Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

[Judy Taylor]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:00:03 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his sources either. It seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of the obscurity of his definition for this word.   jt: ... If I were writing about the subject today I would not even bother with all that and I'm not even sure that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so many equate this with the RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came up with the term.   BT: That's fine with me Judy, preferable even. I rarely use the term for the same reason; it just so happened that it is the heading someone(?) chose to use for this thread, that's all.   Do you find it ironic Bill that we get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born with the old Adamic sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand and then argue over whether or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on the other which is the same as saying that God (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's nature along with the rest of fallen humanity?    BT: I will point out once again the deficiency in your thinking via your question above. The person of "Jesus" was not an amalgomization in the sense that his two natures came together to form a new alloy, like copper and zinc do in forming brass. His two nature did not fuse to become a different kind of new substance, partly God and partly man, similar yet disimilar from what they both would have been otherwise. This is what you propose above: that the divinity of Jesus could somehow be tainted by his humanity   "that God (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's nature along with the rest of fallen humanity"    But you only think this way because you are thinking of Jesus in terms of an alloy. But your idea of Jesus is nothing other than the syncretism Greek mythology with Christianity; it is their idea of a demigod that you are upholding, Jesus being "the offspring of a god and a mortal, who has some but not all of the powers of a god" (The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright � 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company). The person of Jesus was not an alloy; he is a union -- the union of two natures coming together in one person: fully God, fully man.   jt: I don't relate to the "alloy" idea or syncretism. I understand God to be a Spirit and before the incarnation the person of Jesus was the Word of God - also Spirit.  I don't have a problem with the Word becoming flesh and dwelling amongst us.  ATST I don't see Jesus as the union of two natures; I see Him as a representation of the Father in the earth and His nature as divine.   This idea is not difficult to grasp, if you will allow yourself to think of it in terms of a Hebrew concept and not through your Greek grid. When Jesus prayed that we would be one with him as he is one with his Father, he was not suggesting that we would somehow become little gods, that we would be a new divine substance similar to God. No, the "one" to which he speaks can only be understood relationally, like a husband and a wife come together to make one flesh. They do not become an alloy, a new kind of substance; they become a union.   jt: A husband and wife come together sexually as 'one flesh' which is a physical act. The Godhead is one Spirit which is a whole other kind of oneness.   That is what happened in the person of Christ between his human nature and his divine nature; they formed a union, not an alloy. Therefore God was in now way tainted by the fallenness of humanity in the person of Jesus Christ.   jt: If Jesus was born with an Adamic nature he would have to have that taint if it comes through procreation.  However, it appears that Adam was held responsible in the garden and men were held responsible for the spirituality of their families under the Old Covenant. DavidM and I were discussing this in a biological way or by looking at natural generation.  However, I note that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke do not give Jesus a genealogy after the flesh.  Matthew traces the generations from Abraham through Isaac (the son of Promise) to David and on to Christ (the Promise) and in Luke the genealogy goes all the way back to Adam genealogically and ends with Christ the son of Joseph (as was supposed) and we know that this is not so - which gives Jesus a spiritual rather than a natural genealogy - don't ask me to reconcile this with Greek syncretism.   Instead humanity was purified in relationship with God in Christ's person throughout his life, the tryants being defeating all along the way, and the humanity "becoming perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God through the things he suffered.   jt: How do we learn obedience by what HE suffered?  If this is so then why do we have to learn all over again as God prunes us?   Think of the two natures in the one person of Christ as a union and you will not ask questions like the one above. Jesus is Emmanuel, NO PROBLEM. But think of Jesus like the Greeks thought of demigods, and you will have major problems with everything related to the person of our Lord. You'll have problems with his humanity, and you will have problems with his divinity. You will be saying things like "Jesus did not come here as God," on one day, and he "took on part, but not all" of humanity, i.e., "the flesh but not the blood" on the next. Repent of your Greek concepts, Judy, and think like Jesus, a Jew. There is no excuse for continuing in ignorance and unlearnedness once you have heard the truth.   jt: I'm not going to repent of something I am not involved in Bill and Greek demigods is one of them. I have no problem with Jesus being flesh and blood with a divine nature and a human soul free from the Adamic taint - and I do think like Jesus, I have the mind of Christ.  All it takes is Heb 13:8 to shoot that notion in the foot - (that is the notion that Jesus' humanity included a fallen Adamic nature) think about it "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever." Yesterday he was the second member of the Godhead.  God is a spirit (Jn 4:24).  So what part of Jesus the man was "Emmanuel" God with us?    More of your Greek mythology, Judy: Jesus was not partly man and partly God, the flesh being one part and the spirit part another. Jesus was human in the way that we are.   jt: Then he wasn't "Emmanuel" God with us?  You were the one making that argument were'nt you?   Whether it be trichotomouly, as you suggest, or integrated like the Hebrews thought, he was fully human. In other words, He had a human spirit like all humans have (take it away and he was not human), yet at the same time he was fully God, yes, Spirit -- the two natures coming together in union in the one person of Jesus Christ. He was not a demigod. He was Emmanuel, God with us in the person of Jesus Christ. Bill   jt: Bill can we agree to drop this Greek business, it is frustrating and has nothing at all to do with what I am saying.  You can't hear me because you are convinced that I am saying something I am not saying.    Yes - I agree with you - Jesus was born with a human spirit inside his human body like all humans have.  The difference between him and the rest of us is that he was born with a human spirit that was alive to God (with no breach) whereas ours was dead. Jesus walked in the fullness of the Holy Spirit - We are born void of the Spirit (which is something the world can not receive) but we do receive  "a measure" when we are born again or born of the spirit (and this is when our human spirit passes from death to life).  Any problems?