The God of our Lord Jesus Christ - Page 4

mfblume · #31 10-12-2009, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

That is not necessarily true especially if we take what David is referenced as saying as a prophecy of the coming messiah; if Christ is called our Lord out of reference to his human nature, then surely he can be called David's also out reference to his human nature also.

If this was a prophecy, then I can agree with that. It does seem to be a prophecy.

jfrog · #32 10-12-2009, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

I agree with all you said except for this line, "So, if we were to call the whole person of Jesus Christ, God, then we would also be calling the human nature of this true resurrected ascended man, God."

The man is not Deity whether the PERSON is the same person as God or not.

When you call Jesus, God, is it in reference to both of the natures of Jesus or only his divine nature? If you only do it in relation to his divine nature, then we are in agreement that we ought not refer to the human nature of Jesus as God. If we ought not refer to the human nature of Jesus as God, and if Jesus is both fully-man and fully-God, then we must be very careful not to call this Jesus Christ, God, without making sure the reference is only in relation to his divine nature. Which means that when we call Jesus Christ, God, we need to clearly exempt his human nature from this declaration.

mfblume · #33 10-13-2009, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

When you call Jesus, God, is it in reference to both of the natures of Jesus or only his divine nature?

JESUS literally means JEHOVAH IS OUR SALVATION. I consider that the name of the very person of God. Immanuel is also used for Him, and that means GOD WITH US. Why was He with us? For salvation. So it involves both. Salvation was not possible without the fleshly incarnation of God.

Quote:

If you only do it in relation to his divine nature, then we are in agreement that we ought not refer to the human nature of Jesus as God. If we ought not refer to the human nature of Jesus as God, and if Jesus is both fully-man and fully-God, then we must be very careful not to call this Jesus Christ, God, without making sure the reference is only in relation to his divine nature. Which means that when we call Jesus Christ, God, we need to clearly exempt his human nature from this declaration.

I agree.

jfrog · #34 10-13-2009, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

JESUS literally means JEHOVAH IS OUR SALVATION. I consider that the name of the very person of God. Immanuel is also used for Him, and that means GOD WITH US. Why was He with us? For salvation. So it involves both. Salvation was not possible without the fleshly incarnation of God.

I agree.

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the name Jesus can be used of both the divine and human nature? And that you agree with me about always making sure that in calling Jesus Christ, God, the reference never refers to his human nature?

If that is right then I think I have a good way of summing up that position. Jesus is God, but God is not Jesus (God is only Jesus' divine nature, not his human and divine nature.) We could also sum up his humanity in a similar way. Jesus is human, but human doesn't refer to the whole person of Jesus.

mfblume · #35 10-14-2009, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the name Jesus can be used of both the divine and human nature?

Yes. Matt 28:19 uses a common name for Father, Son and Holy Ghost. the grammar demands one singular name, and Jesus is that name.

Quote:

And that you agree with me about always making sure that in calling Jesus Christ, God, the reference never refers to his human nature?

No. I must have missed that point you made. I am saying in that in referring to Jesus Christ as man, we must be sure to distinguish the humanity from the deity. But I thought you said that in referring to Him as God, we must distinguish the deity from the humanity.

jfrog · #36 10-14-2009, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Yes. Matt 28:19 uses a common name for Father, Son and Holy Ghost. the grammar demands one singular name, and Jesus is that name.

No. I must have missed that point you made. I am saying in that in referring to Jesus Christ as man, we must be sure to distinguish the humanity from the deity. But I thought you said that in referring to Him as God, we must distinguish the deity from the humanity.

I think we are in agreement mfblume. I think we must separate the humanity and deity of Jesus. So that if we call him a man, we must be sure that we are only referring to his humanity and if we call him God we must be sure that we are only referring to his deity. If I understand what you are saying then you totally agree with this also.

mfblume · #37 10-14-2009, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

I think we are in agreement mfblume. I think we must separate the humanity and deity of Jesus. So that if we call him a man, we must be sure that we are only referring to his humanity and if we call him God we must be sure that we are only referring to his deity. If I understand what you are saying then you totally agree with this also.

Yes, I think so.

Godsdrummer · #38 10-16-2009, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

I think we are in agreement mfblume. I think we must separate the humanity and deity of Jesus. So that if we call him a man, we must be sure that we are only referring to his humanity and if we call him God we must be sure that we are only referring to his deity. If I understand what you are saying then you totally agree with this also.

So are we humans made up of (body, spirit and soul)? I think thats right. Been years since high school phycoligy. cant spell at this time either. anyway we have a body that is physical and a part of us that is eternal. The question I have is do you refer differantly to someone when you refer to them as a man or women than you would their soul or spirit? Then why would we feel we need to separate the humanity part of Jesus from his deity? Other than the few time that it helps us understand how he prayed in the garden etc.

jfrog · #39 10-16-2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

So are we humans made up of (body, spirit and soul)? I think thats right. Been years since high school phycoligy. cant spell at this time either. anyway we have a body that is physical and a part of us that is eternal. The question I have is do you refer differantly to someone when you refer to them as a man or women than you would their soul or spirit? Then why would we feel we need to separate the humanity part of Jesus from his deity? Other than the few time that it helps us understand how he prayed in the garden etc.

The claim is that Jesus was fully man. That he must have had a human spirit/soul. Jesus wasn't just a fleshly body that had God's Spirit instead of a human one. In fact if he were just a body without a human spirit/soul then it seems he wouldn't really have been fully man. Not to mention if he didn't have a human spirit/soul his prayers still don't make much sense. So, unless you want to claim that having a human soul/spirit is not an essential part of being human... Then we must believe that Jesus had a human spirit/soul. By the way I'm not sure if the soul is any different from the spirit, but whichever way I think what I've said works for both.

Godsdrummer · #40 10-17-2009, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

The claim is that Jesus was fully man. That he must have had a human spirit/soul. Jesus wasn't just a fleshly body that had God's Spirit instead of a human one. In fact if he were just a body without a human spirit/soul then it seems he wouldn't really have been fully man. Not to mention if he didn't have a human spirit/soul his prayers still don't make much sense. So, unless you want to claim that having a human soul/spirit is not an essential part of being human... Then we must believe that Jesus had a human spirit/soul. By the way I'm not sure if the soul is any different from the spirit, but whichever way I think what I've said works for both.

Ok
So that argument did not work too well. But I still don't see what the problem is in just refering to him as God or God as Jesus. The point is the message still gets to God one way or the other. Jesus did say he and the father are one if you see Jesus you see the father. etc. I have always understood Jesus to simply be God robed in flesh not as the son of God per say. John 1:14 say the word became flesh and we beheld him as the only begoten, or we percive him as the son of God. This was to be a temorary perception. Only while he walked the earth, and gave himself on the cross. As John saw him in Revelation before the judgement of Jeruselam he was the lamb. But today he is the king sitting on the throne for all eternity.