The Christian idea about Two natures?

[Falvlun]

It's not about God accepting a sacrifice. It was never about blood atonement; that idea was first concocted and invented by Anselm of Canterbury in the 1100's.

Agreed, though I didn't know where you were coming from at first. My apologies for assuming.

Christ became incarnate to take on our human nature, to redeem every part of it; our bodies, minds, hearts, souls, struggles against sin, etc, etc.

What does it mean to "redeem" and what is the mechanism? In other words, why couldn't a partly God-human redeem humans?

He died to fully share in our human experience, which includes death and separation from God.

Well, if he died, then he did experience this, regardless of whether he still had a spark of divinity in him.

Then He rose from the dead, so that as He shared with us in our human life, we may share with Him in God's life.

Well, rising from the dead isn't exactly a human characteristic, now is it. :sarcastic

If Christ did not reconcile any one part of our humanity, then it is as if none of our humanity was reconciled at all.

Why do you believe that incarnation is necessary at all for reconcilation?

And how do you know that a part God/ part human would be unable to reconcile every part?

 

[Shermana]

It's not about God accepting a sacrifice. It was never about blood atonement; that idea was first concocted and invented by Anselm of Canterbury in the 1100's.

Christ became incarnate to take on our human nature, to redeem every part of it; our bodies, minds, hearts, souls, struggles against sin, etc, etc. He died to fully share in our human experience, which includes death and separation from God. Then He rose from the dead, so that as He shared with us in our human life, we may share with Him in God's life.

If Christ did not reconcile any one part of our humanity, then it is as if none of our humanity was reconciled at all.

Explain your take on Isaiah 53:10 then.

 

[Shermana]

Does this mean that there's two Gods? God and the Word?

There are thousands and thousands of "gods", that's why the Father is called "THE" god, articulated, as in "The god of the gods". These lesser "gods" are referred to as "Angels".

Even Trinitarian scholars acknowledge this.

Even Josephus acknowledged that there may have been many lesser gods assisting in the creation process.

 

[Shiranui117]

Agreed, though I didn't know where you were coming from at first. My apologies for assuming.

It's cool; I always go in with that disclaimer, since it's become so prevalent in Western Christianity, which is the majority form of Christianity. It wasn't meant to be hostile, I just always like to clear the air right off the bat.

What does it mean to "redeem" and what is the mechanism? In other words, why couldn't a partly God-human redeem humans?

An entity that is only partly God and only partly human can't fully reunite the two within itself. Christ is the perfect link between God and man, being fully both.

Well, if he died, then he did experience this, regardless of whether he still had a spark of divinity in him.

Yeah. As I stated before, He was still fully God, even while incarnate. From His Incarnation onward, Jesus Christ was at all times fully God and fully Man.

Well, rising from the dead isn't exactly a human characteristic, now is it. :sarcastic

Nope, hence why that's the point at which mankind can begin to share in God's life. Christ's Resurrection is the point at which we can begin to share in God's life, in the same way as Jesus' death was the apex of His sharing in our life.

Why do you believe that incarnation is necessary at all for reconcilation?

By uniting humanity and Divinity within Himself, Christ becomes a "bridge," if you will, between God and man. The Hypostatic Union opens the way for man to come back into communion with God.

And how do you know that a part God/ part human would be unable to reconcile every part?

This question is like asking, "How do you know that a partly filled glass of water can't be filled with water?"A popular Orthodox saying in this matter is, "That which is not assumed is not healed." Meaning, if Christ didn't take to Himself any part of our humanity, then the part of our humanity that He didn't take wasn't healed, either. If you reconcile/assume every part of humanity to yourself, then you become fully human. If you have a whole glass of water, then the glass is full. If you only partly fill the glass, then you just have a partly-filled glass of water.

 

[Kemble]

Hey F0uad,

Comparing individualism, persons and minds with material objects is just stupidity (with all respect).

Ok. I really hope Islam isn't the source of what seems to be your unwillingness to understand analogies.

Also your whole message about that Islam is in favor of the trinity is laughable since it clearly says:

Surah 4:171: People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a 'Trinity'—stop, that is better for you—God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust.

Surah 5:71-75
hose who say, "God is the Messiah, son of Mary," have defied God. The Messiah himself said; "Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord." If anyone associates others with God, God will forbid him from the Garden, and Hell will be his home. No one will help such evildoers. Those people who say that God is the third of three are defying [the truth]: there is only One God. If they persist in what they are saying, a painful punishment will afflict those of them who persist. Why do they not turn to God and ask his forgiveness, when God is most forgiving, most merciful? The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; other messengers had come and gone before him; his mother was a virtuous woman; both ate food. See how clear We make these signs for them; see how deluded they are.

If you want to play this game, I'm up for it. First, welcome to what we call "contradictions." Glad you realized the Quran doesn't lack them.

Let's get into the Quran.


Quranic testimony of Christian Monotheism:

(1) Sūrat Al Ankabūt, the Spider: 46 – “Do not argue with the people of the Book except in what is better … and say we believed in what was sent down to us and to you, and our God and your God is the same, is one.”

(2) Sūrat Āl Imrān, the Family of Imrān: 113-114 “Among the people of the Book is a nation which recites the verses of God during the night, and they worship God and believe in Him and in the Day of Judgment, and they order doing good and prohibit abomination and they hasten charity.”

(3) Sūrat Al Mā’ida, the Banquet: 82 – “For sure you will find the bitterest enemies of those who believe (Muslims) are the Jews and those who are polytheists (who believe in many gods). And you will find the closest friends to believes to be those who said, “we are Nazarenes,” as among them there are pastors and monks and they are not proud.”


Surah 5:116
And when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen."

(4) Sūrat ĀlImrān, the Family of Imrān: - “As God said, O Jesus, I’ll make you die, and I’ll raise you up to me, and I’ll purify you from the infidels, and I’ll make those who followed you higher than the infidels until the Day of Judgment.”

Clearly, the Quran is testifying that Christians believe in one God and are not polytheists, hence the accusation that Christians believe in "three gods" because of the Trinity is voided.

Here is the Quranic testimony of the Holy Trinity.

The Quran says, “But Jesus Christ, son of Mary is the messenger of God and His Word and Spirit of Him that He gave to Mary” (Sūrat Al Nisā`, The Women: 171).

This means that God has

1- A personality – “messenger of God”
2- A word – “and His Word”
3- A spirit – “and a Spirit from him.”

This is exactly the Christian Trinity.


Now, let's see Quranic testimony that Christ is the Word of God:

(1) Sūrat Al Nisā`, The Women: 171 – “Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, is God’s messenger and His Word.”

(2) Sūrat Āl ‛Imrān, The Family of ‛Imrān: 139- “… God proclaims to you Yahya (John the Baptist) supporting a Word from God…” The Imān Abū Al Su´ūd commented on the phrase “supporting a word from God,” that is ‛Isā, may he be blessed, by saying: “… it was said that (John the Baptist) was the first to believe in him (Jesus) and to support his being the Word of God and Spirit from Him. Al Sadi said, “The mother of Yahya (John) meeting the mother of ‛Isā (Jesus) asked: ‘Mary, have you felt my pregnancy?’ Mary answered, ‘ I too am pregnant.’ She (John’s mother) then said: ‘I find that what is in my belly worships what is in your belly.’ From here the above utterance of God ‘supporting a word from God’ comes clear” (Abū Al Su‛ūd Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Al ‛Amādi’s Commentary, page 233).

(3) Sūrat Āl Imrān, The Family of Imrān: 45- “The angels said to Mary, ‘Allāh proclaims to you a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary.” The English translation uses the relative pronoun that’s in referring to masculine personal pronoun in the Arabic original. This indicates the fact that a word here does not mean a simple word of language but a person. You also find this clarified in the saying of one of the Muslim scholars (Al Shaikh Muhyi Al Din al ‛Arabi), who said: “The word is God in theophany … and it is the one divine person and not any other” (in his book “Fusūs al Hukm”, part II, p.35). He also said that the word is the divine person” (page 13). Isn’t that exactly what was said about the Lord Jesus in the Gospel of John “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God … And the Word became flesh” (John 1: 1,14). In the Arabic translation of this verse, we again find (in conformity with the Greek original) the same usage of the term word with the pronouns referring to it. Word refers to a person. This is clear from John’s specifications: “the Word was God” and “the Word became flesh.”

Next, testimony from the Quran for the Holy Spirit:

(1) Sūrat Al Mā`ida, the Banquet: 110 – “Allah said to Jesus, ‘Jesus, son of Mary, remember the favor I have bestowed on you and your mother, how I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit, so that you preached to men in your cradle and in the prime of manhood.”

(2) The theological scholar Al-Shaikh Muhammad al Hariri al Bayyūmi says, “The Holy Spirit, is the spirit of Allah” (“Kitāb al Rūh wa Māhiyyathuha,” p.53).

Considering all this, Father Zakaria summed up the Trinity this way:

This is the holy Trinity in one God in whom we believe, and this is the reason of naming it as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

• The Father is the title of essential Fatherhood of God.
• The Son is the title of the incarnated Word of God.
• The Holy Spirit is the title of the Spirit of God Himself.

 

[Shiranui117]

Explain your take on Isaiah 53:10 then.

It's not the actual act of crushing that makes God happy, it's knowing what comes after.

 

[Shermana]

It's not the actual act of crushing that makes God happy, it's knowing what comes after.

I don't think you understand.

We're talking about what the human "Guilt offering" concept implies.

 

[Shiranui117]

I don't think you understand.

We're talking about what the human "Guilt offering" concept implies.

Well, time for me to

Now that that's done, allow me to correct my earlier statement:

Originally Posted by Shiranui117
It's not about God accepting a sacrifice. It was never about blood atonement; that idea was first concocted and invented by Anselm of Canterbury in the 1100's.

Which SHOULD read:

Originally Posted by Shiranui117
It's not about God accepting a sacrifice because he was PO'd at us and needed someone to beat up so He'd stop being PO'd at us for being sinners. It was never about blood atonement to satisfy God being offended at us and His itching urge to punish us for being sinful schmucks; that idea was first concocted and invented by Anselm of Canterbury in the 1100's.

And to elaborate further:

Yes, Jesus DID die as a sacrifice for our sins, but not to play scapegoat on behalf of us to satisfy an offended God, as Anselm of Canterbury taught. He died to "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Hebrews 9:26), and to "render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). It's the same thing as Jesus dying to trample down death by death; He bore the consequences of sin (suffering and death) to free us from sin. This is a ransom for us from sin and death, as well as redemption and reconciliation to God--not a legal pardon.

and Hebrews 2:14-18
Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. 16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. 17 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.

 

[Falvlun]

Since it seems like this would be useful here as well, here's a copy of a post from THIS thread:

There are 3 main views as to how Jesus did this [atonement]:
The ransom theory/Christus Victor: According the ransom theory, Jesus traded his perfect life for all of our imperfect ones, thereby freeing us from Satan. The Christus Victor theory claims that, rather than a simple trade, Christ defeats Satan in a spiritual battle, thereby releasing his claim to us.

The moral influence theory: The purpose of Jesus' life was to give us a template of how to live and to inspire us with his miracles and resurrection. He was the example for "moral change". Interestingly enough, this "liberal" sort of theory was actually the original understanding of atonement

The satisfaction theory: This, and its variation, is the one I was most familiar with. Basically, sin comes with a huge price tag, due to the offense it gives to God. A perfect sacrifice is the only way to pay off this debt, and Jesus was that sacrifice. The slight variation, favored by Protestants, is the penal substitution theory, which claims that Jesus appeases God's wrath at mankind by offering himself as the substitute, to bear all punishment.

All of this was adapted from the wikipedia article: Atonement in Christianity

Original Post

 

[Shiranui117]

The ransom theory/Christus Victor: According the ransom theory, Jesus traded his perfect life for all of our imperfect ones, thereby freeing us from Satan. The Christus Victor theory claims that, rather than a simple trade, Christ defeats Satan in a spiritual battle, thereby releasing his claim to us.

The moral influence theory: The purpose of Jesus' life was to give us a template of how to live and to inspire us with his miracles and resurrection. He was the example for "moral change". Interestingly enough, this "liberal" sort of theory was actually the original understanding of atonement

^Just as a general JSYK to anyone reading, these two are what were originally believed. The satisfaction theory didn't come in until later.

 

[Renji]

Before i ask my questions and enter a discussion in whoever wants to reply i want to say that i mean no disrespect towards Christianity nor am i trying to attack it.

My question is how does the Two natures of Jesuss(pbuh) actually works?

Each time i hear the argument that Jesus(pbuh) was fully God and fully Human at the same time i feel
confused and i get the assumption it is a argument based on no scriptural references and contradicts with basic logic and reasoning.

Let me give you a example: Human-beings are humans, animals are animals. If a man became a duck he wouldn't be longer a man but a duck. An another example the frog prince, the princess who kissed the frog who then becomes a prince well now he is no longer a frog but something different a prince. So basically if God becomes a man or a incarnate man then god is now a man and he isn't god anymore because they are two different distinct beings.

Now did i miss something? Or is there a explanation on how it could work..

Hi! To start off things, I'd like to say that Christianity is composed of wide variety of sects. Each have doctrines that is either something in common or something different with the other. As of the nature of Christ, some sects say that He is divine (or God), others say that He's just human, perhaps the human form of an archangel or a "being" created by God, etc,etc. In the case of the Catholic doctrine, we believe that Jesus is hundred percent man and hundred percent God. He is co-substantial (not a merely created being) with the Father, who lowered down Himself, took form of a man, walked, eat and slept with us and lay down His own life in order to save mankind from sin (through the cross). Being co-substantial with the Father, meaning having same nature with Him as God, He can of course, by His will, take human form (flesh). Even angels take human form (as we can read from the Bible) though they are spiritual beings. Being God, He is not bound by the laws of nature or is confined with time and space and is therefore capable of taking form of human.

 

[F0uad]

Hey F0uad,

Ok. I really hope Islam isn't the source of what seems to be your unwillingness to understand analogies.

Its funny how you cannot stay to the topic and have now the need to tackle Islam in a ridiculous way what is flawed.

If you want to play this game, I'm up for it. First, welcome to what we call "contradictions." Glad you realized the Quran doesn't lack them.

I am not childish or that disrespectful i do not play games with religions when ever its yours or mine. It is funny though that you want to run away from the subject and begin quoting verses from the Quran without a reason. As for contradictions please make a new thread.

Let's get into the Quran.

Make a new thread next time and there are various ways to interpret certain verses, if you have questions regarding certain verses please quote the context and the Tasfeer behind it next time.

Quranic testimony of Christian Monotheism:

You didn't fully quote verse 46 it says: And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."

When you quoted verse 113-114 you forgot to start from verse 110 it simply says that some of Christian and Jewish community did the right thing, however it doesn't talk about the present time but the past since the Islamic idea is that the Christians before Mohammed(saws) were considered Muslims in whoever followed Jesus(pbuh) in the right way.

Clearly, the Quran is testifying that Christians believe in one God and are not polytheists, hence the accusation that Christians believe in "three gods" because of the Trinity is voided.

No it isn't there are Christians who do not belief in the Trinity and only in One being that is God and there are Christians who belief in a Trinity multiplied persons what makes god. As i have clearly shown before the Quran dismiss the teachings of the trinity now please show me a verse that says that God is in favor of it ill be waiting.

Here is the Quranic testimony of the Holy Trinity.

The Quran says, “But Jesus Christ, son of Mary is the messenger of God and His Word and Spirit of Him that He gave to Mary” (Sūrat Al Nisā`, The Women: 171).

This means that God has

1- A personality – “messenger of God”
2- A word – “and His Word”
3- A spirit – “and a Spirit from him.”
This is exactly the Christian Trinity.

Its funny how you just cherry picked some words without even reading the whole verse or its context but i am used it now lets read it completely:

(171. O People of the Scripture! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah except the truth. Al-Masih `Isa, son of Maryam, was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit from Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: "Three!'' Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One God, hallowed be He above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs.)

To further clarify the Spirit:

(Al-Masih `Isa, son of Maryam, was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit from [created by] Him; `Isa is only one of Allah's servants and one of His creatures. Allah said to him, `Be', and he was, and He sent him as a Messenger. `Isa was a word from Allah that He bestowed on Maryam, meaning He created him with the word `Be' that He sent with Jibril to Maryam. Jibril blew the life of `Isa into Maryam by Allah's leave, and `Isa came to existence as a result. This incident was in place of the normal conception between man and woman that results in children. This is why `Isa was a word and a Ruh (spirit) created by Allah, as he had no father to conceive him. Rather, he came to existence through the word that Allah uttered, `Be,' and he was, through the life that Allah sent with Jibril.

Now, let's see Quranic testimony that Christ is the Word of God:

See above.

Considering all this, Father Zakaria summed up the Trinity this way:

Its funny how tried changing subjects, quoting a priest to support your ideas, trying to make islam say something you want it to say. And i was simply asking to use Logic and Reasoning in the idea of two natures, i don't really care if you belief that a human that is limited can be god when it contradicts God's essence however i do ask a explanation for it now if you are really sincere please stick to the subject.

 

[F0uad]

Hi! To start off things, I'd like to say that Christianity is composed of wide variety of sects. Each have doctrines that is either something in common or something different with the other. As of the nature of Christ, some sects say that He is divine (or God), others say that He's just human, perhaps the human form of an archangel or a "being" created by God, etc,etc. In the case of the Catholic doctrine, we believe that Jesus is hundred percent man and hundred percent God. He is co-substantial (not a merely created being) with the Father, who lowered down Himself, took form of a man, walked, eat and slept with us and lay down His own life in order to save mankind from sin (through the cross). Being co-substantial with the Father, meaning having same nature with Him as God, He can of course, by His will, take human form (flesh). Even angels take human form (as we can read from the Bible) though they are spiritual beings. Being God, He is not bound by the laws of nature or is confined with time and space and is therefore capable of taking form of human.

The problem arises when we claim that a person like Jesus(pbuh) is god because Jesus(pbuh) was limited in many ways. Now try to understand this God = Unlimited by definition.. Humans are limited by definition.. If God becomes a human he is limited or he had to make himself an unlimited human being however we can clearly see that Jesus(pbuh) is limited.

 

[Renji]

And i was simply asking to use Logic and Reasoning in the idea of two natures, i don't really care if you belief that a human that is limited can be god when it contradicts God's essence....

What if the case is this, God, who is Powerful wants to took human form? That's the case of Jesus Christ "who, in nature was God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness and found in human appearance." (Phil. 2:6-7)

 

[Renji]

The problem arises when we claim that a person like Jesus(pbuh) is god because Jesus(pbuh) was limited in many ways. Now try to understand this God = Unlimited by definition.. Humans are limited by definition.. If God becomes a human he is limited or he had to make himself an unlimited human being however we can clearly see that Jesus(pbuh) is limited.

Alright, my reply seems to be appropriate (post#74).

 

[F0uad]

What if the case is this, God, who is Powerful wants to took human form? That's the case of Jesus Christ "who, in nature was God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness and found in human appearance." (Phil. 2:6-7)

Like i said if God takes on a human form then this human form cant be limited but clearly Jesus(pbuh) was. If God is limited he is not God.. Imagine this God being a helpless baby, being circumcised, going to a toilet and so forth.. it makes no sense god in needs of hes creation? Being god means that you are unlimited, all-powerful, all-knowing and so forth when he becomes limited he is no longer god since hes attributes are gone on how we define him.

 

[Renji]

Like i said if God takes on a human form then this human form cant be limited but clearly Jesus(pbuh) was. If God is limited he is not God.. Imagine this God being a helpless baby, being circumcised, going to a toilet and so forth.. it makes no sense god in needs of hes creation? Being god means that you are unlimited when he becomes limited he is no longer god its that simple.

Alright, I get your point, but, the teaching of my Faith is this, Jesus, who is in nature, God, lowered Himself for us by taking human form, experienced all that we experience as man, except sin, in order to bridge that gap between man and God and lay down His own life for our sake. It's a form of humility that He wants to show us. That He can perform great things not through His nature as God,performing wonders of wonders, miracles per miracles (and by the way, even in human form, He was able to perform wonderful deeds, aka miracles), but as a simple human being, through being "limited" and dying on the cross, He was able to save us from the wages of sin.

And by the way, He's not limited at all: Col 1:16- " For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him."

 

[Shermana]

What does "God in nature" even mean exactly? God is a nominative, not a Qualitative noun.

Human, however can be a qualitative and nominative noun, but where is "God" ever used as a qualitative?

 

[Desert Snake]

What does "God in nature" even mean exactly? God is a nominative, not a Qualitative noun.

Human, however can be a qualitative and nominative noun, but where is "God" ever used as a qualitative?

Aren't you contradicting yourself now? You said Jesus was divine in the sense of an angel, but now you're saying He was only human? Speaking of which, how do you reconcile finding it so easy to believe in the angelic nature of Jesus but not the Godly?

Especially considering that you're calling angels 'gods'?

 

[Shermana]

Aren't you contradicting yourself now? You said Jesus was divine in the sense of an angel, but now you're saying He was only human? Speaking of which, how do you reconcile finding it so easy to believe in the angelic nature of Jesus but not the Godly?

Especially considering that you're calling angels 'gods'?

Not at all. There's a big difference between "Divine" nature and "God" nature. If he's "Divine" in nature that doesn't necessarily mean he's "God" in nature but can be "A god" in nature. To be "a god" can be a qualitative, like human. To be "The god" however is not, it's a nominative. It's an issue of how the indefinite and articulated words at work.

Also, you're still insisting that there's a difference between "Angelic" nature and "godly" nature, but you have yet to present, after being asked over 7 times in a row, what exactly is the difference between "god" and "angel" scripturally speaking, after you dismissed the explanation and sources I provided without providing an actual counter reply. Angels are "divine", and angels are called "gods" and "gods" are called "angels" in the text, whether you agree with the Theological implication or not.

Which brings us back to the original issue of what the word "Divine" means. The word "Divine" is not necessarily exclusive to "God" but to "Divine beings".

Hence why many translations (by Trinitarians even) translate John 1:1c as "And the word was Divine".

With that said, I did not say he's only human. You simply are reading into something I didn't say, and not understanding (as well as denying and dismissing without actually countering) what I said earlier. Let me know if you need further clarification.