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?
was Jesus fully human, or was he God in a disguise?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Student
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 3:34 pm
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re: was Jesus fully human, or was he God in a disguise?
Post #2One more thing, b fore you claim women don't have the same sinful DNA and nature men have, not, sin is not contained only in the male zygotes, women are sinners too
- AquinasForGod
- Sage
- Posts: 972
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:29 am
- Location: USA
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 71 times
Re: was Jesus fully human, or was he God in a disguise?
Post #3[Replying to Ozzy_O in post #1]
I find this one really easy to explain. All men do fall short of the glory of God. They all are born with original sin, which is not the same as choosing to sin. Not all men live long enough to choose to sin, so they only die with original sin, and if they were baptised then they are not worthy of hell for they never sinned by their own will.
Anyway, that is just a side note. I don't need that to answer the question.
Jesus was one person with two natures, human and divine. He is God incarnate, the Word made flesh. If he were merely a human, then yes, he would have sinned. He would have been born with original sin also.
But Jesus was not merely a man, thus he never sinned because the person Jesus is also divine. 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.
These ideas you are having were all worked out a long time ago by the church.
I find this one really easy to explain. All men do fall short of the glory of God. They all are born with original sin, which is not the same as choosing to sin. Not all men live long enough to choose to sin, so they only die with original sin, and if they were baptised then they are not worthy of hell for they never sinned by their own will.
Anyway, that is just a side note. I don't need that to answer the question.
Jesus was one person with two natures, human and divine. He is God incarnate, the Word made flesh. If he were merely a human, then yes, he would have sinned. He would have been born with original sin also.
But Jesus was not merely a man, thus he never sinned because the person Jesus is also divine. 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.
These ideas you are having were all worked out a long time ago by the church.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: was Jesus fully human, or was he God in a disguise?
Post #4More unsupported nonsense from The Giant Omnibus of Christian Loopholes.AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:16 pm 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.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2022 8:08 am
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 12 times
Re: was Jesus fully human, or was he God in a disguise?
Post #5[Replying to Ozzy_O in post #1]
Not every Christian views the Bible as a fundamentalist would. And it is not the words of Scripture which are inerrant but rather the words convey a message and it is the message that is inerrant. If what you say was true and every word was inerrant then we could only read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek because shades of meaning can be lost. And you are right, in some cases the words have been mistranslated. This is why different versions of the same Bible come out after review. There was "The American Bible" which was the first Bible written in American English, and now there is "The New American Bible".
And yes, there have been different ways of looking at a number of the stories. When I was a kid "Original Sin" was defined as a "black mark on the soul" that babies were born with this evil and so were in need of salvation right from the very beginning. I always had a tough time with that interpretation because it made no sense to me. The newer teachings refer to it as "concupiscence" which not only means a sexual yearning, but also means that a person can be led to sin. Now they talk about how the baby is born good but has the capacity of doing evil. That is what our conscience is all about. And yes, all men have sinned except for Jesus.
I don't understand why you are making a big deal about Romans. So Paul only said "When Adam sinned..." instead of "When Adam and Eve sinned...". Do you think he was trying to make an anti-woman statement? If that were the case wouldn't the word "mankind" be considered a prejudicial statement because it doesn't specifically include women? I am certain that a few on the far, far left do consider "mankind" prejudicial just like the ones who are tearing down statues of Washington because he owned slaves. Does the fact that he lived in a time when some people lived as slaves change the fact that he was the "Father of our Country?
Was Jesus fully human? YES. Peter referred to Him as "A man like us in all things but sin." He had a will of His own, and a working conscience. There were times, like in the Garden of Gethsemane, where His human will opposed the will of the Father, but He always decided to do the Father's will.
Was Jesus fully Divine? YES. He said "I and the Father are ONE." He was able to raise the dead and all sorts of other miracles. He Himself rose from the dead after He predicted that He would.
And you want to quibble over what the meaning of the phrase "likeness of men" means and as a result want to interpret Scripture as saying "He only LOOKED like a man". Sorry but that is a real stretch. What are you going to take issue with next? How about because it says "He took on the likeness of men" because the word men is plural it must mean that he looked like a number of different men at the same time. And you actually think that no Christian could answer that question??? You are reading far more into it than was meant.
Not every Christian views the Bible as a fundamentalist would. And it is not the words of Scripture which are inerrant but rather the words convey a message and it is the message that is inerrant. If what you say was true and every word was inerrant then we could only read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek because shades of meaning can be lost. And you are right, in some cases the words have been mistranslated. This is why different versions of the same Bible come out after review. There was "The American Bible" which was the first Bible written in American English, and now there is "The New American Bible".
And yes, there have been different ways of looking at a number of the stories. When I was a kid "Original Sin" was defined as a "black mark on the soul" that babies were born with this evil and so were in need of salvation right from the very beginning. I always had a tough time with that interpretation because it made no sense to me. The newer teachings refer to it as "concupiscence" which not only means a sexual yearning, but also means that a person can be led to sin. Now they talk about how the baby is born good but has the capacity of doing evil. That is what our conscience is all about. And yes, all men have sinned except for Jesus.
I don't understand why you are making a big deal about Romans. So Paul only said "When Adam sinned..." instead of "When Adam and Eve sinned...". Do you think he was trying to make an anti-woman statement? If that were the case wouldn't the word "mankind" be considered a prejudicial statement because it doesn't specifically include women? I am certain that a few on the far, far left do consider "mankind" prejudicial just like the ones who are tearing down statues of Washington because he owned slaves. Does the fact that he lived in a time when some people lived as slaves change the fact that he was the "Father of our Country?
Was Jesus fully human? YES. Peter referred to Him as "A man like us in all things but sin." He had a will of His own, and a working conscience. There were times, like in the Garden of Gethsemane, where His human will opposed the will of the Father, but He always decided to do the Father's will.
Was Jesus fully Divine? YES. He said "I and the Father are ONE." He was able to raise the dead and all sorts of other miracles. He Himself rose from the dead after He predicted that He would.
And you want to quibble over what the meaning of the phrase "likeness of men" means and as a result want to interpret Scripture as saying "He only LOOKED like a man". Sorry but that is a real stretch. What are you going to take issue with next? How about because it says "He took on the likeness of men" because the word men is plural it must mean that he looked like a number of different men at the same time. And you actually think that no Christian could answer that question??? You are reading far more into it than was meant.
- 1213
- Savant
- Posts: 11472
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 327 times
- Been thanked: 374 times
Re: was Jesus fully human, or was he God in a disguise?
Post #6Bible tells, if one is born of God, he doesn't sin.Ozzy_O wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 8:05 am 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
...
He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10
Those who receive Jesus can become children of God and get rid of sin.
But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13
So, even if we think Jesus is a fully man, he can be without sin, if he is born of God as his disciples could be. And I think Bible teaches Jesus is a fully man, because:
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 485 times
Re: was Jesus fully human, or was he God in a disguise?
Post #7[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #3
As I pointed out in another recent discussion:
"The thing is, applying the same logic leads to the conclusion that Jesus could not have simultaneously been 100% temptable human (Hebrews 4:15) and 100% untemptable God (James 1:13), since that would be the same kind of logical impossibility."
As I pointed out in another recent discussion:
"The thing is, applying the same logic leads to the conclusion that Jesus could not have simultaneously been 100% temptable human (Hebrews 4:15) and 100% untemptable God (James 1:13), since that would be the same kind of logical impossibility."
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2022 8:08 am
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 12 times
Re: was Jesus fully human, or was he God in a disguise?
Post #8[Replying to Athetotheist in post #7]
Of course He was not free from temptation. The Bible speaks of the three temptations in the desert. If He was free from all temptation then they would have been called the three suggestions rather than the three temptation. I am certain that He, and especially Him, had all of the temptations that any man had, but He did not give into them. A temptation is not the same thing as a suggestion. A suggestion can be dismissed without an ounce of real thought. A temptation requires a realization that I could actually do this thing. Much as I would like to I am not tempted to fly to the moon because is is beyond my capability to do so. But I am pretty certain that some of the astronauts were capable of doing some schemes to get themselves elected to go to the moon rather than a fellow astronaut. The clearest example of the fact that Jesus could be tempted was at the Garden of Gethsemane when He pleaded for the Father to take away His upcoming task. This is a clear example of how His human will was not always perfectly aligned with the Divine will. He said "But not my will, but your will be done." But despite having a will of His own and despite His knowledge that He could have avoided the upcoming Crucifixion He gave up His will for the will of the Father who is untemptable. Jesus had both of these natures at the same time. And each nature had a will of its own.
Of course He was not free from temptation. The Bible speaks of the three temptations in the desert. If He was free from all temptation then they would have been called the three suggestions rather than the three temptation. I am certain that He, and especially Him, had all of the temptations that any man had, but He did not give into them. A temptation is not the same thing as a suggestion. A suggestion can be dismissed without an ounce of real thought. A temptation requires a realization that I could actually do this thing. Much as I would like to I am not tempted to fly to the moon because is is beyond my capability to do so. But I am pretty certain that some of the astronauts were capable of doing some schemes to get themselves elected to go to the moon rather than a fellow astronaut. The clearest example of the fact that Jesus could be tempted was at the Garden of Gethsemane when He pleaded for the Father to take away His upcoming task. This is a clear example of how His human will was not always perfectly aligned with the Divine will. He said "But not my will, but your will be done." But despite having a will of His own and despite His knowledge that He could have avoided the upcoming Crucifixion He gave up His will for the will of the Father who is untemptable. Jesus had both of these natures at the same time. And each nature had a will of its own.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 485 times
Re: was Jesus fully human, or was he God in a disguise?
Post #9 [Replying to DaveD49 in post #8
But Jesus was supposed to be one "person". I wasn't suggesting that he couldn't be tempted; I was pointing out that he couldn't be fully temptable human and fully untemptable deity at the same time. He could not have had both of those "natures" together, as they are mutually exclusive.But despite having a will of His own and despite His knowledge that He could have avoided the upcoming Crucifixion He gave up His will for the will of the Father who is untemptable. Jesus had both of these natures at the same time. And each nature had a will of its own.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: was Jesus fully human, or was he God in a disguise?
Post #10This is an awfully strong claim. What is your evidence, i.e. book, chapter, and verse?AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:16 pm 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.
.