Messianic Christians?

[VCO]

In no way do I deny the deity of Jesus. This is where we seem to have a break down in communication. You seem to deny that He became a man and lived here on the earth.

You have got to be kidding me,

I have always proclaimed that Jesus is both GOD and Man.

To simplify it,

The difference between JESUS and any other human being,

the SPIRIT part of Jesus was GOD HIMSELF, the CREATOR;

while our human spirits were all created by HIM.


Zechariah 12:1 (HCSB)
[SUP]1 [/SUP] An Oracle The word of the LORD concerning Israel. A declaration of the LORD, who stretched out the heavens, laid the foundation of the earth, and formed the spirit of man within him.

 

[VCO]

Jesus was fully God and fully human--two natures, divine and human, in one being.

The Trinity is three persons in one nature, ONE divine Being.

Read my above post #378, It is how I would answer you post. PLUS:

John 2:19-22 (HCSB)
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Jesus answered, “Destroy this sanctuary, and I will raise it up in three days.”
[SUP]20 [/SUP]Therefore the Jews said, “This sanctuary took 46 years to build, and will You raise it up in three days?”
[SUP]21 [/SUP]But He was speaking about the sanctuary of His body.
[SUP]22 [/SUP]So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this. And they believed the Scripture and the statement Jesus had made.

Colossians 2:9 (NASB)
[SUP]9 [/SUP]For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

 

[Timeline]

You have got to be kidding me,

I have always proclaimed that Jesus is both GOD and Man.

To simplify it,

The difference between JESUS and any other human being,

the SPIRIT part of Jesus was GOD HIMSELF, the CREATOR;

while our human spirits were all created by HIM.


Zechariah 12:1 (HCSB)
[SUP]1 [/SUP] An Oracle The word of the LORD concerning Israel. A declaration of the LORD, who stretched out the heavens, laid the foundation of the earth, and formed the spirit of man within him.

So we are not arguing that Jesus is Deity or not. We both agree that He was and is.

I am just saying that I believe that Jesus (the man) was the Son of Joseph and Mary, which was accomplished without physical contact. The bible is very clear that Jesus was formed in Mary's womb without Mary having contact with Joseph. I just understand the verse in Luke 3:23 (When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,) says that Jesus was actually of the lineage that is listed and that He was the son of Joseph. Jesus was the Son of Man and the Son of God.

 

[Linda70]

So we are not arguing that Jesus is Deity or not. We both agree that He was and is.

I am just saying that I believe that Jesus (the man) was the Son of Joseph and Mary, which was accomplished without physical contact. The bible is very clear that Jesus was formed in Mary's womb without Mary having contact with Joseph. I just understand the verse in Luke 3:23 (When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,) says that Jesus was actually of the lineage that is listed and that He was the son of Joseph. Jesus was the Son of Man and the Son of God.

You have just made Jesus a sinner. You are trying to use human "logic" to prove Jesus is from the lineage of Joseph...and, in your mind, that can only be accomplished through the "seed" of Joseph. You are completely dismissing what God says in Luke 1:35: "The Holy Ghost 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." The Incarnation of the Son of God was totally of God, from His conception to His birth in the manger in Bethlehem of Judea. Jesus Christ had no human father. Jesus Christ is the "Seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15).

THE GENERATION OF JESUS CHRIST. The following is from the Concise Bible Dictionary: "[The generation of Jesus Christ] is given in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. According to the distinctive character of Matthew in which Christ is emphatically the Messiah and Son of David, the genealogy commences with Abraham; whereas in Luke, in which Christ is displayed as the Son of man, the list is traced up to `Adam who was the son of God.' Both lists are the same from Abraham to David; then they differ until they reach Salathiel and Zorobabel, which names are in both lists; and then they again differ. The list in Luke is much fuller, having from David to Joseph 41 names, where Matthew has only 26. Names are omitted from Matthew, and this enables the whole to be brought into the three divisions of `fourteen generations.' Ozias is placed as the son of Joram, but on consulting 1 Chronicles 3:11-12 (where for Ozias is read Azariah, as also in 2 Kings 14:21), it will be seen that three kings are omitted, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. Such omissions are found in the genealogies in the Old Testament. In 2 Chronicles 22:9 Ahaziah is called the son of Jehoshaphat; whereas he was his grandson; and by comparing the generations in 1 Chronicles 6:3-15 with Ezra 7:28 seven names will be found to be omitted in the latter.

"It will be noted that in Matthew the word `begat' is used, whereas in Luke it is more indefinite. Jesus was `supposed' or `accounted' to be the son of Joseph, and `Joseph was of Heli' without the word `beget.' Again, it should be noted that by a Jewish law if a man died childless, his brother was to raise up seed to the deceased by his widow, so that a son born thus might be called the legal son of the deceased, whereas he would be the actual or lineal son of his father, the brother of the deceased. The list in Matthew is clearly the royal line; between David and Salathiel twelve kings are given, all of whom are omitted from Luke. Being the royal line it must also be the legal line.

"There is more difficulty as to the genealogy in Luke: is it the line of Joseph or Mary? Women are never quoted as forming a line of succession, yet Christ is spoken of as the `seed' of the woman (Genesis 3:15);`come of woman' (Galatians 4:4); `the seed of Abraham' (Hebrews 2:16); `the seed of David according to the flesh' (Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8);`the offspring of David' (Revelation 22:16). As the Lord was not really the son of Joseph, these Scriptures can only be fulfilled through His mother, who must have been a lineal descendant of David and Abraham. It is better therefore to consider that Luke gives the lineal descent of the Lord through Mary. In accordance with the above it will be seen that Matthew, in speaking of the birth of the Lord, frequently mentions Joseph, seldom Mary; whereas Luke frequently mentions Mary, but seldom Joseph" (Concise).

 

[Timeline]

You have just made Jesus a sinner. You are trying to use human "logic" to prove Jesus is from the lineage of Joseph...and, in your mind, that can only be accomplished through the "seed" of Joseph. You are completely dismissing what God says in Luke 1:35: "The Holy Ghost 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." The Incarnation of the Son of God was totally of God, from His conception to His birth in the manger in Bethlehem of Judea. Jesus Christ had no human father. Jesus Christ is the "Seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15).

THE GENERATION OF JESUS CHRIST. The following is from the Concise Bible Dictionary: "[The generation of Jesus Christ] is given in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. According to the distinctive character of Matthew in which Christ is emphatically the Messiah and Son of David, the genealogy commences with Abraham; whereas in Luke, in which Christ is displayed as the Son of man, the list is traced up to `Adam who was the son of God.' Both lists are the same from Abraham to David; then they differ until they reach Salathiel and Zorobabel, which names are in both lists; and then they again differ. The list in Luke is much fuller, having from David to Joseph 41 names, where Matthew has only 26. Names are omitted from Matthew, and this enables the whole to be brought into the three divisions of `fourteen generations.' Ozias is placed as the son of Joram, but on consulting 1 Chronicles 3:11-12 (where for Ozias is read Azariah, as also in 2 Kings 14:21), it will be seen that three kings are omitted, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. Such omissions are found in the genealogies in the Old Testament. In 2 Chronicles 22:9 Ahaziah is called the son of Jehoshaphat; whereas he was his grandson; and by comparing the generations in 1 Chronicles 6:3-15 with Ezra 7:28 seven names will be found to be omitted in the latter.

"It will be noted that in Matthew the word `begat' is used, whereas in Luke it is more indefinite. Jesus was `supposed' or `accounted' to be the son of Joseph, and `Joseph was of Heli' without the word `beget.' Again, it should be noted that by a Jewish law if a man died childless, his brother was to raise up seed to the deceased by his widow, so that a son born thus might be called the legal son of the deceased, whereas he would be the actual or lineal son of his father, the brother of the deceased. The list in Matthew is clearly the royal line; between David and Salathiel twelve kings are given, all of whom are omitted from Luke. Being the royal line it must also be the legal line.

"There is more difficulty as to the genealogy in Luke: is it the line of Joseph or Mary? Women are never quoted as forming a line of succession, yet Christ is spoken of as the `seed' of the woman (Genesis 3:15);`come of woman' (Galatians 4:4); `the seed of Abraham' (Hebrews 2:16); `the seed of David according to the flesh' (Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8);`the offspring of David' (Revelation 22:16). As the Lord was not really the son of Joseph, these Scriptures can only be fulfilled through His mother, who must have been a lineal descendant of David and Abraham. It is better therefore to consider that Luke gives the lineal descent of the Lord through Mary. In accordance with the above it will be seen that Matthew, in speaking of the birth of the Lord, frequently mentions Joseph, seldom Mary; whereas Luke frequently mentions Mary, but seldom Joseph" (Concise).

I do not believe that I have the capability to have "made Jesus a sinner", nor do I want it. Jesus was the Son of Man and the Son of God. He was and is perfect. It was God's plan for Jesus to become flesh, not mine, although I am thankful. It is through Jesus' life, death, and resurrection in the flesh that we have our salvation.

 

[Linda70]

Timeline,

You made Jesus a sinner through your "logic" of trying to "prove" that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus. God formed His only begotten Son in the womb of Mary. Joseph's "seed" wasn't even a factor in the Incarnation of the Son of God. If Jesus wasn't the "sinless" Son of God, then He wasn't yours (or anybody else's) Savior either.

 

[Timeline]

Timeline,

You made Jesus a sinner through your "logic" of trying to "prove" that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus. God formed His only begotten Son in the womb of Mary. Joseph's "seed" wasn't even a factor in the Incarnation of the Son of God.

So Jesus was the Son of Woman, according to your thinking. That He was half man and half God. I do not understand how Jesus can be fully man and fully God if He wasn't man at all. I believe that the bible says that Jesus was a man and died in the flesh. The fact that Jesus was a man does not take away from His Deity.

 

[Timeline]

Linda70,

It is not my intention to upset you or to distort the word of God. I think that spiritual things are difficult to understand at times. If I am wrong, I am wrong. I certainly have no intention of taking anything away from Jesus nor "making Him a sinner". I do not want to continue this discussion because it is certainly not my goal to cause strife.

 

[Linda70]

So Jesus was the Son of Woman, according to your thinking. That He was half man and half God. I do not understand how Jesus can be fully man and fully God if He wasn't man at all. I believe that the bible says that Jesus was a man and died in the flesh. The fact that Jesus was a man does not take away from His Deity.

Jesus Christ is the "Seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15). This was the very first prophecy of a coming Redeemer. Jesus was fully man and fully God...not "half and half"! Just because you can't "logically" figure out how that could happen, you come up with this crazy interpretation of how Joseph could probably be Jesus' "natural" father w/o having physical contact with Mary. That is your "logic" Timeline, not mine. God becoming flesh/man, isn't "logical" to our finite minds. That's why it is miraculous. I never said, or even hinted, in any of my posts, that Jesus Christ ceased to be Deity!

SEED OF THE WOMAN (Genesis 3:15; Hebrews 2:9-14). God promised that a man would come who would be injured by Satan but who would destroy Satan ultimately. Jesus Christ was bruised on the cross, but it was only a heel wound because He rose from the dead. Through Christ's death, Satan's destruction is guaranteed (Hebrews 2:14). The fact that Jesus would be the seed of a woman instead of a man foretold His virgin birth.

 

[VCO]

So we are not arguing that Jesus is Deity or not. We both agree that He was and is.

I am just saying that I believe that Jesus (the man) was the Son of Joseph and Mary, which was accomplished without physical contact. The bible is very clear that Jesus was formed in Mary's womb without Mary having contact with Joseph. I just understand the verse in Luke 3:23 (When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,) says that Jesus was actually of the lineage that is listed and that He was the son of Joseph. Jesus was the Son of Man and the Son of God.

In other words, that supposed definitely implies that in reality HE WAS NOT THE OFFSPRING SON OF JOSEPH. AND OBVIOUSLY you do not believe what GOD SAYS. AND any adopted son or son by Marriage would also be listed in the lineage.


Matthew 1:18-24 (HCSB)
[SUP]18 [/SUP] The birth of Jesus Christ came about this way: After His mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, it was discovered before they came together that she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
[SUP]19 [/SUP] So her husband Joseph, being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her publicly, decided to divorce her secretly.
[SUP]20 [/SUP] But after he had considered these things, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, don’t be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because what has been conceived in her is by the Holy Spirit.
[SUP]21 [/SUP] She will give birth to a son, and you are to name Him Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins.”
[SUP]22 [/SUP] Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
[SUP]23 [/SUP] See, the virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they will name Him Immanuel, which is translated “God is with us.”
[SUP]24 [/SUP] When Joseph got up from sleeping, he did as the Lord’s angel had commanded him. He married her.


NOW let me point out a couple things. In Jewish customs ONCE they were engaged, they can be called bride and bridegroom, and even husband and wife, BECAUSE the marriage contract with the Father was considered to be THAT BINDING that it was already a DONE DEAL. BUT in this case JOSEPH CLEARLY does not marry her until the END of verse 24.

WHY is the divorce option mentioned in verse 19 then. JEWISH Culture is NOT like our culture. It required a divorce to break a marriage contract before the Wedding as well as AFTER.

NOW before you even suggest it, the concept that GOD needed the seed of man to make a human body is PURE MALARKEY.

HE did not need it to make Adam and Eve, NOR would He need it to make for Himself a body that HE could indwell and die in.

You are YET to wrap your mind around this FACT:

Luke 1:37 (NIV)
[SUP]37 [/SUP] For nothing is impossible with God."

God needed the bloodline of Mary to fulfill His promise to David that one of his descendants would always be on his throne. TECHNICALLY since the LORD rose from the Grave never to die again, HE IS THE REIGNING KING OF ISRAEL FOREVER.

 

[VCO]

So Jesus was the Son of Woman, according to your thinking. That He was half man and half God. I do not understand how Jesus can be fully man and fully God if He wasn't man at all. I believe that the bible says that Jesus was a man and died in the flesh. The fact that Jesus was a man does not take away from His Deity.

TIMELINE,

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT IT?

Having no earthly Father did NOT make HIM less of a Human Being.

ADAM had NO EARTHLY FATHER EITHER, and he was fully a human being.

IT MEANS GOD CREATED THAT BODY IN THE WOMB OF MARY FOR PART OF HIMSELF TO INDWELL.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE WAS ONLY PART GOD, IT MEANS GOD REMAINS OMNIPRESENT AND INTERCONNECTED AT ALL TIMES INCLUDING THE 33 YEARS THAT JESUS WALKED ON THIS EARTH.

IT MEANS YOU CANNOT PUT GOD IN A BOX, EVEN IF THAT BOX IS CALLED JESUS CHRIST.

 

[VCO]

Linda70,

It is not my intention to upset you or to distort the word of God. I think that spiritual things are difficult to understand at times. If I am wrong, I am wrong. I certainly have no intention of taking anything away from Jesus nor "making Him a sinner". I do not want to continue this discussion because it is certainly not my goal to cause strife.

NOT if you surrender complete control to the Holy Spirit first.

Is that the problem, are you keeping back part of your life just for self?

Spirit Filled guidence will not work that way.

You are only FILLED with the Spirit (totally under the control of the HOLY SPIRIT) when you have surrendered all to Jesus.

"Accept a man comes with the faith of a child", that is without any doubt, unquestioning, and totally trusting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO3BouKCtDs

 

[Elin]

Jesus was fully God and fully human--two natures, divine and human, in one being.

The Trinity is three persons in one nature, ONE divine Being.

Read my above post #378, It is how I would answer you post.

My post is in agreement with your post #378.

Sorry that wasn't clear.

PLUS:

John 2:19-22 (HCSB)
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Jesus answered, “Destroy this sanctuary, and I will raise it up in three days.”
[SUP]20 [/SUP]Therefore the Jews said, “This sanctuary took 46 years to build, and will You raise it up in three days?”
[SUP]21 [/SUP]But He was speaking about the sanctuary of His body.
[SUP]22 [/SUP]So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this. And they believed the Scripture and the statement Jesus had made.

Colossians 2:9 (NASB)
[SUP]9 [/SUP]For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Well done.

 

[VCO]

My post is in agreement with your post #378.

Sorry that wasn't clear.


Well done.

It was my mistake that caused the confusion. I referenced my post #378, and that was one of your posts. I meant to refer you to my Post #381 to see if you agreed with it. Sorry for the confusion. I will admit these types of glitches of human mind, do not get better as we get older; they definitely get worse. When someone decides to send me out to pasture, I sure hope there is a good fishing stream flowing through it, and a great WiFi connection, lol. Even better maybe there is a nice little cabin on a bend of the Crystal River out back of the Throne of Grace that the Lord will allow me to have. That River just has to be full of Crystal River Trout.

 

[VCO]

I expect this to be my last post on this subject. I do not see the point in writing out a whole lineage just to make it pointless at the very end. This does not make sense to me at all. I believe that the Holy Spirit (of the Holy Spirit) took the seed from Joseph (son of David) and put the seed in Mary. If I am wrong I am wrong. If you have further points I will try to come back and read them.

Then you would be TOTALLY WRONG.

ADAM had no earthly father, and Christ is the second or last Adam who had no earthly father either:


1 Corinthians 15:45-47 (ASV)
[SUP]45 [/SUP] So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
[SUP]46 [/SUP] Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual.
[SUP]47 [/SUP] The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven.

1 Corinthians:
15:45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Here again the first man Adam is contrasted with the Lord Jesus Christ. God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life and he became a living being (Gen. 2:7). All who are descended from him bear his characteristics. The last Adam, the Savior, became a life-giving spirit (John 5:21, 26). The difference is that in the first case, Adam was given physical life, whereas in the second case Christ gives eternal life to others. Erdman explains:

As the descendants of Adam, we are made like him, living souls inhabiting mortal bodies, and bearing the image of an earthly parent. But as the followers of Christ, we are yet to be clothed with immortal bodies and to bear the image of our heavenly Lord.
​

15:46 The apostle now sets forth a fundamental law in God's universe, namely, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. This can be understood in several ways. Adam, the natural man, came first on the stage of human history; then Jesus, the spiritual Man. Second, we are born into the world as natural beings; then when we are born again, we become spiritual beings. Finally, we first receive natural bodies, then in resurrection we will receive spiritual bodies.
15:47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust. This means that his origin was of the earth and that his characteristics were earthly. He was made of the dust of the ground in the first place, and in his life he seemed in a very real sense to be earth-bound. The second Man is the Lord from heaven.

Believer's Bible Commentary: A Thorough, Yet Easy-to-Read Bible Commentary That Turns Complicated Theology Into Practical Understanding.

 

[Elin]

Jesus was fully God and fully human--two natures, divine and human, in one being.

The Trinity is three persons in one nature, ONE divine Being.

It was my mistake that caused the confusion. I referenced my post #378, and that was one of your posts. I meant to refer you to my Post #381 to see if you agreed with it. Sorry for the confusion. I will admit these types of glitches of human mind, do not get better as we get older; they definitely get worse. When someone decides to send me out to pasture, I sure hope there is a good fishing stream flowing through it, and a great WiFi connection, lol. Even better maybe there is a nice little cabin on a bend of the Crystal River out back of the Throne of Grace that the Lord will allow me to have. That River just has to be full of Crystal River Trout.

Sounds good to me!
And I know about the glitches!

I think I might have to modify your post.

To be fully human, Jesus must have both a human body and a human spirit.

To be fully God, he must be fully divine, not just the spirit of a human body.

I don't think Christianity has ever considered that to be be explainable by our finiteness.

 

[Hoffco]

Why do we say that Jesus had only one person? two natures but one person. ?? In my thinking , That would make Jesus a little less than fully Man. ?? I understand how we have a sinful nature and a holy nature yet we are still one person, and it is said that we partake of the divine nature, but we do not become God.. This is puzzling, . For me it is better to think of Jesus as a full man with a human personility ,person as man; and fully God with the God personality, person as God. How can we say, Jesus is fully man, with no man person? Love Hoffco

 

[VCO]

Sounds good to me!
And I know about the glitches!

I think I might have to modify your post.

To be fully human, Jesus must have both a human body and a human spirit.

To be fully God, he must be fully divine, not just the spirit of a human body.

I don't think Christianity has ever considered that to be be explainable by our finiteness.

I know how to fix most Computer glitches, however it is the ones in the biological computer between my ears that I can't figure out how to fix. I don't struggle with how he can be the fullness of Deity in bodily form and fully human at the same time. I think it is answered in this verse.

Luke 1:37 (NIV)
[SUP]37 [/SUP] For nothing is impossible with God."

 

[Elin]

I know how to fix most Computer glitches, however it is the ones in the biological computer between my ears that I can't figure out how to fix. I don't struggle with how he can be the fullness of Deity in bodily form and fully human at the same time. I think it is answered in this verse.

Luke 1:37 (NIV)
[SUP]37 [/SUP] For nothing is impossible with God."

I understand those glitches also!

It's not really about not believing it,
it's about not being able to explain the infinite from the reference points of the finite.

As in three persons in one God.