The Incarnation and Humanity of Christ

[minnow]

In various places in Scripture, we find repeated references to the human nature of Christ. As Christians, we understand that the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us in the form of a man.

Whilst Scripture doesn't appear to explicity state the means by which God brought forth the Word as a man, there are realistically two options. Firstly that God "materialised" in a localised form as an embryo in Mary's womb, or secondly (and the one that is more sound from a theological perspective) that one of Mary's eggs was supernaturally fertilised.

This is where there are parallels to, and a likely contributor to thinking behind the concept of original sin. With Joseph being of the line of Adam but not being involved in the process of procreation, this allows for Mary to be a human progenitor but not to "pass on" sin. It does however raise other interesting questions such as whether Jesus was subject to any genetic defects in the body, and whether genetic defects are solely passed on through the male side.

Clearly if Jesus was a localised form of the physical presence of God sans the egg of Mary, Jesus would have been perfect (genetically as well) but there could be contentions over his adoptive lineage, his degree of actual humanity (in that God is incapable of sin), and the impact this would have on His redemptive work.

Many regard the two genealogies in Scripture as referring to Joseph's line in one instance and Mary's in the other. It is widely understood that "Jewishness" is conferred maternally, so even if Joseph's paternity is ruled out, Jesus could be said to be covered by Mary's lineage. This does not however rule out the possibility of adoptive lineage, should that be required, although direct descendency has less scope for dispute.

In the Old Testament we find many examples of God being made manifest in the form of a localised physical presence - the burning bush, the shekinah in the temple etc, and furthermore we find additional examples where "angels" of the Lord have actual physical presence in human form.

Whilst technically Jesus could not be an angel (as angels are created beings), angels do share a number of characteristics in common with God and Christ, and in fact Jesus indicates that at the resurrection we shall be like the angels. Clearly angels (the Lord's that is) bear His image, in that they are holy and without sin, and are therefore able to co-exist in heaven with God, where flesh and blood cannot inherit due to sin. This parallels with the concept of a resurrection body and abode for the faithful - where we will be like Him.

Adam and Eve could not remain in the garden and eat from the tree of life and live forever due to their sin, but in Christ we can come back into the presence of God with confidence, and know the promise that awaits us.

I suppose in many regards, this is why the book of Hebrews initially focuses on how the Son is so much greater than the angels, because His redemptive work allows sinful man to be restored to a place whereby they can inherit a place in His kingdom, forever.

Hebrews 2:16-18 NASB

For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

Wisdom is to submit to love. Love is the source of wisdom.

[Phil.2:12]

Clearly if Jesus was a localised form of the physical presence of God sans the egg of Mary, Jesus would have been perfect (genetically as well) but there could be contentions over his adoptive lineage, his degree of actual humanity (in that God is incapable of sin), and the impact this would have on His redemptive work.

Jesus was just as human as we are but with the spiritual nature of His Father. It is true that the spiritual nature (sinless vs sin) is passed down through the fathers, hence Joseph could not have fathered Jesus because this would have given Jesus the sin nature that Joseph possessed. Since God, the Father was the one who fertilized Mary's egg (when the Holy Spirit came upon her, Luke 1:35), her child, Jesus, would have the nature of His Father, that is a sinless nature. To understand the uniqueness of Jesus you need to study Phillipians 2:5-9, exspecially verse 6 "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God", especially the phrase underlined above. A better translation of the original Greek in the underlined portion would be "considered His Deity a treasure He didn't need hold on to". In Peter 2:21 Peter writes "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow in His steps".

Now if Jesus is leaving us an example and if the prophesy in John 14:12 is to come true, then Jesus had to be human totally and only Deity because of His relation to His Father. Otherwise we could not fulfill John 14:12 because we are not, and never will be, Deity. Neither could 1 Peter 2:5-9 be true for the same reason. So Jesus was totally human with no self-reliant Deity power within Him because we could never have self-reliant Deity power in us and we, the born-again body of Christ, have been given the charge (John 14:12) to do the work Jesus did while amoung us. Destroying the works of the devil (the job Jesus was given, 1 John 3:8), did not stop when Jesus ascended to Heaven, it was instead assigned to the Born-Again body of Christ (John 14:12) who would be empowered just as Jesus was, by the Holy Spirit. What Jesus did on earth was not done by His self-reliant Deity power, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, just as He empowers us to destroy the works of Satan.

Thus Jesus had to not only have the sinless nature of His Father, but also had to have the literal form of a human being that could be tempted. Indeed, Hebrews 4:15 stated that Jesus was tempted in all points just as we are, yet remained sinless. Jesus was in no way adopted, but was the actual child of Mary whose egg was fertilized by the Holy Spirt so that He could have the sinless nature of His Father. Only a sinless man could die, pay our sin debt, and escape the domain of Hell, thereby becoming our Savior.

[Thaddaeus]

minnow,

Whilst Scripture doesn't appear to explicity state the means by which God brought forth the Word as a man, there are realistically two options. Firstly that God "materialised" in a localised form as an embryo in Mary's womb, or secondly (and the one that is more sound from a theological perspective) that one of Mary's eggs was supernaturally fertilised.

It matters not how, but that He did do so. It is a mystery and there is no way you will be able to explain it.

He was Incarnated by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. He is fully man and fully God. Two natues, one Person. In His human nature he is fully as we are, sin excepted.

Or, Christ in His human nature was consubstantial with man.

[Thaddaeus]

Phil 2:12,

Jesus was just as human as we are but with the spiritual nature of His Father. It is true that the spiritual nature (sinless vs sin) is passed down through the fathers, hence Joseph could not have fathered Jesus because this would have given Jesus the sin nature that Joseph possessed

For more indepth look at this concept, the thread in this same forum, titled, Original Sin answers this statement.

But two very large problems arise from this view. Either Jesus was not fully human then, or Mary was not fully human. But the fact of the matter, both Mary and Joseph were fully human beings, both were fallen, had a fallen nature. It is the fallen nature that is inherited, not sin. Sin is not passed down from Adam, not the guilt as some call it.

Thus Jesus had to not only have the sinless nature of His Father, but also had to have the literal form of a human being that could be tempted.

God does not even have a nature, let alone a sinless one. Further Christ did not have the form of a human being. He was human, no form about it.

[firehill]

Phil 2:12,

Jesus was just as human as we are but with the spiritual nature of His Father. It is true that the spiritual nature (sinless vs sin) is passed down through the fathers, hence Joseph could not have fathered Jesus because this would have given Jesus the sin nature that Joseph possessed

For more indepth look at this concept, the thread in this same forum, titled, Original Sin answers this statement.

But two very large problems arise from this view. Either Jesus was not fully human then, or Mary was not fully human. But the fact of the matter, both Mary and Joseph were fully human beings, both were fallen, had a fallen nature. It is the fallen nature that is inherited, not sin. Sin is not passed down from Adam, not the guilt as some call it.

Thus Jesus had to not only have the sinless nature of His Father, but also had to have the literal form of a human being that could be tempted.

God does not even have a nature, let alone a sinless one. Further Christ did not have the form of a human being. He was human, no form about it.

I've been pondering my view regarding how the fallen (vs. sinful) nature is passed down. I can't see how for sure that the fallen nature could really be attributed to 1 single (sex) chromosome (at least not yet) being that such seems at the very least ridiculous. Also since we've Eve, 'mother of the living' and HER SEED (Genesis 3) crushed the head of the serpent then we've Adam through whom sin came into the world, therefore I'm not entirely persuaded one way or the other. So I can see the possibilty that the fallen nature is passed down through the male sex because Eve (after her giving defense/testimony of what God said) was deceived and fell into sin while Adam willingly obliged was not, who sinned knowingly.

Ya'll continue this disscusion because I'm all ears...

[Phil.2:12]

So I can see the possibilty that the fallen nature is passed down through the male sex because Eve (after her giving defense/testimony of what God said) was deceived and fell into sin while Adam willingly obliged was not, who sinned knowingly.

Ya'll continue this disscusion because I'm all ears...

You've got the picture, now search the Scriptures to develop it. Forget what man says, for most of the time he, or she, does not what they are talking about. God is the only source for the truth and man only speaks it when God speaks thru man.

[Thaddaeus]

firehill,

So I can see the possibilty that the fallen nature is passed down through the male sex because Eve (after her giving defense/testimony of what God said) was deceived and fell into sin while Adam willingly obliged was not, who sinned knowingly.

But that whole theory gets blown out of the water by the fact that Mary gave birth to Jesus. No male was involved, yet she transferred the mortal nature to Christ, which He assumed by virture of His birth from the Virgin.

To carry this one step further regarding the RCC. They beleive that it is sin that is transferred, thus to solve their predictament that in giving birth to Jesus, Jesus would then inherit sin. Thus their development of the Immaculate conception of Mary. Mary was born of two parents, both with fallen natures, or in RCC language, had the sin nature, thus Mary would be born with sin. So how to prevent Christ from inheriting sin, they made Mary Immaculate. Now, you have a person, who is an exceptional human being, perfect, without sin, which the Bible clearly contradicts and outside of the normal human natures we all possess. How can Christ assume a nature like ours and be able to heal it when it would be through an immaculate Mary, an abnormal human being.