Article: The Humanity of Jesus

[Sojourner55]

You can view the page at http://bibleforums.org/content.php/1...anity-of-Jesus

[Longsufferer]

Sorry, but your entire sum of things you conclude is based on the invented doctrine of the Nicene Creed, which thinks above [beyond] that which is written, therefore is illegitimate. It would be a good and better thing for us to rather agree with God, that Jesus is His Son; likewise agree with the Lord Jesus Himself who say that He is the Son of God, rather than endlessly speak above God and His Son. The mediator between God and men is not scholastic achievement, and never was. It would be a refreshing thing to hear from those who actually and simply believe God´s Word, such as carpenters, or fishermen, or tentmakers; instead of an endless array of those that suppose themselves to be above that which is written.

[Kahtar]

I actually and simply believe this:
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6
Clearly the Father and the Son are one and the same God

[Sojourner55]

Sorry, but your entire sum of things you conclude is based on the invented doctrine of the Nicene Creed, which thinks above [beyond] that which is written, therefore is illegitimate. It would be a good and better thing for us to rather agree with God, that Jesus is His Son; likewise agree with the Lord Jesus Himself who say that He is the Son of God, rather than endlessly speak above God and His Son. The mediator between God and men is not scholastic achievement, and never was. It would be a refreshing thing to hear from those who actually and simply believe God´s Word, such as carpenters, or fishermen, or tentmakers; instead of an endless array of those that suppose themselves to be above that which is written.

Where did I imply that Jesus is not God's Son? Perhaps you could take a deep breath, and articulate exactly what I stated that you find so unscriptural.

[Sojourner55]

I actually and simply believe this:
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6
Clearly the Father and the Son are one and the same God

I can't find anything in the article that differs with any point you made, Kahtar. Do you disagree that the humanity in which God robed Himself was fully and completely human? Paul states in 1 Tim 3:16 that Jesus was "justified" by the Spirit. I don't think God needs to be justified. A human being however, could be said o be justified by the Holy Spirit dwelling within Him. Who died on the cross? God, or a man indwelt by God? To whom did Satan offer a bribe to kneel and worship him? God the Son, or a man indwelt by God? If you think I'm denying the full deity of Jesus, then you have misunderstood me.

[Kahtar]

I can't find anything in the article that differs with any point you made, Kahtar.

That's probably because I wasn't disagreeing with you.
My disagreement was with the Longsufferer.

[Sojourner55]

That's probably because I wasn't disagreeing with you.
My disagreement was with the Longsufferer.

Sorry buddy. I read and responded to your post before I read his/hers. I don't why someone would take umbrage with anything I said. I mean we should recognize that Jesus was as human as we are, in addition to being fully God, as he Scriptures clearly teach. I have had people harangue me over saying--in a different way--the exact same thing they believe, so I guess I'm always in defense mode to clarify myself. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Redeemed by Grace]

Hi SJ,

In my critique of your article, your characterization for Satan's interaction with Jesus has way too much interpretive liberty for me... For example...

//

Satan did not trust even his most accomplished demon to deal with Jesus. Oh no, he wanted to handle this one personally.

No where within the text does this even come into mind, so you are applying an assumption, for which it is, an assumption, thus not credible, IMHO. We just don't know why Satan did what he did, but know that it happened and that Jesus passed the test.... Jesus 1; mankind 0.

After he failed in his attempt to use the hunger and weakness of Christ’s 40-day fast against Him, Satan next offered Him a bribe: total, sovereign power over the entire earth--if He would but bow down and worship Him:

See although Jesus is fully 100% man, He also is 100% God so Jesus had the power to give His life and to also pick it back up... He was tested, and passed with flying colors, but Satan didn't author Jesus' hunger nor His weakness... I see that as being impossible.

And although Satan has been given a dominion over this earth for now, all of Satan movements and actions are under God's will and authority, for it is only God who is sovereign over all beings and all things.

Another speculation you have offered is this:

Consider this scenario for a moment. Do you suppose that Satan—in His wildest imagination, really believed that God the Son would kneel and worship him? Of course not.

How do you know? I submit the text does declare the offer and say I see nothing about Satan knowing that it was an offer he couldn't fulfill, so I think he knew nothing less , so I'd have to also disagree with your speculation here as well.

And your paragraph continues to speculate on the mind of Satan and why he did what he did and how he thought, for which I say is to be careful not to stand too long on sifting sand. We just don't know what he things nor should we care, but to focus on Christ --- and because of His Spirit within us, we have his mind to know who Christ is and all that He has done!


All in all, your article has some very sound doctrinal points, amen, but I think you wondered a bit in trying to offer what Satan was thinking.... Jesus is God; Jesus is Man... Amen!

[Sojourner55]

Hello Redeemed,
Admittedly, I improvised a bit on specifics regarding Satan's mindset, but your objections seem a little petty. I profess no special insight into the precise thoughts of Satan at the time of the temptation, but think my representative paraphrase of his mindset, intent and motives would be assessed as reasonable by most readers. Whenever I write an article, I keep in mind that not every person who reads it is Bible savvy. There are many visitors here every day--including new Christians and non-believers--who are seeking a better understanding of what Christianity is all about. As such, I try to present things in a way that even people who are unfamiliar with Scripture and doctrine can get a better understanding of the intent behind the article. Breaking things down with regard to Satan's mindset in testing Jesus' mettle is an example of that informal style. So then, my primary concern is not how well I will fare in a critique, but how well I articulate the information I'm trying to convey to a general reader.

Assuming you agree that Satan understood the messianic prophecies beforehand, Who Jesus really was, and what successfully corrupting Him would mean for his own eternal destiny, I think it's safe to make a few general assumptions espoused in the article: I think Satan had been anticipating that encounter for thousands of years. I think knowing that the lake of fire loomed in the distance, Satan would not have trusted that assignment to any just any infernal underling. And it seems only logical that Satan would assume there was a chance of success, otherwise, there would be no point to the temptation. Finally, I didn't imply, as you suggest, that Satan "authored" Jesus' fasting and subsequent hunger. I simply pointed out that he always looks for a weakness to exploit; and introducing thoughts of food, while feigning doubt about Jesus' deity was an attempt to capitalize on Jesus' weakened physical condition. I find these assumptions reasonable, not really worthy of focus, and somewhat of a distraction from the main point of the article.

Yet, I'm happy that you agree with the primary focus of the article. We tend to see Jesus as God first and foremost--almost to the point of failing to recognize that Jesus the man, had a choice. As He Himself stated, He could have called out from the cross, and His Father would have dispatched angels to rescue him. But He didn't. He followed through to the bitter, agonizing end, because He is the flesh and blood embodiment of God's unfathomable love. The disobedience of the first Adam brought sin upon us, and the obedience of the sinless last Adam takes it away. I just think we need to remember both sides of the Savior.

[Eyelog]

Sorry, but your entire sum of things you conclude is based on the invented doctrine of the Nicene Creed, which thinks above [beyond] that which is written, therefore is illegitimate. It would be a good and better thing for us to rather agree with God, that Jesus is His Son; likewise agree with the Lord Jesus Himself who say that He is the Son of God, rather than endlessly speak above God and His Son. The mediator between God and men is not scholastic achievement, and never was. It would be a refreshing thing to hear from those who actually and simply believe God´s Word, such as carpenters, or fishermen, or tentmakers; instead of an endless array of those that suppose themselves to be above that which is written.

You seem to be reading a blog other than this one. Nothing you say here has anything to do with the post, as far as I can tell.

Maybe you could make it easier for me to understand your point.

[Eyelog]

See although Jesus is fully 100% man, He also is 100% God so Jesus had the power to give His life and to also pick it back up...

Careful. Jesus did not have His divine power while on earth. Rather, John 10:17-18
"¹⁷ For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again.¹⁸ No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”

There's a big difference there.

[Sojourner55]

You seem to be reading a blog other than this one. Nothing you say here has anything to do with the post, as far as I can tell.

Maybe you could make it easier for me to understand your point.

I think you're right. Longsufferer must have dialed the wrong number, because his criticism makes no sense in the context of my article's content.

[Eyelog]

We tend to see Jesus as God first and foremost--almost to the point of failing to recognize that Jesus the man, had a choice. As He Himself stated, He could have called out from the cross, and His Father would have dispatched angels to rescue him. But He didn't. He followed through to the bitter, agonizing end, because He is the flesh and blood embodiment of God's unfathomable love. The disobedience of the first Adam brought sin upon us, and the obedience of the sinless last Adam takes it away. I just think we need to remember both sides of the Savior.

I like your blog post and your over-arching point that Jesus as the Son of Man was human. I like your discussion of his weakness and His willingness to suffer in order to obey the Father.

However, you make three points I'd like to comment on:

If He were not God, He would not have been able to willingly lay down His life, and “give up the Ghost.” Nor could He have dwelled for three days among the dead in Sheol, and then walked right out through the gates—taking the keys to the place with Him!

Certainly, God who raised Him could have made Him able to dwell in Sheol. He need not be God to do that.

he possessed a human nature and human will to submit to God, thereby undoing the damage done in Eden

Are you saying He obeyed out of His human nature and human will to submit to God? Wow. Who says that kind of thing anymore? Yet, that contradicts your point above, where you say that by virtue of His being God, he was "able to willingly lay down His life." Ok. so, which is it? He is able and willing because He's human or because He's God?

Because He was fully God, He did not inherit that sin-tainted nature.

I tend to think JC did not have the Sin Nature because he was the son of God genetically, and because He never gave in and sinned.

Excellent article and points overall, Soj. I enjoyed it.

[Sojourner55]

Certainly, God who raised Him could have made Him able to dwell in Sheol. He need not be God to do that.

I see your point. (after all, Lazarus was in Sheol for four days, and came out when Jesus called Him). Yet, Jesus did not simply rest in Abraham's bosom like every other righteous soul there, since He actually preached to the the spirits in prison--presumably sharing the Gospel with those whose captivity He would later lead captive. Obviously, Jesus possessed great authority from God, even in a state of death. My intended emphasis was not on His having dwelled there for three days, but rather His leaving after three days, and taking the keys of death and hell with Him when He left.

Are you saying He obeyed out of His human nature and human will to submit to God? Wow. Who says that kind of thing anymore? Yet, that contradicts your point above, where you say that by virtue of His being God, he was "able to willingly lay down His life." Ok. so, which is it? He is able and willing because He's human or because He's God?

My exact quote was: "And finally, if Jesus were not fully human, He would not have possessed a human nature and human will to submit to God, thereby undoing the damage done in Eden."
The eternal Word of God is God, and therefore fully represents the mind, will and purpose of God. Only as a man could the Word incarnate possess a will distinct from that of God. And it was crucial that Jesus have a human will like Adam, so that He could submit it to God--where Adam had failed. Conversely, as He Himself said, He had the authority to take up His life again when the three days had expired. I'm not certain where you see the contradiction you refer to.

I tend to think JC did not have the Sin Nature because he was the son of God genetically, and because He never gave in and sinned.

The Scriptures tell us that Jesus was justified by the Spirit (literally "vindicated," in the Greek). The same Spirit of God within Him from the moment of conception is what made Him sinless. And His unwavering, selfless obedience to God is what kept Him guiltless of any wrongdoing. I'm not sure what you mean by Jesus being the Son of God genetically, but it's probably not far from my own position, stated in a recent exchange: http://bibleforums.org/showthread.ph...-Muslim-guests I Hope I've answered your questions adequately, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article.

[Redeemed by Grace]

Hello Redeemed,
Admittedly, I improvised a bit on specifics regarding Satan's mindset, but your objections seem a little petty. I profess no special insight into the precise thoughts of Satan at the time of the temptation, but think my representative paraphrase of his mindset, intent and motives would be assessed as reasonable by most readers.


Whenever I write an article, I keep in mind that not every person who reads it is Bible savvy. There are many visitors here every day--including new Christians and non-believers--who are seeking a better understanding of what Christianity is all about. As such, I try to present things in a way that even people who are unfamiliar with Scripture and doctrine can get a better understanding of the intent behind the article. Breaking things down with regard to Satan's mindset in testing Jesus' mettle is an example of that informal style. So then, my primary concern is not how well I will fare in a critique, but how well I articulate the information I'm trying to convey to a general reader.

Hi SJ,

I understand.... then it must be labeled biblical speculation, and not a sample of biblical hermeneutics. I hope you would agree that there is a need to drive to that one truth within God's word, and although it may seem petty to some, a word misspoken here, or there, can dramatically change the meaning without much thought to many. So as with a contract, both sides need to understand the same Ts and Cs, for if one thought this by seeing it say that, then the contract would fall apart.... so why would the bible be any different in striving to getting to that one meaning. Thus, reading into what Satan must have thought could set a false understanding that he did 'this' because of 'that', when if it's not within the word, is speculation... Thus if it's labeled as such, helps your readers to see it as such and not as your hermeneutics.

Assuming you agree that Satan understood the messianic prophecies beforehand, Who Jesus really was, and what successfully corrupting Him would mean for his own eternal destiny, I think it's safe to make a few general assumptions espoused in the article: I think Satan had been anticipating that encounter for thousands of years. I think knowing that the lake of fire loomed in the distance, Satan would not have trusted that assignment to any just any infernal underling. And it seems only logical that Satan would assume there was a chance of success, otherwise, there would be no point to the temptation. Finally, I didn't imply, as you suggest, that Satan "authored" Jesus' fasting and subsequent hunger. I simply pointed out that he always looks for a weakness to exploit; and introducing thoughts of food, while feigning doubt about Jesus' deity was an attempt to capitalize on Jesus' weakened physical condition. I find these assumptions reasonable, not really worthy of focus, and somewhat of a distraction from the main point of the article.

It's hard to say my friend what Satan knows and doesn't know. Knowing your writings, I know what you are trying to drive towards, I'm just offering feedback as to how it may be read when taken at the face value.... It's hard to say what and why beyond what was given, so calling it your speculation within your writing is ok to do, you just didn't come out and call it as such, so I helped you...

Yet, I'm happy that you agree with the primary focus of the article. We tend to see Jesus as God first and foremost--almost to the point of failing to recognize that Jesus the man, had a choice. As He Himself stated, He could have called out from the cross, and His Father would have dispatched angels to rescue him. But He didn't. He followed through to the bitter, agonizing end, because He is the flesh and blood embodiment of God's unfathomable love. The disobedience of the first Adam brought sin upon us, and the obedience of the sinless last Adam takes it away. I just think we need to remember both sides of the Savior.

I enjoy your writings SJ, for you come across as someone who loves the Lord and wants to dig into the word and learn, much what I enjoy myself... and only interact because of our friendship and common bond in Christ... I hope that it is OK.... Let me know if it is not.


Blessings...