Christ IN The Flesh............

[Scott1]

I BELIEVE that this PURPOSE was for Him to KNOW what WE HAVE to face. For Him to EXPERIENCE ACTUAL PHYSICAL LIFE. Yes, to overcome sin. But also to SIMPLY LIVE a 'MORTAL LIFE'. To PHYSICALLY SHARE this experience WITH US. For HOW else could He actually PRESENT an 'example' if He were simply an 'entity in heaven'. For GOD IS able to PERFORM ANY DEED that He so chooses. But the SON came IN THE FLESH, to BE 'like US'. To SHOW US that WE TOO are ABLE to overcome sin THROUGH Him.

Well said.

The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.

This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, "increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man", and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking "the form of a slave". CCC

 

[wavy]

We do not deny His humanity. It is because of it, that we are able to know God. Methinks you are complicating the whole issue of Jesus being God incarnate. Totally man yet totally God.

such a phrase is wholly illogical and a violation of the law of identity. it requires a unique definition of 'totally' that really doesn't mean 'totally' (and thus is fallacious ambiguity).


~eric

 

[Alabaster]

We do not deny His humanity. It is because of it, that we are able to know God. Methinks you are complicating the whole issue of Jesus being God incarnate. Totally man yet totally God.

such a phrase is wholly illogical and a violation of the law of non-contradiction. it requires a unique definition of 'totally' that really doesn't mean 'totally'.


~eric

It is a true statement. The Body of Christ doesn't rely on logic. We are a spiritual people. Jesus was both man and God. We aren't credited with comprehending it, but we are to believe it.

 

[wavy]

It is a true statement. The Body of Christ doesn't rely on logic. We are a spiritual people. Jesus was both man and God. We aren't credited with comprehending it, but we are to believe it.

logic is essential to chistianity (even if all christians do not exercise it)...otherwise theology is meaningless.

~eric

 

[Alabaster]

It is a true statement. The Body of Christ doesn't rely on logic. We are a spiritual people. Jesus was both man and God. We aren't credited with comprehending it, but we are to believe it.

logic is essential to chistianity (even if all christians do not exercise it)...otherwise theology is meaningless.

~eric

God is the Father of logic. He blesses His own with sound minds. I know that with that as a given and His gift of discernment in gear, I can know what is right and what is wrong and in need of casting aside.

Knowing Jesus Christ brings great balance into one's life and thoughts! Thank God!!

2 Timothy 1:7
For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

 

[Devekut]

logic is essential to chistianity (even if all christians do not exercise it)...otherwise theology is meaningless.

Christianity begins on the premise that the illogical has happened, that the world does not proceed strictly according to reason, but that there has been an unprecedented and unforseen breakthrough.

As I like to say, Christians are up to their necks in reason....but we breathe in the air of mystery.

The two natures of Christ are simply that: a mystery. Christ is both a human being and the fullness of God. Theology becomes an anthropology. The dogma isn't there to be logical, its there to confound us. It is there to bring us to our knees in awe. It's there to place logic and reason in its place and say "maybe these don't have the final word...maybe reality is, in the end, even greater than we can know".

 

[Imagican]

We are well aware of Jesus the man. That is the easy part the world can grasp. The difficult part is accepting Him as God. That is done by a spiritual revelation of the Holy Spirit.

No, Alabaster, it MUST NOT BE DIFFICULT. For the MAJORITY of the Christian community has accepted Christ AS God for close to TWO THOUSAND YEARS NOW. It must not be TOO difficult.

Please note--I said "the world"--not Christians.

Ah, so 'I'm' NOT a Christian but JUST another person LIVING for this world? Beware of the judgements that you offer TOWARDS others for THEY ARE exactly what YOU will be JUDGED BY.

We do not deny His humanity. It is because of it, that we are able to know God. Methinks you are complicating the whole issue of Jesus being God incarnate. Totally man yet totally God.[/b]

Me thinks that Jesus BEING God was NOT the 'topic' of this thread. But I guess if you insist that Jeusus IS God, then Christ in the Flesh would have BEEN God in the Flesh. Funny, but Christ NEVER offered that HE WAS GOD, but INSTEAD offered that He WAS The Son of God. But what did HE KNOW?.................................

MEC

 

[wavy]

devekut:

as inspiring as that sounds, the same could be said of the spaghetti monster and the celestial teapot.

~eric

 

[Devekut]

as inspiring as that sounds, the same could be said of the spaghetti monster and the celestial teapot.

Well...

I would say that's something of a stretch, and if you want to take the argument in that direction we are no longer talking about the Incarnation, but the question of "God" and of the role of faith alltogether.

I am not a fideist (sp?), meaning I don't reject reason in its proper relation to faith. In fact, it is much needed.

The Incarnation is what makes God accessible to us, the hypostatic union unites humanity with God, so that God is in humanity and humanity in God. The *point* of this intersection is the person of Jesus of Nazareth. There is a certain point when language can not fully encapsulate the reality which it tries to bring to us. I would think the two natures of Christ are such an instance- the dogma as we have it serves best the reality it is trying to convey.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I KNOW what the 'trinitarian view' of this MUST BE. But what about the 'reality' of Christ IN The Flesh?

Having NEVER been 'in the flesh', wouldn't He have LEARNED about 'the flesh' as He SPENT TIME 'in it'? I mean, EVEN IF Christ 'were God', IF He had NEVER been 'in the flesh', it CERTAINLY took some 'getting USE to'?

I just WONDER what 'others' THINK of this. Ever WONDER what a 'different' experience it MUST have BEEN for HIM?

MEC

Actually, you are quite right. Christ was fully God, but he was also FULLY human. There are scriptures that state he grew in wisdom - he didn't just start out doing Calculus in the Manger. These are difficult things to reckon out, but surely he learned like any other little boy. Luckily, he grew up with the holiest family ever amd learned from the right kind of parents.

 

[Imagican]

I KNOW what the 'trinitarian view' of this MUST BE. But what about the 'reality' of Christ IN The Flesh?

Having NEVER been 'in the flesh', wouldn't He have LEARNED about 'the flesh' as He SPENT TIME 'in it'? I mean, EVEN IF Christ 'were God', IF He had NEVER been 'in the flesh', it CERTAINLY took some 'getting USE to'?

I just WONDER what 'others' THINK of this. Ever WONDER what a 'different' experience it MUST have BEEN for HIM?

MEC

Actually, you are quite right. Christ was fully God, but he was also FULLY human. There are scriptures that state he grew in wisdom - he didn't just start out doing Calculus in the Manger. These are difficult things to reckon out, but surely he learned like any other little boy. Luckily, he grew up with the holiest family ever amd learned from the right kind of parents.

And I 'guess' that I am 'able' to reply in this manner:

Thanks CC. Rarely are we able to come to agreement on such matters. But I thank you for your support. I wasn't offering this thread to discuss ANYTHING but Christ IN The FLESH. And through such a discussion, I had HOPED to expound upon that which He MUST have 'felt, experienced, tasted of, SEEN, heard, etc........... that MUST have been a MAJOR difference than ANYTHING that He could have comprehended PREVIOUS to His 'incarnation' INTO The Flesh.

I believe that it is PERTINENT to ANY understanding of OUR Savior to be ABLE to SEE that this was undoubtably a MAJOR sacrifice. Not only in that He was SENT to DIE for US, but in that it was NECESITATED that He EXPERIENCE that which WE are liable to experience DUE to the FLESH. What a 'sacrifice INDEED'.

There is 'saying' that I can remember from my earliest days. It goes something like THIS: "It's better to have NEVER known wealth than to HAVE known it and LOOSE it''. This MUST have at least a 'tiny' part of the reality of Christ 'giving up' what He WAS to BECOME what He became. Impervious to TIME, PAIN, sorrow, hunger, thirst, loneliness, etc,,,,,,,,,,,ALL those THINGS that pertain TO the Flesh, giving UP the immunity to such for OUR sakes. Willing to suffer these ALL for those that were HIS ENEMIES. What a gracious and LOVING Savior INDEED.

I THOUGHT that I would be ABLE to offer such empathetic revelation if I were ONLY allowed to PROCEED 'without' the interference of DOCTRINE 'getting in the way'. I guess I wasn't COMPLETELY wrong. It just took a 'little more time' than I had first HOPED.

Blessings my Brothers. and Happy Mother's Day to the ladies with Children out there. Our SISTERS in Christ.

MEC