• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

The Nature of Jesus

J

Jim an Apostle

Member
Real Person
Male
MODERATOR NOTE: This thread is a split from "Any Binatarians out there?" Beginning at post #85.
__________________________________________________________________________

Williston Walker a professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University author of A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH copyright 1918 by Scribners Publishing Co. speaking of what had become labeled Dynamic Monarchianism on page 68 said "Yet it undoubtedly represented a type of Christology that was one of the oldest in the Christian church." emphasis mine



What was this description of the nature and relationship of Jesus and his Father which was rooted in first century thinking? Theodotus of Byzantium (the eastern section of the empire) came to Rome in 190 and taught that Jesus was a man, born of the Virgin, of holy life, upon whom the divine Christ (or Holy Spirit) came at baptism. He was excommunicated by Bishop Victor of Rome by 198.

Interestingly, Antioch the cradle of Christianity, (the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch Acts 11:26) had Paul of Samosata as Bishop from 260 to 272. He said the logos was an attribute of the Father. The logos inspired the prophets and filled Jesus with the power of God. By this indwelling inspiration He was united in will by love to God, but did not become one substance with God. That union is moral, but inseparable. By reason of this union He was raised from the dead, and given a kind of delegated divinity. The Roman church considered his views but alas excommunicated him in 269. [Ibid. pg. 68-69]

"Dynamic Monarchianism" was the basic view of the historic church at Antioch. Those concepts were a rival for acceptance in the Creed of the Catholic Church, in some form, up until the seventh century.

I think the truth is. Jesus was promised of the Father He was the reason for all of the creation. Jesus was actually born of a virgin and God was actually was His Father and His work was as our example by faith in His Father and the anointing of the Holy Spirit (just as we do). He has been exalted and Glorified not re-exalted and re-glorified and now shares divinity with His Father. He was the only begotten of the Father and there is no need for a pre-existance or or an Incarnation for God to cause His Word (promise) to become the Seed from which the Life of Christ was Generated. He is still my Lord and King, and as Thomas declared after the resurrection, my God.
The Holy Spirit is the presence of God extended into the universe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So are you saying Christ wasn't pre-existent before His birth in fleshly form? Are you saying that He was a just a man God sent the Holy Spirit on and greatly exalted? I'm a little confused as to what you're claiming here.

Are you just pointing out the diversity of thought on the topic in the early church? Obviously I don't believe anyone can begin to grasp the nature of God's existence or the exact composition of the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit but the pre-existence of Christ seems like fairly stable ground. He claimed to bs there at the beginning. He appears to have made several appearances over the millenia. What makes you doubt His pre-existence, if you do?
 
ZecAustin said:
So are you saying Christ wasn't pre-existent before His birth in fleshly form? Are you saying that He was a just a man God sent the Holy Spirit on and greatly exalted? I'm a little confused as to what you're claiming here.

Are you just pointing out the diversity of thought on the topic in the early church? Obviously I don't believe anyone can begin to grasp the nature of God's existence or the exact composition of the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit but the pre-existence of Christ seems like fairly stable ground. He claimed to bs there at the beginning. He appears to have made several appearances over the millenia. What makes you doubt His pre-existence, if you do?
Click to expand...


Zec drops the mic again!!! :cool::cross::bible:
 
There are many confusions that arise when trying to force Jesus to be conscious pre-exsistant and have have two natures, human and Divine. We should compare Christ to Adam (before the fall) for a more accurate picture. Adam was a son of God by creation; Jesus was a son of God by birth, begotten birth! Both were sinless. Both were sons of God. Neither were glorified. Adam had the spirit of God upon him by anointing. So did Jesus, as per the baptism event. Both could have lived sinless; both could sin; only one did. Jesus' main advantage over us is being born sinless. Jesus had no real advantage over Adam, being born as a child, and considering:

Luke 2:52
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

This could be just as much as a disadvantage and give more opportunity for failure (it only takes one) than being created with knowledge and wisdom, as Adam was. Did Adam or Jesus have two natures? That does not compute for me. Adam failed his test. Jesus passed His.

What Jesus did on earth was as a sinless son of God... by faith... just as we now who are forgiven and become sons of God can also work the works of God... by faith. We are often hindered in faith because we have a false image of ourselves and of Jesus.
 
Jim an Apostle said:
There are many confusions that arise when trying to force Jesus to be conscious pre-exsistant and have have two natures, human and Divine. We should compare Christ to Adam (before the fall) for a more accurate picture. Adam was a son of God by creation; Jesus was a son of God by birth, begotten birth! Both were sinless. Both were sons of God. Neither were glorified. Adam had the spirit of God upon him by anointing. So did Jesus, as per the baptism event. Both could have lived sinless; both could sin; only one did. Jesus' main advantage over us is being born sinless. Jesus had no real advantage over Adam, being born as a child, and considering:

Luke 2:52
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

This could be just as much as a disadvantage and give more opportunity for failure (it only takes one) than being created with knowledge and wisdom, as Adam was. Did Adam or Jesus have two natures? That does not compute for me. Adam failed his test. Jesus passed His.

What Jesus did on earth was as a sinless son of God... by faith... just as we now who are forgiven and become sons of God can also work the works of God... by faith. We are often hindered in faith because we have a false image of ourselves and of Jesus.
Click to expand...
I'm going to have to digest this post a bit longer, but sounds a little LDS at first reading.....hmmm....need to get back to this one.
 
Don't they believe in pre-existance? ...Jesus being a brother of Satan? ...and having a heavenly mother?
Not me!

...unto us a child is born

The us is that God is the Father and mankind, represented by Mary, is the mother. It needs to be no more complicated than that! Man was made in God's image so close... that a woman could bear a literal Son of God; made lower than angels, but now exalted to the right hand of the Father, and we are his body and bride and joint heir. Man's fall was great, but restoration is coming when we see Him... we shall be like Him! He is our elder brother, because He was in God's mind first! He was the purpose of creation, not us! Sin was not necessary. Sin was not God's 'problem.' God was simply working all things for His purpose... to have a Son! "Jesus slain from the foundation of the world..." not because of the sin problem (although that was covered in the process). The real thing was:

Luke 24:26
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

His death proved His obedience and faithfulness to His Father in order to be counted worthy for the Glory! We receive it by faith if we remain faithful, as He did. Jesus made the way for us to be restore; but if we had needed no restoration, we still could only have anointing (the Spirit upon) until the cross and Pentecost... but now we can have 'indwelling' (the Spirit within). Even sinless Adam did not have indwelling, and could not, until Christ made the way.
 
My explanation is actually simple enough to explain to a child. Trinity or any other form of pre-existance cannot really be explained by theologians to theologians.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
 
Man, I wish I had 30 hours in a day. But not you guys—you only get 24! :p

Just gonna say let's keep this thread a showcase for how a bunch of guys can have a pleasant, constructive, open-minded conversation while getting to know each other better. Wish I could spend more time here (Jim, you and I don't disagree on everything....;)), just can't.
 
Jim an Apostle said:
My explanation is actually simple enough to explain to a child.
Click to expand...

I am hoping this was not specifically directed at me personally, because ad hominem attacks are not encouraged around here.

I still need to digest your posts. I will defer complete judgment until later.
 
Jim an Apostle said:
What Jesus did on earth was as a sinless son of God
Click to expand...
This is only one of my hang ups in this post.

I am an agnostic at this point when it comes to the Godhead being a trinity, or a binitary, and I want to keep this thread on topic. But, I would still prefer to refer to Jesus as being THE sinless Son of God.

I don't think I'm being petty here.
 
Mojo, I feel ya, and at the same time let's see where this goes. There are many passages in the NT that speak of what our life is supposed to be like in Christ, full of the Spirit of God, that imo are undervalued and downplayed in the name of exalting Christ and 'not thinking too highly of ourselves'. If Jesus is really the "firstborn among many brethren", though, then what's that supposed to look like? What does it mean to be "partakers of the divine nature" or to "have escaped the corruption that is in the world"? Answering these questions is affected by, among other things, how we understand Jesus's walk on the earth and what he was capable of or limited by.

Everybody: It might help if we focus on the practical. Not so much "my dogma can beat up your dogma", but "because I see Jesus this way, on the basis of these verses, it affects my life in this way".
 
Mojo said:
I am hoping this was not specifically directed at me personally, because ad hominem attacks are not encouraged around here.

I still need to digest your posts. I will defer complete judgment until later.
Click to expand...
I am just trying to discuss the idea nothing personal
 
Good illustration of why we have to give each other a lot of grace communicating on discussion forums (or text, or email, or anything else that is written only, without facial expression, body language, or vocal inflection).

I like simple, and don't have much use for theological cage matches. And I find that the better I understand something, the easier it gets to explain it. And I've met Jim at the summer retreat, and I can hear and see him making that comment about 'simple enough to explain to a child', and I don't think he meant anything by it (particularly in context, contrasted with never-ending debates between theologians).

And at the same time, reading it as an emotionally-flat written piece from a stranger, I can see how Mojo would be wondering whether that's a not-so-subtle poke at anyone questioning what Jim had said. "C'mon, even a child could understand this. What's not to get?"

So Mojo asked and Jim answered and it's behind us; it's all good. I just wanted to call that out and thank everybody who maintains their cool in these forums, even when dealing with straightening out potentially offensive communications.
 
Some modern versions read John 3:16 as God's only Son. This is error. Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son. Angels are called sons by creation, some fell some remained sinless Adam was a son by creation, Adam fell and we were born from fallen fathers. Through the work of Christ we are restored and now are we sons of God back to righteousness. We live so short of what Jesus did and He said we could even do greater works. We will probably need a better understanding of kinship to walk there fully. Mojo. I love you and your quest for truth.
 
Jim, I think you meant "Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN Son"....
 
Well let me go ahead and dig my heels in here and say I will never be okay with downgrading Christ to the level of Adam. It sounds like you're saying Christ just happened to live sinless and so God blessed Him and elevated Him.

That can't be what you're saying though. That would be a normal guy saving himself through works and would imply if that one guy could do it another guy could too.

I'm sure I'm missing something here. It sure sounds like that you're saying a divine nature was added to Jesus after he proved himself worthy. This would make all of those prophecies and that rather dramatic birth story a little silly and probably false but would also pose all kind of problems for salvation and the inerrancy of the Bible.

So before you start rapid firing verses at me and trying to get all Socratic, just answer one simple question. Are you saying that Christ was a normal man who got a divine nature because he was able to not sin?
 
The "thing you're missing" could be the virgin birth.... ;)
 
Partakers of the divine nature? Immortality, spiritual insight, gifts, discernment, ressurection...others?

Firstborn among brethren? Lived life in a human body, but first to experience ressurection, unification of spirit and body, glorification?

These are just my first answers without fuller thought.

I just have a hard time seeing Jesus unaware that he was who he was since birth, and had to somehow receive anointing to become divine. Hollywood movies promote that thought, and I hate it.

I do believe this thread is veering off into another topic. Do the moderators see a need for a new thread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top