Jesus is a human being but not the one true God
- Thread starter kerwin
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
StanJ said:
kerwin said:
I do not know your particular explanation to how Jesus can be both the one true God and a human being and the same time but a common claim is wholly God and wholly which is itself absurd claim. Therefore you are misunderstand Paul and Peter.StanJ said:
In English human beings are called god. Fox example Jimi Hendrix is called the guitar god. Both Koine Greek and Hebrew languages used the equivalent word to god in similar ways so why interpret it to make necessary internally broken conclusion like Jesus is 100% and 100% human.
So my answer was not a deflection.
With Jesus you need to think Spiritually and not Physically a fair amount of the time.דוד חֵן (David) said:
John 14:10Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
That is how one sees the invisible God.
It is about the unity of the Spirit just as 1 Corinthians 3:16 is.
1 Corinthians 3:16Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
Stan
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:15-16Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)StanJ said:
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Your reasoning is flawed because your conclusion switches terms from the premises.kerwin said:
"A being is either of 100% of one kind or 100% of another not 100% of one kind and 100% of another."
True, but what is a being?
“the nature or essence of a person.” (Concise Oxford English Dictionary)
Jesus Christ is not a being. He is a person with two natures (essences), a human nature and a divine nature. Therefore Jesus Christ (person) can be both 100% human and 100% divine.
“Using deductive reasoning it is quite easy to see that since all these premises are true then Jesus is 100% human and 0% the one true God.”
See the switch – from ‘being’ to ‘person’.
StanJ,
Colossians 2:9Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
He did indeed walk according to the Spirit of God never straying from its path.
John 14:10Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
The words " the Father that dwelleth in me," are equivalent to the words " in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
Note: I am using the standard address mode used in letters and memos to address one of the passages your quoted.
Colossians 2:9Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
He did indeed walk according to the Spirit of God never straying from its path.
John 14:10Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
The words " the Father that dwelleth in me," are equivalent to the words " in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
Note: I am using the standard address mode used in letters and memos to address one of the passages your quoted.
Interesting definitions of words but the word being actually means "existence" though it is used in noun form. I am using it to mean one who both exists and is alive but later is revealed by context. Since Jesus exists he is a being. Every dictionary should verify what I just wrote. Some do a better job than others.Mungo said:
In addition being "is the nature or essence of a person" according to one definition of Googles though they are one of the dictionaries that do a poorer job. I prefer Merriam-Webster online dictionary because I believe it is more respectable and it is more available being online and free. Their definition for being agrees. They also say another definition of being is person.
There are many definitions of “being” in dictionaries.kerwin said:
You seem to be using the word ‘being’ as a combination of ‘person’ and ‘nature/essence’.
If you do not maintain the distinction of person and nature/essence then your understanding of God is flawed since God is three persons in one nature/essence.
Can I presume then that you do not believe in a Trinitarian God?
Going back to your second premise:
A being [person+nature] is either of 100% of one kind or 100% of another not 100% of one kind and 100% of another.
By ‘kind’ I assume you mean nature (the first definition in Merriam-Webster)
In which case please prove your premise is true.
Mungo,
My general view of the word person is sentient; which is in origin is a reference to the heart but in use, at least in science fiction, covers the mind as well. That does not work with the internally broken claim that three person's in one individual as I am sure the words to claim God has three hearts and three minds. Scripture teaches us Jesus is unified with God in both mind and heart.
So I see no real support for the Trinity God in Scripture. Instead I see where many have confused some teachings about the Unity of the Spirit for teachings about the Trinity.
The context shows that sentience, person-hood, is a characteristic attributed to the word being and kind in my post.
I am using the word kind from Genesis 1; which is the physical qualities of an existence. That definition covers the physical essence/nature so you are correct on that point if you speaking of the physical. [see note]
The proof is a being cannot be 100 percent cat and 100 percent dog at the same time. The being can either be 100% cat or 100% dog or a mixture of the two that adds up to 100%.
Note: I am not sure God has a physical nature but "physical" is the best word I can find for his equivalent.
My general view of the word person is sentient; which is in origin is a reference to the heart but in use, at least in science fiction, covers the mind as well. That does not work with the internally broken claim that three person's in one individual as I am sure the words to claim God has three hearts and three minds. Scripture teaches us Jesus is unified with God in both mind and heart.
So I see no real support for the Trinity God in Scripture. Instead I see where many have confused some teachings about the Unity of the Spirit for teachings about the Trinity.
The context shows that sentience, person-hood, is a characteristic attributed to the word being and kind in my post.
I am using the word kind from Genesis 1; which is the physical qualities of an existence. That definition covers the physical essence/nature so you are correct on that point if you speaking of the physical. [see note]
The proof is a being cannot be 100 percent cat and 100 percent dog at the same time. The being can either be 100% cat or 100% dog or a mixture of the two that adds up to 100%.
Note: I am not sure God has a physical nature but "physical" is the best word I can find for his equivalent.
OK, so you don't believe in the Trinity.kerwin said:
"The proof is a being cannot be 100 percent cat and 100 percent dog at the same time. The being can either be 100% cat or 100% dog or a mixture of the two that adds up to 100%."
That is not a proof. That is a statement that is true in that instance. It is false logic to argue from a particular instance to the general.
Moreover by defining a being as a 'person+ nature/essence' you are assuming what you are trying to prove.
To go back to your original premise:
A being [person+nature] is either of 100% of one kind or 100% of another not 100% of one kind and 100% of another.
That is true by your definition of being because you have defined a 1:1 person:nature.
Can you prove that is ALWAYS true, even for God?.
Yes.Mungo said:
7. What does "percent" mean?
Percent is an abbreviation for the Latin per centum, which means for each 100.
Thus, 100% means 100 for each 100, which is to say, all. 100% of 12 is all of 12.
50% is another way of saying half, because 50% means 50 for each 100, which is half. 50% of 12 is 6.
The Math Page: Skill in Arithmetic
I already do not believe God is three persons. He is only one sentient being.Mungo said:
No, as I have no idea what your definition of person, nature, or for that matter essence.
According to my definition then saying there are three persons of the same physical essence and saying that physical essence is God is claiming there are three Gods. The same with physical nature.
You seem to have misunderstood what I was asking. Let me phrase it in a longer fashion.kerwin said:
To go back to your original premise:
A being [person+nature] is either of 100% of one kind or 100% of another not 100% of one kind and 100% of another.
That is true by your definition of being because you have defined a 1:1 person:nature. But by defining a being as a 'person+ nature/essence' you are assuming what you are trying to prove - that a being can have only one nature.
Can you prove that a being, in this case God, is always 1;1 person:nature.
Why could God not be one being with '1 person + 2 natures'? He would be 100% one nature and 100% the other nature.
So far you have not proved this cannot be the case.
The only way an individual can have two natures is if they had a mixture of two physical natures and then that individual would not be either the one true God or human by a hybrid of the two. Scripture teaches Jesus is human. In fact it teaches he was tempted as is common to humanity and God cannot be and other things that disagree with the claim that he is the one true God.Mungo said:
The same is not true of spiritual nature since believers have two spiritual natures. One is that of fallen humanity and the other is that of the Spirit of God. They walk by one at a time since the two are in conflict so that at any particular time they only have one nature.
More deflection and to say that I don't understand the English when it's solely you here that doesn't understand is quite supercilious of you. I gave you quite a few scriptures that you failed to address or acknowledge and the fact that somebody may be called a god with a small 'g' doesn't mean that they are God.kerwin said:
The book of Hebrews teaches us that God and Jesus had a hypostatic union. You not understanding that you're recognizing it doesn't negate the truth it only means you can't see the truth or refused to acknowledge it.
I did not say you did not know English but instead explained that the word God has more than one meaning that just the one true God. You can confirm that at the nearest dictionary if you have to. The explanation was needed because people treat the word God as if it can only mean one thing and honestly that makes them look like they lack knowledge of English.StanJ said:
The difference in case is introduced by translators as it does not exist in Koine Greek. The opinion, even an expert opinion, of a human is not something I choose to rely on especially when it breaks Scripture.
A union of hypostatic means a union of substance, essence. of underlying reality.
I do not have idea what you mean but Scripture speaks of the unity of the Spirit in Ephesians 4:1-7 and the unity of faith later in the same chapter. If you were speaking of those then you would be correct but I am sure you instead mean kind which makes your teaching a broken teaching.
Jesus Christ is a human being and his Father and our Father is the one true God and they are united by the Spirit.
That is why he claimed he had a God and that God is the Father. (John 20:17)
That's still deflection and equivocation. If one practices is proper biblical hermeneutics, then one understands when the word 'God' refers to the Supreme Being of our universe and when 'god' refers to Kings and potentates. God in the Bible means what it says and all places. What Genesis 1:1 uses in reference to God does not mean the same as what John 10:35 uses for god and if you can't understand that then you really have no business commenting on the Bible.kerwin said:
FYI, the Koine Greek does not have lowercase letters even though our English does. The fact that English translators put a lowercase 'g' on gods is to differentiate as I already have explained. If you actually knew English or Greek, you would know this. This is just more equivocation and subterfuge on your part.kerwin said:
You know what I mean, you just refuse to acknowledge the scriptures that I've already quoted you a few times, so it really doesn't matter what scripture you quote because it means nothing coming from someone who doesn't recognize everything that is in Scripture about Jesus being our God and savior.kerwin said:
Jesus Christ is God incarnate. The fact that you can't or won't accept that is your problem. Jesus never claimed he had a god he claimed that his father was God, and his father is God because his father is the Holy Spirit. Matt 1:20kerwin said:
He also said if you've seen him you've seen the father. John 14:9
Again you cherry-pick certain verses but don't admit to all the verses that pertain to Jesus' deity.
You are making a claim that you cannot prove. Just because you cannot conceive of a person having two complete but different natures does not mean it cannot be.kerwin said:
You seem to be basing your claims on what you observe of humanity. But we are talking of God here.
Do you know of any human who is omniscient? Yet God is.
Do you know of any human who is omnipresent? Yet God is.
I think you need to read the Book of Job. Late in the book Job seems to blame God (chap 31) and finally God replies (chap 38-41) till finally Job admits he know nothing:
Then Job answered the Lord: "I know that thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of thine can be thwarted. 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. 'Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you declare to me.' I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:1-5).
Read chaps 38-41 especially.
And again you do make distinction between person and nature.
If you came into a room and someone asked "who is that" the reply would be "kerwin".
if you cam into the room and someone asked "what is he". the reply would be "human"
If Jesus came into the room and someone asked "who is that" the reply would be "Jesus Christ"
If Jesus came into the room and someone asked "what is he" the reply would "he is human" by one person and "he is God" by another. Both replies would be correct.
My claim is based on math and the definition of nature.Mungo said:
That renders your two comparisons of God and nature irrelevant.
Even those who tried to reconcile the two knew that and so used the term "union of hypostatic" which essentially claims the two natures ares united in substance but don't ask me to describe what they mean because they do a poor job themselves.
Scripture teaches Jesus is united with the Spirit of God. Jesus has a physical human nature and the Spirit is the Spiritual nature of God and they are united because Jesus walks according to the Spirit through faith from first to last. A simple truth that was and is accomplished by the power and grace of God.
You already know I disagree with your claim.Mungo said:
I also think it is an argument from ignorance for even if we have the knowledge of math and the meaning of the word nature you claim still would not be proven.
Though Job's words are true it does not mean we know nothing and therefore we know what God allows us to know even about himself.
The Merriam Webster's online dictionary uses the definitions " the genetically controlled qualities of an organism" and " the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing" but sometimes I find a dictionary harder to understand that a parable. I am going for the physical qualities/constitution of a person or thing. Is that acceptable.
If it is acceptable then you can see the relationship in one nature to every person or thing. If the definition is not then please write or cite one you prefer.
in sum I am claiming chose to reveal the definition of the word "nature" and the knowledge of math so that we could test the spirit of teachings that teachers claim are from Scripture.
Similar threads
- Locked
