Jesus God in the flesh
Active
By my request?
Active
Sorry, I didn't realize you started a new thread. I though you replied to the Annihilation thread. To answer your question I need to know what you mean by "God".
Loyal
you said to start a thread on the subject when I asked you this question earlier
Active
Sorry, I didn't realize it was a different thread. When I clicked the notification it took me directly to the post. It didn't show the thread title. It wasn't until I notice there were only two participants that I realized it was different thread.
Loyal
The God of the bible, who created all things
Active
Not who, but what? The word God is a title. It's used of the Father, and of Jesus. However, it's also used of Baal and Molech. The Greek word that is translated God is theos and it means deity or divinity. This is why I asked you to define what you mean by it. If you're asking do I believe that Jesus is deity in the flesh, absolutely. However, I suspect that that's not what you're asking me, I suspect you're asking me if I believe in the three persons in one God concept. If that's what you're asking me, then the answer is no. I don't find anything in Scripture to support such an idea. I also see that the earliest Christians didn't find that concept Biblical either. On the contrary, I find that Scripture refutes that idea.
Member
Here's the fullest explanation of Christ's person I know of.
THE SYMBOL OF CHALCEDON
The Symbol of Chalcedon, adopted at the fourth and fifth sessions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, dates back to 451 A.D.. Philip Schaff, in his Creeds of Christendom, writes of the Symbol (or Creed) of Chalcedon, “While the first Council of Nicaea had established the eternal, pre-existent Godhead of Christ, the Symbol of the Fourth Ecumenical Council relates to the incarnate Logos, as he walked upon earth and sits on the right hand of the Father. It is directed against the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, who agreed with the Nicene Creed as opposed to Arianism, but put the Godhead of Christ in a false relation to his humanity.”3
"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, 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, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."
Historic Creeds and Confessions. (1997). (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Lexham Press.
Active
This is fine but it doesn't define what you mean by "God" . This is basically what we find in the Athanasian Creed which is from the 5th century, around 450 AD. It's the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. I don't hold this idea. Hypostatic Union is the idea that Christ is two natures in one person, fully God and fully man. Firstly that defies logic. Something can't be fully two different things. It also defies Scripture because Paul states that Christ, being in the form of God, emptied Himself, and took the form of man. So, Paul flatly refutes the idea that Christ has two natures. Paul said, that Christ was made like His brethren in all ways. Christians, Christ's brethren, don't have two natures. So, if He was made like us in all ways and we don't have two natures He doesn't either. This is why I reject the doctrine of Hypostatic Union. The teaching in what you've posted here has departed from what was originally taught. This teaching is in line with the teaching of Augustine and may very well be his. If we go back farther we see find the earlier teaching didn't align with this idea.
Member
Who doesn't know what "God" means?
Active
I don't mean to be sarcastic, but you haven't answered what appears, you believe, is a very simple question. It's not a gotcha question. I need to understand how you understand that word. If we both have different understandings of the word we're going to talk past each other and not understand what the other is saying. I define the word god or theos as a title. It's like president. It can refer to more than one being. In Scripture it's used of the Father and the Son, but it's also used of pagan gods. The word literally means deity. The Father is Deity as is the Son. To me the pagan gods aren't deity. However, to those in the OT who believed in them they were.
I 've discussed this subject with a lot Christians and invariably I find them reluctant to define the word God. I think it's obvious why they're reluctant. The concept of a three in one God is illogical and can't be explained. However, the Bible doesn't tell us that there is a three in one God, on the contrary, it tells us God is one. So, if the Bible doesn't tell us there is a three in one God where did this idea come from? I had to come from the minds of men. If we study church history we can see that this is exactly where it came from. It came from people trying to understand certain passages of Scripture and political pressure in the church to argue against certain beliefs. That's why we don't see it until the 5th century.
Member
What Sunday Schoolboy doesn't know when they say "God", they mean the Christian God?
Active
Again, not who, what? You believe Jesus is God, Jesus is what?
Member
Read the Symbol of Chalcedon I posted. They say it best.
Active
David, you asked me a question and I said I'd answer it. I just need to know how you define a simple word. Why won't you just tell me how you define it?
Member
Chalcedon is the fullest statement I know of. You cannot argue with it as you can with forum posters.
Loyal
I am not all that smart with words, so referring to God as a "what" is a little weird to me,, but what God is, is the creator plain and simple.
Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Active
That's who. If you've not considered what the word God means how do you use it?
Loyal
Butch you may be to smart for your own good
I thank you for the question, and finally I think I understand what you are asking. You have great patience for not spilling the beans of what you think God is. So here is what you think God is, correct me if I am wrong,,,God is spirit,
Yet the Bible tells us God is Love, and the bible tells us Jesus is God in the flesh, so we must not think we as mere humans can every fully understand what God is, he is above our thinking level. He is our God who can fully understand his way?? not me, I dont understand everything in the bible but I believe everything, I trust God with all my heart might and soul, he is my Lord.
thanks for the question it had me thinking the past couple of days
I got a feeling we wont agree but that ok