We're making big changes. Please try out the beta site at beta.ccel.org and send us feedback. Thank you!

Discussions on Jesus (combining Was Jesus God & Jesus in the Bread)

Loutzenhiser's picture

Both these threads are covering about the same territory now and getting long again. Continue both threads here.

michael_legna's picture

Your arguments still don't hold

ML said: "Well you appear to be a respecter of men and I am not. I respect ideas and logical arguments based on an infallible source - scripture."

duu1der said -
Paul says in Rom 5: 17 – 19 that Jesus was a man… a human, since He is equated to Adam, who was merely human.

No Paul taught that Jesus had a human nature, this teaching does not rule out the possibility that He also had a divine nature. Not unless we want to place limits on God as you seem to want to do.

duu1der said -
Since Jesus did nothing that mere mortals did both before His birth and after His death,

No we have been over this before - and you continue to claim this as if it had not been disproven. Jesus did indeed do things which no man had done before - He died on the cross for the sins of all mankind.

duu1der said -
and since the Trinity doctrine is a doctrine developed by men under questionable circumstances (as displayed through history),

A history as presented by men with a bias is nothing more than a revisionist history.

duu1der said -
it is my opinion that the Trinity doctrine does not make sense since you end up with a statement that you made:
God is God and is always God, no matter what He chooses to act like. If Jesus is to be considered as God then He could not be tempted by evil no matter which nature since they stem from the One God, unless of course if the natures act independently which leads to 2 not 1.

This is not my statement, this is your misrepresenting my position as you have done throughout this discussion when you could not respond to the arguments I presented. It will not throw me off or even the readers of this I suspect because it is so obviously wrong.

Here is my position -
God is God and is always God, but He can choose not to act like God and so the divine nature can co-exist with a human nature and not interfere with the behavior of that human nature even while in the same being so that the being behaves completely humanly, including being subject to temptation. The natures act independently and we end up with two natures but still just one being.

duu1der said -
You have taken “words” that are translated by the same word in English and applied them wrongly in your understanding,

I assume you are referring to the term begotten here and in that case I just used the term as the men who wrote the Creeds used it. It may not match your 20th century understanding of the term but that is not my problem it is yours. The truth of the matter is when someone says "begotten" and then immediately contrasts it to "and not made" it is clear they are using begotten to mean something other than born of a creature - since then they would be speaking of something made. Therefore you modern definition simply does not apply.