previous page]

Yes he was and she was ...

28And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"[c] 29But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God


She was favored by God. This makes her rightoues. Jesus did not have Joseph's seed.

 

[BD17]

HP: Have you compared the two lineages of Christ? The reason as has been stated is that the Jews would not recognize Christ as the heir to David unless His father was descended from David. Christ's earthly father is this "physical" connection, it is not actual fleash and blood connection. The lineage you posted above is Mary's by the way not Joseph's if you want that one read Matthew 1

 

[Matt Black]

But He was still as human as you or I. He may not have had Joseph's gamete, but He had Mary's.

[reply to BD17's post @ 1006. Re your 1011 post: both lineages refer to Joseph's ancestry; Mary's is not mentioned]

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Matt: But He was born of Mary, a sinner (unless you're claiming the Catholic and Orthodox belief that Mary was sinless?), and therefore genetically He was descended from Adam

HP: Now Matt, you have exhibited a keen mind in the past on other topics, so I entertain great hope on this one as well. First, I do not plan at this time to inject my answers into the equation, for I desire for this to play out in due season. I want God to reveal His truth to you directly, and not directly from man.

The first thing is that you need to do is to trust God and trust in Him to explain the unexplainable to you via His Holy Spirit. You must open yourself up to the possibility that you may not have the answers to the problem as of yet, but you are going to trust in ALL His revealed truth even if it appears contradictory to you now, and trust that in time He will reveal the answer, or possible solutions to you all in good time.

You have mentioned that Jesus had an earthly mother. That is very true. But does a human being, taking upon Himself the ‘seed of Abraham’ need a physical father in order to be fully human, have our nature, and to be tempted in all points as we are? I am fully aware of the issues the others have brought forth. That is the standard spin. I want you to look at this objectively, and ask God to reveal to you other ways He could have accomplished the feat of Jesus being totally human with a physical mother and father, yet still be Divinely implanted within the womb of Mary, upholding the revealed truth of the virgin birth.

 

[BD17]

HP: Now Matt, you have exhibited a keen mind in the past on other topics, so I entertain great hope on this one as well. First, I do not plan at this time to inject my answers into the equation, for I desire for this to play out in due season. I want God to reveal His truth to you directly, and not directly from man.

The first thing is that you need to do is to trust God and trust in Him to explain the unexplainable to you via His Holy Spirit. You must open yourself up to the possibility that you may not have the answers to the problem as of yet, but you are going to trust in ALL His revealed truth even if it appears contradictory to you now, and trust that in time He will reveal the answer, or possible solutions to you all in good time.

You have mentioned that Jesus had an earthly mother. That is very true. But does a human being, taking upon Himself the ‘seed of Abraham’ need a physical father in order to be fully human, have our nature, and to be tempted in all points as we are? I am fully aware of the issues the others have brought forth. That is the standard spin. I want you to look at this objectively, and ask God to reveal to you other ways He could have accomplished the feat of Jesus being totally human with a physical mother and father, yet still be Divinely implanted within the womb of Mary, upholding the revealed truth of the virgin birth.

Standard spin since when is the truth standard spin? HP: you cannot prove any physical flesh and blood connection and are unwilling to accept the truth that is before you.