The Nature of Jesus Christ

[face2face]

The nature of Jesus

In this thread I will be using a number of extra-biblical resources for the main reason most of the terminology and concepts are not found in the Bible. Many trinitarians agree with this premise, some even suggesting the Trinity formula is not present but adequately provides an explanation of the Godhead suitable for them to understand who God is.

Two natures:

*"in Christ’s person the two natures are found in an inseparable union, therefore, wheresoever Christ’s deity is, there also must his humanity needs be"

I'd like to step back and suggest the reason for this concept of two natures is derived from the belief that Jesus is God and to be God he must have/be His Divine Essence.

A good question to start things off:

How are these dual natures combined in one man?

Are they combined or separate and distinct from one another?

Divine nature and sinful flesh in one body.

If such a thing was possible, or even plausible we would have a section of Scripture dedicated to enlightening us, but we are left to speculate which is partly the reason for the controversy.

To prove to you all that I am open-minded, I am going to attempt to understand such terms as Hypostasis, Ousia, Plurality & homoiousios etc. all of which have been the source of much debate over the centuries, as far back as the Nicean Council and earlier.

So lets begin.

F2F

*William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 642.

 

[RedFan]

Yes, let's begin. I think you are on the right track here. And except for your comment "If such a thing was possible, or even plausible we would have a section of Scripture dedicated to enlightening us," I agree with pretty much everything you have said. (It is foolish to expect an answer to every theological question in the collection of writings we colloquially call "Scripture.") So here's my take:

Thinking of two beings as distinct, and yet as sharing the same substance or essence, the same ousia, presents no difficulty unless that substance or essence or ousia is itself the unique and absolute self-subsistence of the Mosaic “I AM”—for by Jewish lights, only one being can have that as its essence. Hence the problem faced in the patristic period of trying to explain how Christ could be both God and man.

The march of Christianity outward from Palestine into the Greek world inevitably resulted in a cultural and philosophical disconnect, as tales told and texts written from a Jewish/messianic perspective were being interpreted by men imbued in a Greek philosophical tradition. Those few scattered passages in the emerging New Testament canon that could arguably be deemed binitarian or (far less frequently) trinitarian yielded no coherent picture of the Son’s participation in the Godhead, and two centuries of patristic thinking were occupied by the effort to weave that idea into a doctrine that was consistent with Scripture. It was thus natural that Greek philosophy, which had long sought to locate an ontological bridge between the One and the Many, between the realm of soul/spirit and the material world, would provide the looms for this tapestry. Particularly in Alexandria, Christianity was discovering its affinity with middle Platonism and using it as a lens through which to view Christian concepts, furnishing the early church fathers with a template for reworking Jewish monotheism into a trinitarianism that could successfully resist devolving into tritheism.

How far it succeeded is still being debated, but I think this is where our search will lead us. I welcome your thoughts before adding mine.

 

[Episkopos]

*"in Christ’s person the two natures are found in an inseparable union, therefore, wheresoever Christ’s deity is, there also must his humanity needs be"

Jesus was not born with the Adamic nature. As such we can't say that Jesus was born with human nature. He was born with a human nature...but one that was already covered by the Father. Jesus modeled a walk in the flesh (But not according to the flesh) by the eternal Spirit of God so that by putting on Christ we are made able to walk in HIS perfection.

Nature relies on covering. Human nature has a covering of sinful flesh. We have a carnal husk over our inner man...in the heart...that necessitates being circumcised in the heart by going to the cross to have the outer sinful husk broken (crucified).

Not so Jesus. While Jesus had a fleshly covering...there was no power over it. Jesus was free to choose the good and deny evil. Until we are likewise covered by entering into Christ we will be swayed by our outer nature...the outer man...which leads us into sin.

 

[RedFan]

"A human nature . . . but one that was already covered by the Father." I have no clue what that means. Please explain.

 

[Robert Gwin]

The nature of Jesus

In this thread I will be using a number of extra-biblical resources for the main reason most of the terminology and concepts are not found in the Bible. Many trinitarians agree with this premise, some even suggesting the Trinity formula is not present but adequately provides an explanation of the Godhead suitable for them to understand who God is.

Two natures:

*"in Christ’s person the two natures are found in an inseparable union, therefore, wheresoever Christ’s deity is, there also must his humanity needs be"

I'd like to step back and suggest the reason for this concept of two natures is derived from the belief that Jesus is God and to be God he must have/be His Divine Essence.

A good question to start things off:

How are these dual natures combined in one man?

Are they combined or separate and distinct from one another?

Divine nature and sinful flesh in one body.

If such a thing was possible, or even plausible we would have a section of Scripture dedicated to enlightening us, but we are left to speculate which is partly the reason for the controversy.

To prove to you all that I am open-minded, I am going to attempt to understand such terms as Hypostasis, Ousia, Plurality & homoiousios etc. all of which have been the source of much debate over the centuries, as far back as the Nicean Council and earlier.

So lets begin.

F2F

*William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 642.

At this time Jesus is a spirit being, same as God was when Jesus was a human Jn 4:24. He is still a spirit being that resides in heaven with the rest of the spirit world, except those spirit beings that were judged, and they reside on the earth with no access to heaven.

 

[Episkopos]

"A human nature . . . but one that was already covered by the Father." I have no clue what that means. Please explain.

In the garden of Eden Adam was covered by God's life and love. His banner over us is love. When Adam sinned he lost that covering so that he realized he was naked. A naked person has no covering...clothing. Was Adam not covered before he sinned so that he wasn't naked?

In the NT we are exhorted to "put on Christ." Christ becomes our covering when we enter INTO Him. When we are clothed with Christ we walk as He walked...without sin. IN Him is no sin. That's how we know we are no longer naked (and wretched and blind)...when we walk in the perfected walk of Christ.

 

[RedFan]

Cute little metaphor -- but No, Adam was indeed buck naked and "uncovered" by clothing well before he sinned. He just didn't appreciate the materiality of the clothed-naked distinction until after his sin revealed to him the knowledge of carnality.

The exhortation to "put on Christ" (Rom. 13:14) means to figuratively adapt ourselves to the presence of Christ in our lives so that we will forbear from evil desires. And if that is what you mean by "Until we are likewise covered by entering into Christ we will be swayed by our outer nature...the outer man...which leads us into sin," then I agree with you, although I might quibble with your use of "outer" in this context (which suggests, mistakenly I think, that "putting on Christ" is exchanging one outer "garment" for another, as opposed to re-calibrating one's inner guideposts).

 

[theefaith]

Man is a hybrid also

body and soul

how are they united?

who knows? But we do know this

Acts 17:28
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Christ not only has two natures in one person but also two wills, the human will and the divine will!

 

[marks]

In this thread I will be using a number of extra-biblical resources for the main reason most of the terminology and concepts are not found in the Bible.

Extra-biblical resources carry no Biblical authority.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Divine nature and sinful flesh in one body.

Romans 8:2-4 LITV
2) For the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus set me free from the law of sin and of death.
3) For the Law being powerless, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh,
4) so that the righteous demand of the Law might be fulfilled in us, those not walking according to flesh, but according to Spirit.

You seem to be saying the union of God and Man in Jesus would be to join the Divine Nature to sinful flesh, however, Scripture teaches Jesus was "in the likeness of sinful flesh".

This is the importance in understanding Jesus to be "the last Adam", not part of the first Adam's humanity.

In the Bible, Humanity is displayed as a single creation, the subsequent generations said to be "in the loins of" their ancestors. Some call this teaching that Adam is the "federal head" of humanity. The Biblical way of speaking is that all of humanity was in Adam in his creation.

As we come to Jesus, and are reborn, we are taken out of Adam's Humanity - dead to our flesh - and we are placed into Jesus' new Humanity, alive in the Spirit. While we once derived our life from being in Adam's humanity, now we are in Jesus' humanity, and derive our life from His Spirit, which is an entirely different sort of life.

No crossover. Nothing overlapping. The old man, and the new man. The first creation, and the new creation. In flesh, and in Spirit.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Was Adam not covered before he sinned so that he wasn't naked?

Genesis 2:25 LITV
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and they were not ashamed.

Much love!

 

[ScottA]

The nature of Jesus

In this thread I will be using a number of extra-biblical resources for the main reason most of the terminology and concepts are not found in the Bible. Many trinitarians agree with this premise, some even suggesting the Trinity formula is not present but adequately provides an explanation of the Godhead suitable for them to understand who God is.

Two natures:

*"in Christ’s person the two natures are found in an inseparable union, therefore, wheresoever Christ’s deity is, there also must his humanity needs be"

I'd like to step back and suggest the reason for this concept of two natures is derived from the belief that Jesus is God and to be God he must have/be His Divine Essence.

A good question to start things off:

How are these dual natures combined in one man?

Are they combined or separate and distinct from one another?

Divine nature and sinful flesh in one body.

If such a thing was possible, or even plausible we would have a section of Scripture dedicated to enlightening us, but we are left to speculate which is partly the reason for the controversy.

To prove to you all that I am open-minded, I am going to attempt to understand such terms as Hypostasis, Ousia, Plurality & homoiousios etc. all of which have been the source of much debate over the centuries, as far back as the Nicean Council and earlier.

So lets begin.

F2F

*William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 642.

Jesus was fathered by the Holy Spirit (God) and therefore born of God; and also born of Mary a woman of the linage of Adam and therefore a son of man.

The "two natures" was made manifest in "the Word became flesh."

 

[Matthias]

“The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation promulgated at the Council of Chalcedon is emphatic that in the incarnate Christ there is one and only one, undivided person who has two distinct natures, one human and one divine. That one person is the second person of the Trinity, the Son, and is therefore divine. He is not a human person, nor is there another person who is Christ and is human. That would be the heresy of Nestorianism, positing a plurality of persons in Christ. There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus is a divine person person, and medieval theologians were careful never to refer to Jesus as a human person.”

Dr. William Lane Craig, “Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?”

Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?

Bold is mine.

 

[marks]

“The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation promulgated at the Council of Chalcedon is emphatic that in the incarnate Christ there is one and only one, undivided person who has two distinct natures, one human and one divine. That one person is the second person of the Trinity, the Son, and is therefore divine. He is not a human person, nor is there another person who is Christ and is human. That would be the heresy of Nestorianism, positing a plurality of persons in Christ. There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus is a divine person person, and medieval theologians were careful never to refer to Jesus as a human person.”

Dr. William Lane Craig, “Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?”

Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?

Bold is mine.

Yet calling Him the Last Adam is not figurative of something, this is Who Jesus is in fact.

Much love!

 

[XFire]

Extra-biblical resources carry no Biblical authority.

Much love!

And there in lies the problem. When you go outside the bible then you are adding to scripture: That is called the traditions of man. Which I believe is SIN.
And in fact you go outside the Bibe and you can then use what ever you want to choose to make your point.
Let's take it from the top:
John 1.1 in the beginning. Rev 1.1. Jesus' own words state that rev was given by him to John. Rev 3.14 Jesus again stated that he was the first creation of God. Again in Isaiah 45.11 Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker.
And BTW there are more.

John 1.1 And the word was with God. See ref above

And the word was God. See mark 28.18

Question. Why do we as the creation tell God what he can do and what he is .etc

Why can't God have a son and that son be heir to his throne

Why did Jesus lie to us in john 20.17.
Please look at the history of man. Jesus was killed by the religious power in charge. Fast forward 300yrs

Arius was branded the first heretic because of rev 3.14. Then for the next 1300yrs Christians that wanted to read the Bible in there own language were killed and burned at the stake etc.

Then look at the history of the Canon of the book of revelations. There has never been any issue with rev 1.1 or rev 3.14.

So history teaches that Jesus spoke truth and Christ is deity and John 1.1 is still true

 

[theefaith]

Extra-biblical resources carry no Biblical authority.

Much love!

they do if they are reflected in scriptures such as acts 1:8 and 2:42!

 

[marks]

And in fact you go outside the Bibe and you can then use what ever you want to choose to make your point.

Yes, I quite agree with this!

I find that word studies in the Bible itself, looking at contexts, idioms, it's all defined in the Bible itself.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

Yet calling Him the Last Adam is not figurative of something, this is Who Jesus is in fact.

Much love!

Trinitarianism says Jesus isn’t a human person but when I read about Jesus in scripture I’m reading about a human person.

 

[marks]

Trinitarianism says Jesus isn’t a human person but when I read about Jesus in scripture I’m reading about a human person.

You must have learn a different "trinitarianism" than I did. Jesus was certainly a human person, else He would not have a body to offer.

Much love!

 

[face2face]

*"in Christ’s person the two natures are found in an inseparable union, therefore, wheresoever Christ’s deity is, there also must his humanity needs be"

Jesus was not born with the Adamic nature. As such we can't say that Jesus was born with human nature. He was born with a human nature...but one that was already covered by the Father. Jesus modeled a walk in the flesh (But not according to the flesh) by the eternal Spirit of God so that by putting on Christ we are made able to walk in HIS perfection.

Nature relies on covering. Human nature has a covering of sinful flesh. We have a carnal husk over our inner man...in the heart...that necessitates being circumcised in the heart by going to the cross to have the outer sinful husk broken (crucified).

Not so Jesus. While Jesus had a fleshly covering...there was no power over it. Jesus was free to choose the good and deny evil. Until we are likewise covered by entering into Christ we will be swayed by our outer nature...the outer man...which leads us into sin.

In short, you believe Jesus held an advantage over those he came to represent and save?