Thank you for your latest comments. I intend to respond over two posts (in šāʾ Allāh).
On the 11th October you claimed that a person is at risk of losing salvation if they deny that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) is both ‘God and man’; and I wondered what you meant by ‘man’.
Why wonder? Well, according to the Nestorians he is one person, two hypostases and two natures. According to Trinitarians he is one person, one hypostasis and two natures. Monophysites, on the other hand, hold that he is one person, one hypostasis, and one nature. For Unitarians – and the rest of us folk – he is just a man: one person; one nature; no hypostasis.
According to
you, Yeshua is not a true man at all – not a man like us. He’s a superman; being both omnipotent and omniscient.
Concerning his alleged omnipotence:
Irenaeus of Lyon writes:
‘But as our Lord is the only true teacher, he is also the true Son of God, who is good and who suffers in patience – the Logos of God the Father become Son of man. He struggled and conquered. He was a human being, fighting on behalf of his fathers.’ (‘Adversus Haereses’; Book 3).
Irenaeus is writing of one who conquered through suffering and struggle; of a human being fighting on behalf of others. The one he is describing is
not omnipotent; rather, he is one like us.
Irenaeus goes on:
‘Therefore, as I have said, he caused humanity to cleave to God – he united humanity with God. For if a human person had not conquered humanity’s foe, that foe would not have been conquered justly.’
Humanity’s foe is, of course, Satan. According to Christian theology it was Satan who brought about humanity’s downfall; and so he, in turn, must be conquered by a human. For God to do so would be unjust.
Irenaeus continues:
‘The Word, having been made flesh, had to share himself with us. That is why he went through every stage of human life, restoring to all of them communion with God. Consequently, those who say that he was manifested only in appearance, and that he was not born in the flesh and
did not truly become a human person, are still under the ancient condemnation, they still lend their support to sin.’
To argue, as you do, that Yeshua as man was both omnipotent and omniscient is to make him other than a true human being. Let there be no doubt about this.
Tertullian writes:
‘Let us look closely at the Lord’s corporeal substance, for the question of his spiritual substance is settled. It is to his flesh that people pose questions. They ask whether it is real and what its quality is. They want to know whether it existed and where it came from and what sort of thing it was. Its reply will determine what resurrection means for us.
‘The Son of God has been crucified…….Furthermore, the Son of God died………..Furthermore, he rose from the dead after burial…………In what way will these things hold true of (Christ) if he himself was not true, if he did not truly have what it takes to be crucified, to die, to be buried, and to be raised – that is, this flesh of ours, suffused with blood, built up on bones, woven through with sinews, intertwined with veins? Flesh which knew how to be born and to die, flesh which was
indubitably human because born of a human being and therefore mortal – this is what, in Christ, will be taken as “humanity” and “Son of man.”’
He asks:
‘Else why, if there is nothing human about him, nothing derived from a human being, is Christ (called) “human being” and “Son of man”? It would have to be the case, either that a human being is something other than flesh, or that human flesh is derived elsewhere than from a human being, or that Mary was something other than a human being, or that God is a human being.’
According to Tertullian, Yeshua is both man
and God. He is man in virtue of being born; in virtue of being ‘fleshly’; in virtue of being ‘feeble’; in virtue of being ‘mortal’. He is God in virtue of being unborn; in virtue being spirit; in virtue of being mighty (omnipotent); in virtue of being eternal.
Tertullian concludes:
‘The special quality of the two ways of being – divine and human – is settled and established by the equal reality of each nature, both the Spirit and the flesh. With the same trustworthiness, the mighty works of God’s Spirit establish that he is God, and
his suffering shows that he is human flesh.’ (‘De Carne Christi’).
The author of ‘Hebrews’ writes:
‘Since all the children share the same blood and flesh, he too shared equally in it, so that by his death he could take away all the power of the devil, who had power over death, and set free all those who had been held in slavery all their lives by the fear of death. For it was not the angels that he took to himself; he took to himself descent from Abraham. It was essential that he should in this way become completely like his brothers so that he could be a compassionate and trustworthy high priest of God's religion, able to atone for human sins. That is, because he has himself been through temptation he is able to help others who are tempted.’ (2:14-18).
This passage stresses the ordinary human nature of Yeshua.
According to Church doctrine, the denial of Yeshua’s human nature is a denial of the true incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity (the ‘Word’) as a man. Without a true incarnation (it is said) there can be no atonement for sin, since it was not then a true man who died for our sins. To claim – as you do – that Yeshua was not a normal man, but a superman – a kind of demi-god – is to be ignorant of the very basics of the gospel of Christ.
You claim that Yeshua was omnipotent because he ‘did numerous miracles without asking God for the ability to do so and without being commissioned to do so.’
When he was about to raise Lazarus from the dead, he lifted his eyes and prayed: ‘Father, I thank you for hearing my prayer. I knew indeed that you always hear me, but I speak for the sake of all these who stand around me, so that they may believe it was you who sent me.’ (John 11:41).
Yeshua had complete trust in God; he knew that his unspoken requests would always be answered. There was no need for him to speak them aloud; apart from this particular occasion (so that others might believe that he was ‘sent’).
An omnipotent Yeshua would not have needed to ask for a miracle – neither silently nor openly.
The Tanakh records that the prophets Elijah and Elisha did fantastic miracles – including healing the sick and raising the dead. When Elijah resurrected the widow’s son (1King 17:22) he demonstrated that he was a ‘man of God.’ Elisha is said to have resurrected the Shunammite’s son (2 Kings 4:34); and he did so by the power of Yahweh.
Peter is said to have cured a man crippled from birth, and to have done so in the name of Yeshua (Acts 3:6); and to have restored the life of Tabitha, after a period of prayer (Acts 9:40). He is also said to have killed both Ananias and his wife for theft and deceit, merely by speaking to them (Acts 5: 4-10).
Paul is said to have blinded Elymas (Acts 13: 9-11); and to have cured a man crippled from birth (Act 14: 8-10). This second miracle was carried out with no appeal to God. He is also said to have restored life to Eutychus, again without appeal to God (Acts 20: 8-12). Does this make Paul omnipotent?
One who performs a miracle is merely a channel for the power that flows from God; who
alone is omnipotent.
You wrote that Yeshua made certain statements, for example, that twelve legions of angels would ‘come at his beck to deliver (him) from the cross.’
This, of course, is a reference to his arrest in Gethsemane:
‘At that, one of the followers of Jesus grasped his sword and drew it; he struck out at the high priest's servant, and cut off his ear. Jesus then said, "Put your sword back, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father who would promptly send more than twelve legions of angels to my defense?’ (Matthew 26: 51-53)
The words ‘Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father’ demonstrate, quite clearly, Yeshua’s conviction that the Father is more powerful than he. This destroys the notion that Yeshua was omnipotent. There can be only one such Being.