Featured Let’s review some basic Christian understanding

I believe so!

 

The argument that the Second person of the Trinity became a man is similar to the monophysitism heresy of the 5th and 6th century. Monophysitism insisted that Jesus Christ had only one nature which is what you get if God became a man.

From: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Monophysitism

 

I don't get it OR.
Your human sources are right, so you say?
But the Bible is wrong??

John 1:14 And the Word was made 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.

The Word is the second person of the Triune Godhead, Jesus Christ. He became flesh, that is man. John says: "we beheld him," that is Christ the man, the One that became "human." He wasn't looking at a chunk of flesh; he was looking at a human. He was beholding Christ, the man, when he wrote this. Christ became man. This verse cannot be understood in any other way. You are denying the Scriptures at this point.
No one here denies that Christ was completely deity and completely man at the same time. But the great mystery of the incarnation is that God so humbled himself to become man and die for our sins. That is a precious truth in Christianity.

 

You simply are misinterpreting John 1:14! Saying that the Word was made flesh does not mean that God became a human. What you are arguing is counter to what Chalcedon teaches and that is considered the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation [again omitting the remarks regarding Mary].

 

If you want to put "Chalcedon" over and above the Word of God, that is your choice. I know what John 1:1 means. I have yet to hear how your explanation contradicts mine.
I have not brought into this discussion Mary, nor do I care to. That is not the discussion here. Why should I fear the RCC doctrine. I used to be one. I know what they teach, and it isn't the Bible.

 

One God, but within thwt One being are 3 seperate and distinct persons, Father/Son/Spirit!

God became a man as jesus, yet the Holy Spirit and tha Father still were also God...

cannot say God did not become a Human, as that would be heresy!

Apsotle john stated it best, that whoever denied the God became flesh, a man as Jesus, was of antichrist spirit!

NOT saying that you are, but that if you do NOT hold to God became a full Man, that jesus was BOTH fully God and Fully man, that denies the Incarnation!

 

Your analysis is incorrect. It is incorrect to say that the Word became the soul of the human ! You need to study what Chalcedon says about the Incarnation.

Chalcedon says it well: "to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons."

There are two natures in the person of Jesus Christ, the divine nature which is the Second Person of the Trinity, and the human nature which is the seed of the Virgin Mary, the seed of David, the seed of Abraham.

 

You repeat this over and over again, and yet no one has denied it.
Christ became a man; God in the flesh. It took place by being born of a virgin. Even while still in the womb he retained his deity. He was fully man and fully God at the same time. What have we said that is anything different from the above? What are you arguing against? Even Chalcedon, for all intents and purposes agrees with us.

 

You have denied it over and over by repeating that God became a man and that is incorrect. God did not become a man!

 

First Scripture says he became a man.
John 1:14 "and the Word became flesh" (human; a man)
The first man was Adam; The second Adam (man) was Christ.

God became man. If you don't believe this truth you deny Scripture.
Even Chalcedon, which you quote, states as much:

There are two natures in the person of Jesus Christ, the divine nature which is the Second Person of the Trinity, and the human nature which is the seed of the Virgin Mary, the seed of David, the seed of Abraham.

IOW Jesus Christ, the Second person of the Trinity became man (of the seed of Mary, the seed of David, the seed of Abraham--a man.)

 

I don't deny Scripture. It is just possible that I understand Scripture better than you do! I am certain that Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Gill both understand Scripture better than either of us and they agree with me.

And Chalcedon does not say that that God became a man"

 

IF Jesus was not fully God, then his death meant NOTHING towards saving us from our sins, IF he was not fully man, His death would NOT be as a substitute for us,as he was Not one of Us!

Bible CLEARLY teaches that he became AS one of us, fully humman, yet without any sin nature as we have!

You seem to confuse God becaming man with a kind of Modulaism, as you seem to imply that God while as jesus meant NO other God was any where else!

the second person of the Godhead was walking around as a human being on Earth, God the Ftaher stil in heaven, and the Holy spirit was in the earth!

 

Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man as I have repeatedly stated!

Just where does Scripture teach that God became a man?

That is nonsense. I implied nothing of the sort!

It is you who are confused. Read my posts and then study the remarks I posted by Gill and Lloyd-jones. Next you might study the decree of Chalcedon. The truth is God did not become a man!

This is the same stuff that was posted some months back claiming that God died on the cross!

 

From Gill

The Son became human.
God became flesh. His mistake is trying to divide up God. The Son is still God. When the Son became human, as Gill says, then it is still God becoming flesh, even though Gill says it is not the Father or the Spirit that is included. This is a mystery for in one way the triune Godhead can never be divorced. Is Gill inferring that the Son lost his deity? Then he is a heretic! If the Son did not lose his divinity his belief is no different than mine. God became man. God the Son left the glories of heaven and became man. That is what Gill said.

 

Strange but sad! You extract a clause from Gill's exegesis of John 1:14, call him a heretic and then then use him to prove your assertion. I am sure Gill won't mind you calling him a heretic but he likely will resent you claiming he said that God became a man. It is disingenuous to take Gill's comment out of context and then misuse it!

I presented his exegesis of John 1:14 where Gill clearly states that God did not become a man.

Notice Gill states that the Incarnation was NOT the change of the "divine into human, or the word into a man" which is what you are claiming. I would also note one more time what Lloyd-Jones says about the Incarnation.

From my post #10 I present all of Gill's comments on John 1:14:

If you would read Chalcedon you would see that there were two natures in the person Jesus Christ, the Divine nature being the Word and the human nature being the seed of Abraham, each nature kept distinct or preserved!

 

I don't think you even understand what you read OR.
No one even inferred that there is a third nature.
What I quoted from Gill, Gill says. Or are you saying Gill contradicts himself?

John 1:14 And the Word was made 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.

I marvel at your unbelief in this simple Scripture. God became man.
No third nature is involved. He became man. If he didn't he could not have died for our sins; he could not have paid the penalty that would satisfy God the Father. He was born of a virgin--a man: fully man and fully God at the same time. God became man. That is the incarnation. The word means "enfleshment." Mary was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and Christ was born, a man with two natures: fully man and fully God.

 

It has been claimed historically.

Gill did not contradict himself. You took a clause out of context and deliberately misused it. Gill clearly teaches that God did not become a man. To say otherwise is untruthful. I presented one more time that part of Gill's exegesis of John 1:14 where he clearly states that God did not become a man.

Gill clearly states above that the divine did not become human or the Word into a man. Yet you falsely say he did!

I believe the above Scripture. You are simply incapable of understanding it!

That is false.

The idea of a third nature was debunked decisively by Gill:

so why are you harping about that? Introducing a red herring?

Repeating a falsehood does not make it true! Remember the old priests of Baal
1 Kings 18:26,27.
26. And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made.
27. And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

I agree that Jesus Christ was one man with two natures, a Divine nature the Word, and a human nature, the seed of Mary and thus Abraham. I have made this statement numerous times. That does not mean that God became a man. The two natures were kept separate as Chalcedon says:

 

So have many things, like Jesus is an angel, or that he was born of fornication. But no one on this thread has made those claims, so your point is moot.

I don't think you understand Gill properly.
Nevertheless it is the Bible, not Gill that is my authority.
The Bible states that the Word became flesh. It is straight and to the point.
Why don't you accept it?
You are denying the Scripture at this point.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

I don't really care what Gill says at this point. What does the Scripture say?
The Word became flesh. What does the word flesh mean? It refers to human. Search it out for yourself, without the commentaries.

You won't study the verse without the aid of commentaries.

It is a red herring because no one here believes in a third nature, just like no one believes he was born of fornication or was an angel. Why bring these things up?

Then why repeat the falsehoods (i.e. third nature) ?

That does not deny the fact of the virgin birth, that he was born of of a woman, and thus became a man like you and I. If he didn't he couldn't die for our sins. As a man he suffered and died. As God he suffered. What happened when God the Father turned his back on the God the Son, and God the Son cried out to God the Father: "My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me"? How do you understand that passage?