The Two "Natures" of Christ Jesus

[CJP69]

A couple of scripture examples;



"For he was yet in the loins of his father,
when Melchisedec met him." Hebrews 7:10

"...have a commandment to take tithes of the people
according to the law, that is, of their brethren,
though they come out of the loins of Abraham:" Hebrews 7:5b.

"All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt,
which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives,
all the souls were threescore and six;" Genesis 46:26.
...

Jesus was descended from Abraham (and Adam) through Mary.

Jesus' body was part of what was Elected
and Prepared for Him to Assume, in the womb of Mary.

"Wherefore when He cometh into the world, He saith,
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not,
but a body hast thou prepared Me:" Hebrews 10:5.

Obviously a "comment" loaded with doctrinal meaning that you want, for some reason, to keep us all in the dark about. As such, it is meaningless and irrelevant.

 

[Van]

I see I wasted posts addressing CJP69. My bad...

These are the biblical truths:

Jesus, God with us, had two natures, His spirit, God the Son and His flesh and blood body with its needs and desires. Both had no "fallen nature."

Jesus had no "human spirit/soul" only His divine "Spirit/Soul, God the Son."

Everyone "in Adam" (meaning not "in Christ) dies.

Jesus, tempted in every way humans are tempted, never sinned.

Jesus, as the Lamb of God, sacrificed His life to be humanity's "sin offering." Everyone spiritually transferred from being "in Adam" into Christ spiritually undergoes the washing of regeneration, provided by Christ's sacrifice, and is thus made alive together with Christ.

 

[Van]

Lets delve into Romans 7:5:

Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. (NASB)​

There is a difference of opinion concerning whether Paul is speaking here as a born anew believer, a new creation, or as he was before being born anew. I think he is speaking of his striving to follow Christ after being born anew.

In this condition our "fallen spirit/soul" has been washed and is no long "fallen" or dead in trespass, but alive together with Christ.

But, just as the un-fallen Adam, we still can make wrong choices, that if we were not "in Christ" would store up wrath, but since Christ reconciled us to God for all our sin, past, present or future, our poor actions hinders our ministry as ambassadors of Christ and does not earn eternal reward.

Thus our "sin nature" is our capacity to think and act outside of God's will for our lives. In the fallen state (in Adam) we are more prone to make poor choices (those outside of God's will) but even as a born anew believer, we still can make poor choices.

 

[CJP69]

I see I wasted posts addressing CJP69. My bad...

LOL!

You've run out of substance and so now resort to being insulting and do so without cause. Typical. You should be ashamed of yourself.

These are the biblical truths:

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Jesus, God with us, had two natures, His spirit, God the Son and His flesh and blood body with its needs and desires. Both had no "fallen nature."

By this measure we have two natures. Our spirit and our flesh.

Jesus had no "human spirit/soul" only His divine "Spirit/Soul, God the Son."

I'd love to see you attempt to establish this all but meaningless statement.

Everyone "in Adam" (meaning not "in Christ) dies.

But not because Adam's sin made them guilty of anything. If a man dies, it is because of his own sin, not that of his ancestors. (Ezekiel 18)

Jesus, tempted in every way humans are tempted, never sinned.

True but also not in dispute that I'm aware of.

Jesus, as the Lamb of God, sacrificed His life to be humanity's "sin offering." Everyone spiritually transferred from being "in Adam" into Christ spiritually undergoes the washing of regeneration, provided by Christ's sacrifice, and is thus made alive together with Christ.

As stated this is true but I'd bet dollars to donuts that there all kinds of Calvinist meanings packed into the words that make this statement mean the opposite of what the bible actually teaches. That being that God is arbitrary rather than just and that you believe the two are one and the same thing.

 

[37818]

And so you believe that James contradicts the author of Hebrews? LOL!!!!

No. Your supposed understanding is flawed.

You confuse concise with being lazy.

 

[Alan Gross]

Jesus, the only begotten of the Heavenly Father,
had no Earthly father and thus did not inherit
the fallen nature of Adam's race but retained
the unspoiled nature of His Father.
This, among other reasons,
is why the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ
is so foundational to Christianity.

Correct.

Then, this comment is just a further continuation of what you said above.
The unspoiled Nature of His Father was co-joined to a body that had been
planned for Him to live as 100% and 100% God, from Eternity Past.

Jesus' body was part of what was Elected
and Prepared for Him to Assume, in the womb of Mary.

a body hast thou prepared Me:" Hebrews 10:5.

Obviously a "comment" loaded with doctrinal meaning that you want,
for some reason, to keep us all in the dark about.

Just a related comment. No big secrecy about it, although that may be new
to some people, & this a way of clueing them in about it. Just a Fact of God.

For Jesus' body to have been Elected by The Triune Godhead
for Him to join with His Divine Nature is "all in the dark"?

And I'm keeping you there? Ummm.

It was just a comment.

As such, it is meaningless and irrelevant.

It was not intended or claimed to meet the criteria to be the most meaningful
and relevant comment of all time imaginable,
unless(???) this is some kind of fashion show, or something(?)

Beats me. I just said it was a comment, for crying out loud.

Obviously a "comment"

Obviously a "comment" was all there was to it, the best I can tell.

Thanks anyway, though...

 

[percho]

What passage would you reference to prove that man's nature has been corrupted by sin (a change in nature) in opposition to men giving in to the desires of a human nature (flesh)?

The reason I ask is that it seems important to me that the Word became "flesh" in the sense that He was made like us in all ways and experienced the same types of temptation (the difference being He did not give in to the temptations of the flesh).

Thanks.

Question for you and for all considering the following verses and what you asked above.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Rom 7:14 for we have known that the law is spiritual, and I am fleshly, sold by [under] the sin;
From 2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;

Was the Word God made flesh, the only begotten of the Father, sold under the sin of us, by the Father, so we could be made the righteousness of God in Him?

If yes, when did that sell take place? Before the foundational of the world?

 

[Van]

I did see one pertinent issue in a prior post, everyone in Adam (all those not spiritually transferred into Christ) dies, but not because they are "guilty" of Adam's sin. True. As I said, referring to all humanity, as we were all conceived in iniquity, die because initially were "made sinners" meaning we all have received the consequence of spiritual separation, as a result of Adam' sin through no fault of our own, and thus not guilty of Adam's sin. The exception of course are those born anew believers who have been chosen through faith in the truth and set apart spiritually in Christ.

 

[CJP69]

No. Your supposed understanding is flawed.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You confuse concise with being lazy.

I've never seen you post more the few sentences at a time. Asking questions that have no context and that you refuse to expand upon. There is no evidence that I'm the least bit confused at all. When you become substantive, my responses will reflect the improvement in your behavior. As it is, I already waste more time on you than you've earned.

 

[Van]

A question was asked about three verses and how they fit with the two natures of Jesus.
Here is the reference:

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Romans 7:14 for we have known that the law is spiritual, and I am fleshly, sold by [under] the sin;
From 2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;​

The above John 1:14 is an outdated errant translation. However the Word (Logos, Second Person of the Trinity) was made flesh, and we beheld His glory as the uniquely divine from the Father. This argues against the false doctrine that the flesh is corrupt.

In Romans 7:14 the word translated "fleshly" simply refers to having the "nature" of flesh. "Sold under sin" fits perfectly, as our fleshly bodies actions are under the control of our corrupt "spirit/soul."

Next, we have another errant translation (2 Corinthians 5:21) creating confusion rather than clarity. "For he has treated Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin" fits perfectly with Jesus being sinless on the cross. He was never "made sin!"

 

[CJP69]

Correct.

Then, this comment is just a further continuation of what you said above.
The unspoiled Nature of His Father was co-joined to a body that had been
planned for Him to live as 100% and 100% God, from Eternity Past.

No it isn't. The two comments may be compatible but the former does not lead logically to the later. The two are quite separate issues.

Just a related comment. No big secrecy about it, although that may be new
to some people, & this a way of clueing them in about it. Just a Fact of God.

For Jesus' body to have been Elected by The Triune Godhead
for Him to join with His Divine Nature is "all in the dark"?

And I'm keeping you there? Ummm.

It was just a comment.

I've been doing this for a really long time, Alan. I do, on rare occasion, jump to an incorrect conclusion, but it is quite rare. Your use of the term "Elected" is awkward and out of place here. It would only ever come out of a Calvinist in that manner, especially capitalized and so no, it wasn't "just a comment". It is you sneaking in your Calvinism using terms that sound biblical but that have meanings that only exist inside the mind of a Calvinist and that turn the God who is Justice into an arbitrary tyrant.

It was not intended or claimed to meet the criteria to be the most meaningful
and relevant comment of all time imaginable,
unless(???) this is some kind of fashion show, or something(?)

Beats me. I just said it was a comment, for crying out loud.

Obviously a "comment" was all there was to it, the best I can tell.

Thanks anyway, though...

I don't mean to imply that you're being underhanded, although I get why you'd think that (I'll try to be more judicious in my wording). I have no doubt that this manner of speaking comes quite naturally to you and that it seems like a perfectly normal thing to say to your hearing. If so, it means that you spend too much time with people who worship a Pagan Greek version of God.

 

[CJP69]

A question was asked about three verses and how they fit with the two natures of Jesus.
Here is the reference:

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Romans 7:14 for we have known that the law is spiritual, and I am fleshly, sold by [under] the sin;
From 2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;​

The above John 1:14 is an outdated errant translation. However the Word (Logos, Second Person of the Trinity) was made flesh, and we beheld His glory as the uniquely divine from the Father. This argues against the false doctrine that the flesh is corrupt.

More precisely, it argues against the false doctrine that all flesh is corrupt - per se. It argues against the idea that flesh, in and of itself, is corrupt.

In Romans 7:14 the word translated "fleshly" simply refers to having the "nature" of flesh. "Sold under sin" fits perfectly, as our fleshly bodies actions are under the control of our corrupt "spirit/soul."

Next, we have another errant translation (2 Corinthians 5:21) creating confusion rather than clarity. "For he has treated Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin" fits perfectly with Jesus being sinless on the cross. He was never "made sin!"

Actually, the text says....

"γὰρ ἐποίησεν ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν"
"gar (for) poieō(made) hamartia(sin) hyper(for) hēmōn(us)"

Adding in the proper antecedents that are required in English, The King James gets it right....

"For he hath made him to be sin for us,..."

It's correct even to the point of indicating, by use of italic letters, that the words "to be" are added. And so, according to the scripture, He very definitely was "made sin!"


As for your translation of "poieō" into "treated", that simply is not correct AT ALL!

The term appears 579 times in the New Testament. Here is how the King James translates the term across its various contexts...

do (357x), make (113x), bring forth (14x), commit (9x), cause (9x), work (8x), shew (5x), bear (4x), keep (4x), fulfil (3x), deal (2x), perform (2x), not translated (3x), miscellaneous (43x), variations of 'do' (3x).

The terms "do" and "make" comprise fully 81% of those various translations. The English word "treat" or "treated" doesn't appear at all in the King James as a translation for ANY word whatsoever.

The only English version of the bible I've found that uses the word "treated" is the Contemporary English Version, which I had never heard of before I looked this up. It translates the verse like this....

"Christ never sinned! But God treated him as a sinner, so Christ could make us acceptable to God."

A clearly incorrect and doctrine driven "translation" in a version that practically no one has ever heard of before and that even fewer actually use.

The modern Greek word for "treat" (behave towards) is ορισμός, which does not appear in the New Testament. The word is found in the Septuagint but not in the New Testament. It is used once in Numbers 30:10.

 

[37818]

Was the Word God made flesh, the only begotten of the Father, sold under the sin of us, by the Father, so we could be made the righteousness of God in Him?

If yes, when did that sell take place? Before the foundational of the world?

In two parts.
First by the Word becoming flesh per John 1:2-3, John 1:14. Second, the Son receiving death for sin on the cross on our behalf, per Isaiah 53:6, prior to John 19:28, . . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, . . . Etc. This being prior to His physical death for His bodily resurrection.

 

[CJP69]

Question for you and for all considering the following verses and what you asked above.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Rom 7:14 for we have known that the law is spiritual, and I am fleshly, sold by [under] the sin;
From 2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;

Was the Word God made flesh, the only begotten of the Father, sold under the sin of us, by the Father, so we could be made the righteousness of God in Him?

If yes, when did that sell take place? Before the foundational of the world?

If I understand your question correctly, the transaction was planned for (not predestined) prior to creation but the transaction itself happened at Calvary. Jesus' death was the price for sin and it was paid when He was forsaken by the Father (Matthew 27:46) and physically died ([URL='https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027%3A50&version=NKJV']Matthew 27:50). Thus, "It is finished." ([/URL]John 19:30).

 

[Van]

An inaccurate statement was made that "poieo" (G4160) translated as "made" by the NASB could not be translated as "treat or treated."

Consider Luke 6:31, "“[fn]Treat people the same way you want them to [fn]treat you. The footnotes say "Lit. "do to" Thus do to people the same way you want them to do to you.

Many other English translations also render "poieo" as treat in many places. For example, Luke 2:48 is often rendered treated or dealt with. Or Luke 15:19, where the ESV and NET go with treat.

There seems to be reluctance to accept our wonderful English translations occasionally cause confusion with poor translation choices. 2 Corinthians 5:21 is a major example. The actual idea is God treated or dealt with Jesus as sin, not that Jesus was or became sin. That idea is contrary to the doctrine of Jesus was a sinless sacrifice, the just for the unjust.

 

[Van]

Another controversy concerning the divine nature of Jesus is whether God the Son was always God the Son, or that Logos became God the Son at the incarnation. The Biblical answer is Logos was always God the Son. He became the uniquely divine Son of God at the incarnation, God with us. What makes Jesus uniquely divine of course is His divine nature, God the Son, Logos being His spirit, rather than our human spirit. Why "one and only" Son of God is an errant translation is that Adam was also a "son of God" but with a human spirit, and every born anew believer becomes a "son of God" (or child of God" at their spiritual rebirth.

 

[JonC]

Question for you and for all considering the following verses and what you asked above.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Rom 7:14 for we have known that the law is spiritual, and I am fleshly, sold by [under] the sin;
From 2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;

Was the Word God made flesh, the only begotten of the Father, sold under the sin of us, by the Father, so we could be made the righteousness of God in Him?

If yes, when did that sell take place? Before the foundational of the world?

Yes. That is kinda the point. We are reconciled to God in Christ. God was reconciling the world to Himself. We have the ministry of reconciliation. We urge men to be reconciled to God.

Christ IS our reconciliation.

 

[CJP69]

An inaccurate statement was made that "poieo" (G4160) translated as "made" by the NASB could not be translated as "treat or treated."

Consider Luke 6:31, "“[fn]Treat people the same way you want them to [fn]treat you. The footnotes say "Lit. "do to" Thus do to people the same way you want them to do to you.

Many other English translations also render "poieo" as treat in many places. For example, Luke 2:48 is often rendered treated or dealt with. Or Luke 15:19, where the ESV and NET go with treat.

And yet none but the most obscure "translations" do so with that term in the passage in question.

There seems to be reluctance to accept our wonderful English translations occasionally cause confusion with poor translation choices.

No there doesn't seem to be any such thing.

2 Corinthians 5:21 is a major example.

Except that every major translation and virtually every translation of this passage that exists does not translate it the way you want for it be translated.

The actual idea is God treated or dealt with Jesus as sin, not that Jesus was or became sin.

That is your interpretation and perhaps it is an accurate one and perhaps it is not. It most definitely is not how the text reads.

That idea is contrary to the doctrine of Jesus was a sinless sacrifice, the just for the unjust.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[CJP69]

Another controversy concerning the divine nature of Jesus is whether God the Son was always God the Son, or that Logos became God the Son at the incarnation. The Biblical answer is Logos was always God the Son. He became the uniquely divine Son of God at the incarnation, God with us. What makes Jesus uniquely divine of course is His divine nature, God the Son, Logos being His spirit, rather than our human spirit. Why "one and only" Son of God is an errant translation is that Adam was also a "son of God" but with a human spirit, and every born anew believer becomes a "son of God" (or child of God" at their spiritual rebirth.

Controversy? Since when?

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Before He became a man he was Logos, according to the scripture. "God the Son" is not a term that is found in scripture. It is simply a title that we use to refer to Him Who is the Logos of God, through whom all things were created and Who became a man, dwelt among us, died and rose from the dead.

 

[Van]

Yes. That is kinda the point. We are reconciled to God in Christ. God was reconciling the world to Himself. We have the ministry of reconciliation. We urge men to be reconciled to God.

Christ IS our reconciliation.

Minor point, God IS reconciling humanity, one sinner at a time, to Himself. That is why we still have the ministry of reconciliation.