PDA

View Full Version : Question about Jesus



apothanein kerdos
Jul 15th 2008, 10:04 PM
Did Jesus have a physical body? Not just a physical body, but did He feel pain, did He get hurt, did He sweat? Did He need to shave? Did He have the same organs as us?

Trust me, this is going somewhere. :)

Slug1
Jul 15th 2008, 10:10 PM
Sure...

John 1:14

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

BroRog
Jul 16th 2008, 12:32 AM
Did Jesus have a physical body? Not just a physical body, but did He feel pain, did He get hurt, did He sweat? Did He need to shave? Did He have the same organs as us?

Trust me, this is going somewhere. :)
I agree with Slug. Jesus was a man.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 16th 2008, 12:37 AM
So Jesus did have actual flesh and blood.

So, when He died, was it actual blood? Such as, if we could put it under a microscope and inspect it it would have the same properties as our own?

At the same time, does any of this prove He wasn't God?

Buzzword
Jul 16th 2008, 12:44 AM
So Jesus did have actual flesh and blood.

So, when He died, was it actual blood? Such as, if we could put it under a microscope and inspect it it would have the same properties as our own?

At the same time, does any of this prove He wasn't God?

Question 1: yes.

Question 2: no. Divinity is not found in DNA, but DNA does not disprove divinity.

BroRog
Jul 16th 2008, 03:44 AM
So Jesus did have actual flesh and blood.

So, when He died, was it actual blood? Such as, if we could put it under a microscope and inspect it it would have the same properties as our own?

At the same time, does any of this prove He wasn't God?

Yes, Jesus was flesh and blood just like us.

Define God.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 16th 2008, 03:56 AM
Yes, Jesus was flesh and blood just like us.

Define God.

Well that certainly is asking a lot.

God, as in all powerful, the creator, etc.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 16th 2008, 04:40 AM
So if we all agree that Jesus had actual flesh - human skin and bones, genetically was the same as a human - does this mean He was a sinner? Does it mean He was lesser? Does it mean He was carnal when He used his reasoning?

Athanasius
Jul 16th 2008, 04:53 AM
So if we all agree that Jesus had actual flesh - human skin and bones, genetically was the same as a human - does this mean He was a sinner? Does it mean He was lesser? Does it mean He was carnal when He used his reasoning?

Was it not Augustine who believed that 'sin' was inherited through the seed of men. Now, I see Augustine's thought as a way to reconcile the concept of original sin with the fact that scripture claims Jesus was without sin. So the question is then--is this view based in scripture? It's 1 AM, I don't have the time to look right now :P

I don't know about you, but I'll agree Jesus was flesh and bone. But genetically, hold up a minute. Jesus had Mary as a mother and God as a father (quite literally). Would this not alter the genetic aspect of Jesus?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 16th 2008, 05:08 AM
Was it not Augustine who believed that 'sin' was inherited through the seed of men. Now, I see Augustine's thought as a way to reconcile the concept of original sin with the fact that scripture claims Jesus was without sin. So the question is then--is this view based in scripture? It's 1 AM, I don't have the time to look right now :P

I don't know about you, but I'll agree Jesus was flesh and bone. But genetically, hold up a minute. Jesus had Mary as a mother and God as a father (quite literally). Would this not alter the genetic aspect of Jesus?

If Jesus wasn't fully human genetically, then how could he claim to be fully human at all? :)

God implanted a seed in Mary - it doesn't say it was God's seed (as this would tie into the Mormon view), but just a seed. This would seem to indicate that Jesus, genetically, was fully human as well as divine.

With this in mind, did His skin and physicality make Him sinful?

Athanasius
Jul 16th 2008, 05:35 AM
If Jesus wasn't fully human genetically, then how could he claim to be fully human at all? :)

God implanted a seed in Mary - it doesn't say it was God's seed (as this would tie into the Mormon view), but just a seed. This would seem to indicate that Jesus, genetically, was fully human as well as divine.

With this in mind, did His skin and physicality make Him sinful?

Well, I asked two questions, I didn't give two assertions :P
I'll give it some thought tomorrow.

LadyinWaiting
Jul 16th 2008, 02:07 PM
So if we all agree that Jesus had actual flesh - human skin and bones, genetically was the same as a human - does this mean He was a sinner? Does it mean He was lesser? Does it mean He was carnal when He used his reasoning?

Question 1: No. Being genetically human does not negate the fact that He was also called "fully God" (who is without sin). His human body made it possible for us to conenct with Him. His inherent nature was sinless (whereas most humans are inherently sinful because we have the nature inheirited from Adam from conception). He did not carry our sinful nature simply because he was encased in flesh. His divine nature would defy it.

Question 2: Lesser than what? Meaning lower than God? I would venture to say temporarily since God is a spirit and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth. Jesus lowered himself to the level of a servent and became obedient to death on a cross for our sins. So, was he lower than God? Only in terms of his status on earth when he decided that equality with God (what he had prior to becoming "human") as something not to be grasped. (Philippeans 2:5-7)

Question 3: No. He couldn't be carnal because of the aforementioned status of his own divinity. Additionally, using reasoning does not mean we're carnal. Your reasoning, in indwelled by the Holy Spirit, is guided by God himself. Christ, being God to his very core, used his own guiding as He IS Father, Son and Holy Spirit (technically, due to the trinity)

apothanein kerdos
Jul 16th 2008, 02:17 PM
I was kind of beat to the punch by LadinWaiting, but:

So, though Jesus had flesh and blood - if we tested Him, He'd be human - and used His reasoning, yet wasn't carnal in this, why do we so often associate physical things in this world - paintings, vocations, reasoning - with carnality? If Jesus was able to come and be a carpenter ('secular' vocation), but was sinless, surely we are able to do these things too.

Wouldn't it make more sense to say that "carnality" or "flesh" (as Paul often uses it at least) refers more to our sin nature rather than to our actual flesh?

Kahtar
Jul 16th 2008, 02:23 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense to say that "carnality" or "flesh" (as Paul often uses it at least) refers more to our sin nature rather than to our actual flesh?
Right. Blood, bone, and tissue are not inheritantly sinful. It is our inherited Adamic nature that is sinful. Or in other words, our soul rather than our body.

HisLeast
Jul 16th 2008, 02:28 PM
I was kind of beat to the punch by LadinWaiting, but:

So, though Jesus had flesh and blood - if we tested Him, He'd be human - and used His reasoning, yet wasn't carnal in this, why do we so often associate physical things in this world - paintings, vocations, reasoning - with carnality? If Jesus was able to come and be a carpenter ('secular' vocation), but was sinless, surely we are able to do these things too.

Wouldn't it make more sense to say that "carnality" or "flesh" (as Paul often uses it at least) refers more to our sin nature rather than to our actual flesh?

It would make much more sense, but if it actually was that way, some would have no reason to stare down their nose and work their opinions into the law (*cough*alcohol-is-sin*cough*). And what fun would that be?

LadyinWaiting
Jul 16th 2008, 03:27 PM
So, though Jesus had flesh and blood - if we tested Him, He'd be human - and used His reasoning, yet wasn't carnal in this, why do we so often associate physical things in this world - paintings, vocations, reasoning - with carnality? If Jesus was able to come and be a carpenter ('secular' vocation), but was sinless, surely we are able to do these things too.

I've never heard anyone refer to everything in this world as carnal. Now, that being said, our sin nature (thanks to Adam) makes us taint things because we do them for the wrong reasons usually (paintings being used to glorify ourselves rather than God, using reason or logic to deny our Heavenly Father or make Him out to be something less than He is). As far as vocations, some enter for the glory, the money, the thrill, etc. Thus, the occupation is no longer glorifying God. I'm a teacher. I'm a teacher because I want to be a postive influence in teen's lives (let's face it, it's not for the pay!). If I were to decide not to be a teacher because I wasn't being thanked or recognized for my hard work, then I've suddenly changed my vocation from being about where God led me to what *I* want (which makes me step out of the will of God and, thus, basically sin).


Wouldn't it make more sense to say that "carnality" or "flesh" (as Paul often uses it at least) refers more to our sin nature rather than to our actual flesh?

Isn't that how it's always used? I've never heard someone say, "I scraped my knee on the sidewalk when I fell and left my carnality there." It wouldn't really make much sense.
I think it's commonly misunderstood if you think of it in terms of literal "flesh" but when it's used in sermons, studies, etc. I've only ever heard it used as "flesh" in the meaning of "flesh nature" (ex. "our flesh is bound to sin before Christ enters as Lord..." or "We are bound in the flesh before salvation" - we aren't suddenly skinned or something after salvation. We're just free from the bondage our fleshly nature is in.).

I've never heard or understood it to be anything different.

ariel_jesus237
Jul 16th 2008, 03:57 PM
Remember Jesus was conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit, a fruit of God. Think about this interesting genetic fact. Men are the ones who provide the x or y chromosome while women just provide the x chromosome. So techincally the seed of man determines whether or not the child will be boy or girl. Who provided that part of Jesus and who gave Jesus those genetics? If Jesus became man, it was because He was born out of Mary's womb and she provided the egg that would give Him flesh. But this isn't biblical this is just my opinion so don't go by me, read the Scriptures and you'll see.

Jesus in Gethsemane when He was about to make His final prayer submitting to the Lord's will that He be the sacrificial Lamb:

Mark 14:34 And he said to them, My soul is very sorrowful, even to death. Remain here and watch.

Luke 22:44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

This shows that He did feel the same pain we go through, and it is even scientifically proven that one can sweat blood. Although the Bible may not mean this literally, the stress and pressure that was on Jesus at that moment to do what He was about to do is more than enough to make a person sweat blood. That's how bad he had it.

John 11:34 Jesus wept.

This is a human instinct, to cry. Many other passages show Jesus did have human emotions as well like anger, and compassion. After Jesus was tempted by the devil and after fasting totally for 40 days and 40 nights, the angels are the one who came to Him and ministered to Him, gave Him support because of His human state and how fatigue could come over Him. Jesus also felt hunger, the same hunger we feel.

Mat 4:11 Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him.

Yet just because Jesus was incarnate, doesn't mean He ceased to be God or ceased to have divinity. He still did miracles, He still did things no other man could do only God. He always did God's will and this was only possible because He was one with the Father. But He went through every temptation and every stress, every pain we could possible imagine.

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

daughter
Jul 16th 2008, 04:10 PM
If Jesus wasn't fully human genetically, then how could he claim to be fully human at all? :)

I think, more to the point, that we are the corrupted offspring of a man who fell away from God's design... so Jesus was more completely and fully a man than anyone since the fall. We are the ones who are not fully human.

God's Leading Lady
Jul 16th 2008, 04:35 PM
Did Jesus have a physical body? Not just a physical body, but did He feel pain, did He get hurt, did He sweat? Did He need to shave? Did He have the same organs as us?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes...

apothanein kerdos
Jul 16th 2008, 06:26 PM
LadyinWaiting,

Look around the message board and you'll see some people claiming that we should rely on the Holy Spirit and not our carnal readings of Scripture (e.g. looking at the historical evidence, original languages, etc).

Go into a Christian bookstore and see how we have sanctified everything - a painting about nature has to be supplanted with Scripture on the frame, otherwise it's not "Christian." We appreciate and pay our pastors more than the janitors that keep the church operating. We've invented games such as "Bible-opoly" so as to avoid playing secular games, like Monopoly. We even have "Testa-Mints" that have Scripture on them.

The point I'm getting at in this thread is though we may not say we devalue the physical world in our theology, in our practice we often do. When we say someone is going into ministry, we automatically assume this means he will work at a church or in the mission field. When we tell people how to act like a Christian at work, it generally entails creative ways to bring up witnessing opportunities.

If Christ was flesh and bone, yet divine, this tends to show that the flesh is not corrupt (as in, it is not what causes us to sin). It is not sinful and, more importantly, it is not lesser than the spirit world (of which God is not a part of - He is above both the spirit world and physical world as He created both). We don't need to sanctify physical objects. We don't need to over spiritualize everything. We can look at the Bible and take its physical meaning to be the intended meaning - we don't need to find the 'spirit' behind it.

Just some thoughts after reading a few topics.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 16th 2008, 06:27 PM
I think, more to the point, that we are the corrupted offspring of a man who fell away from God's design... so Jesus was more completely and fully a man than anyone since the fall. We are the ones who are not fully human.

This I can certainly agree with. I believe the Fall caused four separations:

1) Man's separation from God
2) Man's separation from Man
3) Man's separation from Nature
4) Man's separation from Himself

This means we are incomplete this side of eternity.

Teke
Jul 16th 2008, 08:53 PM
This I can certainly agree with. I believe the Fall caused four separations:

1) Man's separation from God
2) Man's separation from Man
3) Man's separation from Nature
4) Man's separation from Himself

I would call it illness rather than separation. Separation sounds so final, while illness can be a good thing. In our case, to the glory of God.



This means we are incomplete this side of eternity.

Not if we are in Christ.

He has infused Himself within humanity. As St Athanasius said, that which is not assumed is not redeemed/transformed/transfigured.

Matter is not as substantial as it might seem. In Him matter is transformed/transfigured in total harmony. In our person can be this complete union of body, mind and spirit of which He taught.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 16th 2008, 09:11 PM
He has infused Himself within humanity. As St Athanasius said, that which is not assumed is not redeemed/transformed/transfigured.

Matter is not as substantial as it might seem. In Him matter is transformed/transfigured in total harmony. In our person can be this complete union of body, mind and spirit of which He taught.

Then there would be no need for death or a new body. ;)

Teke
Jul 16th 2008, 09:37 PM
Then there would be no need for death or a new body. ;)

Ah, but God provides what we need. And so death is necessary (needful) 1 Cor. 15:36. As scripture says, it is only the "fear" of death which holds man in bondage (Heb. 2:15).
That can be applied to both physical death and baptism. Yet baptism is to teach us of death and put us into the body of Christ. As Jesus said, we will never die if we believe in Him (John 11:26).

LadyinWaiting
Jul 16th 2008, 10:07 PM
Look around the message board and you'll see some people claiming that we should rely on the Holy Spirit and not our carnal readings of Scripture (e.g. looking at the historical evidence, original languages, etc).

Which I've always found as odd since it does nothing but add to clearer understanding of the veracity of the Scriptures, applications then and now that aren't tied to things "culturally relevent" or time based. For mercy's sake, isn't the point of Christian apologetics to be able to explain our faith for our own sake as well as helping those who are not of the faith understand the wonderful truth of our faith? The Holy Spirit is what leads in that sort of examination and understanding (at least it does when I use those commentaries and concordances during my own study).

I hadn't seen that around here, but it is sad that they are missing out on so much by keeping it all in a box when there's so much to dazzle when you get deeper and deeper into the time and purpose each word was written.


Go into a Christian bookstore and see how we have sanctified everything - a painting about nature has to be supplanted with Scripture on the frame, otherwise it's not "Christian." We appreciate and pay our pastors more than the janitors that keep the church operating. We've invented games such as "Bible-opoly" so as to avoid playing secular games, like Monopoly. We even have "Testa-Mints" that have Scripture on them.

You got me on the Testaments (they aren't even that good...but work in a pinch). The other things I love (Bible Mad-Gab, Bible Scattergories) for the same reason I love digging deeper into scripture and the background of scripture...it forces you to constantly think about your faith. I've had several great moments with my niece and nephew discussing Biblical things they brought up in Scattergories.

The pictures, I like them. I don't demand them, but I love the conversations they start in our homes. My favorite picture right now is the winter scene with a barren tree and fence in the snow that says "Be Still and Know..." in the bottom corner. It's just a serene scene, and I love the chance to explain it.

I will admit that I am a big proponent of "Dance Praise" (basically the Christian version of "Dance Dance Revolution" because I LOVE that precious ears are being kept from the secular, sex-infused music of the original and arcade versions). It's wonderful for me, too, to sing along with David Crowder's "Oh, Praise Him" and such. Great exercise...I HIGHLY recommend it!


The point I'm getting at in this thread is though we may not say we devalue the physical world in our theology, in our practice we often do. When we say someone is going into ministry, we automatically assume this means he will work at a church or in the mission field. When we tell people how to act like a Christian at work, it generally entails creative ways to bring up witnessing opportunities.

Well, the ministry thing is understandable to a point. However, I love the signs at some churches as you leave that say "You are now entering the mission field." We are ALL in the ministry, it's not held to only a few people who have those titles.

As far as the pastoral pay vs.janitorial pay...well...that's everywhere though. I work hard during the school year, in the trenches with the students, trying to teach. I get about $35,000 (before taxes). My principals are making at LEAST double that (depending on their degree levels). However, I would not trade places with them for an instant (I'm more of a teen-person. I don't handle adults well since I usually expect more out of them.) because this is my role I was sent into - salary and all. Should the janitor get more? Most likely. However, does he/she have satisfaction doing that rather than administrative duties and pastoral duties 24/7 of the pastor...most likely.

I think that to say the Earth is sinful and carnal is incorrect, since God created it all and said "It is good." (No questioning that.) However, we are told that the "World" (meaning those who are not in Christ and their sinful lifestyles usually of indulgence) is what we should not love...that we are in it, but not of it. For that purpose a lot of Christians feel the need to indulge in similar activities, but with a twist to define their difference. If that makes them feel like they're taking a firmer stand for Christ...more power to them.

As for me and my house (which includes just me and my husband at the moment), we will do our best to serve the Lord by living lives worthy of our calling. I'd hope that everyone else would do that as well.

When you live it out, people know a difference in you, whether you're a cake artisan like my sister or a teacher like me or an aircraft mechanic like my husband once was. We walk out into the world every day, and they should know that we are different by who we are and how we are...however, it shouldn't be relegated to only by the cross we wear, the verse on our briefcase, or the picture on our desk.

If you need a picture or something like that to make the statement for you, you're not living the life. If you simply like it because it helps keep your mind on things that are good, praiseworthy, holy, etc., then by all means - go for it with all the blessings God can pour.