more divine mystery

[kwag_myers]

I still fail to see what sacrifice Jesus made. He is no less powerful, no less god, no less perfect than he was before.

It's too bad that Jesus didn't suffer enough for you. He suffered plenty for me and I greatly appreciate it.

 

[PHIL121]

"Aquinas' interpretation of Anselm's thinking was that by taking humankind's punishment, Jesus earned "merit", through which the sacraments can convey grace and enable salvation. Known as the commercial or satisfaction theory, Aquinas' view is the dominant view of the Roman Catholic Church"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement


I wouldn't know if this really is the 'dominant view' of the Roman Catholic Church. Is it?

Who cares??? :roll:

The question is what do YOU believe?? :wink:

 

[McQuacks]

He fully endured all of the pain. He did not use His divine powers to somehow lessen the pain for Himself, He knew that was how it had to be.

How does Jesus experiencing pain help to atone for the sins of all men?

Because He was the offering. It was only right that He endure the pain just like the sheep or any other sacrifice would. If the pain of crucifiction wasn't enough, He had the spiritual pain of holding the sins of the world. Blood has to be shed in order for the forgiveness of sins. It would be like a cop-out for God to not experience the pain.

If God decides to accept the Jesus 'sacrafice' as sufficient to atone for all man's sin, then couldn't he have decided to accept something else instead, like a sheep?

Is there a good reason why it had to be Jesus?

Hebrews has some great verses about why the old testement sacrifices were no longer doing the trick. Here's one:

"This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper." Hebrews 9:9.

"The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!" Hebrews 9:13-15.

"Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." Hebrews 9:25-28.

"For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."
Hebrews 10:1-4.

"...because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
"The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds." (Jeremiah 31:33). Then he adds:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more." (Jeremiah 31:34) And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin."
Hebrews 10:14-18.

So we can see from these verses that:
1. Animal sacrifices only made people clean on the outside, but could not change their hearts, and remove their feelings of guilt. I think this is the biggie.
2. Christ was only offered once - His sacrifice was sufficient to pay for all sins - future, past, and present, unlike animal sacrifices If the animal sacrifices were totally sufficient, they would not have been offered over and over again. But Christ was offered once and for all time - the ultimate sacrifice.
3. Also, when Jesus came, He opened the way for the Holy Spirit, His Spirit, to be brought into our lives. Because we are now 100% cleansed, inside and outside, it is possible for the Holy Spirit to dwell in our lives, and Jesus has sent Him to us. The Holy Spirit was not available to all through the first covenant, but He is now available to teach us. As Jeremiah says,

"The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers...because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.
"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

4. Now we have a Great High Priest:

"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we areâ€â€yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need."

Hebrews 4:14-16.
This is a good, not too long sermon on the old covenant verses the new one, you may find this helpful: http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper96/12-15-96.htm
God bless!
-McQ 8-)

 

[DivineNames]

Because He was the offering. It was only right that He endure the pain just like the sheep or any other sacrifice would. If the pain of crucifiction wasn't enough, He had the spiritual pain of holding the sins of the world. Blood has to be shed in order for the forgiveness of sins. It would be like a cop-out for God to not experience the pain.

Is the pain of an animal really a valuable part of sacrifice? I wasn't aware that it was. Does the Bible support that?

It would be like a cop-out for God to not experience the pain.

Lets remember that the divine nature can't suffer or die.

 

[DivineNames]

"Aquinas' interpretation of Anselm's thinking was that by taking humankind's punishment, Jesus earned "merit", through which the sacraments can convey grace and enable salvation. Known as the commercial or satisfaction theory, Aquinas' view is the dominant view of the Roman Catholic Church"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement


I wouldn't know if this really is the 'dominant view' of the Roman Catholic Church. Is it?

Who cares??? :roll:

The question is what do YOU believe?? :wink:

You may not have much interest in Christiantiy I guess.

 

[DivineNames]

So we can see from these verses that:
1. Animal sacrifices only made people clean on the outside, but could not change their hearts, and remove their feelings of guilt. I think this is the biggie.
2. Christ was only offered once - His sacrifice was sufficient to pay for all sins - future, past, and present, unlike animal sacrifices If the animal sacrifices were totally sufficient, they would not have been offered over and over again. But Christ was offered once and for all time - the ultimate sacrifice.

Sacrifice wasn't sufficient, but that doesn't mean Jesus was required as a sacrifice. If anything, that is a contradiction.

"Over and over again the Torah loudly dismisses the notion that man has lost his divinely endowed capacity to freely choose good over evil, life over death. This is not a hidden or ambiguous message in the Jewish scriptures. On the contrary, it is proclaimed in virtually every teaching that Moses directs to the children of Israel."

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/original.htm

 

[McQuacks]

Is the pain of an animal really a valuable part of sacrifice? I wasn't aware that it was. Does the Bible support that?

All I am saying is, just like the sheep experiened pain while being killed, Jesus would experience pain while shedding His blood. The Bible calls for the shedding of blood in order for forgiveness. Could He have somehow miraculously shed blood without an ounce of pain? I don't doubt that all things are possible for Him. But I also believe that this is the way that He chose to do it.

It would be like a cop-out for God to not experience the pain.

Lets remember that the divine nature can't suffer or die.

Jesus' Person did not die. But because He became a human being, He was subjecting Himself to the same physical pains that we have. Again, like those verses I mentioned a couple posts back, Jesus did experience human emotions. Why would He then not experience pain on the cross, just like a human would? His spirit did experience pain - the pain of being separated because of sin from God. That's why He cried out.

I encourage you to read this link and the one below too: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Q-A-panel/wc.html Answers soem of the objections you have raised. TO quote:

9) Why the cross? God could have done it different ways. Why crucifixion and not stoning? This question is not answered. The why of the death of Jesus and its meaning and effect is clearly answered in the Bible. This shameful and horrible death is appropriate for the shamefulness and horridness of the sin punished. And the earlier prophets have predicted much of the cross in their writings.

(3) What portion (molecule, percentage, etc.) of God died on the cross? If only the human aspect of Jesus "died," what is the big deal?
God is spirit, and not matter. God has created molecules, but he does not consist of molecules. And it does not make sense to talk about percentages of the infinite.

Well, God can not die by definition. But the problem is that you can not "neatly" separate God and man in Jesus. Jesus is (God who became) man, real man, not just a fake appearance of a human being. And this MAN Jesus died. I don't say that is an easy concept. I have not "invented" it. That is what is revealed in God's Word. But I can try to understand it better and better by thinking about that which is revealed.

Another good page: http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseact ... T/RA/k/360

A primary factor in Jesus' death is that it was substitutionary. For each sin we commit, we earn the death penalty. This penalty cannot be paid by dying a natural death of old age, by accident or by disease, for this is the way everyone dies as a matter of course. Hebrews 9:27 says, "It is appointed for men to die once." If "merely" dying any old way were the payment for sin, idolaters, murderers, rapists, thieves, liars, adulterers and other sinners would be completely absolved of their sins upon their deaths. Cleared of all guilt by death, they would legally qualify for entrance into God's Kingdom.
However, we must remember the rest of verse 27: ". . . but after this the judgment." Thus, even after a person's physical death, he is brought under judgment. This means the penalty for sin is something more than "just" death. Verse 22 helps to clarify this: "Without shedding of blood there is no remission." Sin cannot be forgiven until someone pours out his blood to cover the transgression. The penalty for sin is therefore death by execution...
Our sins brought on us the death penalty. In taking the penalty on Himself, Jesus had to die by execution, and crucifixion was Rome's preferred means...
He had to die this way to remind us that sin is not painless. It is not shameless. Sin does not remain hidden in a corner.
The crucifixion showed the horror, the ugly and disgusting shame, the heaviness and the suffering caused by sin. All sin. Every sin. Even "tiny" sins. Even "secret" sins. Your sins. My sins. All of them.

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." Galatians 3:13.

Sacrifice wasn't sufficient, but that doesn't mean Jesus was required as a sacrifice. If anything, that is a contradiction.

I'm not quite sure I'm understanding. Yes, the OT animal sacrifices were not sufficient - something else was needed. However, whatever it was, had to be by the shedding of blood, which is basically, sacrifice. So no, it's not denying that sacrifices were sufficient, but animal sacrifices.

I realize this is probably not going to change either of our's opinions, and we could probably go on for a long time without changing our stances. But I do have to say, this discussion has really helped me to grow, and I think that's what the goal should be.
-McQ 8-)

 

[PHIL121]

"Aquinas' interpretation of Anselm's thinking was that by taking humankind's punishment, Jesus earned "merit", through which the sacraments can convey grace and enable salvation. Known as the commercial or satisfaction theory, Aquinas' view is the dominant view of the Roman Catholic Church"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement


I wouldn't know if this really is the 'dominant view' of the Roman Catholic Church. Is it?

Who cares??? :roll:

The question is what do YOU believe?? :wink:

You may not have much interest in Christiantiy I guess.

No, I simply don't put much faith in Catholic doctrine and dogma.

 

[DivineNames]

Our sins brought on us the death penalty. In taking the penalty on Himself, Jesus had to die by execution, and crucifixion was Rome's preferred means...

If Jesus takes the penalty "on himself", he has to stay dead, or he has to burn in hell for all eternity.

Of if the penalty is only to be dead for three days, why would we need Jesus? Couldn't we sinners just take the penalty of being dead for three days?

 

[DivineNames]

Sacrifice wasn't sufficient, but that doesn't mean Jesus was required as a sacrifice. If anything, that is a contradiction.

I'm not quite sure I'm understanding. Yes, the OT animal sacrifices were not sufficient - something else was needed. However, whatever it was, had to be by the shedding of blood, which is basically, sacrifice. So no, it's not denying that sacrifices were sufficient, but animal sacrifices.

Are there Biblical verses (O.T.) that say that animal sacrifices had to be replaced by some other kind of "shedding of blood" ?

 

[DivineNames]

Is the pain of an animal really a valuable part of sacrifice? I wasn't aware that it was. Does the Bible support that?

All I am saying is, just like the sheep experiened pain while being killed, Jesus would experience pain while shedding His blood. The Bible calls for the shedding of blood in order for forgiveness. Could He have somehow miraculously shed blood without an ounce of pain? I don't doubt that all things are possible for Him. But I also believe that this is the way that He chose to do it.

So you aren't saying that pain is a valuable part of the sacrifice? You are only saying that it is a normal part of sacrifice?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

If Jesus takes the penalty "on himself", he has to stay dead, or he has to burn in hell for all eternity.

Of if the penalty is only to be dead for three days, why would we need Jesus? Couldn't we sinners just take the penalty of being dead for three days?

Christian rationalization works this way DN...

His sacrifice was infinitely more valuable than any single human life because he was God. Alternately, he didn't die as God, he died as a man, because God can't die. They take a premise, that he was both God and man, and pick and choose the necessary characteristics of each to accomplish the desired equation, while ignoring the fact that these states of being preclude one another. (There should be a term for this sort of logical fallacy, but I don't know what it is)

If we simply switch the application of the God and man characteristics we see it doesn't work. If Jesus was God, his death is meaningless because God can't die, and if Jesus was a man, his death is not of infinite value. They see the cup as "half-full" and refuse to consider that it is also "half-empty".

 

[Free]

Let's see if I can clear things up a bit or at least give some food for thought.

Jesus was God in human flesh, the God-man. Jesus' flesh died on the cross, but his spirit/soul did not. But this has nothing to do with Jesus being God since Christianity teaches that man has an immortal soul that survives death. This is completely consistent.

As you can see, there is no contradiction or problem with "Christian rationalization," as if it is different than anyone else's. It is simply that you are taking only bits of Christian teaching in an attempt to refute other bits of teaching. Take everything as a whole and the picture becomes clearer.

They take a premise, that he was both God and man, and pick and choose the necessary characteristics of each to accomplish the desired equation, while ignoring the fact that these states of being preclude one another. (There should be a term for this sort of logical fallacy, but I don't know what it is)

There is no fallacy there, only your unfounded assumption that these "two states of being preclude one another." Perhaps you should prove that statement true before jumping to the conclusion that it is the Christian who is committing the fallacy.

If Jesus was God, his death is meaningless because God can't die, and if Jesus was a man, his death is not of infinite value. They see the cup as "half-full" and refuse to consider that it is also "half-empty".

But you have missed the obvious - Jesus is both God and man. According to your reasoning, it is the only way it could be done. Therefore, his death has both meaning and value. What you have hit on is that if one attempts to split the mystery of the Incarnation, heresy is just around the corner.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Let's see if I can clear things up a bit or at least give some food for thought

Jesus was God in human flesh, the God-man

God and man - 2 mutually exclusive entities (your "food for thought" is already causing indigestion)

Jesus' flesh died on the cross, but his spirit/soul did not. But this has nothing to do with Jesus being God since Christianity teaches that man has an immortal soul that survives death. This is completely consistent

Do you believe that Jesus died, or just his flesh?

As you can see, there is no contradiction or problem with "Christian rationalization," as if it is different than anyone else's

Correct. It is no different than the manner in which anyone attempts to defend any belief system which is founded on contradictory premises.

It is simply that you are taking only bits of Christian teaching in an attempt to refute other bits of teaching. Take everything as a whole and the picture becomes clearer

But you take the whole of Christian teaching, assume it is infallible to begin with, and refuse to consider that some individual "bits" do contradict one another.

They take a premise, that he was both God and man, and pick and choose the necessary characteristics of each to accomplish the desired equation, while ignoring the fact that these states of being preclude one another. (There should be a term for this sort of logical fallacy, but I don't know what it is)

There is no fallacy there, only your unfounded assumption that these "two states of being preclude one another." Perhaps you should prove that statement true before jumping to the conclusion that it is the Christian who is committing the fallacy

Whatever makes God, God, would prevent Him from being a human being, and vice-versa. The definitions of what an infinite God is, and a finite man is, prohibit one from being the other. This type of clear thinking you must avoid, because your "Godman" premise requires the kind of blind faith that fears examination.

If Jesus was God, his death is meaningless because God can't die, and if Jesus was a man, his death is not of infinite value. They see the cup as "half-full" and refuse to consider that it is also "half-empty".

But you have missed the obvious - Jesus is both God and man

What is obvious is that you need to entertain an impossible premise to justify the details of your dogma. Any God that can also be man is not God (at least not the one and only infinite God of Hebrew thought) and any man that can also be God cannot truly be also man. What this would necessitate is a hybrid being who was both finite and infinite. Can you understand why to imagine someone or something being both infinite and finite is absurd?

According to your reasoning, it is the only way it could be done

I don't believe Jesus has to be God for his sacrifice to represent mankind the same way Adam's incorrect choice represented mankind. The concept that Jesus had to be God for his sacrifice to have "infinite value" is a product of (incorrect) Christian reasoning, born of an apologetic need to prove Jesus is God in the first place.

Therefore, his death has both meaning and value. What you have hit on is that if one attempts to split the mystery of the Incarnation, heresy is just around the corner.

Of course, once one begins to apply reason to most any portion of Christian doctrine, threats of "heresy" are ready to form on the lips of the "faithful". Taken to it's logical extreme, this sort of censorship is what prompted Luther to say that reason, among Christians, should be extinguished, and what led the early organized church to actually prohibit the reading of the scripture among the common man, for fear that some doctrines would be questioned.

"Orthodoxy is a coffin - heresy, a cradle" (Ingersoll)

 

[Free]

God and man - 2 mutually exclusive entities (your "food for thought" is already causing indigestion)
.....
Whatever makes God, God, would prevent Him from being a human being, and vice-versa. The definitions of what an infinite God is, and a finite man is, prohibit one from being the other. This type of clear thinking you must avoid, because your "Godman" premise requires the kind of blind faith that fears examination.

That God is infinite and man finite in no way whatsoever proves their mutual exclusivity, that Jesus as God in the flesh is a contradictory belief. Certainly man cannot be infinite in the same sense as God, but that does not mean that God cannot take on human flesh.

Correct. It is no different than the manner in which anyone attempts to defend any belief system which is founded on contradictory premises.

You talk too much. You have yet to prove any contradiction.

But you take the whole of Christian teaching, assume it is infallible to begin with, and refuse to consider that some individual "bits" do contradict one another.

I have not assumed that it is infallible to begin with. You, on the other hand, are not taking Scripture as a whole which is absolutely necessary for proper biblical exegesis. Again, you have yet to prove any contradiction.

"Orthodoxy is a coffin - heresy, a cradle" (Ingersoll)

Heresy is the mother of orthodoxy.

Until you can actually prove a contradiction, there is no debate.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

That God is infinite and man finite in no way whatsoever proves their mutual exclusivity, that Jesus as God in the flesh is a contradictory belief

Certainly it does. What is it that makes God infinite and man finite?

Certainly man cannot be infinite in the same sense as God, but that does not mean that God cannot take on human flesh

So then Jesus is not God in the "same sense" that God is God?

You talk too much. You have yet to prove any contradiction

a) God is infinite, man is finite.
b) definitions of finite and infinite (Dictionary.com)...

Finite: "Having bounds, limited"
Infinite: "Having NO boundaries or limits"

Therefore...

c) "Jesus is both God and man" is a CONTRADICTORY PROPOSITION.

But you take the whole of Christian teaching, assume it is infallible to begin with, and refuse to consider that some individual "bits" do contradict one another.

I have not assumed that it is infallible to begin with. You, on the other hand, are not taking Scripture as a whole which is absolutely necessary for proper biblical exegesis

By "proper bible exegesis" you mean your interpretation (and those who agree with you) as opposed to dozens of other Christians on this forum alone who will disagree with your "exegesis" on any number of different bible doctrines?

Again, you have yet to prove any contradiction

I did - with the definitions of finite and infinite. (Unless you reserve the right to redefine terms to suit your needs and avoid contradictions)

Heresy is the mother of orthodoxy

So then heresy is a good thing?

Until you can actually prove a contradiction, there is no debate.

Since I have proven a contradiction, there is no debate.

 

[DivineNames]

They take a premise, that he was both God and man, and pick and choose the necessary characteristics of each to accomplish the desired equation

Illuminating point.

His sacrifice was infinitely more valuable than any single human life because he was God.

I expected a response something along those lines-

Jesus (being divine) could be dead for only three days and have taken our punishment upon himself, but our punishment was for eternity and we couldn't just be dead for a few days. (or whatever...)

I would claim that the very nature of eternal punishment, (if that is what we deserve for our sins), is not something that can be undergone in 3 days, such that anyone could genuinely say, "I have taken that punishment".

 

[BradtheImpaler]

His sacrifice was infinitely more valuable than any single human life because he was God.

I expected a response something along those lines-

Jesus (being divine) could be dead for only three days and have taken our punishment upon himself, but our punishment was for eternity and we couldn't just be dead for a few days. (or whatever...)

I would claim that the very nature of eternal punishment, (if that is what we deserve for our sins), is not something that can be undergone in 3 days, such that anyone could genuinely say, "I have taken that punishment".

Yes, but it is in response to your last statement that Christian apologetics claim that his experience was of infinite, or much greater value, than any of us going through the same thing because he was God. The problem with this is that they also claim he didn't really die. They have the same dilemma as one who tries to lift himself into the air by pulling up on his shoelaces - for every upward force (argument for their affirmative) there is an equal downward force (argument against their affirmative) In general, if Jesus is said to be God and man, he is also not God (if he is man) and not man (if he is God) - but they only consider the affirmative half of the necessary equation.

 

[Free]

Certainly it does. What is it that makes God infinite and man finite?

God created man. God has always existed, man has not.

Certainly man cannot be infinite in the same sense as God, but that does not mean that God cannot take on human flesh

So then Jesus is not God in the "same sense" that God is God?

Jesus is God in the same sense that the Father is God. Mere men like ourselves cannot become gods.

a) God is infinite, man is finite.
b) definitions of finite and infinite (Dictionary.com)...

Finite: "Having bounds, limited"
Infinite: "Having NO boundaries or limits"

Therefore...

c) "Jesus is both God and man" is a CONTRADICTORY PROPOSITION.

One simple definition, from dictionary.com. Here's Webster's.com:

Finite: 1 a : having definite or definable limits <finite number of possibilities> b : having a limited nature or existence <finite beings>

Infinite: 1 : extending indefinitely : ENDLESS <infinite space>
2 : immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : INEXHAUSTIBLE <infinite patience>
3 : subject to no limitation or external determination

Have you ever taken higher level calculus? There are problems where something three-dimensional is of infinite surface area, extending infinitely in one direction, but if you were to paint it, it would take a finite amount of paint.

Perhaps "eternal" would be a better word to describe God:

1 a : having infinite duration : EVERLASTING b : of or relating to eternity c : characterized by abiding fellowship with God <good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? -- Mark 10:17 (Revised Standard Version)>
2 a : continued without intermission : PERPETUAL b : seemingly endless
3 archaic : INFERNAL <some eternal villain ... devised this slander -- Shakespeare>
4 : valid or existing at all times : TIMELESS <eternal verities>

Either way, you still haven't shown any contradiction. Is God, who created all, powerless to enter that creation in the form of man? Can God, who is timeless, not enter into time?

Phi 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Phi 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Phi 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Phi 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

By "proper bible exegesis" you mean your interpretation (and those who agree with you) as opposed to dozens of other Christians on this forum alone who will disagree with your "exegesis" on any number of different bible doctrines?

No, I don't mean my interpretation. Taking Scripture in context is essential to proper, scholarly biblical interpretation. It is a foundational rule of biblical interpretation.

So then heresy is a good thing?

Of course it isn't, that is why orthodoxy had to be defined. You can't have one without the other. You can't have Christianity without heresy.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

What is it that makes God infinite and man finite?

God created man. God has always existed, man has not

No, that's eternal. I mean the difference between finite and infinite.

Jesus is God in the same sense that the Father is God. Mere men like ourselves cannot become gods

No, he's not God in the same sense as the Father. The Father is not a "Godman". There is nothing about the Father that is "NOT God" - there is something about Jesus that is.

One simple definition, from dictionary.com. Here's Webster's.com:

Finite: 1 a : having definite or definable limits <finite number of possibilities> b : having a limited nature or existence <finite beings>

Infinite: 1 : extending indefinitely : ENDLESS <infinite space>
2 : immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : INEXHAUSTIBLE <infinite patience>
3 : subject to no limitation or external determination

Why do you insist on Webster's? It makes the same point. "Having limits" vs. "NO limitation".

Have you ever taken higher level calculus? There are problems where something three-dimensional is of infinite surface area, extending infinitely in one direction, but if you were to paint it, it would take a finite amount of paint

You could paint Jesus with a gallon or two - you can't paint God.

Perhaps "eternal" would be a better word to describe God:

1 a : having infinite duration : EVERLASTING b : of or relating to eternity c : characterized by abiding fellowship with God <good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? -- Mark 10:17 (Revised Standard Version)>
2 a : continued without intermission : PERPETUAL b : seemingly endless
3 archaic : INFERNAL <some eternal villain ... devised this slander -- Shakespeare>
4 : valid or existing at all times : TIMELESS <eternal verities>

Are you saying, then, God is not infinite, only eternal?

Either way, you still haven't shown any contradiction. Is God, who created all, powerless to enter that creation in the form of man? Can God, who is timeless, not enter into time?

The question is was he really a man, or just in the form of a man? A genuine man is obviously not infinite. An eternal, infinite Deity is obviously not finite. You believe Jesus qualifies as both - I maintain that he would be neither. If he's God he's not man, and if he's man he's not God. The intrinsic characteristics of each existence prohibit the other. Figure it out. The whole proposition is absurd and meaningless.

Phi 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Phi 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Phi 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Phi 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

This definately indicates he was not God, but in the form of God. What is the "form" of God? Who else did "count equality with God a thing to be grasped"?

By "proper bible exegesis" you mean your interpretation (and those who agree with you) as opposed to dozens of other Christians on this forum alone who will disagree with your "exegesis" on any number of different bible doctrines?

No, I don't mean my interpretation. Taking Scripture in context is essential to proper, scholarly biblical interpretation. It is a foundational rule of biblical interpretation

So then heresy is a good thing?

Of course it isn't, that is why orthodoxy had to be defined

Are you Catholic or Orthodox? Do you agree with the definers of orthodoxy or just with some of what they came up with?

You can't have one without the other. You can't have Christianity without heresy.

It's nice to be needed :D but as far as what's heresy or not, you would need to determine what the earliest Christians believed. The earliest Christians were Jews. Jews were/are prohibited from believing that God could be a man, or could "come as a man", or however you want to put it. What you accept as "Christianity" is an evolved set of doctrines, made possible, and perhaps inevitable, by the influx of gentiles into the church, and their disdain for Jewish customs, theology, and Jews themselves.