Did the Son have a beginning?

[Faith and Grace]

Brothers and sisters in Christ, today I want to pose a question that has pondered theologians for centuries: Did the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, have a beginning? We all know from Scripture that Jesus walked among us, that He is the Word made flesh (John 1:14). But when we delve into the mystery of the God, we grapple with passages that hint at Jesus' pre-incarnate existence (Colossians 1:15-17). What do you all make of this?

Colossians 1:15, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature,"
Colossians 1:16, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"
Colossians 1:17, "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Perhaps some of you have come across teachings that explore Jesus' eternal nature. Maybe others have questions about how this aligns with God the Father being the one and only God (Deuteronomy 6:4).

I believe this is a topic approached best with humility and a teachable spirit. Let's open the floor to respectful discussion, using scripture as our guide, and ultimately glorifying God through our pursuit of understanding His holy nature.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Brothers and sisters in Christ, today I want to pose a question that has pondered theologians for centuries: Did the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, have a beginning? We all know from Scripture that Jesus walked among us, that He is the Word made flesh (John 1:14). But when we delve into the mystery of the God, we grapple with passages that hint at Jesus' pre-incarnate existence (Colossians 1:15-17). What do you all make of this?

Colossians 1:15, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature,"
Colossians 1:16, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"
Colossians 1:17, "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Perhaps some of you have come across teachings that explore Jesus' eternal nature. Maybe others have questions about how this aligns with God the Father being the one and only God (Deuteronomy 6:4).

I believe this is a topic approached best with humility and a teachable spirit. Let's open the floor to respectful discussion, using scripture as our guide, and ultimately glorifying God through our pursuit of understanding His holy nature.

Excellent thread, and welcome to CFN, Faith and Grace. I will try to get involved in this discussion with you tomorrow. Just wanted to welcome you this evening, and thank you for posting a well-written OP.

If you can, please create an Intro thread in the New members forum so we can get to know you.

Blessings in Christ, and thank you once again.
Hidden In Him

 

[Rookie]

Brothers and sisters in Christ, today I want to pose a question that has pondered theologians for centuries: Did the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, have a beginning? We all know from Scripture that Jesus walked among us, that He is the Word made flesh (John 1:14). But when we delve into the mystery of the God, we grapple with passages that hint at Jesus' pre-incarnate existence (Colossians 1:15-17). What do you all make of this?

Colossians 1:15, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature,"
Colossians 1:16, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"
Colossians 1:17, "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Perhaps some of you have come across teachings that explore Jesus' eternal nature. Maybe others have questions about how this aligns with God the Father being the one and only God (Deuteronomy 6:4).

I believe this is a topic approached best with humility and a teachable spirit. Let's open the floor to respectful discussion, using scripture as our guide, and ultimately glorifying God through our pursuit of understanding His holy nature.

Short answer: No he did not have a beginning, the verses you pointed out back that up succinctly.

The question would be, what Scripture suggests otherwise?

 

[Beetow]

Much of the information we're given relevant to the Word's incarnation doesn't harmonize; and I suspect that's because we're looking at an incarnation that is both human and divine, viz: an incarnation who is temporal and eternal simultaneously; which can be very confusing. In point of fact, Jesus often antagonized his opponents by sometimes speaking of himself as deity and at other times speaking of himself as human.

As to his identification as the Son of Man, it is very easy to prove the Word's human origin began with Adam's creation.

● Luke 1:32 . . and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father

Before any man can be considered for David's throne he has to be one of the king's natural descendants; and that's on oath.

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn from it:
"Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne"

The New Testament verifies Jesus is the fruit of David's body spoken of in that oath.

● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne.

● Rom 1:1-3 . . Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated
unto the gospel of God, concerning His son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made
of the seed of David according to the flesh

The Greek word for "seed" is a mite ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual progeny as well as biological progeny; but in David's case; seed refers to biological progeny because Jesus was 1) the fruit of David's body and 2) of David's loins according to the flesh.

So then, seeing as how Jesus was David's paternal descendant, then of course Jesus was Adam's paternal descendant too because we all, including David, descend from a common ancestor.

● Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of
all the living.

● Acts 17:26 . . He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face
of the earth.
_

 

[RandyK]

To me it isn't a good question because there is any question about what the orthodox position is, but rather, it's a good question because even when Jesus came on the scene believers had trouble grasping this. And it became the next big question in the new International Church.

Putting it quite simply, Jesus became a human person in time, but was generated from eternity as the eternal Word of God. That is, he was God made flesh to become our "Big Brother," so to speak, presiding over all of mankind as the one true spiritual source of life and righteousness.

Is this a "mystery?" You bet. What is there like it to compare in human experience? We don't see other human beings as a source of spirituality, though we may benefit from their spiritual insight.

But Jesus' Deity enabled him to not just provide us with spiritual insight, but also the source of Eternal Life, by giving us not just a dispensation of grace for our sins, but also the promise of a continuing spirituality.

Nothing like it anywhere! Just has to be experienced and accepted by faith, which is incidentally, entirely rational in its scope.

 

[Rookie]

Much of the information we're given relevant to the Word's incarnation doesn't harmonize; and I suspect that's because we're looking at an incarnation that is both human and divine, viz: an incarnation who is temporal and eternal simultaneously; which can be very confusing. In point of fact, Jesus often antagonized his opponents by sometimes speaking of himself as deity and at other times speaking of himself as human.

As to his identification as the Son of Man, it is very easy to prove the Word's human origin began with Adam's creation.

● Luke 1:32 . . and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father

Before any man can be considered for David's throne he has to be one of the king's natural descendants; and that's on oath.

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn from it:
"Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne"

The New Testament verifies Jesus is the fruit of David's body spoken of in that oath.

● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne.

● Rom 1:1-3 . . Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated
unto the gospel of God, concerning His son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made
of the seed of David according to the flesh

The Greek word for "seed" is a mite ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual progeny as well as biological progeny; but in David's case; seed refers to biological progeny because Jesus was 1) the fruit of David's body and 2) of David's loins according to the flesh.

So then, seeing as how Jesus was David's paternal descendant, then of course Jesus was Adam's paternal descendant too because we all, including David, descend from a common ancestor.

● Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of
all the living.

● Acts 17:26 . . He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face
of the earth.
_

John 1:1-3. The Word, like the Father, has no beginning and is uncreated. His incarnation, or rather in modern terms, when he pressed "start" and logged into humanity, was 4-3 BC

 

[Free]

Brothers and sisters in Christ, today I want to pose a question that has pondered theologians for centuries: Did the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, have a beginning? We all know from Scripture that Jesus walked among us, that He is the Word made flesh (John 1:14). But when we delve into the mystery of the God, we grapple with passages that hint at Jesus' pre-incarnate existence (Colossians 1:15-17). What do you all make of this?

Colossians 1:15, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature,"
Colossians 1:16, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"
Colossians 1:17, "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

It means he has existed for as long as the Father has existed.

Perhaps some of you have come across teachings that explore Jesus' eternal nature. Maybe others have questions about how this aligns with God the Father being the one and only God (Deuteronomy 6:4).

Where does Deut. 6:4, or anywhere in the Bible, state that only the Father is God? Is being eternal, that is having an eternal nature, an attribute that belongs to God alone?

I believe this is a topic approached best with humility and a teachable spirit. Let's open the floor to respectful discussion, using scripture as our guide, and ultimately glorifying God through our pursuit of understanding His holy nature.

Agreed.

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

I believe that the second Person of God has always existed with the Father and the third Person, the Holy Spirit. However, the second Person joined the human race as fully God and completely human, the Son of God, when Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb. He continues with the title Son of God forever into the future.

 

[RandyK]

I believe that the second Person of God has always existed with the Father and the third Person, the Holy Spirit. However, the second Person joined the human race as fully God and completely human, the Son of God, when Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb. He continues with the title Son of God forever into the future.

The whole problem is that we identify the "Son of God" with the Incarnation much more easily than we do with His preexistent state of being from eternity. We only know that the Apostle John wrote, "the Word was with God." If he was preincarnate as the Word and existed side by side with God, then the Trinity had to have existed from eternity.

I've tried to share my thoughts on what the "Son of God" was in his preexistent state, but it can create problems. The best I can say is that if each Person of the Trinity existed from eternity, then identifying them as an eternal Trinity is our only way of expressing this.

I personally think that the Apostle John was merely stating that Deity, as identified in all 3 Persons, must by definition have its origin in eternity. John was just stating that God's Word is distinguishable in its preexistent state in eternity because the revelation of Deity is capable of expressions both inside of and outside of eternity from the vantage point of the recipients of that revelation.

The Word in eternity has no face, from our point of view. But from our point of view, we can imagine it as such, having seen how Divine revelation has appeared in our temporal world. I will now proceed to suck my thumb! ;)

 

[Randy]

Brothers and sisters in Christ, today I want to pose a question that has pondered theologians for centuries: Did the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, have a beginning? We all know from Scripture that Jesus walked among us, that He is the Word made flesh (John 1:14). But when we delve into the mystery of the God, we grapple with passages that hint at Jesus' pre-incarnate existence (Colossians 1:15-17). What do you all make of this?

Colossians 1:15, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature,"
Colossians 1:16, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"
Colossians 1:17, "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Perhaps some of you have come across teachings that explore Jesus' eternal nature. Maybe others have questions about how this aligns with God the Father being the one and only God (Deuteronomy 6:4).

I believe this is a topic approached best with humility and a teachable spirit. Let's open the floor to respectful discussion, using scripture as our guide, and ultimately glorifying God through our pursuit of understanding His holy nature.

Humility and a teachable spirit suggests to me you're implying something that is not orthodox as neither are needed to state what the church affirms as true. I could be reading that wrong.

I tend to distance myself from no beginning even with the Father. Its a question of unbegotten vs begotten to me. The Father is unbegotten so if He has a beginning it could not be by any other being. So, is Jesus unbegotten as well or is He the 1st begotten of God, A Son of the Father from the beginning?
Is He deity in Himself or is it the Fathers Deity in Him? Col 1:19
If you believe Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God and the firstborn of all creation it's going to be a continuous loop of disagreement as that's not orthodox. I wait to see your further posts.

This suggests to me a beginning.
No God "was formed" before me.
So, the only thing I believe with certainty is the Father is unbegotten. I not stating He has a beginning I just don't know that with any certainty. I do know if He has a beginning it could not be by any other being.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Christ has a human nature, but He is not a human person. The Person of the Mediator is the unchangeable Son of God. In the incarnation He did not change into a human person; neither did He adopt a human person. He simply assumed, in addition to His divine nature, a human nature, which did not develop into an independent personality, but became personal in the Person of the Son of God. After this assumption of human nature, the Person of the Mediator is not only divine but divine-human; He is the Godman, possessing all the essential qualities of both human and divine nature. He has both a divine and a human consciousness, as well as a human and a divine will. This is a mystery which we cannot fathom." Author Unknown
“There was no change in the Divine nature of the Son. There is a change made in the humanity, by being advanced to a more excellent union, but not in the Deity, as a change is made in the air, when it is enlightened by the sun, not in the sun, which communicates that brightness to the air. Athanasius makes the burning bush to be a type of Christ’s incarnation (Exodus 3:2): the fire signifying the Divine nature, and the bush the human. The bush is a branch springing up from the earth, and the fire descends from heaven; as the bush was united to the fire, yet was not hurt by the flame, nor converted into fire, there remained a difference between the bush and the fire, yet the properties of the fire shined in the bush, so that the whole bush seemed to be on fire. So in the incarnation of Christ, the human nature is not swallowed up by the Divine, nor changed into it, nor confounded with it, but so united, that the properties of both remain firm: two are so become one, that they remain two still: one person in two natures, containing the glorious perfections of the Divine, and the weaknesses of the human. The “fulness of the Deity dwells bodily in Christ” (Colossian 2:9). Charnock, Stephen. The Existence and Attributes of God. Kindle Edition
THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION
A RATIONAL SOUL IN CHRIST. Moreover, our Lord Jesus Christ did not have a soul bereft of sense and reason, nor flesh without a soul, but a soul with its reason, and flesh with its senses, by which in the time of his passion he sustained real bodily pain, as himself testified when he said: "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death" (Matthew 26:38). And "Now is my soul troubled" (John 12:27).
TWO NATURES IN CHRIST. We therefore acknowledge two natures or substances, the divine and the human, in one and the same Jesus Christ our Lord. And we say that these are bound and united with one another in such a way that they are not absorbed, or confused, or mixed, but are united or joined together in one person the properties of the natures being unimpaired and permanent.
NOT TWO BUT ONE CHRIST. Thus, we worship not two but one Christ the Lord. We repeat: one true God and man. With respect to his divine nature he is consubstantial with the Father, and with respect to the human nature he is consubstantial with us men, and like us in all things, sin excepted (Hebrews 4:15).
THE DIVINE NATURE OF CHRIST IS NOT PASSIBLE, AND THE HUMAN NATURE IS NOT EVERYWHERE. Therefore, we do not in any way teach that the divine nature in Christ has suffered or that Christ according to his human nature is still in this world and thus is everywhere. For neither do we think or teach that the body of Christ ceased to be a true body after his glorification, or was deified, and deified in such a way that it laid aside its properties as regards body and soul, and changed entirely into a divine nature and began to be merely one substance.

 

[locust]

yes he did have a beginning .so long ago its hard for us to comprehend . it was an act of God to help in the act of creation. you may note God only made one . to me that indicates it was very difficult to do. to create someone somewhat like himself, not equal, and yet be able to deal with imperfect materials that would happen ,like the things found in the periodic table. it all took a vary ,vary long time to get it where it is today.

 

[Beetow]

.
It's commonly believed that the purpose of the incarnation's virgin conception was
to isolate Jesus from Adam. However, one's human origin isn't solely determined by
their biological father.

The thing is: Eve was constructed with material taken from Adam's body, viz; she
wasn't constructed directly from the earth's soil like he was. So then, every woman
who owes her human origin to Eve, also owes their human origin to Adam because
she was constructed with material taken from him.

So then, if even the slightest amount of any kind of material in Mary's body was
used to construct Jesus, then he too owes his human origin to Eve and thus to
Adam.

Quite a few folks attempt to circumvent that bit of biological fact by claiming that
Mary wasn't Jesus' natural mother, rather, they claim Mary was his surrogate
mother and Jesus was an implant. However, the angel predicted that Mary would
conceive Jesus in her womb. That right there rules out the possibility that Jesus was
inserted in Mary's body as an implant. No, she was his natural mom alright; no
getting out of it.

FAQ: Jesus was constructed?

REPLY: "When the time had fully come, God sent His son, born of a woman" (Gal
4:4)

Children born of a woman generally begin their presence as a teensy little gamete,
and from thence specialized cells multiply to build a human form, so that by nine
months of gestation they are easily recognizable as human offspring.

"While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth
to her firstborn, a son" (Luke 2:6-7)

The thing is, nobody starts out in their mother's womb as easily recognizable
human offspring. No, it takes nature quite a while to get them to that point; and
even then, infants don't stay infants. Instead they continue growing outside the
womb until one day their childhood is gone, replaced by an adult. I am convinced in
my own mind that the Word's incarnation underwent a normal human development
exactly like the same as every other Jewish person born of a woman in that day.
_

 

[RandyK]

.
It's commonly believed that the purpose of the incarnation's virgin conception was
to isolate Jesus from Adam. However, one's human origin isn't solely determined by
their biological father.

The thing is: Eve was constructed with material taken from Adam's body, viz; she
wasn't constructed directly from the earth's soil like he was. So then, every woman
who owes her human origin to Eve, also owes their human origin to Adam because
she was constructed with material taken from him.

So then, if even the slightest amount of any kind of material in Mary's body was
used to construct Jesus, then he too owes his human origin to Eve and thus to
Adam.

Quite a few folks attempt to circumvent that bit of biological fact by claiming that
Mary wasn't Jesus' natural mother, rather, they claim Mary was his surrogate
mother and Jesus was an implant. However, the angel predicted that Mary would
conceive Jesus in her womb. That right there rules out the possibility that Jesus was
inserted in Mary's body as an implant. No, she was his natural mom alright; no
getting out of it.

FAQ: Jesus was constructed?

REPLY: "When the time had fully come, God sent His son, born of a woman" (Gal
4:4)

Children born of a woman generally begin their presence as a teensy little gamete,
and from thence specialized cells multiply to build a human form, so that by nine
months of gestation they are easily recognizable as human offspring.

"While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth
to her firstborn, a son" (Luke 2:6-7)

The thing is, nobody starts out in their mother's womb as easily recognizable
human offspring. No, it takes nature quite a while to get them to that point; and
even then, infants don't stay infants. Instead they continue growing outside the
womb until one day their childhood is gone, replaced by an adult. I am convinced in
my own mind that the Word's incarnation underwent a normal human development
exactly like the same as every other Jewish person born of a woman in that day.
_

I'm not sure that in this conversation anybody is denying Jesus' humanity, that he was descended from Adam. I know that some in the past have taken the "inserted" sense of Jesus' birth, and I think you explained that quite well.

However, the real issue is not about identifying Adam as a physical source for Jesus. Rather, it is about identifying a *dual source* for His personal existence. Orthodox doctrine calls for us to admit that Jesus' Person as the Son of God preexisted from eternity. That is, he was God prior to his Incarnation, and continued as such when he was incarnated as man.

Jesus therefore had a "dual nature," being both God and Man. That is the orthodox formula, and that is the real issue--not whether he was true Man.

 

[Beetow]

Jesus therefore had a "dual nature," being both God and Man.

I do not accept the dual nature theory primarily because it makes Jesus' status
appear to be no more special than a born-again Christian's status. I am convinced
in my own mind that the Word exists as two distinct persons simultaneously; the
one an eternal person, and the other a temporal person, viz: the one a spirit being
and the other a material being.

According to Luke 1:31-33, the Word's incarnation has two paternal ancestors, the
one divine and the other human, so that the Word's incarnation can speak of
himself as deity and he can speak of himself as mankind. I think quite a few Bible
readers much prefer him one way or the other, rather than both simultaneously. As
someone fully God and fully Man, the Word's incarnation can be a mite confusing
for some folks.
_

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

The whole problem is that we identify the "Son of God" with the Incarnation much more easily than we do with His preexistent state of being from eternity. We only know that the Apostle John wrote, "the Word was with God." If he was preincarnate as the Word and existed side by side with God, then the Trinity had to have existed from eternity.

I've tried to share my thoughts on what the "Son of God" was in his preexistent state, but it can create problems. The best I can say is that if each Person of the Trinity existed from eternity, then identifying them as an eternal Trinity is our only way of expressing this.

I personally think that the Apostle John was merely stating that Deity, as identified in all 3 Persons, must by definition have its origin in eternity. John was just stating that God's Word is distinguishable in its preexistent state in eternity because the revelation of Deity is capable of expressions both inside of and outside of eternity from the vantage point of the recipients of that revelation.

The Word in eternity has no face, from our point of view. But from our point of view, we can imagine it as such, having seen how Divine revelation has appeared in our temporal world. I will now proceed to suck my thumb! ;)

RandyK, don't suck your thumb too much. I'm not sure what your thoughts are about the pre-existent second Person of God, but I agree with you that there is a lot about that is a mystery.

 

[Free]

I do not accept the dual nature theory primarily because it makes Jesus' status
appear to be no more special than a born-again Christian's status. I am convinced
in my own mind that the Word exists as two distinct persons simultaneously; the
one an eternal person, and the other a temporal person, viz: the one a spirit being
and the other a material being.

According to Luke 1:31-33, the Word's incarnation has two paternal ancestors, the
one divine and the other human, so that the Word's incarnation can speak of
himself as deity and he can speak of himself as mankind. I think quite a few Bible
readers much prefer him one way or the other, rather than both simultaneously. As
someone fully God and fully Man, the Word's incarnation can be a mite confusing
for some folks.
_

You say you "do not accept the dual nature theory," in response to "Jesus therefore had a "dual nature," being both God and Man." But then you go on to state he is both "fully God and fully man," which is precisely what you say you do not accept.

The Word cannot exist as two distinct persons simultaneously, since the Word is one person of the Trinity. It is the Trinity that is three divine, distinct persons that eternally coexist. The Word, the Son, is one person that added human nature:

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

Notice that this doesn't describe Jesus's existence as two distinct persons, but one person with two natures, human and divine.

 

[RandyK]

You say you "do not accept the dual nature theory," in response to "Jesus therefore had a "dual nature," being both God and Man." But then you go on to state he is both "fully God and fully man," which is precisely what you say you do not accept.

The Word cannot exist as two distinct persons simultaneously, since the Word is one person of the Trinity. It is the Trinity that is three divine, distinct persons that eternally coexist. The Word, the Son, is one person that added human nature:

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

Notice that this doesn't describe Jesus's existence as two distinct persons, but one person with two natures, human and divine.

I just want to say I appreciate the liberty you afford to discuss this. It's long been a subject of interest to me, and I'm still learning...and adjusting. Thank you for your stand on this doctrine, which I think is solid. But I thank you that you also give time for others who disagree to read and re-read, and possibly adjust to be more orthodox in their position.

I do agree that Jesus in his appearance as a man has to be described as a single Person with two distinct natures, one Divine and one human. I wouldn't know how else to describe it?

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

I do not accept the dual nature theory primarily because it makes Jesus' status
appear to be no more special than a born-again Christian's status. I am convinced
in my own mind that the Word exists as two distinct persons simultaneously; the
one an eternal person, and the other a temporal person, viz: the one a spirit being
and the other a material being.

According to Luke 1:31-33, the Word's incarnation has two paternal ancestors, the
one divine and the other human, so that the Word's incarnation can speak of
himself as deity and he can speak of himself as mankind. I think quite a few Bible
readers much prefer him one way or the other, rather than both simultaneously. As
someone fully God and fully Man, the Word's incarnation can be a mite confusing
for some folks.
_

Let's face it, Beetow, the biblical fact that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human has a lot of mystery to it. But since the Bible teaches it, I accept it, mystery and all.

 

[Beetow]

.
I suspect that those of us who make the cut for Heaven are whisked off to a sort of
Bible concentration camp for indoctrination where all our mistakes are corrected
and all the blanks filled in so that when we're released into general population there
will be no debating like what goes on now down here in the world.
_