Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
121 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (3 members, 118 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,362 Year: 5,008/14,102 Month: 606/707 Week: 4/157 Day: 4/22 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus - Wholly Man - Wholly God
GDR
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 1 of 105 (861974)
08-29-2019 4:39 PM


It is my contention that as Christians we are so intent on telling people that Jesus is God that we ignore the fact that Jesus was a flesh and blood human being. I recently gave a 20 minute talk on the subject to a local men's breakfast. Is it appropriate to simply post a talk like that as a new topic?

If it is I would suggest either "Bible Study" or "Faith and Belief". Likely the latter.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Tangle, posted 08-30-2019 4:01 AM GDR has responded
 Message 5 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 9:35 AM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(1)
Message 6 of 105 (861987)
08-30-2019 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tangle
08-30-2019 4:01 AM


Tangle writes:

Before you say anything, why do you think you have knowledge of what Jesus was or wasn't? Why should I listen to you?

Hi Tangle. We have corresponded enough for you to appreciate the wisdom I bring to the table.

One of my hobbies is studying theology and in particular trying to understand it from the perspective of what a first century Jew would have understood. I don't know that I am correct in what I say but it is what this is in the faith and belief section so it will be my faith and my belief. I have a hunch it won't be yours.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tangle, posted 08-30-2019 4:01 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(1)
Message 7 of 105 (861989)
08-30-2019 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
08-30-2019 3:38 AM


The talk I gave
I’d like to start off with the disclaimer that what I say today are my understandings of the Christian faith and that, no matter how remote the possibility, it is possible that something I say may not be correct.

How often do we hear the phrase that Jesus was “wholly man and wholly God”? My experience for years was about understanding Jesus as wholly God but not thinking much about Jesus as also, wholly man. Jesus was a flesh and blood human being, like you and me. When we keep the idea of Jesus as wholly man in tension with the deity of Jesus, the Gospel narrative becomes clearer and more relevant.

We are 21st century Canadians. If we were writing a book giving guidance to 21st century Canadians we would know that it would be understood within a 21st century context. We would understand the moral issues of the day; we would understand the political climate of our time, we would understand the various tensions in the world. We would understand the idioms that are in common usage. If in this hypothetical book we were to put in the phrase that it was “raining cats and dogs”, I wonder how that would be read 2000 years from now. Was it a cyclone that swept up our pets and then allowed them to fall back to earth? Jesus was a first century Jew who ministered to 1st century Jews and we should read the Gospels in that context

Here’s a parable for you. A man calls up his buddy next door and tells him that he is moving a couch and that it is stuck in the doorway. His neighbour, says sure I’ll help. They push and pull on the couch without making any progress until finally the man says to his neighbour, I give up – we’ll never get this couch in. The neighbour looks at him in surprise and says “in”. Our understanding of Jesus is often like that. Sometimes we take a pre-conceived, 21st century picture of Jesus, and then push and pull the Gospel narrative in the direction we think it should go, often distorting the intended message.

So, I am suggesting that if we really want to understand our Christian faith we need to understand Jesus within His time, His location and His culture. I know for myself that in reading about the historical Jesus, my Christian faith took on new life. Everything just seemed to fall into place. I found that by understanding Jesus as a 1st century Jewish man in a 1st century Jewish world, my faith made sense of my life and the world that I live in ways, that it never had before. I found it incredibly exciting, and that it very much enhanced my understanding of the message of Jesus, who He was in relation to the Father and most importantly how I could build relationship with Him. I know this won’t resonate with everyone and some will find it boring but all I can do is talk about my own journey.

When the Gospels are read in their historical context I found it clear that Jesus was very political and was very much embroiled in the politics of His day. However, this was no democracy; the political powers were all lined up against Him. I’d like to talk about the primary political forces of Jesus’ world, how they relate to Jesus and Jesus’ position in all of it.

Firstly, there was the dark force which dominated everything: the Roman Empire. The Romans exercised complete and brutal control either directly, or indirectly through local puppet leaders, which in this case was Herod and his minions. From the Roman point of view it was true that Jesus was making messianic claims, but on the other hand Jesus showed no signs of mounting an army so the Romans weren’t too bothered by Him. Just the same however, if the Jews saw Jesus as the messiah it would mean for them that Jesus was King and Caesar wasn’t. If you remember at the trial before Pilate, the chief priests called out that there is no king but Caesar in order to bring Pilate on side. Pilate insisted on the sign on the cross saying “Jesus, King of the Jews”. Sure, this was done to show the Jewish leaders that it was he, Pilate, who was the real authority, but it would also have been a warning that this is what would happen to those who didn’t recognize Caesar as king.

Another influential group were the Pharisees. The Pharisees were the fundamentalists of the day, and believed that if the people would follow the myriad of Jewish laws that God would favour them, presumably by returning to His people and liberating them. Jesus comes along and says things like, He desires mercy not sacrifice, and repudiates many of the Jewish laws. The Pharisees, although with some exceptions, would have seen Jesus as being an impediment to the return of Yahweh, but as Jesus said they missed Yahweh’s time of visitation. The problem was that Yahweh’s return to them in the person of Jesus didn’t look anything like what they had expected.

There were also the Sadducees that were essentially a wealthy priestly group that managed the Temple amongst other things, which kept them wealthy. They were obviously not well disposed to the message of Jesus.

Of course there was Herod Antipas and His followers who were benefiting by having the Romans there. Interestingly enough, Herod was making his own messianic claim by rebuilding the Temple. Herod ruled by appeasing the Romans and was a brutal man without conscience as his father Herod the Great had been. Herod would not tolerate, as was the case with John the Baptist, anyone who threatened his position in any way, as Jesus was doing.

There was in all of this the underclass or the peasant class. These were the people who related to Jesus’ message. These were the people who found themselves in that story. Look at who Jesus’ followers were. There were the hated tax collectors who collected taxes for the Romans, there were prostitutes, fisherman etc. They were the marginalized in the society. As an aside, it seems that so often it is the marginalized in our societies that God chooses to work through. Just look at the ancient Jews who were enslaved by one nation after another and yet these were the people that God revealed Himself through, and the nation into which Jesus was born. Jesus Himself, was born into a lower class family.

From the Jewish point of view they were back in the Holy Land, but still under the thumb of some other nation. They were still in exile. As a result there was a strong revolutionary sense in the country. They hoped that the messiah of God, God’s anointed one, would lead them in battle and defeat the Romans. There were numerous messianic movements in that period, ranging from the time of the defeat of the Maccabees in 37 BC, to the last movement 200 years later which led disastrously to the rebellion that ended in 135AD.

These revolts inevitably resulted in the leaders being put to death by the Romans and hundreds of thousands of Jews killed. There was a major Jewish revolt that Jesus would have experienced as a child in 4AD led by Judas the Galilean.

In the great war of 66 to 70AD Josephus reports the death of over 1 million Jews and in 70AD the Temple was completely destroyed and never rebuilt. At the end of each of these messianic and revolutionary movements the leaders and hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of their followers were put to death by the Romans. These movements all came to an abrupt halt and the search would begin again for another messiah. This would have been the case after the crucifixion of Jesus if God had not resurrected Jesus, thereby vindicating and confirming Him. We can see in the Gospels that after the crucifixion, the disciples assumed that Jesus was another failed messiah, and so they went into hiding not wanting to suffer the same fate as Jesus. It took the bodily resurrection of Jesus to show them otherwise. Without the resurrection Jesus wouldn’t even be a footnote in history. The bodily crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus was the turning point in human history.

But there were also the revolutionaries and zealots that wanted to rid the area of the Romans by revolutionary means. Jesus continually preached His very political message that if they went that route that it would once more be disastrous. He tells them that the revolutionary route would lead to death and sorrow for the Jewish nation, and He predicted the destruction of the Temple. After all, that is how the Romans dealt with revolts. This was not a message that the revolutionaries would want spread around. Jesus was endorsing a strong anti revolutionary message. Jesus was not at all what they thought a messiah should be and they would have seen Him as drawing Jews away from their revolutionary agenda.

Jesus’ core message was that the Romans weren’t the real enemy. The real enemy was evil itself; the evil behind Roman rule. The weapon for combating evil is simply love. Jesus said that the Jews were to love their enemy, turn the other cheek and go the extra mile. It was about changing hearts – changing hatred to love. Jesus’ message was not an easy sell, and may very well be the basis for the betrayal of Jesus by Judas.

This is the world in which Jesus lived, taught and died. It was a harsh, brutal, unforgiving and unjust world. His followers were the marginalized and his enemies consisted of virtually everyone who had wealth, influence or power.

To best understand Jesus as wholly man we can turn to Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. Jesus knew that He was walking into a hornet’s nest by going into Jerusalem in the manner in which He did. He would ride in on a donkey making a messianic statement as per the book of Jeremiah. There would be palm branches signifying the cleansing of the Temple drawn from the Maccabean revolt. He would do this knowing that all the powers of darkness stood against Him. There was essentially no doubt that He would be painfully executed on a cross, a death reserved for societal outcasts and others who the Romans wanted to make an example of. As a point of interest a Roman citizen could not be crucified. Crucifixion involved not only as excruciating a death as we can imagine, but one as humiliating as we can imagine. It involved death by being roped or nailed to a cross, stark naked with people throwing taunts and stones at the victim. It was a death that was designed by the Romans to essentially dehumanize the victim as much as possible as an example to others.

So in Gethsemane, with this understanding of what was going to happen to Him, he prayed to the father that He wouldn’t have to go through with it. He sweated blood out of pure human fear. Yet, at the end of the day the man Jesus, through prayer and through His total knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, rode the donkey into Jerusalem, overturned the tables of those He denounced as having turned the Temple into a den of thieves, and then suffered through a sacrificial death as a result. He did this with the faith, built on prayer and His understanding of the Scriptures, that this was His vocation, and that God would vindicate His actions. It was the greatest act of faith in human history.

So again, we can only really understand Jesus as wholly man by understanding Him in the context of His own era and culture. Having done that we can gain a clearer picture of how Jesus fits into the entire Biblical narrative. We don’t just see Jesus as wholly man but also as wholly God. I want to conclude by connecting the dots between Jesus as man and Jesus as God.

The Jews believed that Yahweh’s dwelling place on Earth was in the “Holy of Holies” in the Temple. The Gospel of John Chap 1, tells us that that the Word of God that existed beyond time had become flesh. Jesus embodied that Word, the Logos or the wisdom of God. Jesus says that “you who have seen Me have seen the Father. Jesus was the place where God’s heavenly dimension and our earthly dimensions overlapped. Jesus was the true Temple of God. Jesus is where they could go to meet Yahweh and seek forgiveness. This still holds true for us today.

Also, first century Jews were very much influenced by the book of Daniel. There was much debate of what Daniel’s message was for them. When Jesus referred to Himself as the “Son of Man” He clearly saw Himself as being the fulfillment of the prophesy in Daniel 7. In Daniel 7 we are told that one like a “Son of Man” would be brought to the “Ancient of Days”. Then Daniel says this: “14 He, the Son of Man, was given authority, glory and sovereign power - all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” (end of quote) On the 1st Easter an enthroned, vindicated, and resurrected Jesus returned to His followers, as the “Son of Man”, having been presented to the “Ancient of Days” and having been given dominion over the kingdom, for then, now, and into eternity. So yes, we worship the man Jesus as the “Son of God” but we can really only understand His message and His life if we understand the world He lived in, and the very human challenges He faced.

For me this is Jesus, wholly man and wholly God, given dominion over all nations, and the first born of the everlasting Kingdom. This is Jesus, who I worship and serve as the second person of the Trinity. Thank you


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 08-30-2019 3:38 AM AdminPhat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AZPaul3, posted 08-30-2019 12:37 PM GDR has responded
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 2:31 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 8 of 105 (861990)
08-30-2019 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Theodoric
08-30-2019 9:35 AM


Theodoric writes:

Alas, this "fact" isn't based upon any historical evidence. The only support for this is the bible itself, of we have no idea who wrote or when.
So no verifiable evidence for this "fact" at all.

Fair enough, but we do have historical evidence that many people at the time believed it and that belief has spread. The talk was given in a Christian group of men from the local Anglican churches, so I went with fact.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 9:35 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 10 of 105 (861997)
08-30-2019 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by AZPaul3
08-30-2019 12:37 PM


Re: The talk I gave
AZPaul3 writes:

OK, so it's all poppycock but, GDR, you write good.

Thanks - I think.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by AZPaul3, posted 08-30-2019 12:37 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 14 of 105 (862011)
08-30-2019 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tangle
08-30-2019 1:10 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Tangle writes:

GDR is no more a historian of 1st century Christianity than my dog is. And I don't have a dog. He's following a long tradition of talking authoritatively on things he has very little actual learning and mixing it up with personal belief.

Fair enough. I haven't trained in either theology or first century history. I have though read books by people like NT Wright who is a 1st century historian. I have read Josephus who was actually there, and I have shelves of books that I have read that provide numerous theological perspectives. I recently read a book called Patient Ferment on the early rise of Christianity.

However, again these are my current beliefs for you to critique any way you like.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tangle, posted 08-30-2019 1:10 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tangle, posted 08-30-2019 4:00 PM GDR has responded
 Message 16 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 4:01 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 18 of 105 (862017)
08-30-2019 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
08-30-2019 2:31 PM


Re: Why did Jesus need to be God at all?
Faith writes:

You did a nice job of that though I might quibble with a point or two, but it seems to me that in your determination to restore what you think is the slighted understanding of Jesus as Son of Man you give the impression that there was no real reason for God Himself to have become incarnate in the person of Jesus at all.
Couldn't all that have happened without the incarnation? God could have guided Him, could have raised Him from the dead, seated Him at His right hand as firstborn of the Kingdom of God, just as Son of Man, as I read what you wrote.


Hi Faith
Incarnation or embodiment is a term that the early theologians came up with in trying to understand the meaning of Jesus’ life. This is from the Encyclopedia Britannia.
quote:
Incarnation, central Christian doctrine that God became flesh, that God assumed a human nature and became a man in the form of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the second person of the Trinity. Christ was truly God and truly man. The doctrine maintains that the divine and human natures of Jesus do not exist beside one another in an unconnected way but rather are joined in him in a personal unity that has traditionally been referred to as the hypostatic union.
I think however the clearest Biblical picture that we can get in understanding the incarnation is from John Chap 1.
quote:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (and then further on) 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I suggest we have to be careful when we talk about God coming to Earth. Jesus prayed to God. He wasn’t talking to Himself. What did come down from God the Father was His “Word”, “Logos”, or wisdom and nature. This is what was incarnate in or embodied by Jesus. So, however that embodiment came to be we can have confidence in our acceptance of that belief because God confirmed it by the resurrection.
So yes, I suppose God could have done it some other way without the incarnation but I guess the point is what we believe He did do and not what He could have done.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 2:31 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 5:19 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 22 of 105 (862021)
08-30-2019 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tangle
08-30-2019 4:00 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Tangle writes:

And, I'm guessing, you haven't trained in how to critically analyse historical information either?

You guessed right.
Tangle writes:

He's a bloody Anglican bishop!

He was an Anglican Bishop for a period of time. I assume you didn't read the wiki link from my post. He is now the "Chair of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews. He also speaks all over the world on his subject. He just finished leading a course at Regent College in Vancouver.
Tangle writes:

You're a motivated reader; you have a self-confessed bias. Your reading is not to critically assess the information it's to confirm your existing beliefs.

Yes, but that isn't completely true.Through my reading over the years my views have changed considerably and in some cases by EvC. I even learn things from you heathens.

Tangle writes:

My criticism is that you are merely researching to preach. You are not reading objectively.

That isn't actually the case. I read in order to discern what I believe to be true. I very seldom give talks. I'm just another body in the pews.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tangle, posted 08-30-2019 4:00 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 4:30 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 26 of 105 (862028)
08-30-2019 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Theodoric
08-30-2019 4:01 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Theodoric writes:

Josephus does not speak at all about 1st century christianity. Any mention about a jesus character is disputable at best. Even if the lines are not interpolations, they are not evidence of the historical existence of the jesus character.

I was not claiming that Josephus gave any information on Christianity. Tangle was claiming that I had no historical understanding of Jesus' wrold. Josephus was a 1st century historian writing about that world.

Theodoric writes:

NT Wright is not a historian. He is a theologian.

From 1968 to 1971, he studied literae humaniores (classical literature, philosophy and history) at Exeter College, Oxford, receiving his BA with first class honours in 1971. His current position again is "He then became Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St Mary's College in the University of St Andrews in Scotland.". He is both theologian and historian and in addition teaches Greek and understands the other pertinent languages.

Theodoric writes:

Patient Ferment is not history, it is apologetics and propaganda. It is published by a christian propaganda publisher.

Yes, it is published from a Christian publisher but if you read the book you find that it has nothing to do with apologetics.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 4:01 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 4:40 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 29 of 105 (862034)
08-30-2019 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Theodoric
08-30-2019 4:30 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Theodoric writes:

Chair of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews is not a History position. It is a position in the School of Divinity. No bias there.

Good grief, we all have biases. Hopefully our biases have a solid footing. At least Wright's biases are built on a mountain of study.

AbE here is a quote from the site you linked. You might have read on further.

quote:
He took a ‘double first’ in Philosophy and Ancient History (‘Greats’) and Theology at Exeter College, Oxford, where he was president of the undergraduate Christian Union.

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 4:30 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 31 of 105 (862036)
08-30-2019 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Theodoric
08-30-2019 4:40 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Theodoric writes:

I have a BA in History. I am not a historian.

Interesting. The only poster that has actually critiqued what I wrote is Faith. The rest of you have been doing, what you usually do, and try to discredit the source.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 4:40 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 5:20 PM GDR has responded
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 08-30-2019 5:31 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 35 of 105 (862043)
08-30-2019 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
08-30-2019 5:19 PM


Re: Why did Jesus need to be God at all?
Faith writes:

I was trying to get at what you think is the REASON for the incarnation: that is, WHY did Jesus have to be God in human flesh? But you do have a different view of it than the traditional meaning so I have to start by affirming that it's the traditional meaning I accept: Jesus was given the nature of God in Mary's womb, was born with both the nature of God and human nature in one person.

I am careful about saying that Jesus was God in human flesh. If that were the case you would have Jesus praying to Himself. I understand it by what John says. The "Word" became flesh. In other words, if we want to understand God's nature we look to Jesus. God was still in His heavenly dimension while Jesus the man was walking around on planet Earth.

I don't have the kind of pat answer that you seem to be looking for in the last part of that quote. I find it interesting to consider how it was that Jesus embodied God's nature but I'm not really concerned as to how. The nativity stories are in two of the Gospels and not at all in the Epistles. The narratives do have a rather legendary feel to them. Possibly that is how the incarnation happened. However it seems to me that as Jesus didn't even start His movement until about age 30. it is possibly a more likely scenario that this was more the work of a life of prayer and study that brought Jesus to the understanding of His vocation. The important issue is that when we want to understand the true nature of God we look to Jesus, regardless of the method that Jesus was incarnated with the Word of God.

Faith writes:

And the main reason for this was that He was to be a Mediator in the "dispute" as it were between humanity and God (this is presented as a legal dispute between God and man in the opening chapters of the Book of Isaiah by the way, where God calls upon Heaven and Earth to witness to His legal complaint against us), and the role of Mediator requires the ability to represent both sides of the dispute to be resolved. No human being can represent God so God had to become a human being to be able to represent Him. The reason we need such a Mediator is that we are sinners against God's Law and our debt to His Law can't be paid except through a legitimate Mediator. Jesus became that Mediator so that He could intervene in the dispute both on God's side and on our side. He was both, He had both natures so He could perform this duty. (There is a "type" of this function laid out in the character of Boaz in the story of Ruth. Boaz is theologically known as the Kinsman Redeemer as he could claim Ruth to be his wife only when the kinsman closest to her renounced his claim on her, leaving Boaz in the legal position of being able to redeem her by marriage.)

I'm inclined to think that all of that kinda misses the point. I think that is the result of the human desire for understanding and to put things in neat little boxes. I think that by doing that we often make obscure the big picture. Christianity at its core is simply about living a life based on the sacrificial love that we see in the life, message and death of Jesus, and then confirmed by God in the resurrection.

Faith writes:

Of course Jesus also had to be perfectly sinless and if He'd inherited his human nature from a human father that wouldn't have been possible because sin is passed down through the patriarchy. Having God's nature guaranteed His sinlessness however. (And there are Old Testament types for this too, in the sacrificial lamb that had to be completely "unblemished" to qualify for the role).__

One of the things that I get out of my study of the NT that sin isn't simply about what we have done and what we have left undone. I think that sin is what lies behind our failings. The Bible says that we are to love with our hearts and souls and minds, and of course in many places when it talks about love it is in the context of loving our neighbour. Sin is when we fail to act with a heart, mind and soul that leads to acts that are based on the love of self even at the expense of others. I would say that Jesus lived a life always based on a heart, mind and soul that loved others even at His own expense. We see that more than anywhere else on the cross.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 5:19 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 6:28 PM GDR has responded
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 6:53 PM GDR has responded
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 7:14 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 36 of 105 (862044)
08-30-2019 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tangle
08-30-2019 5:31 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Tangle writes:

Do we really need to point this out? Is this objective historicity or religiously motivated invention and blatant preaching?

It is simply my "faith and belief" that I put out for discussion. Isn't that kinda what this forum is for? You do it all the time.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 08-30-2019 5:31 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Tangle, posted 08-31-2019 2:46 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 37 of 105 (862045)
08-30-2019 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Theodoric
08-30-2019 5:20 PM


Re: It's the historical term for it
Theodoric writes:

Now you know that is not true. I critiqued your assumption that the jesus character was flesh and blood. Then I criticized what you claim are the sources of your knowledge. You are the one that is putting N.T. Wright up as an expert on history

I simply put out one of my sources of my beliefs in response to something that Tangle questioned.

Theodoric writes:

You are the one putting a Christian propaganda book up as unbiased history. You and your sources are biased. You and your sources are classic apologists,
Have a conclusion and find any semblance of data to support that conclusion.

I again am simply putting out my faith and beliefs for discussion as we all do here. I suppose you have no biases.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 5:20 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2019 7:32 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 39 of 105 (862047)
08-30-2019 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
08-30-2019 6:28 PM


Re: Why did Jesus need to be God at all?
Faith writes:

No, He's a human being praying to God the Father. Perhaps you have more of a problem recognizing Him as human than I do.

Hmmm. I'm not sure of your point here. I was trying to say that it makes no sense to think of Jesus as God praying to Himself. I agree, and I thought that was my point that Jesus as a human being prayed to God the Father. It seems like so many times Christians seem to picture God as leaving His heavenly dimension to come to our earthly one.
Faith writes:

Traditional Christology has no problem seeing Jesus as God in human flesh, that's what the term "incarnate" means, it's perfectly standard. He is also the Logos or the Word made flesh, but Jesus IS God, begotten by God, there is no need to get so "careful" about this.

I guess the question is then of how we understand Jesus as God. I come to my view in the final part of my that talk.

I think that within that talk without being too specific, I am saying that Jesus went to the cross with a human understanding of what would happen to Him as a result of His actions, and with the faith that somehow God was going to vindicate what it was that He was going to do.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 6:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021