Right Divider
Body part
Jesus was BOTH God and man. So no contradiction at all.
Engaged Perfection: : The Relational Nature of God
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
You're reading too much into those three words.
Acts13:33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.’
Today I have begotten You.’
34 And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus:
‘I will give you the sure mercies of David.’
35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm:
‘You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.’
36 “For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; 37 but He whom God raised up saw no corruption.
For "corruption" read "decay" as my NKJV correctly points out. It's Strong's G1312...diaphthora:
- corruption, destruction
- in the NT that destruction which is effected by the decay of the body after death
Luke is drawing a parallel between David, who did decay and Jesus, the Seed of David, who did not see decay.
In short, there is no conflict between Christ's divinity and His humanity. Jesus was both. It isn't that He was God and He was a man as though the two remained separated and Jesus was some sort of bifurcated thing. No! The two had become one in Christ and, as such, He was and is the Godman.
You guys are arguing in favor of a Calvinist doctrine called the Hypostatic Union. I assure you there is no need for the doctrine! Their reasoning for the doctrine is based on the same notions that I deal with in the opening post.
Calvinists (and other Augustinians) argue that if Jesus’ divinity were to be completely merged with His humanity, the limitations of human experience, such as suffering, weakness, or mortality, would undermine the divine attributes like omnipotence, omniscience and most certainly immutability. They argue that God, by nature, cannot change, suffer, or die. If Jesus’ divinity were fully "humanized," it would imply that God can suffer or be limited, which would conflict with their most cherished doctrines, namely immutability, impassibility and divine simplicity.
I believe that the hypostatic union doctrine is a tacit denial of the gospel itself. It was God who suffered and died on that cross, not just some human half of Him. When Jesus died, He was really dead - all of Him. He was just as dead as any other righteous person who has ever died, before or since and I, for one, consider the fact that it was God Himself who came and died for our sin to be an indispensable part of the gospel and that if you do not believe that God died for your sin, then you are not saved.
Calvinists (and other Augustinians) argue that if Jesus’ divinity were to be completely merged with His humanity, the limitations of human experience, such as suffering, weakness, or mortality, would undermine the divine attributes like omnipotence, omniscience and most certainly immutability. They argue that God, by nature, cannot change, suffer, or die. If Jesus’ divinity were fully "humanized," it would imply that God can suffer or be limited, which would conflict with their most cherished doctrines, namely immutability, impassibility and divine simplicity.
I believe that the hypostatic union doctrine is a tacit denial of the gospel itself. It was God who suffered and died on that cross, not just some human half of Him. When Jesus died, He was really dead - all of Him. He was just as dead as any other righteous person who has ever died, before or since and I, for one, consider the fact that it was God Himself who came and died for our sin to be an indispensable part of the gospel and that if you do not believe that God died for your sin, then you are not saved.
John 8:24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”
Right Divider
Body part
@Clete Please don't try to tag us with believing Calvinist doctrine.
I understand that you believe that the union of God and man in Christ makes a new unique nature. I can see why you argue that and in many ways I agree with it. And yet we both still talk about Jesus as BOTH God and man. And that's TWO things.
So let's agree that BOTH views are compatible with reality.
I understand that you believe that the union of God and man in Christ makes a new unique nature. I can see why you argue that and in many ways I agree with it. And yet we both still talk about Jesus as BOTH God and man. And that's TWO things.
So let's agree that BOTH views are compatible with reality.
I can detect no difference between what you are arguing and the Calvinist hypostatic union doctrine. I have no problem at all believing that you reject the Calvinist rational for this doctrine, which is the reason I brought it up. The point being that if you reject the rational for the doctrine, why do you retain the doctrine?
Using that phrasing as a "manner of speaking" is quite different than holding to a specific doctrine, right?
I have no problem with saying that God is both God and man. I have used the exact vernacular myself on this very thread but that's quite different than saying that Jesus had two separate natures. Talking about one coin having two sides isn't the same thing as saying you have a coin with a head and a coin with a tail. It's one coin. If it didn't have both, it wouldn't even be a real coin at all, which is to say that having a head side and a tail side is a description of the coin's nature (singular).
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
I don't disagree with you that Jesus didn't see corruption, as David did. My point was that He was subject to (capable of experiencing) corruption and weak--because He became a human being. Those are human characteristics, not divine ones. Thus Jesus's godly qualities are at the very least muted, if not completely given up for the time before His resurrection. And I don't know what "muted immortality" looks like.
Well, perhaps.
I can't put my finger on it, but, intuitively (and I'm the opposite of a strong intuitive), there's something about the notion that Jesus was weak and subject to corruption that doesn't sit well in my brain.
Right Divider
Body part
I know that you and I like to bang heads. We are both very pedantic and stubborn.
I will agree with with you that the GodMan has a single nature..... But that nature is twofold.
You, yourself, have agreed on multiple occasions that Jesus is God AND man. So I will leave it at that.
I can live with that.
Please understand that it was not my intention to "tag you with believing Calvinist doctrine", as you put it. I was merely presenting the rational behind the two separate natures doctrine. I would never suggest that you agreed with that rational, quite the opposite, which, as I said, was the point of bringing it up. I certainly didn't intend to cause offense.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
I think it is mainly saying that He could die, and His body could decay. He was resurrected before the decay happened.
Here's another verse:
2 Peter 1:4 NKJV — by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
It also contrasts divine nature with corruption. Jesus would have had nothing to do with the lust, but it sounds like it is a contrast between life and death. And death happened to Christ.
Christ had no sin, no sin nature, no "leaven", thus, no, I don't think His body would have ever decayed. Being three days dead is more than long enough to stink up the place. If He hadn't started by then, He wasn't going to start at all.
This depends on what you means by "death happened" to Christ. Yes, Jesus died but not because He wasn't divine. Angels aren't divine and they don't die. Jesus died because He chose to lay down His own life and so it didn't so much happen to Him as He just did it. It did happen but because He willingly let it happen. Do you see the distinction?
Derf
Well-known member
That's an interesting idea, but I don't know if you could back it up with scripture, any more than I could refute it with scripture. Death was a result of sin, but Jesus still died, so I don't see how the corruption of the body is any different.
I wasn't trying to say it was random or something, but it happened (as you stated), however it happened, to God? I wasn't trying to say there are no other beings that live forever, but that humans are subject to death and divine beings aren't. Do you understand my distinction? Humans can die, Divine beings can't. We know that humans could die even from the very beginning, because God told Adam that he would die if he ate of the tree. So they were subject to death--it was possible for them to die--even if they didn't eat of the tree. Forgive me if my wording isn't accurate as I try to describe my intention.
Death (and decay of our body) is a consequence of sin. Levin is a symbol of sin precisely because it is a decay process (See I Corinthians 5).
Further, I think I just did back it up with scripture. Was Jesus not dead for three days? Lazarus had been dead for just four and no one wanted to open the tomb because it would stink so bad.
Further, you yourself have quoted passages that establish it....
Psalm 16:10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
Acts 2:27 For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
Acts 2:31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.
Acts 13:35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm: ‘You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.’
The question mark at the end of that sentence is a question mark on your salvation.
God died for your sin. Believe it and live or don't and die.
Generally, this is an accurate observation. Jesus is the exception that proves the rule.
Can't?
God the Son died or we are all still in our sin.
Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
Revelation 1:18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.
No. It was their rebellion that made them mortal and, had they eaten of the Tree of Life, they'd have been immortal in spite of their rebellion, which is why God booted them out of the Garden and put a guard to prevent them from getting access to it.
Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
I feel like I'm following you quite well.
Last edited: