The nature of Jesus as God.

[Jonathan E]

1.
If Jesus ”consists” of the same essence as God, i.e. he is devine. Are the attributes of the son knit to his ontological nature?
I am asking since if Jesus was born, he is not eternal; also if Jesus became man, no longer being devine, then Jesus as a devine being, stopped being God in the ontological sence (note not who he is). If this is the case then why wouldn’t God the father be able to do the same thing, that is, to become a man, no longer being devine. Intuitively. the answer to this questions seems to be no, God can not suspend the qualities and attributes that make him God. But then, if Jesus, with the same nature, is able to go through this transformation, how can God and the son be said to consist of the same essence? Isnt the son, by possibility of chaning his nature into a human

2.
Trinitarians claim Jesus durings his ministry was ontologically fully God and fully man. This claim is refuted on the basis of the many passages where Jesus is limited in a sense God is not. I know I have heard Tim teach that Jesus from his incarnation forward, is always a human being (as he right now, sits at the right hand side of God in heaven).
Jesus became devine again after the resurrection. Does not this inevitably lead to the same implication, namely that Jesus is fully God and fully human at the same time? Is this a problem?

Maybe it is not, as there is no scripture limiting Jesus after his resurrection. Do we believe in a Jesus that is fully devine and fully human at the same time? And if all christians will be given that same kind of body Jesus has, a resurrection-body, we will still be different than him, since he beside from his human nature, also is devine?

If Jesus’ consciousness is both taking input from his human nature and his devine nature, isnt it split in half? I.e he sees other people as humans do, at the very same moment his consciousness sees human as God does.

[Timothy]

Jonathan,

1. The Bible uses human procreative terminology to tell us about the relationship of the Father and Son, such as “begotten” and “only-begotten of the Father.” When these terms are understood in their normal sense, it requires that the Son was begotten of the same “kind” as God. It does not, however, require that the Son was eternal simply because the Father is. The fact that He had a beginning (which “begotten” requires) means they had a different history, the one existing before time and the other in time. Take for example Adam and Seth. Both were of the same “kind” – fully human. But they had a different history. Adam was created as an adult, while Seth was begotten as a baby and had to grow up to adulthood. IMO, it is a mistake to assume immutability (unchangeableness) for the begotten Son. Being “eternal” is a description of God’s history before time began (which we have no way of understanding). But God chose to beget His Son as “the Beginning” of TIME (6 days of creation), and thus within time. Can God change in His ontological nature? We cannot know that. All Scriptures that refer to God not changing have to do with His character and His faithfulness to keep His word. No Scripture suggests that God cannot alter His ontological nature, which we do not even know what that is. Likewise, it is fully within God’s power to beget a Son of like kind and give Him the capacity for change in order to “become flesh.” IMO, the “change” argument is entirely philosophical, not biblical, and presumes things that we simply cannot know. It is better to just take Scripture at face value.

2. I believe the Bible is clear in passages such as John 1:14 and Phil. 2:6-8 that Jesus was fully transformed from a divine being (of the same “kind” as God) into a human being. This transformation was permanent. He did not retain “divinity” as part of His ontological nature at His birth from Mary, nor regain it after His resurrection. Instead, He was to become a glorified man, made immortal (as we will also be in our resurrection – 1 Jn. 3:2). We do not become “divine beings” in the resurrection.

3. We do not agree with “hypostatic union” of later Trinitarianism, that Jesus ever possessed two natures simultaneously. Rather He possessed 2 natures sequentially, first divine, then human. But now He is resurrected, glorified, and immortal, but still human.

[Raymond]

Tim, that reply is really helpful to me. It is a question I have had but not gotten around to asking. That is why it was such a great love that the Father has for us that He would send his Only Begotten to become a man and die for us. Jesus now has to stay as a man. I cant comprehend what that means in reality but it is obviously a huge difference. Jesus’s love for us to do that is also amazing and mind blowing. This truth is not know by so many so called Christians of the actual sacrifice of both Father and the Son to provide us with eternal life as part of the covenant, with their trinity doctrine masking the actually what took place.

[Timothy]

Yes, coming to the realization of what Jesus actually sacrificed when He “emptied Himself,” and thus “becoming in the likeness of men,” is profound and life-altering. At least it was for the early Christian martyrs, and it also has been for me. But it has been hidden by the Roman Catholic creedal evolution of theology.

[Author]

Posts