Featured The Two Natures of Christ

You are concerned with “in Christ” and I left out the “within” and used “in.” That was certainly an error on my part. .

The nature of the covering is as you indicate certainly has its needs: feeding, needs sleep, needs sunlight, needs cleaning, ... that which keeps the body healthy.

On that we agree.

Perhaps,There is a bit of difference when it comes to the intangibles. Do you view that, because Christ was tempted, He then had the capacity to succumb to that temptation and had to in some manner conquer the impulse to seccumb as is the estate of fallen creation?

Does not the Scriptures of your own post indicate that no such impulse was even A part of the “nature” of the incarnation?

To mark out the parameters of the body of Christ, the “nature” of the body of Christ was pre-fallen estate, not post fallen. Therefore, what is not a part of the pre-fall human nature is the impulse to the enticements of lust of flesh and eyes, and of pride.


I am not into sinless perfection, however to peek a bit at the “nature” of the incarnation, perhaps reflecting upon the statement of Scripture “...tempted as we are, yet without sin” is the condition of being “holy” and “filled with the Spirit” for the Scriptures state that even believers filled with the Spirit will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

Christ was certainly filled with the Spirit.

Temptation certainly comes to all creation - not just humans. However it was not originally the “nature” of the pre fall creation

If one accepts the Christ took upon Himself the fallen nature, as some seem to consider a valid view, that is in conflict with the statement made to Marry, “...Holy One...” (Luke 1)

I agree with much of what you posted, and perhaps I am assuming that which I have found typical of many when addressing this topic and was therefore reactionary.

My apology if such assumptions were incorrect.

 

You are stating a definition of the modern thinking, however historical perspectives were different as I posted above.

 

There is absolutely no valid Scriptural justification for this. Both the Son of God and the Father are uncaused being the uncaused God. What is caused is not God. And the Son, the Logos is the sole cause of all things (John 1:3).

 

It is my understanding that in the Trinity, there is no subordination, as all are co-equal, co-eternal. Three persons, yet one God. Not three Gods but three persons who are one God.

We can see Jesus' submission to His Father in the incarnation, but that does not make Him less God than pre-incarnation.

 

Not the correct interpretation of that prophecy. 1) God calls Him His Son before He begot Him. "Thou art my Son." 2) A given day is in time and not eternity. 3) It is a prophecy of the incarnate Christ's bodily resurrection, Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5-6; Romans 1:4; Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:18 & Revelation 1:5.

 

You are correct in that they as the One LORD God there is no subordination. The eternal Son is a subordinate position to the eternal Father as His sole actor on His behalf. John 1:2. John 1:3; John 1:9-10; Hebrews 1:2-3; John 1:14; John 1:18. John 14:6.

 

How is He a son , Martin, How is God a father to a co equal God?

Th Father and Son of on "THIS DAY", in Heb,, Psalms was referring to the same time designation as when the GOD would be a human son

 

Psalms 2:7 God calls Him His Son prior to "this day have I begotten thee." It is post incarnation, Acts 13:33.

 

Yes. There are two ways to describe the trinity, however. One is ontological the other is economical. The ontological idea is that all members of the Trinity are all co-equal. The economic, discussion, discusses role. In role, the members of the Trinity are not equal--the Father does not die, the son does, etc. So, there are two aspects in which we discuss the Trinity and, sometimes, great confusion comes when we apply the ontological lens to the economic discussion and the economic lens to the ontological discussion.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

He was referring to that day. Read the previous verses

 

The day of His resurrection. ". . . But God raised him from the dead: And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, . . ." -- Acts 13:30-34.

 

Certainly we believers are tested, enticed, tempted as was the Christ.

The account of tempting of Christ given in the Scriptures was as an enticement, a testing, a tempting (all definitions of the Greek word) as one who would have to make a trade, an exchange.

It was not an appeal based upon fallen nature that is “prone to wander” nor was there evidence of trickery such aswas done to Eve, but that same trade goods offer that the first Adam faced.

He was hungry, body needs could be met with an exchange.

Given the kingdoms of the world for an exchange.

We, also, as new creations, face such an offer of exchange in testing. Such comes in ways which derail effective witness, trade upon desire for station and status... it isn’t breaking of commandments, for there is “no condemnation...” so the enticement is a matter of exchange.

In the verse you quoted, He was tempted (tested, enticed) in every way we are - that believers are. Therefore, what exchange can the father of lies offer but what he offered our Christ? Not the loss of salvation, but the loss of service and status as a good and faithful servant. Even the fear of loss in which service and servitude are withheld, hidden as that unfaithful servant in the parable of talents.

In no manner am I diminishing the power of the temptation, but who is tested, entice, tempted and to what gain for our adversary.

Certainly, we (believers) are tempted in the same manner as our Lord.

The readers need to keep in mind that our Redeemer was not born in a fallen body, but was from conception the “Holy One.” Totally unspotted by sin, not prone to sin,... just as the first Adam prior to the fall where Adam chose to disregard God and exchange all he had. The same exchange offered to believers and to the Redeemer.

 

How do you handle Rev. 13:8?