Did Jesus bear Gods wrath and was He forsaken ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
praise_yeshua said:
Question for everyone, did the human nature of Jesus Christ, specifically the human mind, resist God like every other human in nature?

If your answer is no, then you have identified a uniqueness in the Incarnation associated with His human nature that does not directly corelate with a human person.

Would you agree or disagree?
Click to expand...
No...

The Will of God and the Will of Man flow Concurrently in Christ. The closest it ever came to not correlating was when Jesus asked God to take the Cup of Wrath from him...

The Will of God in Christ is Providential...
 
praise_yeshua said:
Question for everyone, did the human nature of Jesus Christ, specifically the human mind, resist God like every other human in nature?

If your answer is no, then you have identified a uniqueness in the Incarnation associated with His human nature that does not directly corelate with a human person.

Would you agree or disagree?
Click to expand...

One big difference is the fact that Jesus did not have a sin nature. Christ had and has free will, but it too is governed by His nature. Because He is holy by nature, He could not sin, for as God He is incapable of sinning. It is not in His nature to do so. When His divine and human natures were combined into one person, He had free will but it was not in Him to sin.

The last verse below from Romans 8 says "in the likeness of sinful flesh" and since we know that Jesus was without sin that would make him different from the rest of mankind.

1 Peter 2:22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

2 Corinthians 5:21For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

1 John 3:5 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.

Romans 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
 
praise_yeshua said:
Question for everyone, did the human nature of Jesus Christ, specifically the human mind, resist God like every other human in nature?
Click to expand...
No, our Lord did not resist/deny God's will in His life. Jesus said He came to do His Father's will not His. Even at the time of His arrest and death, He denied Himself to do His Father's will.

If your answer is no, then you have identified a uniqueness in the Incarnation associated with His human nature that does not directly corelate with a human person.

Would you agree or disagree?
Click to expand...
I disagree and here's why: Jesus was not from the linage of Adam, therefore He was not born into a state of condemnation or inherit a sinful nature like us.

In other words, Jesus was like us in all ways except the inclination of a sinful heart to deny God's will. The resisting heart is a direct result of Adam's sin, which our Lord did not share since His Father is God. He was like us in all ways except without sin.
 
ReverendRV said:
No...

The Will of God and the Will of Man flow Concurrently in Christ. The closest it ever came to not correlating was when Jesus asked God to take the Cup of Wrath from him...

The Will of God in Christ is Providential...
Click to expand...
...Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons...
 
praise_yeshua said:
You're not dealing with the fact that the will of man is contrary to God. Adam proved it. He was not Impeccable. Which is the issue here.....

A issue that you continue to avoid.

Jesus Christ in Person is Impeccable.
Click to expand...
I'm avoiding nothing, I'm just picking who to talk to; since many want to talk to me. Talk to @Joe , he said it well...

When I can pick who to talk to, I like to talk to people who are the nicest...
 
praise_yeshua said:
To make a very real point.......Jesus Christ was of the seed of Mary. Which was directly from the lineage of Adam. It takes two seeds to form a human body. The man is not without the women nor the women without the man....

1Co 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

You just gave a classic example of why we do not use the phrase "human person" in describing the Incarnation.
Click to expand...
I was reading about this the other day and I can't remember what book it was so I found this online. It supports what I was reading. How does this sound to you?

Jesus inherited genetic material from Mary (to be fully human, as a descendant of Adam to become the Last Adam) but not from Joseph, since original sin must pass through the father to the offspring. This allows Jesus to avoid original sin.

There are no Scriptures that connect the virgin birth to sin or sin nature. The reason for the virgin birth is a miraculous entrance into the world by fulfilling prophecies such as Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 7:14. Caution should be exercised when adding other implications to the virgin birth.


From Answers in Genesis
 
Predestined said:
I was reading about this the other day and I can't remember what book it was so I found this online. It supports what I was reading. How does this sound to you?

Jesus inherited genetic material from Mary (to be fully human, as a descendant of Adam to become the Last Adam) but not from Joseph, since original sin must pass through the father to the offspring. This allows Jesus to avoid original sin.

There are no Scriptures that connect the virgin birth to sin or sin nature. The reason for the virgin birth is a miraculous entrance into the world by fulfilling prophecies such as Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 7:14. Caution should be exercised when adding other implications to the virgin birth.


From Answers in Genesis
Click to expand...
Paternal Traducianism...

Sin is inherited from the Father, not the mother. Scientifically, our Sex/Gender comes to us from our fathers'; our mothers do not contribute to our Gender...
 
ReverendRV said:
Paternal Traducianism...

Sin is inherited from the Father, not the mother. Scientifically, our Sex/Gender comes to us from our fathers'; our mothers do not contribute to our Gender...
Click to expand...
Yeah right, I knew that. Paternal Traducianism... That's the ticket. All kidding aside it's really a trip that we can learn stuff here and pick up ideas of things to go and study and dig deeper into on our own. It's like a win-win situation.
 
Predestined said:
Yeah right, I knew that. Paternal Traducianism... That's the ticket. All kidding aside it's really a trip that we can learn stuff here and pick up ideas of things to go and study and dig deeper into on our own. It's like a win-win situation.
Click to expand...
whatever drives one to study is always a good thing .

CARM has done just that very thing for me over the years . You definitely get your beliefs tested and scrutinized and often times refined . :)
 
ReverendRV said:
Paternal Traducianism...

Sin is inherited from the Father, not the mother. Scientifically, our Sex/Gender comes to us from our fathers'; our mothers do not contribute to our Gender...
Click to expand...
Food for thought- not taking the side

creationism used in at least two different senses, depending upon whether the discussion concerns cosmology or anthropology. In cosmology, creationism refers to God as the Creator of the universe in general and of humans in particular. In this sense it is set against naturalistic theories of origin, such as evolution. In anthropology, creationism refers to a specific theory of how the soul originates. Shedd uses the term creationism only in this latter context. According to the creationist theory, God specially creates each person’s soul ex nihilo and then implants it in the body that is created/propagated by the parents through normal generation. In contrast, in traducianism, the theory vigorously advocated by Shedd, both soul and body are conveyed to the child through normal generation. The Reformed tradition generally espouses the creationist position while Lutherans tend to support traducianism. See also ex nihilo and traducianism.

William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 953.
 
fltom said:
More Food for thought- not taking the side
Click to expand...


fltom said:
Creationism
As defended by Charles Hodge, creationism teaches that God creates the soul at the moment of conception or birth and immediately unites it with the body. The soul is sinful not because its creation was somehow defective, but because of its contact with inherited guilt through the body. Hodge offers three arguments in support of creationism. (1) It is more in accord with Scriptures like Numbers 16:22 and Hebrews 12:9, which say the soul comes from God (while, in contrast, the body comes from earthly parents). (2) Since the nature of the soul is immaterial it could not be transmitted by natural generation. (3) Christ’s sinlessness could only be true if His soul were created (and of course it would not have been united with a sinful body—hence His Person would be sinless). Roman Catholics and many Reformed theologians prefer creationism.


Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 221.
Click to expand...

Creationism Theory. According to the creationism theory, “Each individual soul is to be regarded as an immediate creation of God, owing its origin to a direct creative act.” The precise timing of the soul’s creation, and its uniting with the body, is simply not addressed by the Scriptures. (For this reason, analyses by both proponents and antagonists are somewhat vague on this point.) Supporters of this view include Ambrose, Jerome, Pelagius, Anselm, Aquinas, and most of the Roman Catholic and Reformed theologians. Biblical evidence used to buttress the creationism theory tends toward those Scripture passages that ascribe the creation of the “soul” or “spirit” to God (Num. 16:22; Ecc. 12:7; Isa. 57:16; Zech. 12:1; Heb. 12:9).

Timothy Munyon, “The Creation of the Universe and Humankind,” in Systematic Theology: Revised Edition, ed. Stanley M. Horton (Springfield, MO: Logion Press, 2007), 247.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top