was Jesus fully human, or was he God in a disguise?

[Ozzy_O]

Romans 3:23
For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard.

Romans 5:12
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.

Inerrant scripture words say all men (and women) sinned

Look up the Greek, all and everyone means all and everyone

So every HUMAN sinned per the inerrant scriptures

So, here’s the options:

A) scripture is wrong, everyone didn’t sin and is not born a filthy little sinner

B) Jesus was FULLY MAN, which would have to include sin because the Bible says so, or he wouldn’t be a spotless lamb; He made a conscious decision not to sin, and he absolutely could help it (unlike Paul’s claims in Romans 7)

C) God put on a disguise; He acted like he was fully human but he wasn’t ( in which case living a sinless life is easy for God because he spoke the universe into existence)

Philippians 2:7
….but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

He only took on the likeness of man not his full sin nature, in which case he didn’t play by the rules for us

No Christian has ever honestly answered this question

Let’s examine the premise we have been programmed to believe and critically examine the text

It has to be all one or the other for the story they tell us to be true

The truth is uncomfortable sometimes

So, which option is least damaging to the narrative?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Ozzy_O in post #1]

AquinasForGod already told you all. This was settled a long time ago 451 AD at the Council of Chalcedon. I would not agree with AquinasforGod reasoning about Mary being sinless. But Jesus being 100% man and 100% God is an ancient Christian teaching. Jesus was born as 100% God so He could not sin. There was no part of Him that was not God. Jesus could be tempted because He was 100% human there was no part of Him that was not human.

Every man does sin. But God does not sin. Jesus was the God-man so he could be tempted to sin but He could not sin because He was God.

[Miles]

The reason he wasn't born with original sin is because he was born of the virgin Mary and Mary was protected from original sin, so that God incarnation would not inherit original sin.

This is an awfully strong claim. What is your evidence, i.e. book, chapter, and verse?

.

I am not a bible only believer. It is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. CCC.

508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. "Full of grace", Mary is "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.

As I previously came to realize. It appears a pope can trump the Bible and declare as true anything he wishes, and, I imagine, Catholics are obligated to regard it as such.

.

[AquinasForGod]

The reason he wasn't born with original sin is because he was born of the virgin Mary and Mary was protected from original sin, so that God incarnation would not inherit original sin.

This is an awfully strong claim. What is your evidence, i.e. book, chapter, and verse?

.

I am not a bible only believer. It is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. CCC.

508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. "Full of grace", Mary is "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.

As I previously came to realize. It appears a pope can trump the Bible and declare as true anything he wishes, and, I imagine, Catholics are obligated to regard it as such.

.

A Pope cannot trump the bible in the sense of contradicting it. Also, for a Pope to declare something true that cannot be incorrect, he must invoke ex cathedra. This is only been does twice in the last 200 years, once in 1854 defining the immaculate conception and in 1950 defining the assumption of Mary.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #21

Every man does sin. But God does not sin. Jesus was the God-man so he could be tempted to sin but He could not sin because He was God.

That makes no sense. If you can't sin, you can't be tempted to sin. There's no way to tempt someone to do a standing jump over a tall building when they couldn't do it if they tried. You can only be tempted to do what is within your power to do. As I also pointed out in another recent discussion,

A geometric shape cannot at the same time be a perfect circle and a perfect square. To say that it is one is to say that it is not the other. You can't say of a circle, "The circle's circular nature doesn't have corners, but the circle's square nature does have corners." A circle doesn't lack the corners of a square because "only its square nature" has corners; a circle lacks corners because a circle doesn't have the nature of a square.

Jesus was born as 100% God so He could not sin. There was no part of Him that was not God. Jesus could be tempted because He was 100% human there was no part of Him that was not human.

Being 100% of something requires having 100% of its definitive attributes. If one of the definitive attributes of God is untemptability and Jesus was not untemptable, then he did not have 100% of God's definitive attributes and was, therefore, not 100% God.

[Miles]

The reason he wasn't born with original sin is because he was born of the virgin Mary and Mary was protected from original sin, so that God incarnation would not inherit original sin.

This is an awfully strong claim. What is your evidence, i.e. book, chapter, and verse?

.

I am not a bible only believer. It is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. CCC.

508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. "Full of grace", Mary is "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.

As I previously came to realize. It appears a pope can trump the Bible and declare as true anything he wishes, and, I imagine, Catholics are obligated to regard it as such.

.

A Pope cannot trump the bible in the sense of contradicting it. Also, for a Pope to declare something true that cannot be incorrect, he must invoke ex cathedra. This is only been does twice in the last 200 years, once in 1854 defining the immaculate conception and in 1950 defining the assumption of Mary.

I guess what I was getting at is that the immaculate conception and Mary's mother Anna are not mentioned in the Bible, yet the Pope or perhaps some ecumenical council can claim their truth just as if they they were in the Bible. Not that I object, but merely making an observation of the power the Pope and/or the Vatican wields.

.

[Ozzy_O]

[Replying to Ozzy_O in post #1]

AquinasForGod already told you all. This was settled a long time ago 451 AD at the Council of Chalcedon. I would not agree with AquinasforGod reasoning about Mary being sinless. But Jesus being 100% man and 100% God is an ancient Christian teaching. Jesus was born as 100% God so He could not sin. There was no part of Him that was not God. Jesus could be tempted because He was 100% human there was no part of Him that was not human.

Every man does sin. But God does not sin. Jesus was the God-man so he could be tempted to sin but He could not sin because He was God.

All 200% of Him.......

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #24]

Being 100% of something requires having 100% of its definitive attributes. If one of the definitive attributes of God is untemptability and Jesus was not untemptable, then he did not have 100% of God's definitive attributes and was, therefore, not 100% God.

And yet He was 100%, God.

Hurts the head doesn't it? But God is not like man, God is a spirit being so why would you expect Him to be like a man?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Ozzy_O in post #26]

All 200% of Him.......

That is correct. 100% man and 100% God. It is called the Hyperstatic Union.

[historia]

I gather it's safe to assume this Anna isn't mentioned as Mary's mother in the Bible. That Catholics simply made up the story about Mary's sinlessness and her supposed mother, Anna?

I can see a Protestant making this argument. But help me out here, Miles: Why would a non-Christian draw a distinction between those Christian traditions that are recorded in the Bible and those that are not?

As I recall, every claim about Biblical characters, god included, is said to be grounded in some chapter and verse.

And you just believe everything you're told?

Why would an atheist believe this?

And after a brief look at Mary I found nothing saying she was without original sin or anything about her mother Anna.

Let's take the simpler of the two examples here:

Mary's mother is named in the Protoevangelium of James, an early Christian text. That text didn't ultimately make it into the New Testament canon. But why should that fact, in itself, mean "Catholics [sic] simply made up . . . her supposed mother, Anna"?

Why would an atheist draw a distinction between potential historical information found in a canonical vs. non-canonical Christian text?

[AquinasForGod]

The reason he wasn't born with original sin is because he was born of the virgin Mary and Mary was protected from original sin, so that God incarnation would not inherit original sin.

This is an awfully strong claim. What is your evidence, i.e. book, chapter, and verse?

.

I am not a bible only believer. It is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. CCC.

508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. "Full of grace", Mary is "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.

As I previously came to realize. It appears a pope can trump the Bible and declare as true anything he wishes, and, I imagine, Catholics are obligated to regard it as such.

.

A Pope cannot trump the bible in the sense of contradicting it. Also, for a Pope to declare something true that cannot be incorrect, he must invoke ex cathedra. This is only been does twice in the last 200 years, once in 1854 defining the immaculate conception and in 1950 defining the assumption of Mary.

I guess what I was getting at is that the immaculate conception and Mary's mother Anna are not mentioned in the Bible, yet the Pope or perhaps some ecumenical council can claim their truth just as if they they were in the Bible. Not that I object, but merely making an observation of the power the Pope and/or the Vatican wields.

.

Not exactly, no. There are always biblical reasons. Here is an article from Catholic.com about biblical evidence for immaculate conception - https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... -scripture

Luke 1:28

And [the angel Gabriel] came to [Mary] and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.”

This is one of the verses used. The angel tells Mary that she is full of grace and this troubled her because she realized the implications. Grace is how we are free from original sin.