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?

[Miles]

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

I took a look at the scriptures cited in your linked article for belief in the Immaculate Conception and found them and their interpretation to be a considerable stretch, if that. Not that it matters what I think of Catholicism, but as I see it, it's little different than the cherry picking that goes on among protestants. Obviously, believers do what they need to in order to support their theologies.

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.”

I looked for the above in the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSV), and the New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE), but didn't find it. What Bible do you use?

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.

This must be the Catholic definition of "grace" because protestants have very different definitions. Obviously, different theologies require different interpretations. No matter how farfetched?

.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #40

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.

So Christians today don't sin? Why, then, do so many churches have so many scandals?

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

Yes, I did the two natures do not mix.

I agree that the mutually exclusive natures of temptability and untemptability don't mix, but that's exactly why they can't coexist in the same being. For Jesus to have been 100% God, 100% of Jesus would have to have been God. That wasn't possible if Jesus was temptable and God is not.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Miles in post #41]

You will find this translation is the RSV-CE - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... sion=RSVCE

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #42]

So Christians today don't sin? Why, then, do so many churches have so many scandals?

Nope did not say that Christians cannot sin. If a Christian is not going to sin they are going to do it because of their love for Christ.

I agree that the mutually exclusive natures of temptability and untemptability don't mix, but that's exactly why they can't coexist in the same being. For Jesus to have been 100% God, 100% of Jesus would have to have been God. That wasn't possible if Jesus was temptable and God is not.

Yes it is because he was also 100% human and 100% God. The mystery of the Hyperstatic union man. All we can do is define it not explain it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #42]

So Christians today don't sin? Why, then, do so many churches have so many scandals?

Nope did not say that Christians cannot sin. If a Christian is not going to sin they are going to do it because of their love for Christ.

I agree that the mutually exclusive natures of temptability and untemptability don't mix, but that's exactly why they can't coexist in the same being. For Jesus to have been 100% God, 100% of Jesus would have to have been God. That wasn't possible if Jesus was temptable and God is not.

Yes it is because he was also 100% human and 100% God. The mystery of the Hyperstatic union man. All we can do is define it not explain it.

Then the gods of Olympus don't have to be explained. They're a mystery.

[brunumb]

Yes it is because he was also 100% human and 100% God. The mystery of the Hyperstatic union man. All we can do is define it not explain it.

So when we are faced with an illogical absurdity but it is needed to prop up a religious belief we can conveniently just label it a mystery and the problem goes away. Excellent strategy I must say.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #45]

Then the gods of Olympus don't have to be explained. They're a mystery.

If you believe in the gods of Olympus that are confined to space, time and life, and death. Have at it.

We are talking about a being that does not need space or time to exist and can exist everywhere at once. If you can explain everything about God then He would not be God. The being you are describing would simply be a man. And that is what most atheists want they want God to be a man like themselves.

In any conversation about God there will be a point where the limitations of humanity will not be able to describe the limitless nature of God. How can that not be the case? God is bound by the laws of nature God made the laws of nature. If that is not the cause then He should not be worshiped as God.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #46]

So when we are faced with an illogical absurdity but it is needed to prop up a religious belief we can conveniently just label it a mystery and the problem goes away. Excellent strategy I must say.

Who made the laws of logic? Many of the devices that we have today would be illogical absurdities to those that lived in the past. We are talking about a being that does not need space, or time to exist and can exist everywhere at the same time. A being that can exist at every point in time at the same time. If there were not things about Jesus that we could not explain then the above could not be true and He would not be God.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to brunumb in post #46]

So when we are faced with an illogical absurdity but it is needed to prop up a religious belief we can conveniently just label it a mystery and the problem goes away. Excellent strategy I must say.

Who made the laws of logic?

The laws of logic are built into, and bound by logic. Not so the laws of theism, where any unexplained phenomena are explained by a god that is not built on logic (see the trinity and other illogical, contradictory claims).

Many of the devices that we have today would be illogical absurdities to those that lived in the past.

That something is perceived as illogical does not mean it is illogical. Or we're bound to the obverse, where the mere perception of logic means something is logical. Of course that last bit seems to suit the theist fine.

We are talking about a being that does not need space, or time to exist and can exist everywhere at the same time.

Can? There's enough wiggle room in 'can', I suppose, for the theist to make an unevidenced assertion.

A being that can exist at every point in time at the same time.

A being can't currently exist in a future that ain't here yet. To propose otherwise is illogical.

If there were not things about Jesus that we could not explain then the above could not be true and He would not be God.

This is a bit off. Of course we can't explain a good bit of the above without invoking unproveable entities like Jesus, or God.

But we can sure explain a good bit of it by realizing the illogical absurdity built into the various claims.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #49]

The laws of logic are built into, and bound by logic. Not so the laws of theism, where any unexplained phenomena are explained by a god that is not built on logic (see the trinity and other illogical, contradictory claims).

The laws of logic are a description of what we believe to be objective reality.

There are three fundamental laws of logic.
1. The law of identity
2. The law of noncontradiction
3. The law of the excluded middle

We believe these are true simply because the laws of nature allow them to be true. But the laws of nature are bound to this universe. So anything that exists outside of this universe does not have to follow the natural laws of this universe because they have to be different. So things that seem not logical to us can be perfectly logical so a being outside of this universe.

We are talking about a being that does not need space, or time to exist and can exist everywhere at the same time.
Can? There's enough wiggle room in 'can', I suppose, for the theist to make an unevidenced assertion.

That is actually physics saying that. It is just another case where science agrees with Bible

A being can't currently exist in a future that ain't here yet. To propose otherwise is illogical.

Einstein's theory of Relativity says that the future is just as real as the present and the past. Relativity would say that the future and the past have already occurred. This is why many in the field of cosmology do not believe in free will.

But we can sure explain a good bit of it by realizing the illogical absurdity built into the various claims.

They are only logical absurdities because you are bound to this universe and the laws of this universe. Any being that exists outside of this universe the laws would operate differently.