The Deity of Christ

[Arial]

Gal 4:4-5 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

The Trinity is a core and necessary doctrine unique to Christianity. Any religion that teaches otherwise is heretical to Christianity.

Why is it necessary? And why must Jesus be both God and man, two natures never mixed together in order to bring about redemption? Aside from the fact that the Bible tells us this is the case, the entire idea of the atonement for sins falls on its face without the deity of Christ. And we shall see how. Take any one of the ingredients out, and the atonement crumbles.

In the passage above there are a couple of key statements that find their source or reference in the OT, and tie the entire Bible together as what it is----the history of redemption with the person and work of Jesus never leaving center stage. And these are, "the fullness of time" and "born under the law".

First we have to take a quick look at what it means to have Adam as the federal headship of all mankind. Though the phrase federal headship is not found in Scripture, the concept is there and not only clear, but necessary. An analogy of headship that is easy to understand: The US government has a federal head, the President. If he declares a national emergency, then all of the citizens are in a state of emergency. Though not perfect, as no human based analogy of God can be perfect, it presents the principle of federal headship. Adam, being the first man created stood as the representative of all mankind. Adam sinned, and just as Levi was in the loins of Abraham (Heb 7:9-10)so too are all of us (humans) in the loins of Adam. We inherit his sin nature which is why we sin, and are guilty before God by having that nature. And this presents a two fold problem that needs to be resolved in redemption. Our nature and our sins.

It stands to reason and logic then, that we need other than ourselves to redeem us. We need a substitute to take our place who is able to effect the sentence of death on sin and conquer its power. The sinner needs someone who can take them out of Adam and unrighteousness and bring them into perfect righteousness by virtue of that one's own actions, and at the same time and in the same way, pay the just debt for the forgiveness of our own sins. We need a rescuer who will change who we are before God, a sinner, and cleanse us of all unrighteousness so that we can come into the presence of God. Someone who can impute his righteousness to us. The reversal of what happened with Adam. This can only be done by someone who is not born a natural birth as that would put him in Adam. But who is also of the same type (human) of those he lays down his life for. Rams and bulls cannot do it. Angels cannot do it.

Continued in Part 2

 

[Arial]

The Deity of Christ Part 2

So now we go back to our posted scripture and the two phrases in it; "in the fullness of time" and "born under the law". I amend my original statement to add a third crucial phrase; "born of a woman."

In Gen 3 we have the record of the tragic fall of mankind and we have in verse 15, God cursing the serpent and making a promise. This is in fact a declaration of war, not on humanity ultimately, but on the serpent, Satan, and the victory announced to him and to us, right from the beginning of what will follow----the history of redemption. "I will put enmity between you and the woman. and between your seed and her seed; he shall crush your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

God does not say when this will happen. In Gal 4:4-5 Paul tells us when this Seed of the woman did arrive and who he is, and interpreting the fulfillment of certain OT prophecies. "In the fullness of time...". That baby in the manger in Bethlehem was the dawning of the new day. It was the day when God was with us.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Is 9:6)

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Is 7:14) Immanuel means God with us. Imagine! God with us, born of a woman.

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flicks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid, I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger." (Luke)

We have already touched on why the Savior had to be born of a woman in the OP. To summarize, this Savior who would substitute himself in the place of sinners had to be of the same kind as those he took the place of---humans---and to fulfill the promise of Gen 3, the seed of a woman. At the same time he could not be the seed of Adam (man as gender). The birth could not be natural but must be miraculous. The birth of humans is the most natural thing there is. It happens every minute of every day. And though wonderful, it is not a miracle. This Savior had to be born a miraculous birth and only God can enact miracles---that which is outside the natural. God had to father the Savior and we see in the visitation of Gabrielle with Mary, that he would do just that. The Holy Spirit (who now we see incidentally must also be God) would overshadow the virgin and she would conceive. In addition, this Savior had to himself possess what he would give---eternal life to a cleansed sinner. He had to be the Son of God and the Son of man.

To shorten the length of each post, I will continue in Part 3 with the importance of "born under the law."

 

[Arial]

The Deity of Christ Part 3

" born under the law"

Why is this so crucial to redemption of sinners?

Perfect righteousness is required by God as the Creator and since man is created in the image and likeness of God. That means, among other things, that we are to bear his image as to moral character in all our dealings, both with the natural world he made for us and in our dealings with one another. We are required to be perfectly obedient to him in all our ways. We can't do that. We cannot undo our own sins or remove our status of having that nature to sin that came from Adam's disobedience and the knowledge of evil as well as good.

The one who is sent to reverse that condition must himself work all obedience as one of us. So he must be born under the legal code of the Sinai covenant, but even more than that, all the moral code that is contained in it. Jesus points out in his teaching to the Jews who were also born under this law, the many ways they fall short of meeting the moral aspects of the law of God or even recognizing them. The law of God is more than rote adherence to stipulated rules. He would say things like, "If a man looks on a woman with lust, he has committed adultery with her already." He points out that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath while the Pharisees taught that even healing a man on the Sabbath was breaking the law. He taught that nothing a man ate defiled him but his actions and words defiled him because they came from his heart; that not washing before eating did not defile a man when the teachers of Israel were teaching the opposite.

Jesus was dealing with the heart of man, that thing we inherited from Adam, and not just the outward appearance. So, Jesus had to be born under the law, that is subject to it, in all he said and did, both outwardly and inwardly in order to be perfectly righteous. (This is all summarized in the ten commandments.) It is the only way he could qualify as the one to take away our guilt and the guilt inherited from Adam, and defeat their power and ultimately, destroy evil entirely, restoring all of creation.

He cannot be only a good man, only a prophet, or only a teacher. A "good" man never changed anyone's standing before God simply by being a good man and dying on the cross. A human only prophet never changed and could not change the heart or conscience of any one by dying on the cross. None throughout the entire history of redemption did so--not even Moses. And what could a teacher that was only human teach that would change the seed of Adam in him. Or wash away the sins of countless sinners by dying on a cross? Only God can do those things and his justice must not be set aside to do it. Only God come in the flesh, in the likeness of men, can do such a thing.

Jesus did for the law, what the law could not do.

Heb 10:1-3 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 12-14 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

His righteousness is imputed to those placed in him through faith. The curse reversed.
2 Cor 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

1 Cor 1:30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption

 

[makesends]

Gal 4:4-5 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

The Trinity is a core and necessary doctrine unique to Christianity. Any religion that teaches otherwise is heretical to Christianity.

Why is it necessary? And why must Jesus be both God and man, two natures never mixed together in order to bring about redemption? Aside from the fact that the Bible tells us this is the case, the entire idea of the atonement for sins falls on its face without the deity of Christ. And we shall see how. Take any one of the ingredients out, and the atonement crumbles.

In the passage above there are a couple of key statements that find their source or reference in the OT, and tie the entire Bible together as what it is----the history of redemption with the person and work of Jesus never leaving center stage. And these are, "the fullness of time" and "born under the law".

First we have to take a quick look at what it means to have Adam as the federal headship of all mankind. Though the phrase federal headship is not found in Scripture, the concept is there and not only clear, but necessary. An analogy of headship that is easy to understand: The US government has a federal head, the President. If he declares a national emergency, then all of the citizens are in a state of emergency. Though not perfect, as no human based analogy of God can be perfect, it presents the principle of federal headship. Adam, being the first man created stood as the representative of all mankind. Adam sinned, and just as Levi was in the loins of Abraham (Heb 7:9-10)so too are all of us (humans) in the loins of Adam. We inherit his sin nature which is why we sin, and are guilty before God by having that nature. And this presents a two fold problem that needs to be resolved in redemption. Our nature and our sins.

It stands to reason and logic then, that we need other than ourselves to redeem us. We need a substitute to take our place who is able to effect the sentence of death on sin and conquer its power. The sinner needs someone who can take them out of Adam and unrighteousness and bring them into perfect righteousness by virtue of that one's own actions, and at the same time and in the same way, pay the just debt for the forgiveness of our own sins. We need a rescuer who will change who we are before God, a sinner, and cleanse us of all unrighteousness so that we can come into the presence of God. Someone who can impute his righteousness to us. The reversal of what happened with Adam. This can only be done by someone who is not born a natural birth as that would put him in Adam. But who is also of the same type (human) of those he lays down his life for. Rams and bulls cannot do it. Angels cannot do it.

Continued in Part 2

And mere humans cannot do it. I hope you follow up with that.

 

[makesends]

The Deity of Christ Part 3

" born under the law"

Why is this so crucial to redemption of sinners?

Perfect righteousness is required by God as the Creator and since man is created in the image and likeness of God. That means, among other things, that we are to bear his image as to moral character in all our dealings, both with the natural world he made for us and in our dealings with one another. We are required to be perfectly obedient to him in all our ways. We can't do that. We cannot undo our own sins or remove our status of having that nature to sin that came from Adam's disobedience and the knowledge of evil as well as good.

The one who is sent to reverse that condition must himself work all obedience as one of us. So he must be born under the legal code of the Sinai covenant, but even more than that, all the moral code that is contained in it. Jesus points out in his teaching to the Jews who were also born under this law, the many ways they fall short of meeting the moral aspects of the law of God or even recognizing them. The law of God is more than rote adherence to stipulated rules. He would say things like, "If a man looks on a woman with lust, he has committed adultery with her already." He points out that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath while the Pharisees taught that even healing a man on the Sabbath was breaking the law. He taught that nothing a man ate defiled him but his actions and words defiled him because they came from his heart; that not washing before eating did not defile a man when the teachers of Israel were teaching the opposite.

Jesus was dealing with the heart of man, that thing we inherited from Adam, and not just the outward appearance. So, Jesus had to be born under the law, that is subject to it, in all he said and did, both outwardly and inwardly in order to be perfectly righteous. (This is all summarized in the ten commandments.) It is the only way he could qualify as the one to take away our guilt and the guilt inherited from Adam, and defeat their power and ultimately, destroy evil entirely, restoring all of creation.

He cannot be only a good man, only a prophet, or only a teacher. A "good" man never changed anyone's standing before God simply by being a good man and dying on the cross. A human only prophet never changed and could not change the heart or conscience of any one by dying on the cross. None throughout the entire history of redemption did so--not even Moses. And what could a teacher that was only human teach that would change the seed of Adam in him. Or wash away the sins of countless sinners by dying on a cross? Only God can do those things and his justice must not be set aside to do it. Only God come in the flesh, in the likeness of men, can do such a thing.

Jesus did for the law, what the law could not do.

Heb 10:1-3 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 12-14 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

His righteousness is imputed to those placed in him through faith. The curse reversed.
2 Cor 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

1 Cor 1:30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption

This goes to the meaning of sin, its immensity and horror, and the reason why it is defined as possible only to be committed by humans and angels (and only judged against humans and angels). Sin is opposition to God/ rebellion to God/ enmity with God/ and is said to be as simple as falling short of moral perfection. Mathematically, if that can be applied, infinity divided by anything is still infinity —if God is perfect, we cannot be simply good enough, to be sinless, and perfect in every moral thing. Not 'forgivable', not 'understandable', not well-meaning, nothing to be winked at or shrugged off.

The angels are called sons of God, and if no more, at least there was, apparently, at some point moral agency attributed to them. Lucifer and his were judged and guilty, and not given any forgiveness. The rest did not sin, and, in fact, I don't think we can even prove they are able to sin at this point. All either continue always to choose as they did, or have no choice, and I think it doesn't matter how you look at it —they are what they are, and always will be, as God intends.

But humans are made in God's image in a way that angels are not. We have no way to compare angels to humans in this, where the ludicrously obvious inability of man to attain anything toward the infinite purity and power of the unity of God is dependent entirely on God, who planned this marriage of mankind to his One and Only Son. Angels too have no comparison to the infinite being of God, but they are not made for the purpose to which we are made. So our inability is the more outrageous. We will become higher than the angels, and in that same sense already are by God's purposes. Already, but not yet.

Only God himself, then, as you said, can do this. No angel can even come close, nor even a mere man, but God become man, in perfect principle pointing to the only creatures to become one with God himself. It is, in my mind, more beautiful than the human mind can here allow itself to consider and survive the encounter. But this union with God himself could not happen, had Lucifer not rebelled, nor Adam sinned, nor Christ redeemed mankind.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Arial,

The Trinity is a core and necessary doctrine unique to Christianity. Any religion that teaches otherwise is heretical to Christianity.

The Trinity is erroneous while Biblical Unitarianism is representative of Christ's and Apostolic teaching. Your OP has many wrong concepts.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Arial]

Greetings Arial,

The Trinity is erroneous while Biblical Unitarianism is representative of Christ's and Apostolic teaching. Your OP has many wrong concepts.

Kind regards
Trevor

There is no such thing as Biblical Unitarianism. Unitarianism is unbiblical and it is not Christian by the very definition of what constitutes Christianity. To say that the OP has many wrong concepts without pointing out a single one of them and demonstrating how they are wrong is clouds without rain. The OP demonstrated the necessity of a Savior who is God and man. So you will need to demonstrate why it is not necessary.

 

[makesends]

Greetings Arial,

The Trinity is erroneous while Biblical Unitarianism is representative of Christ's and Apostolic teaching. Your OP has many wrong concepts.

Kind regards
Trevor

Explain. Assertion only, so far.

 

[CrowCross]

this Savior had to himself possess what he would give---eternal life to a cleansed sinner. He had to be the Son of God and the Son of man.

To show the deity of Christ Jesus...this is the most important part of your post. A mere man, even if they were 101% sinless doesn't have the ability to give eternal life.

And mere humans cannot do it. I hope you follow up with that.

Ariel expressed one of the reasons why in the quote above....."

 

[CrowCross]

The Trinity is erroneous while Biblical Unitarianism is representative of Christ's and Apostolic teaching. Your OP has many wrong concepts.

The post was well written....

Can you show us how a mere finite man had the ability to pay the eternal price for sin?

 

[Arial]

The post was well written....

Can you show us how a mere finite man had the ability to pay the eternal price for sin?

We shall await an answer to that question.

 

[CrowCross]

A “mere finite man” has nothing of value in their make up or nature to satisfy or is sufficient enough to cover the cost of their own sin let alone all of mankind. Jesus on the other hand does.

The life of Jesus is the only life costly enough to have paid for the sin of mankind and redeem them from the power of Hell.

Christ descended from the position of “equality with God” (Phil 2:6). The pre-incarnate Jesus gave up His glory and majestic seat in heaven….and was born as a man in the roll of a savior and servant. No mere man could ever or will ever be able to make such a sacrifice as Christ Jesus did….as they are nothing but a fallen sinful man in need of redemption. Even if that finite man lived a sin free life that depth of descent of the divine Christ Jesus was infinitely greater than the descent of any finite with a beginning human sinless or not. No human has the ability to offer God the price of their life. Only Jesus as the second of the Godhead had that ability.

The title of this thread

The Deity of Christ​

Has been established.

 

[CrowCross]

duplicate

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Arial,

There is no such thing as Biblical Unitarianism. Unitarianism is unbiblical and it is not Christian by the very definition of what constitutes Christianity.

Biblical Unitarianism is the simple and clear teaching of the Bible. An important verse that is quoted and expounded numerous times in the NT is:
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
This clearly teaches that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and that Jesus is David's Lord who was to be invited to sit at the right hand of the One God, in God the Father's Throne. There is no vision of Three Persons on the Throne before this event. There is not God the Father in the centre in OT times, and God the Son on the right hand and God the Holy Spirit on the left hand or hovering. There is no such thing as Biblical Trinitarianism.

To say that the OP has many wrong concepts without pointing out a single one of them and demonstrating how they are wrong is clouds without rain.

Your opening verse simply states that Jesus was born or made (KJV) of a woman, and the simple clear statement of how this was achieved is given in:
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit 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.
There is no hint here that somehow God the Son entered the womb of Mary to support your claim:

Why is it necessary? And why must Jesus be both God and man, two natures never mixed together in order to bring about redemption?

Jesus is the Son of God because God the Father was the father of Jesus and Mary his mother.

We inherit his sin nature which is why we sin, and are guilty before God by having that nature.

We are not guilty because we have Adam's fallen nature. It is our misfortune not our crime. Jesus through Mary partook of Adam's fallen nature so that he could overcome all aspects of sin and its effects.
Hebrews 2:14 (KJV): 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Romans 8:3 (KJV): 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[makesends]

There is no hint here that somehow God the Son entered the womb of Mary

That right there is reason enough to believe Jesus Christ is God, the very creator. He need not 'enter the womb' to be God, yet he was God all the same. It is our restrictions from what we have learned is planted and born, that needs what is not said —that his God-ness be infused into his material person. It did not need to be, in order for him to be God.

We build our math upon our presupposed values.

 

[Arial]

Biblical Unitarianism is the simple and clear teaching of the Bible. An important verse that is quoted and expounded numerous times in the NT is:
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

There is only one Lord so why did David call another his Lord? You use a scripture to validate your claim of a creature who saved us with his death, instead of God, and the same passage actually makes you contradict yourself. David calls him Lord--- God.

This clearly teaches that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and that Jesus is David's Lord who was to be invited to sit at the right hand of the One God, in God the Father's Throne. There is no vision of Three Persons on the Throne before this event. There is not God the Father in the centre in OT times, and God the Son on the right hand and God the Holy Spirit on the left hand or hovering. There is no such thing as Biblical Trinitarianism.

How many Lord's are there? 1 Cor 8:5-6 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth---as indeed there are many "god's" and many "lord's"---- yet for us there is one God, the Father from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Clearly they are one and the same.

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Trintitarianism does not teach multiple Gods. It teaches one God. Unitarianism does one of two things. It either makes a Lord (God) of a created being, a man, or it teaches two Gods. In your post above you create a picture that you have created in your mind. The way you picture the Trinity. Which in no way resembles the actual Trinity. Your mind pictures something that it cannot see because it is invisible and is unique to anything humans actually experience or see. And then you say the Trinity cannot be true because the Bible does not present the same picture that is in your mind. That is common reasoning, but it is not sound reasoning when it is God we are dealing with.

Your opening verse simply states that Jesus was born or made (KJV) of a woman, and the simple clear statement of how this was achieved is given in:
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit 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.
There is no hint here that somehow God the Son entered the womb of Mary to support your claim:

There is plenty to support it. The Holy Spirit is his Father. That makes the child his Son. And if he is his Son, he is of the same essence as his Father. Mary is his mother so he is of the same essence of his mother. Do you think that is impossible with God? If you do, then you are going to have to throw out creation, and all God's attributes as being impossible. Every miracle that Jesus performed and every promise he ever made as not being trustworthy.

Jesus is the Son of God because God the Father was the father of Jesus and Mary his mother.

Is that your answer to why Jesus had to be both God and man in order to bring about redemption? It doesn't even attempt to answer the question. It just tells me what you think Son of God means.

We are not guilty because we have Adam's fallen nature. It is our misfortune not our crime. Jesus through Mary partook of Adam's fallen nature so that he could overcome all aspects of sin and its effects.
Hebrews 2:14 (KJV): 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Romans 8:3 (KJV): 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

If Jesus had a fallen nature he was automatically disqualified to pay the debt for sin. He couldn't do it for himself and he couldn't do it for anyone else. A nature prone to sin, one that will sin by its very nature, is not clean, not pure. So you need to demonstrate that it isn't. Jesus through Mary partook of human flesh and blood. Mankind (Adam) was not created with a sinful nature and if he were, God would be the author of our sin. Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in sinful flesh, for sin, to condemn sin in our flesh. Back to the OP. He substituted his own flesh and blood as one of the same type of those he substituted for. A different type of flesh---say bulls and rams----could not substitute for sinful flesh in a way that would destroy sin or remove guilt eternally. It couldn't procure eternal life.

And though the Bible does not say how that nature is passed through man and not woman, it is clear that it does. And by God's design and for his purpose.

 

[makesends]

There is only one Lord so why did David call another his Lord? You use a scripture to validate your claim of a creature who saved us with his death, instead of God, and the same passage actually makes you contradict yourself. David calls him Lord--- God.

How many Lord's are there? 1 Cor 8:5-6 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth---as indeed there are many "god's" and many "lord's"---- yet for us there is one God, the Father from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Clearly they are one and the same.

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Trintitarianism does not teach multiple Gods. It teaches one God. Unitarianism does one of two things. It either makes a Lord (God) of a created being, a man, or it teaches two Gods. In your post above you create a picture that you have created in your mind. The way you picture the Trinity. Which in no way resembles the actual Trinity. Your mind pictures something that it cannot see because it is invisible and is unique to anything humans actually experience or see. And then you say the Trinity cannot be true because the Bible does not present the same picture that is in your mind. That is common reasoning, but it is not sound reasoning when it is God we are dealing with.

There is plenty to support it. The Holy Spirit is his Father. That makes the child his Son. And if he is his Son, he is of the same essence as his Father. Mary is his mother so he is of the same essence of his mother. Do you think that is impossible with God? If you do, then you are going to have to throw out creation, and all God's attributes as being impossible. Every miracle that Jesus performed and every promise he ever made as not being trustworthy.

Is that your answer to why Jesus had to be both God and man in order to bring about redemption? It doesn't even attempt to answer the question. It just tells me what you think Son of God means.

If Jesus had a fallen nature he was automatically disqualified to pay the debt for sin. He couldn't do it for himself and he couldn't do it for anyone else. A nature prone to sin, one that will sin by its very nature, is not clean, not pure. So you need to demonstrate that it isn't. Jesus through Mary partook of human flesh and blood. Mankind (Adam) was not created with a sinful nature and if he were, God would be the author of our sin. Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in sinful flesh, for sin, to condemn sin in our flesh. Back to the OP. He substituted his own flesh and blood as one of the same type of those he substituted for. A different type of flesh---say bulls and rams----could not substitute for sinful flesh in a way that would destroy sin or remove guilt eternally. It couldn't procure eternal life.

And though the Bible does not say how that nature is passed through man and not woman, it is clear that it does. And by God's design and for his purpose.

There is a working principle in Biblical apologetics —that "God does not answer to form". One thing that the doctrine of the Trinity does for us is to maintain that axiom. It is idolatry to form in one's mind a mental concept of just what God is, and to work according to that, instead of according to faith. It is bad enough that any human seems always on the cusp of doing just that, in order to do rational thinking concerning God, but to do as Unitarianism does is —at least to my mind— to make an idol of the obvious 3 persons, arranging them in a hierarchy that attributes only the one with Godhood, and the other(s) as lesser beings. It is very much akin to Catholicism in that way. I am not very familiar with Unitarianism but I have heard the language of their strange claims and reasoning, and I would not be very much surprised were I to find pictures or other representations of their use of the 3.

As I mentioned elsewhere, "We build our math upon our values", and THAT as a method is not only suspect, but it can be heresy, blasphemy and idolatry, to teach our conclusions as "God's own truth". Trinitarians don't claim to understand, but only to see that some things make good (though incomplete) sense, and that many others do not.

 

[makesends]

We shall await an answer to that question.

As a firm believer in the universally pervasive decree of God, I say, "Good luck with THAT" !!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings CrowCross, makesends and Greetings again Arial,

Can you show us how a mere finite man had the ability to pay the eternal price for sin?

We shall await an answer to that question.

As a firm believer in the universally pervasive decree of God, I say, "Good luck with THAT" !!

The reason why I did not answer your question this morning when I answered Arial on a few aspects of his Post, was because of time restraints. For the same reason I will be brief again. Jesus was not a mere finite man, he was the Son of God by birth and character Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14. He was a special vessel prepared by God His Father for the immense task that was laid upon his shoulders, that was and is to save his people from their sins.
Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

You more or less expanded your question by giving further detail on why Jesus could not be a mere finite man who would have "the ability to pay the eternal price for sin", in the following:

A “mere finite man” has nothing of value in their make up or nature to satisfy or is sufficient enough to cover the cost of their own sin let alone all of mankind. Jesus on the other hand does.
The life of Jesus is the only life costly enough to have paid for the sin of mankind and redeem them from the power of Hell.

My brief answer is that Jesus was specially prepared to accomplish the work of salvation. My understanding of the Atonement is that Jesus is our representative not our substitute. Jesus was raised from the dead because he had done no sin and because of God's love for His Son and their fellowship. As such Jesus opened the way to life in himself, reversing the condemnation that had been placed upon Adam and his descendants. If we believe and identify in his death and resurrection by water baptism, Jesus is willing to forgive us our sins and grant us the promise of eternal life in His future Kingdom upon the earth.

There is only one Lord so why did David call another his Lord?

I am not sure why you state this, especially when the Scripture you are referring to is Psalm 110:1.
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Here in the KJV we have two different persons, both called "Lord", but the KJV prints the first as "The LORD" and the second is David's "Lord". Are you trying to merge the two? For a start, they are two different Hebrew words. Secondly Jesus expounds this verse to highlight the distinction between the Father and Jesus in the following:
Revelation 3:20–22 (KJV): 20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

There is plenty to support it. The Holy Spirit is his Father. That makes the child his Son. And if he is his Son, he is of the same essence as his Father. Mary is his mother so he is of the same essence of his mother. Do you think that is impossible with God? If you do, then you are going to have to throw out creation, and all God's attributes as being impossible.

The child born was a human, not a God-man with two natures. The question is not whether an alternative is possible or impossible. The very phrase comes from the revelation concerning the conception and birth of Jesus:
Luke 1:36–37 (KJV): 36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
There is no hint of Jesus becoming a God-man, but it speaks of Jesus being a human with God the Father as his father and Mary his mother. This is the reason why Jesus is called the Son of God.

There is more to answer, but again time restraints and I consider sufficient has been stated. Jesus is the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Mr GLee]

The Amplified sems to work out the best .

The Lord of lords said to my lord dying mankind the prophet Jesus the mediator the apostle sent with the words of the Lord of lords, King of earthly kings destroying all kings as governments of men

Psalms 110;1 AMP A Psalm of David. The Lord (Father) says to my Lord (the Messiah, His Son), “Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet [subjugating them into complete submission].”

Psalms 110:4-5The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.

Because of the necessity of flesh signified as sinful it was needed to do what the letter of the law "death" could not do. . bring new born again life.

A theophany as a vision could not replace literal dying flesh and blood. The clothing of the spirit

Romans 8:3 For what the law (death)could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned

Greetings CrowCross, makesends and Greetings again Arial,



The reason why I did not answer your question this morning when I answered Arial on a few aspects of his Post, was because of time restraints. For the same reason I will be brief again. Jesus was not a mere finite man, he was the Son of God by birth and character Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14. He was a special vessel prepared by God His Father for the immense task that was laid upon his shoulders, that was and is to save his people from their sins.
Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

You more or less expanded your question by giving further detail on why Jesus could not be a mere finite man who would have "the ability to pay the eternal price for sin", in the following:

My brief answer is that Jesus was specially prepared to accomplish the work of salvation. My understanding of the Atonement is that Jesus is our representative not our substitute. Jesus was raised from the dead because he had done no sin and because of God's love for His Son and their fellowship. As such Jesus opened the way to life in himself, reversing the condemnation that had been placed upon Adam and his descendants. If we believe and identify in his death and resurrection by water baptism, Jesus is willing to forgive us our sins and grant us the promise of eternal life in His future Kingdom upon the earth.

I am not sure why you state this, especially when the Scripture you are referring to is Psalm 110:1.
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Here in the KJV we have two different persons, both called "Lord", but the KJV prints the first as "The LORD" and the second is David's "Lord". Are you trying to merge the two? For a start, they are two different Hebrew words. Secondly Jesus expounds this verse to highlight the distinction between the Father and Jesus in the following:
Revelation 3:20–22 (KJV): 20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

The child born was a human, not a God-man with two natures. The question is not whether an alternative is possible or impossible. The very phrase comes from the revelation concerning the conception and birth of Jesus:
Luke 1:36–37 (KJV): 36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
There is no hint of Jesus becoming a God-man, but it speaks of Jesus being a human with God the Father as his father and Mary his mother. This is the reason why Jesus is called the Son of God.

There is more to answer, but again time restraints and I consider sufficient has been stated. Jesus is the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection.

Kind regards
Trevor

Jesus the Son of man at birth (Born of the flesh) declared by the power of the Father at the resurrection. The bride or church is born of the Spirit of Christ the husband. She is named after the founder of the city Christian