Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

[Taylor]

Yes, Dean, I have been repeating myself -- and this because neither of you have adequately addressed my concerns; instead, you are always wont to change the subject. Moreover, I have not seen much yet to suggest that you and Judy even agree on this topic of Jesus' flesh. While you sometimes uphold the biblical notion that Christ was born a genetic descendent of David and Abraham, Judy strongly denies it. You, however, are not being consistent, as there is an element of confusion in your claim that the second Adam was unrelated to the first Adam: "We were of the first while Jesus was of the second" (whatever that means), which seems to imply that Jesus was not born of the one blood common to all humans through Adam and Eve.    As I see it, the problem you are having in processing our position, is lodged in your inability to think of the Person of Christ in terms of two distinct natures, one fully divine while the other completely human, with the two working together in perfect solidarity, his humanity always conforming to the greater influence of his divinity.   And so, I do believe that Christ's human nature was common to that of all humans. That, however, does not mean that I consider the Person of Christ to be ordinary. Christ was anything but ordinary, and this because he was also fully God; hence he was able to sanctify himself (something no mere human could do), while at the same time defeating the powers of darkness in human flesh. But it took human flesh in the likeness of ours for the sanctification of his flesh to have any bearing upon our flesh: for he could not be our Kinsmen Redeemer if he were not first our brother, Dean, our kinfolk; nor could he be our high priest unless he was first made able to commiserate with our plight. But these he is, precisely because of our common humanity.   Bill      ----- Original Message ----- From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:50 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? cd: I have combined both responses Bill as I believe they are the same and need the same answer. A few days ago you claimed that we could not hear your statement that Christ did not sin-well I heard you now you hear this. We..believe..Christ .. Came..In ..The .. Flesh..But.. WE.. Don't.. Think.. He.. was..As.. Weak..As..Common..Man.The below words only confuse the issue.Yes Christ was of Abraham/David and He had blood just as we do-but His flesh wasn't weak as He kept it strong. If it was weak show me one biblical account where it was weak-and we will discuss that but to keep repeating yourself isn't getting us anywhere?You say there was no difference we say there was-prove it.Think about it Christ didn't sin? Thanks bro.     ----- Original Message ----- From: Taylor   His death was the victory not His life.   Why then all the fuss about his human nature? Would it have mattered if he had sinned while living in the flesh? Of course it would. The Christ of Scripture is the whole package, brother: his life, death, and resurrection -- not just a slab of meat hanging on a tree. May I suggest that you purchase and read Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor? The tyrants were plural, Dean: sin, death, and the devil. Leave one of them out and Christ is not the Victor you imagine.   Bill   ----- Original Message --- If Jesus was not of the first Adam, he was not his descendant and, therefore, was not qualified to bear his name. You and yours are way to American in this regard: you have no respect for heritage, lineage, kinship, family ties. To know the Jesus of Scripture, you need know him as he was in his culture, Dean -- not yours. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.