Is Jesus Christ God in the flesh?

[Anonymous]

This topic was discussed in another area of the forums that I do not have permission to respond in, so I will risk starting a conflagration by passing on this passage of scripture here. I am not writing to stir up trouble, but rather to clarify the doctrine.

1 Timothy 3:15-16
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Reiterated:
God was manifested in the flesh,
God was justified in the Spirit,
God was seen of the angels,
God was preached unto the gentiles,
God was believed on in the world,
God was received up into glory.

God was in Christ Jesus reconciling the world unto Himself. Immanuel = God with us.

"When the plain sense make common sense, seek no other sense."

Jesus Christ IS God in the flesh, not the Father in the flesh, but the Son in the flesh, not the Holy Spirit in the flesh, but the Son. The Father is God, The Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, each of them is God. Now notice, The Father, Son, Holy Spirit together are God, one God. If you cannot get your mind around that, don't feel bad, the concept is very difficult for finite minds like ours to comprehend. Theologians have struggled with this issue for at least 2000 years, so I guess we can have questions, but let us not try to develop or propagate a theology that denies this truth. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are found referenced throughout the NT Scriptures in this combination in many places.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh

The key to understanding a biblical mystery is to have God living inside of you through the Spirit. Those who have the Spirit dwelling in them have the ability to believe in faith these types of things. Those who do not have the Holy Spirit will not understand the things of God (2 Cor. 2:14) because without the indwelling Spirit mysteries like this are rejected as being foolish. Indeed finite minds cannot understand it as the natural mind does not understand such supernatural truth. Only when one receives the mind of Christ is one able to trust and accept these types of mysteries.

 

[Doc]

The humanity of Jesus is equally as important as the deity of Jesus. Born as a human being while still being totally divine, the concept of the humanity of Jesus co-existing with His deity is difficult for the finite mind of man to comprehend. Nevertheless, Jesus’ nature—wholly man and wholly God—is a biblical fact. There are those who reject these biblical truths and declare that Jesus was a man, but not God (Ebionism). Docetism is the view that Jesus was God, but not human. Both viewpoints are unbiblical and false.

Jesus had to be born as a human being for several reasons. One is outlined in Galatians 4:4-5: “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.” Only a man could be “born under the law.” No animal or angelic being is “under the law.” Only humans are born under the law and only a human being could redeem other human beings born under the same law. Born under the law of God, all humans are guilty of transgressing that law. Only a perfect human—Jesus Christ— could perfectly keep the law and perfectly fulfill the law, thereby redeeming us from that guilt, which He accomplished on the cross, exchanging our sin for His perfect righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Another reason Jesus had to be fully human is that God established the necessity of the shedding of blood for the remission of sins (Leviticus 17:11; Hebrews 9:22). The blood of animals, although acceptable on a temporary basis as a foreshadowing of the blood of the perfect God-Man, was insufficient for the permanent remission of sin because “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). Jesus Christ, the perfect Lamb of God, sacrificed His human life and shed His human blood to cover the sins of all who would ever believe in Him. If He were not human, this would have been impossible.

Furthermore, the humanity of Jesus enables Him to relate to us in a way the angels or animals never can. “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). Only a human could sympathize with our weaknesses and temptations. In His humanity, Jesus was subjected to all the same kinds of trials which we are, and He is, therefore, able to sympathize with us and to aid us. He was tempted; He was persecuted; He was poor; He was despised; He suffered physical pain; and He endured the sorrows of a lingering and most cruel death. Only a human being could experience these things, and only a human being could fully understand them through experience.

Finally, it was necessary for Jesus to come in the flesh because believing that truth is a prerequisite for salvation. Declaring that Jesus has come in the flesh is the mark of a spirit from God, while the Antichrist and all who follow him will deny it (1 John 4:2-3). Jesus has come in the flesh; He is able to sympathize with our human frailties; His human blood was shed for our sins; and He was fully God and fully Man. These are biblical truths that cannot be denied.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Interestingly too is the fact that this text of Scripture noted by Pastor John is what Dr. Phillip Schaff (3 Volumes of Creeds in Church History) and others have noted to be an early creedal/confessional formula of the early believers. What Paul was quoting from was a text that was a common confession that was used in the early churches. We find several places in the epistles where confessions were recognized and used.

Confessions that state the absolutes of an organized body of believers or by ministers of the gospel have always been a normal practice from the earliest of times. This type of confession is like the Apostle's Creed or even the Nicea Creed.

From the earliest of confessions, such as Peter's or Thomas' confession and this confession noted by Paul, even to the post-apostolic confessions the focus has always been to define in absolute terms what true believers will affirm and the earliest creeds were very Christocentric as that was one of the first places where Satan attacked for the first 300 years.

The confession noted here by Apostle Paul to Timothy was further defined by the Apostles Creed which then was later clarified even further by the Nicea Creed. There is a strong line of continuity by those who affirmed without reservation the truth of God having come in the flesh.

 

[Scarecrow]

John seemed to think so...and he was an eye witness...

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[steve]

i was not going to bother but since keith asked so nice
i will just repost one of the posts from that very interesting discussion between (mostly)tod and keith.
it is too bad that it was made inaccessible to most of the readers.

It was Tertullian (c.160-230) who first coined the term trinitas from which the English word ‘trinity’ is derived. He clarifies thus the ‘mystery of the divine economy... which of the unity makes a trinity, placing the three in order not of quality but of sequence, different not in substance but in aspect, not in power but in manifestation’ (qtd. in Lonergan 46). At other times he used other images to show his point, such as the monarchy: ‘... If he who is the monarch has a son, and if the son is given a share in the monarchy, this does not mean that the monarchy is automatically divided, ceasing to be a monarchy’ (qtd. in Lonergan 47). Again, Tertullian explains the concept of being brought forth: ‘As the root brings forth the shoot, as the spring brings forth the stream, as the sun brings forth the beam’ (qtd. in Lonergan 45).



Tertullian did not consider the Father and Son co-eternal: ‘There was a time when there was neither sin to make God a judge, nor a son to make God a Father’ (qtd. in Lonergan 48); nor did he consider them co-equal: ‘For the Father is the whole substance, whereas the Son is something derived from it’ (qtd. in Lonergan 48). In Tertullian we find a groundwork upon which a trinity concept can be founded, but it has not yet evolved into that trinity of the Nicene Creed.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Great, we have Tertullian's words. It is like when Peter answered the Lord's question of "who do people say the Son of Man is?" he replied saying what some others said about Jesus (Matt. 16:13). But then the Lord asked him: "But who do YOU say that I am?" (16:15).

So, Steve who do you say Christ Jesus is? Is he God come in the flesh (the God-Man) or is he something else?

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

The forum administration could always just move that entire thread over to this forum...

...or we can re-hash it "live" here.

IMHO, that thread should have been in one of the open forums. But that was my error, since I posted the initial article that started it.

As for me and my house, we will believe what God's Word says, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Eternally Self-existent God Who became human. Or, to express it in a simpler way, Jesus of Nazareth is God come in the flesh. Even simpler: Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.

I can back that up with Scripture, but unless the forum moderators give us the "green light" to have that discussion, I'll say no more. (Since Dr. Allen is a staff member, his taking up the debate here will be what I consider to be that "green light" unless he or another staff member asks me to not enter the fray...) It has been discussed at length in another part of the Biblical Families forum. (Over 160 posts in two weeks back in July, mostly by three of us, plus a few more posts since then.) Like most theological debate, neither side convinced the other.

 

[Anonymous]

From the OP
This topic was discussed in another area of the forums that I do not have permission to respond in, so I will risk starting a conflagration by passing on this passage of scripture here. I am not writing to stir up trouble, but rather to clarify the doctrine.

As I said above, I am willing to RISK it, but I do not wish to see a conflagration. Very little is affected by argument other than to clearly define the polarity of the participants in the debate. While I titled the thread as a question, I am assured that the answer I presented from I Timothy is extremely clear and is irrefutable. What remains is not to convince each other, but rather to examine our selves and see whether we line up with a clear, concise statement of the Word of God. Such alignment defines who we are in relationship to the household of faith. We will not determine by debate whether the issue is correct as presented, but only on whose side we stand, God's or His enemy, Lucifer, Satan.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Sounds like a solid, straight forward, and simple question to me Pastor John.

So, to answer it as briefly as I can then, I affirm without reservation that Christ Jesus is Lord and that him being Lord means that he is God who has come in the flesh, the God-Man.

Indeed 1st Timothy 4:16 is clear: God appeared in the flesh. Too Matthew 3:3 quotes the OC passage of Isaiah 40:3 where the Hebrew term Yahuweh is used. Thus, John the Baptist quoted and applied the Isaiah 40:3 text directly to Christ Jesus calling him Yahuweh. Indeed Yahuweh/God, the one true God, has come in the flesh.

 

[steve]

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.

catholic, of course meaning:

universal or of general interest; or
liberal, having broad interests, or wide sympathies.
inclusive, inviting and containing strong evangelism.

steve, the judaizing pharisee (i almost forgot )

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

The Apostle's Creed used the term Lord and the writers of that Creed believed and defined that term "Lord" as God in the flesh (see Matt. 3:3 and 1 Tim. 3:16). That phrase of "And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord" can also be stated as: "And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, Our God in the flesh." That is how the confession was interpreted historically and how it is interpreted today by Evangelical historians. Later in history when the Arians began to oppose the deity of Christ and some began to oppose that definition of deity the Evangelical believers then wrote the Nicea Creed to clarify even further that Jesus Christ is truly God of God.

They, the writers of the Apostle's Creed used the word "Lord" in the same way the front "about us" page on BF uses the term deity. The definition behind those terms are that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, divine and human, the God-Man. You can see this in Nicea's Creed (a further elaboration of the earlier Apostles Creed) as it defined the term Lord even further to be clearer by saying: "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made."

So Steve how do you define the term Lord. Do you define it as God in the flesh?

Or do you deny that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh?

Or are you avoiding answering the question because of fear, shame, or some other reason?

 

[Scarecrow]

That's a nice creed Steve...but now I too am curious just exactly who/what you think Jesus was/is. Do you think He was created by God at some point in time and therefore less than God? Do you think He is the "Spirit Brother of Satan" like some of the cults teach?

I know that there are a number of different teachings on this depending on which cult you are in. There is even a guy right here in the city I am in that has progressed from being "The Appointed Son of God" (he got lost in the forest for quite some time and apparently avoided sinning the entire time even though Satan was there to tempt him constantly) to a replacement of Jesus, and now claims to be God. At least he is somewhat consistent with scriptures in that he claims to be the Son of God and now also claims to be God without giving up his self proclaimed title.

From what I can tell Jesus is beyond human description as is God. We do the best we can to describe Him and understand Him with the information we have. What I don't understand is how people can deny that Jesus is God in the flesh with all the supporting scripture available that proves just that.

Do you think the scriptures themselves are corrupted as many cults believe?

 

[steve]

The Apostle's Creed used the term Lord and the writers of that Creed believed and defined that term "Lord" as God in the flesh (see Matt. 3:3 and 1 Tim. 3:16).

tertulian is one who evidently did not believe what the historians now claim that they believed. it is easy to create "truth" about the thoughts of those who have been dead for centuries, so inconvenient that some of tertulian's statements have survived.

i agree more with tertulian than with you.
abuse me for it as you will. :roll:

steve, the judaizing pharisee

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

i agree more with tertulian than with you.

How odd......You seem to still be vague in your answer and indirect....as if you are indeed afraid of giving a direct answer as to who is Jesus.

So let me ask again: do you believe that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh? 1 Tim. 3:16 says: "God appeared in the flesh." Do you agree that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh or do you not?

And by the way, here are some first hand quotes from Irenaeus and Tertullian. You may want to do a more thorough research as the first hand sources reveal more than you are saying. They did in fact affirm, along with others of that time, that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh.

Irenaeus lived from 130AD to 200 AD. Of Jesus Christ he said: "Jesus is the Holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God".

Tertullian said this of Jesus being God: "Jesus is still sitting there at the right hand of the Father. He is man, yet also God." He lived between 160 and 200 AD.

 

[steve]

tertullian:

‘For the Father is the whole substance, whereas the Son is something derived from it’ (qtd. in Lonergan 48).

Tertullian said this of Jesus being God: "Jesus is still sitting there at the right hand of the Father. He is man, yet also God."

obviously, both of these statements, as interpreted into english, cannot have been made by tertullian.

i would propose that this gives proof to what tod taught in the discussion that the greek word which was translated as "God" actually was better translated as "deity" or "from heaven".

Tertullian said this of Jesus being God: "Jesus is still sitting there at the right hand of the Father. He is man, yet also deity."

Tertullian said this of Jesus being God: "Jesus is still sitting there at the right hand of the Father. He is man, yet also from heaven."

totally works for me.
do you have a better explanation?

steve, the judaizing pharisee

 

[Scarecrow]

"How odd......You seem to still be vague in your answer and indirect....as if you are indeed afraid of giving a direct answer as to who is Jesus."

Steve seems to favor Tod's point of view from what I can gather. I think that Tod is a Jehovah's Witness if memory serves (Watchtower Society). If these things are correct then I can understand Steve's hesitancy to enter this topic because their beliefs about Jesus are considerably different from what the scriptures show. With that dilemma for them to deal with they decided to rewrite the Bible and they have their own "translation" called the New World Translation.

This link will point out the discrepancies that many may not be aware of.

http://watchthetower.net/realj.html

And my guess is that Steve's answer to the original question is "NO".

 

[steve]

Steve seems to favor Tod's point of view from what I can gather. I think that Tod is a Jehovah's Witness if memory serves (Watchtower Society).

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

seriously, did you pull that out of your hindquarters?
i will be more than happy to apologize if you can give some proof.

steve, the ROFLOL judaizing pharisee

 

[Scarecrow]

Nope...just from what I read on this topic...it is my understanding that Tod is a Jehovah's Witness...maybe I am thinking of someone else.

 

[steve]

Nope...just from what I read on this topic...it is my understanding that Tod is a Jehovah's Witness...maybe I am thinking of someone else.

so prove it.
but you cannot because it is bull-pucky.
does the truth not matter to you? especially when you are slandering someone?

steve, the not-laughing-anymore judaizing pharisee