The God man - the nature of Christ as understood through the Bible writings.

[8thdaypriest]

We search and search for just the right words to explain the nature of Jesus.   Can't say that I've read a perfect explanation - yet.

While doing a study recently into Paul's phrase "under the law", I read the verse in Galatians where Paul wrote that God's Son was "born of a woman, born under the law".  

I had progressed in my study to the point where I now understand "under the law" to mean:  subject to "the law of sin and death".  Essentially that law said, "you sin - you die". 

This was the law for Adam/Eve.  "If you eat of that forbidden tree - you will die."

Paul says, "the law of the spirit of life in Jesus Christ has set us free from the law of sin and death".  If we are "set from from" that law, we are NOT "under" it.  That would be my conclusion.  

Anyway - if JESUS was "born under" that "law of sin and death" - that means IF He had sinned, He would have died eternally.   

Does it also mean that He could have sinned.   I believe so.   There's no point in saying that Jesus was "born under the law (of sin and death)", if He was really not capable of sinning or dying.   He did die.  He died BECAUSE He was "made"  "to be sin".    ALL of Him - not just the human part.   

2 Corinthians 5:21 "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."  (NIV)

I can agree with Gustave, that the nature of Jesus was not "drawn" to sin.   

I believe that such will be our nature, once we are fully indwelt by God's Spirit in the kingdom to come.  And by then we also have new "spiritual bodies".   Without the tired, hungry, sexually stimulated physical bodies we now occupy,  a whopping LOT of temptations would have no pulling power.  

Jesus was born with the spiritual nature of Adam before the Fall, and the physical nature of Abraham/Mary - 4000 years after the Fall.  

Adam was fully indwelt.  So was Christ.       Adam sinned.  Christ did not.  

Jesus was  "tempted in every way, just as we are" (Heb 4:15 NIV).   His temptations were not of a different KIND, they were of a different intensity, and they were suited to fit His identity,  nature, and situation.    

Jesus was tempted to prove Himself - to Satan.  A really dumb temptation - unless the human had gone without food for 40 days, and was starving. 

He was tempted to use His position/status as "commander" of angels, or perhaps also His divine power - to benefit only Himself, by turning stones to bread for His own consumption, something that His covenant with His Father had strictly forbidden.   

He was tempted to put Himself (His flesh) in harm's way,  presuming that His Father would rescue Him - again just to prove (to Satan and his angels) that He was indeed the Sonof God.  

He was tempted to avoid all the suffering - to take the easy way to power - by bowing down to Satan --  To give up His mission to save mankind.   Satan's implication was "they're not worth it."  

[JoeMo]

I was listening to a sermon the other day where the preacher likened our sinful nature to a genetic disorder.  He basically said that when humanity fell, there could have been the equivalent of a genetic mutation that predisposed fallen humanity to sinfulness.  When it says Christ was tempted in every way that we are, but was without "sin", could it be that He was incarnated without this genetic predisposition to sin; even though He was capable of sinning?  Kinda like the first Adam who was not genetically predisposed to sin; but chose to sin; thus somehow corrupting the human genome.  That's why we need a Savior - we almost can't help but sin - it's in our genes.  When we become that new creation - when we are changed from corruptibility to incorruptibility, I imagine we will lose our genetic predisposition to sin.  Then we will understand Christ's nature - because we will be like Him.

[JoeMo]

9 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

If we say "its genetic," then "free choice" is lost sight of, and thats the whole basis of "the sin problem." IMHO

Let me give you an example.  I still have a sin problem - especially with unintentional sin and those pesky little pet sins that I have enjoyed for decades and have been unable to completely conquer.  It is easier for me to sin than to NOT sin. I can't honestly say that I can think of a single day (or waking hour, for that matter) when I haven't sinned. I am predisposed to commit sin.  I do it frequently without intention and realize it after the fact.  Can any of you relate to that?  That's the biggest reason I NEED a Savior - I know I'm doomed without One.

 I didn't exactly say it was specifically "genetic"; I said it was the equivalent of a genetic mutation - maybe a spiritual equivalent or environmental equivalent.  I am genetically predisposed to be attracted to women; but I can still use my free will to either lust or NOT lust after them.

[JoeMo]

I do believe that Christ retained His divine nature when He was here on earth (at least the miracle-working part).  Satan tempted Him in the wilderness to turn stones into bread.  It would be pretty stupid for satan to tempt Jesus to do something He couldn't do.  But Christ, by His free will, chose not to succumb to the temptation, because He had agreed to use that power only when the Father told Him to; and not of His (Jesus') own volition.

[Gustave]

5 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I do believe that Christ retained His divine nature when He was here on earth (at least the miracle-working part).  Satan tempted Him in the wilderness to turn stones into bread.  It would be pretty stupid for satan to tempt Jesus to do something He couldn't do.  But Christ, by His free will, chose not to succumb to the temptation, because He had agreed to use that power only when the Father told Him to; and not of His (Jesus') own volition.

 

 

I'm affirmative that Christ retained His Divine Nature [EVERYTHING] when He was here on earth - below is the 4th century historic Christian understanding of Philippians 2,7...

Saint Chrysostom:  "Again, what in opposition to Paul of Samosata? for what did he affirm? The very same. But it is no emptying of Himself, that one who is of human nature, and a mere man, should wash his fellow-servants. For what we said against the Arians, we must repeat against these too, for they differ not from one another, save by a little space of time; both the one and the other affirm the Son of God to be a creature. What then shall we say to them? If He being a man washed man, He emptied not, He humbled not Himself. If He being a man seized not on being equal with God, He is not deserving of praise. That God should become man, is great, unspeakable, inexpressible humility; but what humility is there in that one, who was a man should do the works of men? And where is the work of God ever called “the form of God”? for if he were a mere man, and was called the form of God by reason of His works, why do we not do the same of Peter, for he wrought greater deeds than Christ Himself? Why say you not of Paul, that he had the form of God? Why did not Paul give an example of himself, for he wrought a thousand servile works, and did not even refuse to say, “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.” (2Co 4,5).

 These are absurdities and trifles! Scripture says, He “emptied Himself.” How did He empty Himself? tell me. What was His emptying? what His humiliation? was it because He wrought wonders? This both Paul and Peter did, so that this was not peculiar to the Son. What then means, “Being made in the likeness of men”? He had many things belonging to us, and many He had not; for instance, He was not born of wedlock. He did no sin. These things had He which no man has. He was not what he seemed only, but He was God also; He seemed to be a man, but He was not like the mass of men. For He was like them in flesh. He means then, that He was not a mere man. Wherefore he says, “in the likeness of men.” For we indeed are soul and body, but He was God, and soul and body, wherefore he says, “in the likeness.” For lest when you hear that He emptied Himself, you should think that some change, and degeneracy, and loss is here; he says, whilst He remained what He was, He took that which He was not, and being made flesh He remained God, in that He was the Word. (Jn 1,14).

 In this then He was like man, and for this cause Paul says, “and in fashion.” Not that His nature degenerated, nor that any confusion arose, but He became man in fashion. For when He had said that “He took the form of a servant,” he made bold to say this also, seeing that the first would silence all objectors; since when he says, “In the likeness of sinful flesh,” he says not that He had not flesh, but that that flesh sinned not, but was like to sinful flesh. Like in what? in nature, not in sin, therefore was His like a sinful soul. As then in the former case the term similarity was used, because He was not equal in everything, so here also there is similarity, because He is not equal in everything, as His not being born of wedlock, His being without sin, His being not a mere man. And he well said “as a man,” for He was not one of the many, but “as” one of the many. The Word who was God did not degenerate into man, nor was His substance changed, but he appeared as a man; not to delude us with a phantom, but to instruct us in humility. When therefore he says, “as a man,” this is what He means; since he calls Him a man elsewhere also, when he says, “there is one God, one Mediator also between God and men, Himself man, Christ Jesus.” (1Tm 2,5).

 Thus much against these heretics. I must now speak against such as deny that He took a soul. If “the form of God” is “perfect God,” then the “form of a servant” is “a perfect servant.” Again, against the Arians. Here concerning His divinity, we no longer find “He became,” “He took,” but “He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men”; here concerning his humanity we find “He took, He became.” He became the latter, He took the latter; He was the former. Let us not then confound nor divide the natures. There is one God, there is one Christ, the Son of God; when I say “One,” I mean a union, not a confusion; the one Nature did not degenerate into the other, but was united with it."

This is a small fraction of what Chrysostom wrote on THIS particular subject & what he makes clear is that the Apostolic understanding was Jesus' emptying was related to His not seizing on the fact that HE WAS GOD and instead willing followed the will of The Father. There was NO CHANGE in the Divine Nature at all - He remained FULLY what He was and took on what He was not. Chrysostom goes on to illustrate that God, who created man, took the form of His creation - God became a servant in the most true sense - Almighty God washing dirty feet! It's mind blowing when you think of it. 

 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/14/2018 at 11:12 PM, The Wanderer said:

If we say "its genetic," then "free choice" is lost sight of, and thats the whole basis of "the sin problem." IMHO

Adam really did have FREE - FREE - FREE choice.   I truly wonder about us today - after all the physical and mental degeneration.   I do believe the indwelling "spirit of Christ" is STRONGER than our predispositions.   It's a matter of learning how to depend upon HIM.  Addicts and alcoholics learn to depend upon their "higher power" - realizing they cannot stay clean - of themselves.  

Even when we are changed, and receive our new "spiritual body", we will STILL depend upon HIS indwelling.   That symbiotic relationship is how we will live forever.  We were created to be indwelt.

I'm NOT into the "perfection" teaching, which says that the 144,000 will be "perfect" and reflect the image of Christ "perfectly" - and no longer sin even by a thought, before Christ appears in glory.  

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/15/2018 at 2:07 PM, JoeMo said:

I do believe that Christ retained His divine nature when He was here on earth (at least the miracle-working part).  Satan tempted Him in the wilderness to turn stones into bread.  It would be pretty stupid for satan to tempt Jesus to do something He couldn't do.  But Christ, by His free will, chose not to succumb to the temptation, because He had agreed to use that power only when the Father told Him to; and not of His (Jesus') own volition.

Satan tempted Christ to "command that these stones be made bread".   Commanding that something be done, and doing it yourself, are two different things.   

I do not believe that Christ "used that power" - His own divine power - to work any miracles.   

Christ acted only as the channel for His Father's power.  

Jesus said, "The Father who dwells in Me, does the works"  (John 14:10).    This verse says that God the Father - not Christ by any divine power of His own - performed the miracles.  

[8thdaypriest]

One big question - as I see it - did ALL OF Christ die for our salvation?   If only part of Him died, just his flesh and blood and bone - the physical part - then HE (the whole Son of God) did not die for our salvation.  

I do not agree that only His human part died.  

[8thdaypriest]

GOD of GOD

John 20:17 “ I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’”

    Romans 15:6  “ ... that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

2 Corinthians 1:3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,”

2 Corinthians 11:31 “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever.”

Ephesians 1:3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,”

    Ephesians 1:17 “ ... that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him,”

Colossians 1:3 “We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,”

    Hebrews 1:9 [speaking of Jesus Christ] “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness [the Holy Spirit] more than Your companions.” 

1 Peter 1:3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,”
    
    Revelation 1:6  “ ... and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”

    Revelation 3:12 [Christ speaking] “He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.”

Interesting that the Father is always and only sited as "the God of" His Son - prior to, during, and since His incarnation, death, and return to His Father's right hand.  

The Holy Spirit is not once sited as the "God of" Jesus Christ.  Only "the Father".  

Was "the Father" - God only of His human self - not God of His divine self?

 1 Corinthians 15:24 "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father;"  . . . . Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

This is a long time AFTER Christ's return to Heaven.  This at "the end".   The Son will be "subject to" His Father and God.   Will only His human self be subject to His Father?  Or all of Him?

[8thdaypriest]

1 John 4:14 “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.”

How many verses say that God the Father "sent" His Son, or "gave" His only Son.   Eighteen verses.   

John 5:30  [Christ] “I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me” (John 5:23, John 5:37).

If "God" is one divine being, who manifests as three divine persons,  how can one part of a being, "send" another part of the SAME being?   That's like one of my right hand commanding my left hand, to do something.   

Was "God" commanding or "sending" - only the human part of Jesus?   Did "the Son of God" not exist prior to the incarnation?  Yes - He existed.  He created everything that exists - except His Father.  So the Father "sent" His divine Son INTO a human body.   "A body you have prepared for me" (Heb. 10:5).  

When that human body (Jesus the man) died on the cross, did the Son of God escape?  I do NOT believe so.  

The Son of God had to cooperate with the incarnation process.   Hebrews 1:6 suggests that God had to "bring" His Son into the world.  

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 

My point here, is that one divine person, cannot command or send another divine person, when BOTH are different manifestations or "expressions" of THE SAME DIVINE BEING.

My hand cannot command my foot.  

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

There are eight passages which say that God the Father raised His Son from death.  

Galatians 1:1 “Paul, an apostle not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead,”

Some folks have taught that Christ raised himself - from death, but that's not what the passages say.   The Son of God could not, and did not, resurrect Himself.  

Which means He was DEAD - really DEAD - all of Him - DEAD.  

Which says - to me - that His divine characteristics (whatever He "inherited" from His divine Father) and His human nature were inseparably united - just like our inherited DNA characteristics cannot be separated.  When the human died, the divine nature was trapped as well in the sleep of death - and could not awaken without the Spirit of the Father. 

[8thdaypriest]

    John 13:16-17  “A servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him.”  

        The Father sent His son.  Therefore God the Father is greater than His son, and was greater in Heaven, before He "sent" His Son. 

And will be greater for all eternity.   

Says to me, that the Father and the Son are not equal parts of "one divine being".  

[8thdaypriest]

14 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

So Jesus was Channeling?

God the Father was indwelling Jesus, in the same sense (though much less) that Christ dwells IN us.   You could call it "channeling" I suppose.   

The Father did the healing THROUGH His Son.   The divine power came from the Father.  

When the disciples healed in the name of Jesus,  what power actually did the healing?   The disciples had no such power - of themselves.  They were not transformed into divine/human beings.   The Spirit of God was healing - through - the disciples.   

Human beings are indwelt by the Spirit of Christ, and if they are not, then they are vulnerable to being taken over by the Evil Ones - sometimes so strongly that only divine intervention can set them free.   The indwelling of Christ does not take over the mind of the human being.   Christ works with the mind of the person.   Possession on the other hand - by Evil Ones - can and does at times, take over the will of the person, to the point that the human being cannot do what he wants.   

It appears - from accounts of possession, and miracles, and indwelling - that spirit beings, have the power to communicate mind to mind.   They can communicate mind to mind with human beings.   Human minds are puny, compared with spirit minds, and are easily overwhelmed.   Our puny human minds must be protected from stronger evil spirit minds.   The good angels who serve God the Father and His Son,  always limit their communication.  They communicate gently, so as NOT to overwhelm.   To overwhelm us would nullify our FREE WILL, and violate the Father's will.  

[8thdaypriest]

35 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

This comment confuses me. IF The father is "greater" how then can they be equal?

I do not know of any Biblical text that says The Father is somehow "greater." Just because He "sent" Jesus; it does not follow [logically] that The Father is greater. I would have to see better explanation from Scripture to understand better.

PS I also dont get why it would be important to believe that the father is "greater" than Jesus? I cannot see any reason to adopt this view. It just confuses me. IF The Father was "greater;" that doesnt make sense because I thought they were both God.

I posted this comment because it speaks to "God the Father" and "His Son" being TWO separate divine beings - with TWO separate wills and minds - prior to the incarnation.  

The question is - WHEN was "the Son" SENT?    Was "the Son" sent from Heaven to earth?   Or was He simply "sent" into "the world" - in the same sense that Paul was "sent" to the Gentiles - "sent" into the world from Nazareth to carry out His mission.

The FIRST divine being - God the Father - beget the SECOND divine being - "the Son".   WHEN was "the Son" begotten?   

Was He begotten only at the time of His birth from Mary,  or was He "begotten" long before (before the creation of all things).  

Did God have a "Son" - in the Heavenly realm - prior to the incarnation? 

EQUALITY

If God the Father "beget" a Son - in His "express image" - that Son would be exactly like - and equal to - His Father in every way (in omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence - in presence, mind and strength).  That Son would be exactly like His Father in character also.   In our human world, a Son may grow up to be the equal of His Father.  Yet they are TWO separate persons. 

The only "difference" between God the Father and His Son, was the awareness of each, that one was begotten, and the other beget.  The Father had given existence (being) to the Son.  The Son therefore deferred to His Father in all things - not because His Father was stronger, but because His Father was FIRST.   

Satan was created. God's Son was begotten.  There's a difference!   Satan sought to be equal - in rank, and authority - with Christ.   Christ did the opposite - relative to His Father.   

[8thdaypriest]

37 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

This comment confuses me. IF The father is "greater" how then can they be equal?

I do not know of any Biblical text that says The Father is somehow "greater." Just because He "sent" Jesus; it does not follow [logically] that The Father is greater. I would have to see better explanation from Scripture to understand better.

PS I also dont get why it would be important to believe that the father is "greater" than Jesus? I cannot see any reason to adopt this view. It just confuses me. IF The Father was "greater;" that doesnt make sense because I thought they were both God.

Who was Jesus?  

If He was NOT God's Son (in Heaven) - prior to His incarnation into a human body - then "God" was NOT a "Father" - and "God" had no "son".  

Rather, one "God" manifest Himself, as three personalities (or persons) so that human beings could gain some understanding of "Him".   One of the three persons - who share the one divine substance (the "God" substance) was joined with human DNA to be born as a human.  

In our human way of understanding it - the One who incarnated really "beget" himself.  It was His substance and person-hood that was joined with human DNA from Mary.  

[8thdaypriest]

15 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Joh 10:18  No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

The word translated as "power" is the word for "authority".

John 10:18 "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." (NIV)

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." (NKJ)

John 17:2  [Christ addressing His Father]  "as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him." 

Who GAVE this authority to Christ?  Answer:  His God and Father

John 5:22 "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son." 

John 14:31 "But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do." 

John 12:49 "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak."

Still showing TWO separate beings - in my opinion.

[8thdaypriest]

I copied this post over from the "At the Creation" thread, because it speaks to the separation between the Father and Son - TWO separate beings.  

One of the best verses to show the separation of mind, between God the Father and Christ the Son, is Matthew 24:36.

If God and His son are "one being" - "one substance" - how could one part of a (singular) "being" know something that another part of that same being does NOT know?  

Matthew 24:36 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (NIV)

In the Gospels, Jesus only "knew" what His Father revealed to Him.  

And there is no mention that the Holy Spirit also knew.   ONLY the Father.   

[JoeMo]

On 8/16/2018 at 1:57 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Jesus said, "The Father who dwells in Me, does the works"  (John 14:10).    This verse says that God the Father - not Christ by any divine power of His own - performed the miracles.  

That doesn't mean the Jesus couldn't have performed miracles if He wanted to (which would have been against His Father's wishes).

[JoeMo]

This discussion is becoming too esoteric and subjective for me to participate in.  Everyone has good points; but they are mostly speculative.  the nature of God to me is a question wrapped in a mystery enveloped in a quandary.  I have my own ideas, but I haven't taken it to the level you guys have because it just becomes a bigger mystery to me.

[Gustave]

12 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

This comment confuses me. IF The father is "greater" how then can they be equal?

I do not know of any Biblical text that says The Father is somehow "greater." Just because He "sent" Jesus; it does not follow [logically] that The Father is greater. I would have to see better explanation from Scripture to understand better.

PS I also dont get why it would be important to believe that the father is "greater" than Jesus? I cannot see any reason to adopt this view. It just confuses me. IF The Father was "greater;" that doesnt make sense because I thought they were both God.

In that sense of relationship between the Father & the Son the Father is 'eternally' greater than the Son. There was never a point prior to time or after it's creation that the Son wasn't obedient to the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit. This is more of a point for 8thDayPriest than perhaps for you but worth consideration is Isaiah 35,4.

"Say to the fainthearted: Take courage, and fear not: behold your God will bring the revenge of recompense: God himself will come and will save you".

This was a prophecy that "God Himself" would at some point come and save His people. An individual who believes that there is only ONE GOD with a body and parts & claims this Scripture is speaking of the Father should consider that Jesus, in speaking to John the Baptists disciples, claimed Isaiah 35 was speaking of Him (Jesus). God did come ( in the Person of God the Son ).

The Apostolic understanding of Philippians 2 is that Christ was God, as much as the Father is God and even though He is God He didn't use that as an excuse as to why He wouldn't  / shouldn't empty himself by ( adding what He wasn't to what He eternally is ). The most powerful Being became a servant to His own creation, suffered for everything He didn't do - God Almighty Himself actually washing dirty smelly feet. This is difficult to grasp and absolutely a mystery I can't even fathom. 

Without listing the 100 plus Scriptures that stated there was zero possibility of God failing there is also a specific Scripture that's difficult to reconcile with a Doctrine that demands Christ had to have the possibility of failure or it was all a farce. This Scripture is Luke 2, 25 (my logic chain follows)

"And behold there was a man in Jerusalem named Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Ghost was in him. And he had received an answer from the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Christ of the Lord. And he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when his parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the law, He also took him into his arms, and blessed God, and said: Now thou dost dismiss thy servant, O Lord, according to thy word in peace; Because my eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples: A light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. And his father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning him. And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted; And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser; she was far advanced in years, and had lived with her husband seven years from her virginity.And she was a widow until fourscore and four years; who departed not from the temple, by fastings and prayers serving night and day. Now she, at the same hour, coming in, confessed to the Lord; and spoke of him to all that looked for the redemption of Israel".

Those who believe that the Holy Spirit is an "influence" of God the Father are required to accept that IF the Father was worth His weight in salt HAD CHRIST SINNED Simeon would have been required to live forever & past that oddity if Christ had the possibility of failure Simeon wouldn't have said "dismiss thy servant, O Lord according to they word BECAUSE MY EYES HAVE SEEN THY SALVATION....". I.E. how could Simeon depart when Jesus was still a baby if it wasn't assured Jesus wouldn't fail? Anna is classified by St. Luke as being a prophet who, at the same time Simeon was confirming Jesus WAS THE CHRIST, was also confirming by "The Spirit of Prophecy" that Jesus ( the baby ) WAS the redemption of Israel. 

I would humbly ask that these considerations be pondered by anyone who insists that Jesus would have had to have the possibility of failure to make His sacrifice anything other than a farce and a mockery. 

 

 

 

 

[Daryl]

There is also the response by Thomas where in John 20:28 he said,  "My Lord and my God!"

[JoeMo]

15 hours ago, Gustave said:

I would humbly ask that these considerations be pondered by anyone who insists that Jesus would have had to have the possibility of failure

If there was no possibility of Christ failing - if salvation was a "slam dunk", satan could very well be justified in crying "foul!"  It could have also resulted in heavenly beings who may have still been "on the fence" concerning the justice of God's rule to go to the dark side to protest God "rigging" the game.

[Gustave]

14 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

If there was no possibility of Christ failing - if salvation was a "slam dunk", satan could very well be justified in crying "foul!"  It could have also resulted in heavenly beings who may have still been "on the fence" concerning the justice of God's rule to go to the dark side to protest God "rigging" the game.

Where, in Scripture, is it posited (even remotely) that Satan had an allodial right to kill God? I'm also curious as to where you would get the idea that there may have been heavenly beings who may have been considering who was right between God and Satan? What right would Satan have to cry foul on anything God did given that God already pronounced Judgement against Satan before Genesis 3,16? Also, if God had secured Salvation "in Christ" prior to the earth being created Salvation of humanity wasn't a matter of IF but a only a chronological matter of WHEN - WHEN would God come and save humanity. 

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Where, in Scripture, is it posited (even remotely) that Satan had an allodial right to kill God? I'm also curious as to where you would get the idea that there may have been heavenly beings who may have been considering who was right between God and Satan? What right would Satan have to cry foul on anything God did given that God already pronounced Judgement against Satan before Genesis 3,16? Also, if God had secured Salvation "in Christ" prior to the earth being created Salvation of humanity wasn't a matter of IF but a only a chronological matter of WHEN - WHEN would God come and save humanity. 

satan had no right to kill God (or one member of the Godhead).  God had to allow it.  The deal about angels being "on the fence is just a personal opinion based on my belief that it is not only humanity on trial during the judgement; it is God as well.  For sin to be totally eradicated among all free-will beings in the universe, they all must be totally and eternally convinced that God's way is the only way; and that they freely choose to (as opposed to being intimidated into) living in accordance with Kingdom principles forever.

God knew that Christ would fulfill the requirements for salvation; but foreknowledge is different than predestination.  Christ still had a free will, He could have aborted His mission any time He wanted to. But He CHOSE the way of sinlessness and the cross out of love for His creation - you and me.

As an aside, I also believe that God is transcendent of time.  Whereas we created beings are only aware of the past and present, God - since He is God - can see the future.  So the Father already "knew" that Jesus would accomplish His mission.  But again, foreknowledge is not the same as predestination.

[Gregory Matthews]

Be careful about saying that God is transcendent of time.  One version of that denies that God came to Earth in the person of Jesus Christ.