I wrote >
Instead humanity was purified in relationship with God
in Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeating all along the way, and the humanity
"becoming perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God through the
things he suffered.
jt: How do we learn obedience
by what HE suffered? If this is so then why do we have to learn all over
again as God prunes us?
For the limited sake of this discussion I
should have been more specific and just said that "Instead his humanity
was purified in relationship with his divinity in
Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeated all along the
way, and the his humanity 'becoming perfected' in the process of learning
obedience to God through the things he suffered." That would have been easier
for you to understand.
Nevertheless, in that he is go'el, when he
defeated sin, death, and the devil in his humanity in resurrection, he
defeated it in all humanity. The only way now for those things to destroy us, in
that his victorious resurrection will not be ours to share, would be to reject
him as our Lord and Savior. If we do that, our names will be blotted out from
the Lambs book of life and in resurrection we will experience, not eternal
life, but the second death, for which their is no
salvation.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 12:09
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his
sources either. It seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of
the obscurity of his definition for this word.
jt: ... If I were writing about the
subject today I would not even bother with all that and I'm not even sure
that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so many equate this with the
RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came up with the term.
BT: That's fine with me Judy, preferable even. I
rarely use the term for the same reason; it just so happened that it is the
heading someone(?) chose to use for this thread, that's all.
Do you find it ironic Bill that we
get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born with the old
Adamic sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand and then argue
over whether or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on the other which is
the same as saying that God (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's
nature along with the rest of fallen humanity?
BT: I will point out once again the
deficiency in your thinking via your question above. The person of "Jesus" was
not an amalgomization in the sense that his two natures came together to
form a new alloy, like copper and zinc do in forming brass. His two nature did
not fuse to become a different kind of new substance, partly God and
partly man, similar yet disimilar from what they both would have been
otherwise. This is what you propose above: that the divinity of Jesus could
somehow be tainted by his humanity
"that God
(Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's nature along with the
rest of fallen humanity"
But you only
think this way because you are thinking of Jesus in terms
of an alloy. But your idea of Jesus is
nothing other than the syncretism Greek mythology with Christianity; it
is their idea of a demigod that you are upholding, Jesus being "the offspring of a god and a mortal, who has
some but not all of the powers of a god" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin
Company). The person of Jesus was not an alloy; he is a
union -- the union of two natures coming
together in one person: fully God, fully man.
jt: I don't relate to the
"alloy" idea or syncretism. I understand God to be a Spirit and before the
incarnation the person of Jesus was the Word of God - also Spirit.
I don't have a problem with the Word becoming flesh and dwelling amongst
us. ATST I don't see Jesus as the union of two natures; I see Him as
a representation of the Father in the earth and His nature as divine.
This idea is not
difficult to grasp, if you will allow yourself to think of it in terms of a
Hebrew concept and not through your Greek grid. When Jesus prayed that we
would be one with him as he is one with his Father, he was not suggesting that
we would somehow become little gods, that we would be a new
divine substance similar to God. No, the "one" to which he speaks
can only be understood relationally, like a husband and a wife come together
to make one flesh. They do not become an alloy, a new kind of substance; they
become a union.
jt: A husband and wife come
together sexually as 'one flesh' which is a physical act. The Godhead is one
Spirit which is a whole other kind of oneness.
That is what happened
in the person of Christ between his human nature and his divine nature; they
formed a union, not an alloy. Therefore God was in now way
tainted by the fallenness of humanity in the person of Jesus Christ.
jt: If Jesus was born with
an Adamic nature he would have to have that taint if it comes through
procreation. However, it appears that Adam was held responsible in the
garden and men were held responsible for the spirituality of their families
under the Old Covenant. DavidM and I were discussing this in a
biological way or by looking at natural generation. However, I note that
the genealogies in Matthew and Luke do not give Jesus a genealogy after
the flesh. Matthew traces the generations from Abraham through
Isaac (the son of Promise) to David and on to Christ (the Promise)
and in Luke the genealogy goes all the way back to Adam genealogically and
ends with Christ the son of Joseph (as was supposed) and we know that this is
not so - which gives Jesus a spiritual rather than a natural genealogy - don't
ask me to reconcile this with Greek syncretism.
Instead humanity was purified in relationship with God in
Christ's person throughout his life, the tryants
being defeating all along the way, and the humanity "becoming
perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God through the things he
suffered.
jt: How do we learn
obedience by what HE suffered? If this is so then why do we have to
learn all over again as God prunes us?
Think of the two
natures in the one person of Christ as a union and you will not ask questions
like the one above. Jesus is Emmanuel, NO PROBLEM. But think of Jesus
like the Greeks thought of demigods, and you will have major problems with
everything related to the person of our Lord. You'll have problems with his
humanity, and you will have problems with his divinity. You will be saying
things like "Jesus did not come here as God," on one day, and he "took on
part, but not all" of humanity, i.e., "the flesh but not the blood" on
the next. Repent of your Greek concepts, Judy, and think
like Jesus, a Jew. There is no excuse for
continuing in ignorance and unlearnedness once you have heard the
truth.
jt: I'm not going to repent
of something I am not involved in Bill and Greek demigods is one of them. I
have no problem with Jesus being flesh and blood with a divine nature and a
human soul free from the Adamic taint - and I do think like Jesus, I have the
mind of Christ. All it takes is Heb 13:8 to shoot that notion
in the foot - (that is the notion that Jesus' humanity included a fallen
Adamic nature) think about it "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and
forever." Yesterday he was the
second member of the Godhead. God is a spirit (Jn 4:24). So what
part of Jesus the man was "Emmanuel" God with us?
More of your Greek
mythology, Judy: Jesus was not partly man and
partly God, the flesh being one part and the spirit
part another. Jesus was human in the way that we are.
jt: Then he wasn't
"Emmanuel" God with us? You were the one making that argument were'nt
you?
Whether it be trichotomouly, as you suggest, or
integrated like the Hebrews thought, he was fully human. In other words, He had a human spirit like all humans have (take it
away and he was not human), yet at the same time he was
fully God, yes, Spirit -- the two natures coming together
in union in the one person of Jesus Christ. He was not a
demigod. He was Emmanuel, God with us in the person
of Jesus Christ. Bill
jt: Bill can we agree to
drop this Greek business, it is frustrating and has nothing at all to do with
what I am saying. You can't hear me because you are convinced that I am
saying something I am not saying.
Yes - I agree with you -
Jesus was born with a human spirit inside his human body like all humans
have. The difference between him and the rest of us is that he was born
with a human spirit that was alive to God (with no breach) whereas ours was
dead. Jesus walked in the fullness of the Holy Spirit - We are born void of
the Spirit (which is something the world can not receive) but we do
receive "a measure" when we are born again or born of the spirit
(and this is when our human spirit passes from death to life). Any
problems?
