Dean, do you accept a difference between what one is , ontologically speaking, and what one does? I do. That "he was made to be like us in every respect" is a statement of the essence of His being. It has nothing to do with whether or not He committed sin or whether or not He suffered. More than this, the Gk text does not speak so much of his "being made" as it does of a sense of obligation. Christ, according to the Gk text, was OBLIGATED to be "like us in every respect." That He is the Son of Man(kind) is born of obligation. The text is not saying that He was made like us, but that He was obligated to be like us in every respect !!
In this passage, we have the theology of the Son of Man rather than the history of the Son of Man. That Christ is human is without question and is accepted by many as a historical occurance. But this is a secondary consideration in this Hebrews 2:17-18 text. That His humanity is born of necessity, of obligation , is a theological consideration -- only known to us through revelation.
If He was obligated to be like us in all respects, I am equally obligated to believe such.... and so John the Apostle makes it obligatory for us to admit that Jesus Christ came in the flesh !!
jd
----- Original Message -----Sent: 1/29/2006 10:56:52 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?He is like us in every respect. According to you, this means that he is not like us, only similar to us.When we speak of human beings, we can only speak of "being like" another. There is no other way of saying it !! Either I am like you or I am you. There are no other choices. And when the man says "like you in every respect" you deny the biblical witness .cd: Well John He didn't sin like us? Does that show a difference? Yes or No?
