Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question about Jesus

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Question about Jesus

    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.

  • #2
    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.
    Slug1--out

    ~"In the turmoil of any chaos, all it takes is that whisper that is heard like thunder over all the noise and the chaos seems to go away, focus returns and we are comforted in knowing that God has listened to our cry for help."~

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
          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.
          Always give God credit first.

          "Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
          -Sir Toby, Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare

          James 1:19

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by BroRog View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
                  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

                  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?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Xel'Naga View Post
                    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

                    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?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
                      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
                      I'll give it some thought tomorrow.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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)
                        "People aren't confused by the gospel...
                        They're confused by us.
                        Jesus is the only way to God,
                        But we are not the only way to Jesus.
                        This word world doesn't need my tie, my hoodie,
                        My denomination or my translation of the Bible.
                        They just need Jesus...
                        Jesus is going to save the world,
                        But, maybe, the best thing we can do
                        Is just get out of the way."

                        ~"What This World Needs"~
                        ~Casting Crowns ~

                        Tradition doesn't save you, Christ does.
                        Don't strap yourself to the Gospel.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
                              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?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X