Jesus is 100% God and 100% man at the same time

[popsthebuilder]

Sin freely? Or sin because we still live in sinful bodies?

Either one.

Where does it say that the life of the Christian is an easy one? Where does it say that you won't be tested or tried? I know of when one might attain real peace, not by negating the significance of the teachings of the Christ, and it comes from obedience and sincerity of faith.



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Lamb]

Either one.

Where does it say that the life of the Christian is an easy one? Where does it say that you won't be tested or tried? I know of when one might attain real peace, not by negating the significance of the teachings of the Christ, and it comes from obedience and sincerity of faith.



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Now you've switched from justification to sanctification though. Do you see that? This is why you're asking the questions you do.

We are saved by God freely and don't have to give back for it. We live our lives accordingly BECAUSE He saves us. That's freedom. We know we'll sin, but God shows us our sins and then shows us forgiveness. You can't get much more wonderful than that.

 

[psalms 91]

Now you've switched from justification to sanctification though. Do you see that? This is why you're asking the questions you do.

We are saved by God freely and don't have to give back for it. We live our lives accordingly BECAUSE He saves us. That's freedom. We know we'll sin, but God shows us our sins and then shows us forgiveness. You can't get much more wonderful than that.

Ys but we must repent

 

[Josiah]

WAY off topic....

This thread is NOT about who is the Savior (Jesus or self).... or what/whose work ultimately saves (JESUS' death/resurrection or OUR repenting)... it's about the two inseparable natures of Christ.

 

[psalms 91]

I will leave you to it

 

[TurtleHare]

WAY off topic....

This thread is NOT about who is the Savior (Jesus or self).... or what/whose work ultimately saves (JESUS' death/resurrection or OUR repenting)... it's about the two inseparable natures of Christ.

Maybe those who aren't getting the 2 natures aren't understanding the rest of proper biblical doctrine either which could be the confusion of most discussions here do you think that's true?

 

[Josiah]

Maybe those who aren't getting the 2 natures aren't understanding the rest of proper biblical doctrine either which could be the confusion of most discussions here do you think that's true?

I do......

Actually, I think it all comes down to that Law/Gospel issue (about which I have a current thread): Mess that up and Christianity collapses (as my thread about Muhammad Ali is meant to show). With that messed up, Jesus is not THE SAVIOR.... He may (perhaps) be a helper or a possibility maker or even PART savior but not the Savior. With Law/Gospel messed up, salvation ULTIMATELY seems to come down to self and what self does - the good work(s) of self (such as repenting or surrendering or being perfect or just not needing salvation - perhaps because self sufficiently "tapped" God's help). Sadly, a LOT of Catholics are very confused here (although I'M not convinced Catholicism is - just the vast majority of Catholics; I sure was in my Catholic days), and WORSE are some modern "Evangelicals." I think we see the "fruit" of this in a whole lot of issues (and threads).


Yes, I agree with you, IF people understood that Law/Gospel thing - it would be almost automatic that they'd confess Jesus as BOTH God and man (inseparably but not blended) - because I can't image how Jesus could be our Savior otherwise. But, of course, that would be going at this wrong. I've given the Scriptures..... I see no what possible to embrace those without coming to the same conclusion that the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils did (and historically 99.999% of Christians) - that Jesus is BOTH, fully, always God AND man - never blended into a third reality cancelled the previous two (via some transubstantiation, lol) but BOTH true. Rejecting Monophysitism and Docetism and the other ancient, unversally condemned heresies that deny this. But I agree with your point here: In some ways, wrong doctrine may not be all that critical..... UNTIL it gets to that issue of who is the Savior. At that point, eternity now hinges. False doctrine often leads to a false view of who is the Savior.... it always (in one way or another) seems to lead people away from Christ, encouraging them to look to the mirror rather than to the Cross.


IMO, Turtle, we need to cut some of our friends some slack. First of all, because we're all laity here but also because a LOT of Christian preachers/ministers/pastors these days are very poorly trained in theology and history - they are likely sincere and certainly mean to teach rightly, some are just (how to be nice about this)..... uninformed. They don't KNOW that the issues they are preaching on are HUGE and have been studied and discussed and debated for CENTURIES and that Christians - together, ecumenically, as a community - came to a very, very biblical consensus (universally!) many centuries ago.... they simple don't know that what they proclaim is (again, how to be nice)..... heresy. They MEAN no harm (of that, I'm 100% certain), it's just they haven't looked at the whole of Scripture, they've applied too much fallen reason or doubt, they proclaim something sincerely that echos (verbatim perhaps) a universally condemned heretic.



My apologies for the (not altogether irrelevant) detour.... Back to the issue at hand.



Pax Christi



- Josiah

 

[Cassia]

Grace vs rewards is a more relevant topic than grace vs law which 99.999% of Christians nowadays understand. The prophets of the OT never saw the church age in their view of now > eternity. In the same way that rewards are being overlooked.

 

[Cassia]

More on topic Revelations 3:12
He that overcomes, him will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more at all out; and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven, from my God, and my new name.

Four times the risen Christ refers to the Father as His God. In His earthly ministry Jesus revealed the name of God as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the future those of the church who serve God shall have God's name written on them, the name of their city New Jerusalem (analogized as our mother by Paul in Galation 4) while never forgetting His own position as a servant of the Father which makes this possible for the overcomers to achieve to that level. It's His qualification as the Son of David to inherit the kingdom with those whom He so chooses. By doing so He does not come in His own name (like antichrist will) Yet thru all this God has appointed Him king of kings and lord of lords for the duration until all is handed over to divinity rather than human/divine.

 

[Josiah]

More on topic Revelations 3:12
He that overcomes, him will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more at all out; and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven, from my God, and my new name.

Four times the risen Christ refers to the Father as His God. In His earthly ministry Jesus revealed the name of God as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the future those of the church who serve God shall have God's name written on them, the name of their city New Jerusalem (analogized as our mother by Paul in Galation 4) while never forgetting His own position as a servant of the Father which makes this possible for the overcomers to achieve to that level. It's His qualification as the Son of David to inherit the kingdom with those whom He so chooses. By doing so He does not come in His own name (like antichrist will) Yet thru all this God has appointed Him king of kings and lord of lords for the duration until all is handed over to divinity rather than human/divine.

Forgive me, please..... but I confess I'm at a complete loss to understand the relevance of Rev. 3:12 to the issue of the Two Inseparable Natures of Christ. Are you quoting this verse to deny His humanity? His divinity? Or to support Docetism or Adoptionism or some other variant view? Or are you trying to show how this verse supports the ancient, ecumenical view that Jesus is both fully God and man, inseperably and always?

 

[Cassia]

Forgive me, please..... but I confess I'm at a complete loss to understand the relevance of Rev. 3:12 to the issue of the Two Inseparable Natures of Christ. Are you quoting this verse to deny His humanity? His divinity? Or to support Docetism or Adoptionism or some other variant view? Or are you trying to show how this verse supports the ancient, ecumenical view that Jesus is both fully God and man, inseperably and always?

The latter

 

[popsthebuilder]

I do......

Actually, I think it all comes down to that Law/Gospel issue (about which I have a current thread): Mess that up and Christianity collapses (as my thread about Muhammad Ali is meant to show). With that messed up, Jesus is not THE SAVIOR.... He may (perhaps) be a helper or a possibility maker or even PART savior but not the Savior. With Law/Gospel messed up, salvation ULTIMATELY seems to come down to self and what self does - the good work(s) of self (such as repenting or surrendering or being perfect or just not needing salvation - perhaps because self sufficiently "tapped" God's help). Sadly, a LOT of Catholics are very confused here (although I'M not convinced Catholicism is - just the vast majority of Catholics; I sure was in my Catholic days), and WORSE are some modern "Evangelicals." I think we see the "fruit" of this in a whole lot of issues (and threads).


Yes, I agree with you, IF people understood that Law/Gospel thing - it would be almost automatic that they'd confess Jesus as BOTH God and man (inseparably but not blended) - because I can't image how Jesus could be our Savior otherwise. But, of course, that would be going at this wrong. I've given the Scriptures..... I see no what possible to embrace those without coming to the same conclusion that the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils did (and historically 99.999% of Christians) - that Jesus is BOTH, fully, always God AND man - never blended into a third reality cancelled the previous two (via some transubstantiation, lol) but BOTH true. Rejecting Monophysitism and Docetism and the other ancient, unversally condemned heresies that deny this. But I agree with your point here: In some ways, wrong doctrine may not be all that critical..... UNTIL it gets to that issue of who is the Savior. At that point, eternity now hinges. False doctrine often leads to a false view of who is the Savior.... it always (in one way or another) seems to lead people away from Christ, encouraging them to look to the mirror rather than to the Cross.


IMO, Turtle, we need to cut some of our friends some slack. First of all, because we're all laity here but also because a LOT of Christian preachers/ministers/pastors these days are very poorly trained in theology and history - they are likely sincere and certainly mean to teach rightly, some are just (how to be nice about this)..... uninformed. They don't KNOW that the issues they are preaching on are HUGE and have been studied and discussed and debated for CENTURIES and that Christians - together, ecumenically, as a community - came to a very, very biblical consensus (universally!) many centuries ago.... they simple don't know that what they proclaim is (again, how to be nice)..... heresy. They MEAN no harm (of that, I'm 100% certain), it's just they haven't looked at the whole of Scripture, they've applied too much fallen reason or doubt, they proclaim something sincerely that echos (verbatim perhaps) a universally condemned heretic.



My apologies for the (not altogether irrelevant) detour.... Back to the issue at hand.



Pax Christi



- Josiah

Again, you declare your position as the right one and all others as heretical.

Not only this but you go so far as to say you must be right because you can't understand how you could possibly be wrong. Just because you don't understand how Christ can save without being GOD, doesn't make it heretical.

Just because you use the councils to back your claim that doesn't make it true. Who declares what to be not of GOD? And by what authority? If the councils you spoke of where indeed universal then there would have been no schism ever. If they where utterly correct then there would have been no crusades, Spanish inquisition, or holocaust. Have you ever considered that those who are victorious are generally those who make the subsequent rules? The winners of wars depict things as they see fit, and none are there to refute them. That doesn't make them right, it simply means they where in control.

You speak as if someone hasn't understanding of scripture, or that they haven't read it all. But this is simple conjecture from ignorance. Not only might one understand scripture quite well, but they may have, by the Grace and direction of GOD and the teachings and example of the Christ, removed much of the mystery of scripture.

Only a closed mind and hardened heart would cause one to deny the validity of another regardless of truth. Only one of great bias would rather proclaim the truth to be a mystery rather than see simple logical utter truth.

Anyway, perhaps I am wrong.

Can you explain why one must be aligned with a doctrine of a two nature Christ, an eternal yet begotten GOD, and believe without action, in order to be saved? Despite having a clear simple understanding of scripture and having read it repeatedly, and recognizing its universal truths, I still don't understand your view or see where scripture verifies it, so to me it is false, much like your opinion when examining my case, I suppose. You say some biased councils agree with you. I say all core scripture and religious writings spanning time and culture support mine. It's not as if Christ was only for the gentile, or only for our time or a past time. It spans all the world and time. It doesn't breed confusion but understanding. It doesn't cause contention but unity.

I know heresy right?

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Josiah]

I do......

Actually, I think it all comes down to that Law/Gospel issue (about which I have a current thread): Mess that up and Christianity collapses (as my thread about Muhammad Ali is meant to show). With that messed up, Jesus is not THE SAVIOR.... He may (perhaps) be a helper or a possibility maker or even PART savior but not the Savior. With Law/Gospel messed up, salvation ULTIMATELY seems to come down to self and what self does - the good work(s) of self (such as repenting or surrendering or being perfect or just not needing salvation - perhaps because self sufficiently "tapped" God's help). Sadly, a LOT of Catholics are very confused here (although I'M not convinced Catholicism is - just the vast majority of Catholics; I sure was in my Catholic days), and WORSE are some modern "Evangelicals." I think we see the "fruit" of this in a whole lot of issues (and threads).


Yes, I agree with you, IF people understood that Law/Gospel thing - it would be almost automatic that they'd confess Jesus as BOTH God and man (inseparably but not blended) - because I can't image how Jesus could be our Savior otherwise. But, of course, that would be going at this wrong. I've given the Scriptures..... I see no what possible to embrace those without coming to the same conclusion that the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils did (and historically 99.999% of Christians) - that Jesus is BOTH, fully, always God AND man - never blended into a third reality cancelled the previous two (via some transubstantiation, lol) but BOTH true. Rejecting Monophysitism and Docetism and the other ancient, unversally condemned heresies that deny this. But I agree with your point here: In some ways, wrong doctrine may not be all that critical..... UNTIL it gets to that issue of who is the Savior. At that point, eternity now hinges. False doctrine often leads to a false view of who is the Savior.... it always (in one way or another) seems to lead people away from Christ, encouraging them to look to the mirror rather than to the Cross.


IMO, Turtle, we need to cut some of our friends some slack. First of all, because we're all laity here but also because a LOT of Christian preachers/ministers/pastors these days are very poorly trained in theology and history - they are likely sincere and certainly mean to teach rightly, some are just (how to be nice about this)..... uninformed. They don't KNOW that the issues they are preaching on are HUGE and have been studied and discussed and debated for CENTURIES and that Christians - together, ecumenically, as a community - came to a very, very biblical consensus (universally!) many centuries ago.... they simple don't know that what they proclaim is (again, how to be nice)..... heresy. They MEAN no harm (of that, I'm 100% certain), it's just they haven't looked at the whole of Scripture, they've applied too much fallen reason or doubt, they proclaim something sincerely that echos (verbatim perhaps) a universally condemned heretic.



My apologies for the (not altogether irrelevant) detour.... Back to the issue at hand.



Pax Christi



- Josiah

Again, you declare your position as the right one and all others as heretical.

With all due respect, you have not quoted a WORD of ANYTHING I've posted about "my belief" so I'm not aware that you have any idea whatsoever about that.



And obviously I did not use the word "heretical" subjectively (the way some individualists do). It's an OBJECTIVE, HISTORICAL designation. We - the church, together, in community - have declared some things right and some things wrong. WE did this. In the formative years of Christianity. What was condemned is heresy. I think we have a thread here at CH which is about these objective, historic views condemned by the whole church in Council as Heresy. And yes, the views you've been alluding to are all on that list: Docetism, Monophysitism, Adoptionism to be sure. It's not MY list..... MY opinion. It's NOT from ANY single denomination at ANY point in history. It's OUR declaration..... historical, ecumenical. Yes, I don't challenging, even after such declaration, these condemned heresies at times get regurgitated - usually innocently/nievely but sometimes quite intentionally, but the people of God recognized these for the heresies they were... until recently when Christianity history has often been forgotten and selves simply have appointed self to arbitrate all things since selves now demand that God only leads self. Again, I wasn't using these terms in some PERSONAL way, to show MY view (because such is quite irrelevant), I used them property, in the historic, Christian sense as universally, ecumenically, officially, formally condemned teachings.

Not only this but you go so far as to say you must be right because you can't understand how you could possibly be wrong.

I doubt, sincerely, you have read a word in the post you claim to be responding to - or any other. IF I had said that, you would have quoted me (at least implying such). The reality that you can't fine me remotely saying that or even implying that speaks loudly.

I shared Scripture. You ignored every word of every Scripture. I shared the Councils. You ignored every single word of every one of them. In stead, in lieu of that, in place of that..... are this attacks on ME, while showing you can't find a single word I ever posted that remotely supports your attacks. Consider that.... AGAIN.

If the councils you spoke of where indeed universal then there would have been no schism ever.

There hasn't been on what they declared. And I don't know of any denomination (except for the LDS) that rejects the Two Inseparable Natures of Christ and which officially defend and teach Monophysitism or Docetism or Adoptionism or the other condemned views you've alluded to; they may exist (heaven knows a LOT of shocking old heresies are being resurrected - see the post you claim to be responding to but aren't), if you can identify which is/are resurrecting these old heresies, that would be instructional. I DO think there are individual teachers/preachers who INNOCENTLY but nievely teach them, however.

If they where utterly correct then there would have been no crusades, Spanish inquisition, or holocaust

The Spanish Inquisition and that Nazi Holocaust were not over things proclaimed in the Ecumenical Councils, and certainly not by Docetists or Monophysists or Adoptionists.

I know heresy right?

Well, right, you seem to be implying heresy - so in that sense, yes, you seem to know them. But I don't think you accept heresy as wrong.




- Josiah

 

[Pedrito]

From Lämmchen's Post #4 on Page 1:

Jesus has the attributes of God:

He knows everything

Matthew 16:21

Matthew 16:21:
From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

There is nothing in this verse that necessitates Jesus' being God. The Holy Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus' perfect mind, and empowerment by the Spirit of God, are no less credible sources for His abilities.

This verse is totally neutral with respect to establishing whether or not the claim that Jesus was God, has credence.

(We'll see whether or not the Inspired Word of God has more definitive statements to make about the matter, later.)

Luke 11:17

Luke 11:17:
But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

Once again, there is nothing in this verse that necessitates Jesus' being God.

Actually, and for the same reason, this verse is totally neutral as well.

John 4:29

John 4:29:
Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?

Does the New Testament not speak of people having special wisdom and knowledge through the power of the Spirit of God?

Indeed so.

Did the Samaritans believe, and did the Jews believe based on God's Holy Written Revelation delivered to them, that the Annointed One (the Christ) would be God Himself?

Indeed not.


So far, all we have seen is verses that offer no clear support for the proposition put forth. We have only seen meanings read into them.

Why were more pointed references not offered?


Continued ...

 

[Pedrito]

... Continued


From Lämmchen's Post #4 on Page 1:

Jesus is everywhere

Matthew 18:20

Matthew 18:20:
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Looking at the context of that statement, does it not become clear that Jesus was referring to a time that was then future – after He was glorified by God?
Philippians 2:9: Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Matthew 28:20

Matthew 28:20:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Wasn't this statement made after Jesus' resurrection, and after He had informed them that "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" on Verse 18?

Acts 18:10

Acts 18:10:
For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.

Was this not also after Jesus had been glorified and empowered?


Continued ...

 

[popsthebuilder]

With all due respect, you have not quoted a WORD of ANYTHING I've posted about "my belief" so I'm not aware that you have any idea whatsoever about that.



And obviously I did not use the word "heretical" subjectively (the way some individualists do). It's an OBJECTIVE, HISTORICAL designation. We - the church, together, in community - have declared some things right and some things wrong. WE did this. In the formative years of Christianity. What was condemned is heresy. I think we have a thread here at CH which is about these objective, historic views condemned by the whole church in Council as Heresy. And yes, the views you've been alluding to are all on that list: Docetism, Monophysitism, Adoptionism to be sure. It's not MY list..... MY opinion. It's NOT from ANY single denomination at ANY point in history. It's OUR declaration..... historical, ecumenical. Yes, I don't challenging, even after such declaration, these condemned heresies at times get regurgitated - usually innocently/nievely but sometimes quite intentionally, but the people of God recognized these for the heresies they were... until recently when Christianity history has often been forgotten and selves simply have appointed self to arbitrate all things since selves now demand that God only leads self. Again, I wasn't using these terms in some PERSONAL way, to show MY view (because such is quite irrelevant), I used them property, in the historic, Christian sense as universally, ecumenically, officially, formally condemned teachings.







I doubt, sincerely, you have read a word in the post you claim to be responding to - or any other. IF I had said that, you would have quoted me (at least implying such). The reality that you can't fine me remotely saying that or even implying that speaks loudly.

I shared Scripture. You ignored every word of every Scripture. I shared the Councils. You ignored every single word of every one of them. In stead, in lieu of that, in place of that..... are this attacks on ME, while showing you can't find a single word I ever posted that remotely supports your attacks. Consider that.... AGAIN.






There hasn't been on what they declared. And I don't know of any denomination (except for the LDS) that rejects the Two Inseparable Natures of Christ and which officially defend and teach Monophysitism or Docetism or Adoptionism or the other condemned views you've alluded to; they may exist (heaven knows a LOT of shocking old heresies are being resurrected - see the post you claim to be responding to but aren't), if you can identify which is/are resurrecting these old heresies, that would be instructional. I DO think there are individual teachers/preachers who INNOCENTLY but nievely teach them, however.






The Spanish Inquisition and that Nazi Holocaust were not over things proclaimed in the Ecumenical Councils, and certainly not by Docetists or Monophysists or Adoptionists.






Well, right, you seem to be implying heresy - so in that sense, yes, you seem to know them. But I don't think you accept heresy as wrong.




- Josiah

I'm on a phone using tapatalk. I cannot quote pieces of what you say using this app.

Read post 107 and then tell me that you didn't state that you don't understand how Jesus can be the savior if not GOD, and since you can't understand it it isn't true.

I'm not attacking you so stop playing the victim. Repeating yourself doesn't make you right. Assuming things doesn't make them fact.

You can doubt whatever you want.

I've read scripture and your posts. If your assertions matched scripture then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Pedrito]

... Continued


From Lämmchen's Post #4 on Page 1:

Jesus has all power

Matthew 8:26–27

Matthew 8:26–27

26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
27 But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!

Read verse 27 carefully. There is not even a hint that those present thought that Jesus was in any way God Himself, but rather that Jesus was a very specially empowered man.

If you read the Gospels carefully, you will notice something. You will see a highly specific, definitive example of the Jews' expectation regarding the Messiah. The Messiah would identify himself by being able to do more than a normal prophet could do. Jewish culture confirms the highly specific example given in Scripture.

If Readers are not immediately aware of what that extremely important example is (how He clearly demonstrated His Messiahship), my question would have to be, why have their teachers not pointed it out to them? Could their teachers in fact be better informed about denominational perspectives than they are about God's Holy Word?

Matthew 28:18

Matthew 28:18

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

This was after His resurrection, was it not? And the power was given to Him, is that not so? Does that not mean that there was a time when He did not have that power?


Continued ...

 

[Pedrito]

... Continued


From Lämmchen's Post #4 on Page 1:

John 11:38–44

John 11:38–44

38 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.
39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.
40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.
42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it , that they may believe that thou hast sent me.
43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.
44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

Didn't Paul also restore life to a dead person in Acts 20?

9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
12 And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

How about Peter in Acts 9?

36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.
37 And it came to pass in those days, that she was sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber.
38 And forasmuch as Lydda was nigh to Joppa, and the disciples had heard that Peter was there, they sent unto him two men, desiring him that he would not delay to come to them.
39 Then Peter arose and went with them. When he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them.
40 But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up.
41 And he gave her his hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive.

What does that say about Paul and Peter?

Luke 7:14–15

Luke 7:14–15

14 And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise.
15 And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.

I suggest that Acts 20 is pertinent here as well. As is Acts 9.
The verse that follows is of more than passing interest. Luke 7:16:

And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.

Read the text carefully. The people considered that God had sent a mighty prophet to them. God had visited Israel in a number of ways throughout their history.


Continued ...

 

[Josiah]

Matthew 18:20:
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Jesus said, "I." where two or three are gathered in His name, HE - Jesus, born in Bethlehem - IS with THEM. This is a very clear promise of omnipresence of JESUS - the God and Man with TWO natures, together, always, inseparable. Now, Jesus didn't here say it, but we know from other Scriptures that God is omnipresent so JESUS ( "I" ) - Jesus born in Bethlehem, born of Mary, flesh-and-blood, fully man - is ALSO God. It's already the case when He states this - before Pentecost.

Matthew 28:20:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

I. I. JESUS. Born of Mary, born in Bethlehem, flesh-and-blood real fully man JESUS. With you (plural). ALWAYS - even to the end of the world. GOD is omnipresent. Jesus - real man, is also Jesus - real God. His divine nature "communicating" (the theological word for this) with His human nature. Always. In all space/time.




.

 

[Josiah]

Again.....


TWO Natures of Christ.... As affirmed by the First, Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils



1. Jesus is BOTH God/divine and man/human. BOTH. 100%. It's not either/or but both/and. True, his human nature is without sin but that in no sense makes it less human (it makes it more human - the humanity of Adam and Eve before the fall). 1 John 5:20, 1 Timothy 2:5-6.


2. These two natures are INSEPARABLE and UNITED - like two sides of the same coin. We may be only seeing one side at at given time; only one side might be active in some thing, but both sides are always present because they are inseparable. Two sides of the SAME coin. These are not merged into a new, third reality - but both remain, and both remain united. Where one "side" of the reality is, ergo so "is" the other.


3. While the Incarnation happened in time/space, this unity is beyond that. Read carefully John 1:1 ff, John 8:58, John 17:5, Hebrews 1:1-3 and 10-12, Matthew 18:20, Romans 9:5. Thus, we may speak of JESUS being at Creation and JESUS being with us always - and this JESUS has two inseparable natures: God and Man, divine and human. Note: it does NOT say, "The Son was present at Creation" it says "YOU (Jesus) were, etc.


4. There is not a sharp distinction in terms of duties or fruits or attributes or properties. See Luke 9:56 and Romans 9:5 and 1 Tim 2:5 and Hebrews 2:14 (humanity saving), with First John 1:12 and 1 Cor. 2:8 and Acts 3:15 and Galatians 2:20 (divinity saves), note that First John 1:14 contains both in the same verse. Note JESUS says he had us with us before the world was (John 17:5). JESUS is eternal (Hebrews 13:8), JESUS knows all things (John 21:17). Mary gives birth to GOD with us (Matthew 1:23). JESUS is everywhere (Matthew 18:20). JESUS knows all things (Colossians 2:3). JESUS is all powerful (Matthew 28:18). Miracles done by Jesus reveal HIS glory (John 1:14). Thus, it is unbiblical to insist that ONLY BY ONE NATURE can Christ be this or that.


5. God dwells in CHRIST - the flesh - "in fullness." Colossians 2:9. It's not a partial or sometime kind of thing.



SOME NOTES ......

1. Yet it seems possible for ONE nature to be involved without the others (as if looking at ONE SIDE of the coin - that side being the active side). The humanity of JEsus died on the Cross, God did not. Jesus says, "no one knows - not even the Son of man but only God" (an INTERESTING verse - because if taken literally, Jesus BOTH knew and did not know - suggesting some sense of a lack of communication?) Another case, Luke 2:52 - his humanity increases in knowledge even though his divine nature is all knowing always. The DIVINE nature MAY "communicate" with the human, the human does not communicate with the divine

2. The impeccability of Christ is interesting..... While Catholics (borrowing from Augustine) argue such (nondogmatically) from Jesus not having a human father (sin moving via male DNA) and Mary being without Original Sin just as a back up (lol), I've heard LUtherans argue (again, nondogmatically) that this is a fruit of the communication of attributes: his human nature is without sin by virtue of being "united" with his divine - the divine 'communicating' with the human.




SCRIPTURES....


John 1:1 ff [1:1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] He was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
[5] The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
[6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
[7] He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
[8] He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
[9] The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.
[10] He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
[11] He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
[12] But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
[13] who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
[14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
[15] (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)
[16] For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.
[17] For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
[18] No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.


John 8:58, "Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” Notice says, "I AM (I.... JESUS).... I WAS before Abraham. Not "The divine nature of me but not the human nature."


John 17:5, And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. Jesus says "that I (JESUS) - I had."


Hebrews 1:1-3 and 10-12, Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,.... And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

Note, God created the world through Jesus; Jesus is the "imprint" of God's nature, Jesus upholds the universe, Jesus made purifcation for sins, Jesus is the same.... NO distinction of natures, NO "The Son did this, the Flesh did that..."


Matthew 18:20, For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” Again, note that JESUS is among us, not "The Second Person of the Trinity." Jesus is the God/Man - both/and.


Romans 9:5. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. Note: JESUS (born in Jerusalem, God and Man) is over all.


Hebrews 13:8, Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. JESUS is eternal....


John 21:17, Lord, you know everything. JESUS is all-knowing


John 20:19, "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” Note: NO FLESH can walk through walls and doors.... GOD of course can. JESUS (the God/Man did), indicating that what Jesus can do by one nature also involves his other nature. This seems important for the Reformed insistence that Jesus' human nature is in heaven and CANNOT thus be here for this would violate the properties of his human nature. Well..... this violated the properties of his human nature.


Matthew 1:23, They shall call his name Immanuel which means God with us. Note: JESUS' very title here means "God WITH us." Yes, GOD can be in all places at all times, no one disputes that. But Jesus says HE - JESUS - who is also HUMAN is with us. Thus, as in above, properties of one nature can "communicate" or in some way involve the other, since Nicea stressed his two natures are INSEPARABLE.


Matthew 18:20 Where two or three are gathered together, there I am among them. JESUS is omnipresent


Colossians 2:3 Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge


Matthew 28:18 All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (Jesus - born of Mary, true man and true God)


Titus 2:13, "Our great GOD and Savior Jesus Christ who gave himself for us" JESUS is rightly referred to as GOD, not partly God, not sorta God, not "the God in Jesus is God" but JESUS is God.


John 1:14 The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory of the only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth (all referring to JESUS)




.