Posted by CB on 8/12/2001, 7:25 pm

the last Adam Posted by Steve M on 6/22/2001, 1:14 am , in reply to "Re: The dual nature" Steve B, I'd like to respond to some of your statements, though they were directed to Dave. SB: What is your definition of the “true humanity of Christ” and where does it come from? SM: The Bible is replete with statements supporting Christ's humanity. Christ was unequivocally, completely human. Examples: Moses referred to Christ as "a prophet from the midst of thee... like unto me." One mediator, THE MAN... A MAN full of the Holy Spirit A MAN of sorrows... the last Adam firstborn of many brethren SB: Does it require that Jesus must be human in exactly the same sense we are human, or that Jesus cannot be anything we are not? SM: yes, no. Jesus, Adam, you and I are human in exactly the same sense. But we can all be things that each other cannot. For example, you are several things that I cannot be - a computer programmer, a scholar, and over six and a half feet tall. Jesus is several things no other human can be - Head of the church, the only begotten son of God, King of Kings, etc. SB: But then what do you make of the virgin birth? SM: That is another thing that makes Jesus unique. SB: No human generative act took place to cause Jesus' birth. His origin was not in an ovum fertilized by the seed of a human male. SM: The same thing is true of Adam. SB: If the seed by which his humanity was generated was created directly by God, his human beginning was radically different from ours and he has a human nature different from our own human nature in at least that aspect. (And the assumption here, taught at the Chapel, that this is how Jesus’ conception and birth came about has no explicit Biblical support. His conception could have occurred in some other way.) That already rules out the possibility of his being human in the exact same sense we are human, does it not? SM: I don't think so. I believe Adam was human in the same sense, exactly, that we are, though his beginning was arguably more radically different from ours than that of Jesus. Jesus was nurtured in the womb and born of a woman, while Adam was created before any women existed. Thanks, SM ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 6/22/2001, 1:55 pm , in reply to "the last Adam" Steve, You write SB: What is your definition of the “true humanity of Christ” and where does it come from? SM: The Bible is replete with statements supporting Christ's humanity. Christ was unequivocally, completely human. Yes, I (as a trinitarian) believe that also. You write as if that is something I am arguing against. The context of my previous remarks, however, was Dave's accusation that trinitarians deny the humanity of Christ because we say he existed before his human birth. These were the comments from Dave: ...I submit that the Trinitarian view denies the true humanity of Christ. It does not say that His human person was simply born of a woman, but that Jesus was eternally begotten, whatever that means. If Jesus is eternally begotten, than He is no brother of mine. He is a freak. His point seemed to be that if Jesus existed spiritually in heaven before his human birth, then he couldn't possibly be human in the same sense we are human. My rhetorical questions were asked only to show that the assumptions upon which Dave's position seemed to be built were not valid. To make his position a Biblically valid objection, one would have to establish from the Bible that a different manner of origin necessarily means a different nature. I was not arguing that Christ wasn't fully human because he had a different beginning than our own. I believe in the humanity of Christ just as much as you do, and that he was human in exactly the same sense we are human, but unlike you, I believe the Biblical witness clearly shows him to have existed in heaven (in some sense beyond the figurative or prophetic) as God before his human birth. Since all Bible believers know that a person can exist in heaven without a physical body (as we see, to cite only one example out of many, with Moses and Elijah coming to meet Jesus on the mount of transfiguration), I assume the difficulty here for the Oneness and "Jesus is not God" folks (or for the "Jesus is god but not God" folks?) is in believing that a person can exist in heaven before he has existed as a human, or that a person who exists beforehand could go through the process of being born and maturing as a human, even though he may already have spiritual consciousness. The premise “if a person existed in heaven before his human birth, then he cannot be made truly human” has to come from somewhere, right? I was trying to show Dave that uncritically accepting it might lead to difficulties for his own position. That is, if he says Jesus is fully human even if he was conceived without a human father (a unique, miraculous situation which contradicts human reason), then why am I saying Jesus is not fully human because in addition to this I say Jesus existed as the Son of God with full deity before his human birth (another unique, miraculous situation which contradicts human reason)? For myself, if God can create a human from scratch, I am ready to concede his ability to turn himself (in some sense) into a human, if he so desired. And since the Old Testament shows his very ardent desire to be our only savior, I believe that when our Savior appeared in the flesh (i.e. as a human), his identity should not have been that much of a surprise, as indeed we both believed while at the Chapel. And just to be clear, I agree with the rest of your points about Adam and Jesus. The manner in which God gave them human nature and the question of their prior existence does not affect their subsequent state of being fully human in exactly the same sense we are human. The "Jesus is god but not God" position does not have anything to offer in that direction that Trinitarianism or Oneness does not, and I still remain somewhat shocked that your thought has taken that direction. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Re: Jn 1:18 only begotten god Posted by lanny on 6/20/2001, 10:57 pm , in reply to "Jn 1:18 only begotten god" This is not the only place where the New Testament seems to mix both the humanity and Deity of Christ. I understand this to mean "the only begotten (man) who can also be called (in another sense) God." Or, That one who was begotten is also God. This is the theme of John 1. Starting with the profound 1:1, the writer explains who Christ is in revelatory ways emphasizing that although a man, he was far more than just a man. Thomas put his hands into the human scars in 20:28 and said, "My Lord, and My God." Huh? God has a human body with scars? In Mt 1:23 "...a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel which translated means God with us." Well, He was God with us. This is said about the son. Again a reference to humanity and Deity without any qualification or explanation. It is up to us to understand it correctly. The way to do that is to apply the simple attributes of God that are plainly given in many passages as to what God is and isn't. Thus, if God is all knowing than there some aspect of Christ that is not God since there is at least one thing (the day nor the hour...) that Christ does not know. Or if "God cannot be tempted" than the temptation of Christ must not be something that God, any God, is involved in. This is simple enough and can be expanded until Christ can be seen for what he truly is. Of course, at this point trinitarians fall on the ground and start foaming at the mouth declaring that I don't believe in the Deity of Christ. I do. I also believe in his humanity which they cannot understand or they would never had made the previous assumption. Another passage would be, Rom 9:5 "...from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever." Christ according to the flesh is God??? I take it to mean that this Christ who came in the flesh is none other than God himself. "For in Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." It is not that hard to understand. Another passage, Heb 1:8 reads, "But of the son he says, Thy throne, O God..." How can he call the son God??? Quite easily. There is no explanation. I don't for a moment take it to mean that there is a God the son. I don't need that to understand or make sense of the passage. Rather, I understand this passage just like the others mentioned including Jn 1:18. "The only begotten God..." "...unto the son...Thy throne, O God..." These passages are to give full recognition to Christ as being not only man, but God Himself. Is 9:6 "a child is born...Mighty God...Everlasting Father..." Do we think that is saying that God was born? Or could we say it like this, "the child that was born is the Mighty God, Himself manifest in human flesh?" That is how I understand all of these passages. Lanny