Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Scriptural proof that Jesus was NOT "fully God"

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00

John Zain

Member
Scripture says that ...
Jesus was NOT going around being "fully God" and able to do everything himself.

Even though Jesus, the man, had God * within him,
He still was a man and needed a lot of help from the Father and the Holy Spirit.
* It's my understanding that he had the Second Person of the Triune God within Him.

Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed (by demons)

Luke 5:17
Now it happened on a certain day, as He (Jesus) was teaching,
that there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by,
who had come out of every town of Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem.
And the power of the Lord was present to heal them.

Hebrews 10:38
... how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power,
who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil,
for God was with Him.

It is also my understanding that Jesus was NOT "fully man"
because since he was "without sin", he did not have man's sin nature.
 
Scripture says that ...
Jesus was NOT going around being "fully God" and able to do everything himself.

Even though Jesus, the man, had God * within him,
He still was a man and needed a lot of help from the Father and the Holy Spirit.
* It's my understanding that he had the Second Person of the Triune God within Him.

Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed (by demons)

Luke 5:17
Now it happened on a certain day, as He (Jesus) was teaching,
that there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by,
who had come out of every town of Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem.
And the power of the Lord was present to heal them.

Hebrews 10:38
... how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power,
who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil,
for God was with Him.

It is also my understanding that Jesus was NOT "fully man"
because since he was "without sin", he did not have man's sin nature.
Proof-texting gets no one anywhere in biblical understanding. He was truly God and truly man.
 
You misunderstand (and I am being charitable)

Jesus set aside the expression of his deity, and walked as a man, and as a man should, submitted Himself to the Father. This does not mean He is Not God

Compare and Contrast

Phillipians 2:
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
 
John Zain;550134[B said:
It is also my understanding that Jesus was NOT "fully man"
because since he was "without sin", he did not have man's sin nature.

By that line of reasoning neither Adam nor Eve were "fully man". Jesus is the son of Man. He is also (as witnessed by God) the only begotten of the Father. Jesus is The Christ, the annointed one sent by God who was born of woman and died. That's man enough for me.

Trying to say that Jesus wasn't "fully man" because he didn't do the things of the devil is just wrong. He that committeth sin is of the devil (1Jn 3:8).
 
Asyncritus

I really wanted John Zain to answer my question. That is, unless you agree with him. If that is the case, how do you define "Son of God"? And how do you define "son of man"?

FC
 
He was exactly what He said He was: the Son of God.
This answer doesn't answer the question to which it was posed. Do you think Jesus was fully and/or fully God?


Sparrowhawke said:
By that line of reasoning neither Adam nor Eve were "fully man".
Good point.
 
Asyncritus

I really wanted John Zain to answer my question. That is, unless you agree with him. If that is the case, how do you define "Son of God"? And how do you define "son of man"?

FC

Sorry FC.

I agree with him in part, but not fully, where he said that Jesus didn't have human nature - which is entirely contradictory to Hebrews 2:

14 ¶ For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For truly he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Why in all things it behooved him to be made like to his brothers, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.

Free,

You have yet to address these verses.
 
Free,

You have yet to address these verses.
I have. Such verses have been discussed ad nauseam and proven to be misused and misinterpreted, which is exactly what happens with proof-texting. The context of the entirety of Scripture gets ignored. Not to mention the error in reasoning behind the use of those verses to make such an argument have been addressed.

Your non-acceptance of other peoples' arguments against your position does not mean that such verses have not been addressed.
 
Scripture says that ...
Jesus was NOT going around being "fully God" and able to do everything himself.
Well, yes, but only in a sense that peripheral to what people intend to convey when they say that Jesus was "fully God".

As "God in the flesh", Jesus did indeed have "limitations" - I suspect that He did not, for example, know about the theory of general relativity (as God the Father arguably would). So when we assert that Jesus was fully God, we are not suggesting that He "escaped" some of the limitations that necessarily accompany embodiment.

......
It is also my understanding that Jesus was NOT "fully man"
because since he was "without sin", he did not have man's sin nature
I challenge your assertion that He did not have man's "sin nature". While this is not an area I have thought about, my gut response is to suggest that Jesus did indeed "have a sin nature" in the sense that He "inhabited" a body and a brain that was subject to all the temptations that we are.

In fact, this text from Romans 8 strongly suggest that Jesus did indeed have "sinful flesh", even though He was without sin:

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

I suspect you might say "in the likeness of sinful flesh" simply means that Jesus only appeared to have a sin nature. Well, that is a little hard to sustain in light of what Paul writes next - on the cross, God condemned sin "in the flesh".

This appears to be a rather clear claim that there is a sense in which sin was in Jesus' very flesh.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This appears to be a rather clear claim that there is a sense in which sin was in Jesus' very flesh.

Not according to the scripures.. He did no sin, He knew no sin, and there was no sin IN Him.

I think about it in this way.. how could Jesus be tempted (even with the kingdoms of the world being offered Him by Satan) when He created it all ? All things were made by Him and for Him.. so how could He be tempted with it.. as if it was something He would WANT.. ?

As far as the OP is concerned.. imo Jesus could only have been God manifest in the flesh to go to that place willingly, and knowingly, understanding all that it entailed.. even being made to be sin for us on that cursed tree.
 
He was exactly what He said He was: the Son of God.
Again you, like others, make the wrong kind of arguments.

You are letting the "tail wag the dog" - leveraging the descriptive limitations of human language to make a case that cannot stand up in light of more deeply Biblical arguments.

This is how this debate always goes - those who deny Jesus' full divinity repeatedly and shamelessly ignore the wide range of arguments that show that Jesus said things and acted in ways that made it clear that He believed Himself to be the very embodiment of Israel's God.

Granted, our language lets us down - we do not have linguistic concepts to capture the notion of someone who is "both human and God". But, and this is the really key point here - we should not let such linguistic limitations hold us hostage.

Yes, it seems a little incoherent to say that Jesus is both "God" and "Son of God".

But that only shows the weakness of our concepts. You, and many others, repeatedly ignore a whole raft of arguments that Biblically place Jesus in the position of doing for Israel (and the world) a role that was reserved for God alone.

That makes Him the embodiment of Israel's God and we need to honour that and not be tripped up by the lack of expressiveness of our palette of concepts.
 
Not according to the scripures.. He did no sin, He knew no sin, and there was no sin IN Him.
I am afraid that I will go with Paul on this one.

Paul wrote what He wrote - on the cross, God condemned what? Answer: Romans 8:3 tells us it was sin. "Where" was that sin located? Answer: Romans 8:3 tells us it was in Jesus' flesh.

There is a clear text in the New Testament that shows that Jesus was indeed tempted:

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.
 
I am afraid that I will go with Paul on this one.

Paul wrote what He wrote - on the cross, God condemned what? Answer: Romans 8:3 tells us it was sin. "Where" was that sin located? Answer: Romans 8:3 tells us it was in Jesus' flesh.

Of course.. because He hath made Him to be sin for us.. and He bore OUR SINS (not His) in His own body on the tree. And of course it is a scriptural fact that He did no sin, knew no sin, and that there was NO SIN IN Him.

There is a clear text in the New Testament that shows that Jesus was indeed tempted:

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

That's right, but the fact that Satan tempted Him does not mean that He COULD be tempted.. and it teaches us that He could NOT be tempted.. How do you temp somebody like God manifest in the flesh when He created all things.. was He in need of something.. did He WANT anything..?
 
You misunderstand (and I am being charitable)
Jesus set aside the expression of his deity, and walked as a man, and as a man should, submitted Himself to the Father. This does not mean He is Not God
Compare and Contras
Phillipians 2:
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Tough verse.
Jesus was in the form of God?
Why didn't Paul say it was Father God, etc. who exalted Jesus?
 
By that line of reasoning neither Adam nor Eve were "fully man". Jesus is the son of Man. He is also (as witnessed by God) the only begotten of the Father. Jesus is The Christ, the annointed one sent by God who was born of woman and died. That's man enough for me.
Trying to say that Jesus wasn't "fully man" because he didn't do the things of the devil is just wrong. He that committeth sin is of the devil (1Jn 3:8).
I believe the "fully man" refers to after Adam fell and was given his new nature (a sin nature).
I believe this sin nature was passed down either through the male sperm or through the blood.
Anyone like to see the 10 or so verses which teach "original sin"?
 
Sorry FC.

I agree with him in part, but not fully, where he said that Jesus didn't have human nature - which is entirely contradictory to Hebrews 2:

14 ¶ For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For truly he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Why in all things it behooved him to be made like to his brothers, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.
More tough verses.
But, I don't see "flesh and blood" as necessarily referring to our sin nature.
And, I don't see "made like to his brothers" as necessarily referring to our sin nature.
But, then we have "in all things ... made like to his brothers".
 
I have. Such verses have been discussed ad nauseam and proven to be misused and misinterpreted, which is exactly what happens with proof-texting. The context of the entirety of Scripture gets ignored. Not to mention the error in reasoning behind the use of those verses to make such an argument have been addressed.
Your non-acceptance of other peoples' arguments against your position does not mean that such verses have not been addressed.
Okay, so are we faced with verses on BOTH sides of the argument,
kind of like Armenianism vs. Calvinism?
You haven't commented on my 3 verses ... are they valid, or bogus?
 
Back
Top