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?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #27

And yet He was 100%, God.

Repeating an assertion doesn't make it correct.

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?

It isn't about God being like a man; it's about Jesus being like a man [temptable] and not like God [untemptable].

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #31]

It isn't about God being like a man; it's about Jesus being like a man [temptable] and not like God [untemptable].

Jesus is both He is the God-man. 100% God and 100% man that has been the teaching of the Church for over 1500 years. Whether you think it is logical or not really does not matter because you only know what exists in this universe. The physical laws that we perceive only exist for this universe God would have to exist outside of this universe and exist as a different substance not material.

[JoeyKnothead]

Lacking confirmatory data regarding Jesus ever existing, what's most fully here is speculation.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #32

Jesus is both He is the God-man. 100% God and 100% man that has been the teaching of the Church for over 1500 years.

Teaching something for over 1,500 years doesn't make it correct.

Whether you think it is logical or not really does not matter because you only know what exists in this universe. The physical laws that we perceive only exist for this universe God would have to exist outside of this universe and exist as a different substance not material.

If God is untemptable, then God can't be tempted in this universe. If Jesus could be tempted in this universe, then he couldn't have been a God who is untemptable.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #0]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #34]

If God is untemptable, then God can't be tempted in this universe. If Jesus could be tempted in this universe, then he couldn't have been a God who is untemptable.

What you are speaking of is the Eutychian heresy. Like you were told before this was argued through a long time ago.

"Eutyches taught that Christ possesses only one nature, that the divine nature of Christ swallows up or absorbs the human nature of Jesus, such that He is left with but one theanthropic nature (from the Greek theos, “God,” and anthrōpos, “man”). Instead of being one person with two natures, as orthodox Christology asserts, Christ is one person with one nature, according to Eutychianism."

Jesus was one man with two natures. He had a 100% God nature and a 100% human nature. Two natures one person. The two natures cannot be changed, divided, or mixed. So His God nature could not be tempted but his human nature could. The two natures do not mix.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #35

What you are speaking of is the Eutychian heresy. Like you were told before this was argued through a long time ago.

What I'm speaking of is logic. It was logical a long time ago and it's logical now.

Jesus was one man with two natures. He had a 100% God nature and a 100% human nature. Two natures one person. The two natures cannot be changed, divided, or mixed. So His God nature could not be tempted but his human nature could. The two natures do not mix.

I have offered logical argument to support my position. All you've done is repeat your position with no argument to back it up.

On top of that, your position is unbiblical----

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin." (Hebrews 4:15)

If your assertion that

Jesus was born as 100% God so He could not sin.

is correct, then you do have a high priest who is unable to empathize with your weaknesses.

What's more, if your assertion that

There was no part of Him that was not God.

is correct, then the part of him which was temptable would have to be God.

And if you're incapable of sinning, leading a sinless life doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #36]

I have offered logical argument to support my position. All you've done is repeat your position with no argument to back it up.

That is because I am not making an argument I am stating a definition of the nature of Christ.

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are— (Hebrews 4:15)

Yes, Jesus was 100% human.

"yet he did not sin." And Yes Jesus was 100%, God. How is the Hyperstatic union not Biblical?

The problem that God solved with the God-man Jesus was the following. How does a sinless Holy God reconcile sinful man and still maintain His justice? God could not pure out the sin of the world on Jesus unless Jesus was 100% Human. Jesus could not remain sinless unless He was 100% God.

If your assertion that
Jesus was born as 100% God so He could not sin.
is correct, then you do have a high priest who is unable to empathize with your weaknesses.

What's more, if your assertion that
There was no part of Him that was not God.
is correct, then the part of him which was temptable would have to be God.

Again the Biblical definition of Christ.

"Chalcedon also gave us the standard orthodox definition of the person of Christ, which says that in the one person of Christ are perfectly united the divine nature and a human nature, and that this union is without confusion, mixture, separation, or division, each nature retaining its own attributes. This is what is called the hypostatic union: Christ is one person with two natures." https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotion ... n-solution

The two natures do not mix. So God could pure out the sin of the world on Jesus and yet Jesus did not sin.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #36]

I have offered logical argument to support my position. All you've done is repeat your position with no argument to back it up.

That is because I am not making an argument I am stating a definition of the nature of Christ.

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are— (Hebrews 4:15)

Yes, Jesus was 100% human.

"yet he did not sin." And Yes Jesus was 100%, God. How is the Hyperstatic union not Biblical?

The problem that God solved with the God-man Jesus was the following. How does a sinless Holy God reconcile sinful man and still maintain His justice? God could not pure out the sin of the world on Jesus unless Jesus was 100% Human. Jesus could not remain sinless unless He was 100% God.

If your assertion that
Jesus was born as 100% God so He could not sin.
is correct, then you do have a high priest who is unable to empathize with your weaknesses.

What's more, if your assertion that
There was no part of Him that was not God.
is correct, then the part of him which was temptable would have to be God.

Again the Biblical definition of Christ.

"Chalcedon also gave us the standard orthodox definition of the person of Christ, which says that in the one person of Christ are perfectly united the divine nature and a human nature, and that this union is without confusion, mixture, separation, or division, each nature retaining its own attributes. This is what is called the hypostatic union: Christ is one person with two natures." https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotion ... n-solution

The two natures do not mix. So God could pure out the sin of the world on Jesus and yet Jesus did not sin.

I did the math and I'm 200% certain that you are mistaken.
100% of my certainty is from math, the remaining 100% comes from the spirits that know all things and guide me.
I understand you might question my certainty if I was only 100% certain, but I'm 200% certain. So no point arguing with the math... of that, I'm 200% certain.


I also filled my glass up this morning. It was 100% coffee and 100% tea. I drank all 200% on the contents of said glass. I do love coffee, that is tea, but only if there is exactly one scoop of pure 100% natural sugar that is 100% artificial.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #37

"Chalcedon also gave us the standard orthodox definition of the person of Christ, which says that in the one person of Christ are perfectly united the divine nature and a human nature, and that this union is without confusion, mixture, separation, or division, each nature retaining its own attributes. This is what is called the hypostatic union: Christ is one person with two natures."

Appeal to Authority fallacy.

The two natures do not mix. So God could pure out the sin of the world on Jesus and yet Jesus did not sin.

But Jesus could sin, ["tempted in all things"], whereas God cannot be tempted. That isn't going away, clerical pronouncements notwithstanding.

Jesus could not remain sinless unless He was 100% God.

You haven't explained how the temptable part of Jesus was God.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #39]

Appeal to Authority fallacy.

This is only true if you are making an argument. I am not making an argument I am stating a definition.

But Jesus could sin, ["tempted in all things"], whereas God cannot be tempted. That isn't going away, clerical pronouncements notwithstanding.

Could Jesus sin? This is actually a question that has never really been settled. Whether He sinned has been settled, which he did not. But if He wanted to could He have sinned?

I will go with R.C. Sproul's thoughts.
"In order to sin, a person must have a desire for sin. But Jesus' human nature throughout his life was marked by a zeal for righteousness. "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me" (John 4:34), he said. As long as Jesus had no desire to sin, he would not sin. I may be wrong, but I think it is wrong to believe that Christ's divine nature made it impossible for his human nature to sin. If that were the case, the temptation, the tests, and his assuming of the responsibility of the first Adam would have all been charades. This position protects the integrity of the authenticity of the human nature because it was the human nature that carried out the mission of the second Adam on our behalf. It was the human nature uniquely anointed beyond measure by the Holy Spirit."

His divine nature did not make it impossible for Jesus to sin but gave him no desire to sin because of the love that the God's nature had for the Father. So the same drive that keeps Christians from sinning today a love for God is the same drive that kept Jesus's human nature from sinning a love for God.

You haven't explained how the temptable part of Jesus was God.

Yes, I did the two natures do not mix.