Trinity.

[Jose]

You state that your biggest doctrinal issue is that only a God-man could bridge the gap caused by sin.

You'd probably agree that it would not have been difficult for God to communicate that, so do you have any scriptural support that says so?

I think 1 Tim 2:5 speaks to the issue and it clearly does not refer to Jesus as a God-man. It states that Jesus, the anthropos, mediates between God and mankind.

To insinuate Christ could have sinned is to cast aspersion on his nature and character.

I don't think so. To say that Jesus could have sinned shows that he was truly human. To say that he could do nothing but obey God sounds a bit fatalistic a la Calvin. I think Christ is more worthy of praise for overcoming sin by his faith in, and dependence upon God, than if he overcame simply because he couldn't do otherwise.

Jose

[dizerner]

You state that your biggest doctrinal issue is that only a God-man could bridge the gap caused by sin.

You'd probably agree that it would not have been difficult for God to communicate that, so do you have any scriptural support that says so?

I think 1 Tim 2:5 speaks to the issue and it clearly does not refer to Jesus as a God-man. It states that Jesus, the anthropos, mediates between God and mankind.

To insinuate Christ could have sinned is to cast aspersion on his nature and character.

I don't think so. To say that Jesus could have sinned shows that he was truly human. To say that he could do nothing but obey God sounds a bit fatalistic a la Calvin. I think Christ is more worthy of praise for overcoming sin by his faith in, and dependence upon God, than if he overcame simply because he couldn't do otherwise.

Jose

I do think the option was open for Christ to do otherwise. I believe Christ had free will, and for a will to be free all options must be a possibility. I do not believe there was any chance Christ would be disobedient however, and he said he always did the things that please his Father. He was perfection in character, but freely, not coerced or fatalistically determined. Still there was no chance of his disobedience because of who he was in essence. Do I think therefore that there was no struggle for Christ? I do not think it was hard for Christ to overcome sin, because he had no sin nature, there was no sinful "pull" in his heart. Indeed Christ described the things we do in our heart as as real a sin as enacting them. But I do think Christ's sacrifice was the hardest conceivable thing any creature could face, because he faced the wrath of God. Satan can kill, steal and destroy, but God powered a billion billion galaxies each with a billion billion stars. Hebrews says he cried with tears to God to save him from death and was heard for his reverence. I do believe Christ had a human nature. Jesus is an anthropos. I'm quite sure you never heard me say otherwise, you will find nowhere where I say "Jesus Christ is not a real human being."

As for Scriptural support, I guess like the Trinity it's a continual inference, never a clearly stated thing. Now you might argue that God must clearly state it, but you will find Christ always talking in veiled language and making no apology for it. God rewards them that seek him, and so I think the Spirit opens up the treasure of what those words mean to us. I think for starters I can prove Christ provided potential atonement for all people. We would have to discuss the nature of sin and the holiness of God. My single strongest verse in support (although I prefer to build an overall case) would be:

For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people's sins against them.

I believe this Scripture indicates clearly that the reconciliation was possible because of the divine nature of Christ. The common phrase "in Christ" that is used for believers is here used not for believers but for the divine. God was in Christ. He was, therefore, a God-man.

[Paidion]

I do not think it was hard for Christ to overcome sin, because he had no sin nature, there was no sinful "pull" in his heart. Indeed Christ described the things we do in our heart as as real a sin as enacting them. But I do think Christ's sacrifice was the hardest conceivable thing any creature could face, because he faced the wrath of God. Satan can kill, steal and destroy, but God powered a billion billion galaxies each with a billion billion stars. Hebrews says he cried with tears to God to save him from death and was heard for his reverence. I do believe Christ had a human nature. Jesus is an anthropos.

Let's see. You say Christ had a human nature. He had a human mother. So He had a human nature. That makes sense.
You say Christ did not have a sinful nature. Do other people have sinful natures? Did Mary, his mother have a sinful nature? If so, why did Jesus not inherit it?
Come to think of it, this may be the reason Catholics think Mary was sinless.

Note: I'm not trying to prove anything here. Just trying to sort it out in my mind, and express my thoughts as I do so.

[dizerner]

What Old Testament understanding of "Logos" is there that helps you ascertain what the author had in mind when he penned his Gospel account?

I found an interesting article by Barth Erhman on why John may have chosen Logos over Sophia, and I had been thinking about that since it came up here. Here's an excerpt from http://www.erhmanblog.org (I hope it's okay to paste this excerpt, I do recommend the website content itself, I am a member).

So Wisdom (Greek translation: Sophia) was the first of God’s “creations” and was there with God at the beginning of the creation of the universe, before everything had been created. She (Sophia is feminine) was with God as a fellow worker. She is to be sought out. And when she is found, she is the one who provides life. It sounds a lot like the Logos poem to Christ in John 1:1-18. In fact, this song to Wisdom in Proverbs 8 may have been one of the bases on which the poem to Christ in John 1 was built.

But why has Sophia become Logos for the author of this poem? Why didn’t the author instead talk about the Sophia of God that became flesh, since that was the more common biblical term? I don’t have a good answer for that, but I have some speculations, one or more of which might help;

• First, it is worth noting that “wisdom” and “word” are sometimes treated synonymously in some Jewish literature. For example, the Wisdom of Solomon, a book in the canon of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, but considered part of the apocrypha by Protestants and Jews, states

“O God of my ancestors and Lord of mercy,

who have made all things by your word,

and by your wisdom have formed humankind.”

This is a synonymous parallelism, where the second statement is the same as the first, expressed in different words. God’s word = God’s wisdom, and was responsible for the creation. So wisdom and word are different aspects of the same thing.

• Logos may have been the more inviting term for anyone at all conversant with the philosophical thinking more widely shared throughout the Greek and Roman worlds. The Jewish philosopher Philo, from Alexandria Egypt, for example, has a lot to say about the Logos – in fact, enough for people to write books about! Among other things, he thinks of the Divine Logos as a kind of intermediary between God and humans, who, as the Logos specifically of God, is itself divine. And so Philo calls the Logos the “firstborn son” (De Agr. 51); or the “second God” (Questions on Gen II, 62), or even “God” (On Dreams I, 227ff.
• Plus Logos ties the poem more closely to the book of Genesis than Wisdom, since in Genesis chapter one God creates the universe by speaking a word (And God said, Let there be light; and God said, Let there be a firmament; and God said; and God said; and so on)
• Finally, this is a pure guess, and one I don’t recall seeing anyone express before, though I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that I read it somewhere a long time ago and simply forgot that I had: if the Gospel of John wants to claim that this divine being – Sophia or Logos – became a human being, it maybe made more sense to say that it was specifically the Logos, rather than Sophia, since Logos is a masculine noun in Greek and Sophia is feminine. Christ, of course, was a male. So maybe that influenced the decision over which term to use.

In any event, one should not think that the Christ poem in John 1 is somehow “non-Jewish.” In fact it fits very well into a Jewish realm. I’ll say more about Jewish ideas of an intermediary between God and humans in a future post. Probably soon!

[dizerner]

Let's see. You say Christ had a human nature. He had a human mother. So He had a human nature. That makes sense.
You say Christ did not have a sinful nature. Do other people have sinful natures? Did Mary, his mother have a sinful nature? If so, why did Jesus not inherit it?
Come to think of it, this may be the reason Catholics think Mary was sinless.

Note: I'm not trying to prove anything here. Just trying to sort it out in my mind, and express my thoughts as I do so.

Paidion I appreciate the thoughts of everyone on here. I've been challenged many times myself, and even you have caught me on factual errors. I've written elsewhere on this forum that I believe the meaning and purpose of the immaculate conception (not specifically the Catholic doctrine) was to avoid the direct line of spiritual sin inherited from Adam. Yet because Scripture says Christ is the seed of Abraham and David, I clearly believe he had their DNA as well as Mary's (although no human father). The point of all this was the legality of it, following whatever laws God himself put in place. This is also why I think Satan is not destroyed yet, and is still allowed to converse with God and even taunt him, because Satan knows God's laws and follows them. So when God's law was broken, it had to be remedied in the only way that would fulfill all of the rules and requirements that were conveyed by God. Somehow Christ therefore became a human being without falling under the spiritual federal headship of Adam. Scripture clearly indicates all humans have a sinful nature and thereby need the work of the Cross, and that all humans sin (1 King 8:46, When they sin against You—for there is no man who does not sin), however it just as clearly says Christ did not sin (1 Pet. 1:19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ). So when Christ left his real Father and Mother (the Father and the Spirit) and became "one flesh" with the world, somehow he was able to take the punishment the Adamic sin demanded for (death) while still avoiding a participation in it and being completely free of the effects of it, and this created a legal transaction that both fulfilled what the broken law of God demanded, that the sinner must die, and—because Christ's perfection as a man, fulfilled the law perfectly that Adam broke—this unique combination made Christ worthy to carry our souls within him and take our place (as Revelation says to break the seals). Thus it is as if, Christ is the womb in which we were engendered, and our life made available, because as God, Christ was able not only to take the punishment, not only to stand in our place, not only to truly die! But! To rise again with a resurrection of a completely new life, to live again for the second time, and share that life with all who put their trust in him. Christ kept all the rules and at the very last he had a power to break them all in a way, while still having kept them. And thus our debt is paid in full, and we live, yet not us, but Christ within us, for we have been crucified with him (συνεσταύρωμαι). Hallelujah! Angels sing and long to look into these things.

[jriccitelli]

‘only a God-man could bridge the gap caused by sin’ (Diz)
You'd probably agree that it would not have been difficult for God to communicate that, so do you have any scriptural support that says so? (Jose feb 8)

Christ was also a priest. Gods Son did not 'have' to be a priest, but He was:
‘For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever’ (Hebrews 7)
Take from that what you will, it says Jesus is ‘… holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens’ i presume He had to be a Priest when he offered His own sacrifice. But, maybe this speaks only of His place only beyond the temptation, but I would have to believe He always was the same, human nature or not.
'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever' (Hebrews 13:8)
'Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually’ (Hebrews 7:3)

[jriccitelli]

What is it about non-trinitarians that threatens you so much? (Editor, Feb 7)
‘I am not the one making a big deal out of Gods unique, unparalleled, incomparable nature in relation to all other things in existence… God does. I am just pointing this out’ (Me)
‘By sheer volume of posts I would say you are’ (Editor)

Your posts on this Trinity thread alone, and overall, out number mine (100-92). That means your statement abit self-inflammatory. God does make a big deal out of false gods, their worship, and their prophets. The truth that God alone is God / there are none like God / and to God be 'all the Glory' is certainly going to be true for all eternity. I am not punishing anyone or destroying peoples and nations for worshiping other gods or anything else. But God does punish, and God promised to do so in the future, specifically for idolatry and following after other gods. All I am doing is repeating what scripture tells me to do, one thing of which is to warn others of what God has said. (My volume of posts is a response to Paidion’s sheer continual bombardment of this site with his philosophy. That would account for half of them)

Since you have never addressed my "Was the baptism of John from God or from men?" type of questions, neither am I inclined to answer yours, to wit; "Is God your Lord, or is Jesus your Lord?" Life's a two-way street JR. When you actually answer one of mine and stop changing arguments and ignoring old posts, then I'll tackle yours’ (Editor, Aug 12)

That was almost 5 months ago. I have answered a lot of questions, did I miss your answer to that?

I may be raising another topic, or perhaps it may have been already discussed somewhere, but a problem I see with the dual natures theory is that it creates an ambiguity about who Jesus actually was. Was he the man who hung on the cross, or was the "real" Jesus the "second person" or the "essence" in the body that died? Since (according to some trinitarians) the God nature didn't actually die but only "Jesus the man, the human nature" died, doesn't this then leave us with a "mere man" atoning for sins? (Jose)

A good point, but Jesus never stopped being Jesus even if He had a human nature. So even though He may have possibly indwelt a human body ‘and’ a spirit, Jesus was always the same Jesus who came from above. And how could a mere man die for our sins, anyhow? Seems like a perfect man saves only his own soul, scripture says a man cannot redeem his brother or another. And like I tell the JWs ‘I don’t understand why, or care if an Angel died for my sins’ Nothing says an Angel could, or want to, take away the sins of the world. Or that an angel is that pure. Nor do I see a reason or a scripture why the death of any created being could possibly do so. Created being are after all, all fallible, scripture points this out.

[TheEditor]

What is it about non-trinitarians that threatens you so much? (Editor, Feb 7)
‘I am not the one making a big deal out of Gods unique, unparalleled, incomparable nature in relation to all other things in existence… God does. I am just pointing this out’ (Me)
‘By sheer volume of posts I would say you are’ (Editor)

Your posts on this Trinity thread alone, and overall, out number mine (92-100).

You Disappoint me JR. I fully expected a flow-chart. My point was that you are hammering on the necessity of this doctrine. Can you point out one instance in which I said you need to be a non-trinitarian? Can you point out one instance in which I have said that you put yourself at risk in your relationship with God if you are a trinitarian? I'll save you the trouble of reading all of the posts; the answer is No. As I have said previously, my purpose is to serve as a foil for dogmatists; not comment on what teachings are required to be on God's short list.

Since you have never addressed my "Was the baptism of John from God or from men?" type of questions, neither am I inclined to answer yours, to wit; "Is God your Lord, or is Jesus your Lord?" Life's a two-way street JR. When you actually answer one of mine and stop changing arguments and ignoring old posts, then I'll tackle yours’ (Editor, Aug 12)

That was almost 5 months ago. I have answered a lot of questions, did I miss your answer to that?

Maybe I am reading this incorrectly. Are you asking if I ever said whether or not Jesus is my Lord? Yes, is the answer, and Yes is the answer to whether or not I already answered this. My questions still remain unanswered, or at least not satisfactorily addressed.

Regards, Brenden.

[Jose]

I do think the option was open for Christ to do otherwise. I believe Christ had free will, and for a will to be free all options must be a possibility. I do not believe there was any chance Christ would be disobedient however, and he said he always did the things that please his Father.

It sounds like you are saying that the words possibility and chance mean two different things. I don't believe they do. They are synonyms, and as such, if one exists regarding a given subject, then the other one does as well. If I were to say "there's a possibility that I will die in a plane crash, but there's really no chance that I will because I will never board a plane," then the possibility really does not exist. The possibility of me dying only exists if I get on the plane, and so, if it is possible (as you affirm) for Jesus to sin, then the chance is just as much a reality, and that chance was the temptation itself.

If Jesus could not sin, then I think his temptation by Satan was a charade; a little drama with all the actors playing their parts.

It was a real temptation to not trust God that came by means of his hunger, which in itself is not a sinful desire. Are we to understand that the reason he didn't give in is because his divine essence prevented him from turning stones into bread? When Satan tempted him by offering him all the kingdoms of the earth, it was as though he was being tempted to bypass the cross. "Look Jesus, God promised to reward you with an inheritance for your obedience, but you don't have to die for it, I can give it to you now." Was this not a real test for him to overcome pride and trust God's promises?

I do not think it was hard for Christ to overcome sin, because he had no sin nature, there was no sinful "pull" in his heart.

I don't understand how you can think that it was easy for Christ to overcome. A "sinful nature" is not needed before disobedience to God is possible. God created Adam presumably without a sin nature and we all know what happened after that.

But I do think Christ's sacrifice was the hardest conceivable thing any creature could face, because he faced the wrath of God.

You see, I think that his sacrifice was in itself a struggle to overcome sin. The blood that he sweat in the garden was a physical manifestation of the horrendous stress that he was experiencing as he fought against the temptation to not do his father's will. He went through with it though, because he submitted himself, not because his nature wouldn't allow him to disobey.

I do believe Christ had a human nature. Jesus is an anthropos. I'm quite sure you never heard me say otherwise, you will find nowhere where I say "Jesus Christ is not a real human being."

This is probably true, I'm not saying you have. My point was simply that scripture nowhere calls Jesus a God-man, but repeatedly calls him a man. Isn't that good enough?

As for Scriptural support, I guess like the Trinity it's a continual inference, never a clearly stated thing.

Thanks for being honest in admitting that. I agree that Christ sometimes spoke with veiled language, but I don't find him doing so when speaking about his father. He didn't bring a new revelation about who God is, but instead upheld the centuries old Jewish monotheism when he stated that the Shema is the foremost commandment. (Mark 12:29)

Jose

[Paidion]

I agree that Christ sometimes spoke with veiled language, but I don't find him doing so when speaking about his father. He didn't bring a new revelation about who God is, but instead upheld the centuries old Jewish monotheism when he stated that the Shema is the foremost commandment. (Mark 12:29)

Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. (Mark 12:29)

This doubtless comes from Deuteronomy 6:4
“Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one.

I was just wondering how you fit Genesis 19:24 with the concept that Yahweh is a single Individual:

Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.

In this sentence, there seems to be two Individuals denoted as "Yahweh", One on earth to whom Abraham had been speaking, addressing Him as "Yahweh", and who was the means of the sulfur and fire, and One in heaven who was the source of the sulfur and fire.

It seems to me that the Father and the Son share the name "Yahweh". I gained this understanding through reading Justin Martryr who used Genesis 19:24 in his discussion with the Jewish man,Trypho, and his fellow Jewish companions.