Jesus, the tent?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>Bro Shaw:
>>.  He is both God and man; and
>>whilst I believe in the evidence and distinction of natures within Him, I
>>don't believe that we can make the Christ only a body.
>
>
>Me:
> Bro Shaw, I also do not mean to be contentious with you or your view the
>thought has occurred to me after reading Bro Reed, Bro Cary Robison, and
>your post's, the question begs.  Why?  Why try and make the flesh more then
>just what it was meant to be as Bro Reed stated?  Is it safe to try and
>utilize a cornerstone of trinitiarianism to explain the Oneness of God?

[Matthew]:
I don't view my conclusions about the dual nature of Christ as trinitarian.
To say that God came in the flesh doesn't necessitate a belief that He is
somehow two at all.  We affirm the union of those natures in the person of
Jesus Christ.

I provide the following to sort of clarify Nestorianism and demonstrate how
close some of this discussion is coming to it:

One way to explain the human and divine in Christ is to say He was God
living in a human house.  In other words, He had two distinct natures
unified not in substance but only in purpose, action and appearance
(Nestorianism).  This view implies that Christ is divided into two persons,
and the human person could have existed in the absence of the divine.

(Bernard, David K.  _The Oneness of God_.  Word Aflame Press. 91).

Clearly, understanding Christ as a mere man so separate from God is not the
official Oneness position.

Blessings.

All Honour to Christ Jesus.

Matthew

>
>Bro Robison:
>>I agree, Bro. Shaw. Defining the Son as merely the body or flesh of Jesus
>>does not do justice to the wondrous portrait of the Sonship painted in
>>Scripture.
>
>Me:
>IMHO,  the Sonship and it's meaning and reliance is by *NO MEANS*
deminished
>by believing as Bro Reed does. (Bro Reed and I attend the same
congregation)
> I see the dual nature reconciled when I understand the fact that prior to
>the birth of Christ, God lacked the ability to understand the fullness of
>man's plight. (as lamented by Job)  The great and GLORIOUS son, christ, Son
>of Man, holy "thing" born of a woman.  When God finally became the thing
>that Job so desired, the Daysmen, betwixt man and God, many things occurred
>that had never occurred before.  God became a man and experienced all the
>things that man had to experience and did so "yet without sin".  The
Sonship
>reconciled a great many things that separated, Man from God, and God from
>Man, most of which was the saving of Humanity by the sacrifice of His flesh
>on the cross.  It also helped God to understand more fully the plight man
>was in because of the fleshly or carnal nature man must endure.  In this he
>became our near kinsman in more then just a typification.
>
>Yours truly, In Jesus
>
>Jeff Wescott