The Divinity/Humanity of Christ

Excellent post, my friend...

I look forward to this thread...perhaps this is one we can all grow spiritually from and gain a greater understanding of Jesus and His work (even if we won't understand it all). I'll try to contribute later on when I get a chance.

God bless!

 

For years Dr. John Macarthur held that the Sonship of Jesus was simply a incarnation title. he took a lot of flack over that and has now changed his belief to hold that the Son was and is an eternal part of the Godhead.
One reason for the debate I believe is that some believe that the Trinity is three literal distinct persons who make one God. While others believe that the trinity is one God who presents himself in three persons. In some debates on the issue one will call the other heretics. The problem is that neither can be positive as to how the trinity exists.

In Luke it says this;
Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

You notice that it says He SHALL be CALLED the Son of God, leaving some to believe that He was not always the Son. John says He was the Word and the Word became flesh. This further adds to some belief that Jesus was not always the Son, but part of the literal makeup of God which became the Son.

Personally I believe that there are three distinct literal persons that make the Trinity and this is the makeup of one God. How that works I have no idea, but that is nothing since I cannot figure out how God can exist without a beginning, yet I believe that also. To add to the confusion I also believe that Jesus is not an eternal Son in eternity past. As I mentioned this is what MacArthur used to believe but changed his mind on it. I still hold to it however. I believe that He was as John says, the Word, making the term Son an incarnation title and one that is accurate for the place that He took in being a man as well as God. As to Him being the Word I believe that this is an literal explaination. In other words I believe that the literal Word of God became flesh. The scriptures says that God created with a word and it also teaches that Jesus was the Creator so this is where I get this understanding.

 

Frogman
As to your question;
"Would you agree then that Jesus (signifying his name among men) did not possess the full measure of the Spirit until his baptism and the Holy Spirit came down from heaven?"

I think sometimes terms can confuse. By full measure I assume that you mean measure of power, not measure of person. I believe that when the Spirit showed Himself as a dove it was a sign to those around more then anythnig else. Jesus had been sinless up to that time as well as after and that would require the spirit in great measure. As you know this is all speculation. Being fully God and fully man is somewhat of an unsolvable problem from my side.

 

Free at last & Frogman: good discussion.

I humbly suggest: say nothing theological. Use only actual biblical terms and expressions.

Anyway, that's what I will do. Start using theological terms and you get all tangled up in neo-Platonic or gnostic concepts, me thinks.

I NEVER say: "God the Son," or the "Second Person of the Blessed Triune Godhead," or the "God-man," or "Dear Trinity, I love Yous" or "Jesus is the Father you never had" (as that weird Promise Keepers org insists on so much that I left the $75.00 event after two annoying hours and threw my PK shirt in the garbage), or any other theological phrase.

Swedenborg allegedly said that the Trinity was formed after God created the material realm or universe, and that God is not 3 persons but God is one person with 3 aspects. I prefer this formulation, but I despise the word "trinity" it is so pagan and nonsensical to me. Yet God is called Father, and Spirit and Holy, and Jesus is the Word made flesh, Word was with God and was God.

Often apostle Paul says "God the Father and Jesus Christ our Lord" in his introductions to epistles and closings and such. He never uses a "trinitarian formula". In fact the triune formula is possibly implied only one or two places in Bible if memory serves me. A duality is strongly implied (Father/Son) and a unity (Hear O Israel the Lord your God is ONE--not two or three or four or five). Big problem, this trinity concept. Yet I'm not totally against it, just never satisfied with doctrinal formulations.

 

Nice reply. I say wild stuff, but you know I am totally sincere when I say it. I ponder stuff a lot. Someday I'll get a life. Until then, I ponder.

Jesus getting baptized, big issue w/you, I see.

well, I don't know. I can't explain it. Jesus did not need to repent. John's baptism was for repentance. I know Jesus explained: we all must "fulfill all righteousness," but huh? I still am in the dark on this one, I admit it up front.

John Wesley, whom I dearly love, though I don't know about Wesleyan churches or Methodist doctrines, anyway, he, the great revivalist, preacher, hymn writer, did NOT like the trinity formulations of men, and refused to subscribe to any of them. He did see God as Father, Son, Holy Spirit, but he rejected "trinity" as non-biblical word. (THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN WESLEY, William Ragsdale Cannon, Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, MCMXLVI--what year? I'm bad with Roman Numerals)--page 161 "Wesley frankly admits that he personally can require no one to use the word "trinity" or "person" as if the refusal to do so were blasphemous...nor will he say that it is of importance to believe any particular explication of the doctrine of the Trinity."

Well expressed. A history of this idea, as stated by famous past theologians, would be a nice book to write.

 

There are several ideas as to why the Lord had to be baptized. I have not been able to hold to one explaination, but here is one. One possibility for Jesus needing to be baptized was because He had to fulfill the legal requirements for entering into the priesthood. He was priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20). Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21) in His role as priest.
To be consecrated as a priest, He had to be:
- washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16).
- Anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16).
Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism.
Additionally, He may have needed to be 30 years old - (Num. 4:3)

 

Romans 6 gives us a clue as to one reason Jesus was baptized---it was a public proclaimation to the people of an impending death, in impending buriel, and an impending resurrection.

At Jesus' baptism---He wasn't so much identifying with our humanity as we at our baptism are identifying with Him---Jesus identified with humanity at His birth when He became flesh---at baptism we identify with Him---

More next writing