Scriptural proof that Jesus was NOT "fully God"

[John Zain]

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.
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.

This "not fully man" because He had no sin nature is strictly my own invention.
I've never heard of it anywhere. It's just a little pet theory of mine.

 

[John Zain]

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"?

Okay, I don't believe that we've covered the following ...

"Son of God" must only be a name or title, because ...
everyone knows that (Father) God never produced any off-spring,
Jesus was never created, and etc.

P.S. This is another pet theory of mine (haven't heard it anywhere).

 

[Sparkey]

Tempted:
So here we are, born again and partakers of the very nature of Christ and we are tempted by let's say ... hmmmm... money. Let's imagine that somebody offers to split 1/2 of the profits from a crime and to make the temptation large enough the split could be over a million dollars. The only thing we'd have to do is be quiet about it. Hopefully we'd consider God in all our ways and say, "Well, I simply could not do that."

Does our saying, "I could not," mean that it would be physically impossible for us to sin? Of course not. There is nothing that would prevent except our new nature and desire to please the Lord and follow his example.

But Was it Possible?
It was not physically impossible for Jesus to sin when tempted. There was no inheirent boundary established in his flesh prohibiting him as he was indeed made in the likeness of sinful flesh. Jesus came to succeed where Adam failed. Jesus is called the "last Adam" (1Corinthians 15:45) and the "second man" (1Corinthians 15:47). Jesus testified that He came "to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). What was lost in Adam is won in Jesus, the Christ.

That's Your Opinion:
If He had had a sin nature, John could not have said of Him, "in him is no sin" (1John 3:5) and Paul could not have spoken of Him as the one "who knew no sin" (2Corinthians 5:21). The Bible teaches that Jesus was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15) and that because of what He suffered in temptation, "he is able to succour them that are tempted" (Hebrews 2:18). This points to a very real temptation. How could the temptation be real if He could not have submitted to it?

The solution lies in seeing two aspects of the temptation. Physically, Jesus could have sinned. There was nothing physically preventing Him from submitting to the temptations of the devil. He had the same opportunity that Adam and Eve had in the Garden of Eden. From this aspect, the temptation was real and His victory over temptation was real. He truly suffered in temptation. However, there is another aspect. Because He was rightly submitted to God from the heart and in truth, Jesus could not have sinned. In this manner his very nature would not allow Him to sin. That's what he taught us when he said, "A man cannot serve two masters." When we submit ourselves to God we become His. "If you love me, obey me."

Pray to Win the Lottery -or- wait for the Promise:
Should we, as followers of Christ strive to get our blessings now or would we do better to follow His example who waited. Yeah, Jesus could have kept the million dollars (he was offered the world) and just shut up about it and so could we. Hopefully we have our treasure hidden in a place were no thief can break in because where our treasure is, there also is our heart.

Psalms 119:11 says, "I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you." When Jesus was tempted by the devil, he did use scripture to overcome the temptations and defeat the devil (Luke 4). 2Peter 2:9 says, ". . . the Lords knows how to rescue the godly from trials. . ." and Isaiah 28:26 says, "His God instructs him and teaches him the right way."

Jesus showed us by his example. Hebrew 4:15 says, "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 are - yet was without sin." God will not impute sin, any sin, to those for whom Christ was made to be sin (Rom. 4:8). In Christ, before God, in the sight of God, the believer has no sin. In Him, there is no sin!

 

[Free]

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?

No, I do not think they are valid for the argument you are making. Scripture says much about the nature of God and Christ. We cannot just take a few verses and then conclude that Scripture says such-and-such about a given topic. The entirety of Scripture must be taken into account. And in this case, it certainly has much more to say than the three verses you posted.

The main problem with your argument is how can someone be "not fully God"? Only God is God, so if someone is said to be God, they must necessarily be fully God. Put another way, how can someone be only partially God? How can one be partially infinite or partially omnipotent?

That does not negate the idea in Phil 2 where Jesus, as God, emptied himself, or limited himself in some way in regards to his divinity. This is a different idea altogether.

 

[Drew]

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.

Here, again, is the text at issue:

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

Paul means what he says. Paul clearly situates "sin" in Jesus' flesh. Do you deny this? What alternative interpretation do you offer in relation to the claim that sin in the flesh was condemned on the cross. Obviously, the person whose "flesh" is at issue here is Jesus.

So we have Paul clearly expressing the view that "sin" was "in Jesus' flesh". I have never stated that this sin was Jesus's sin - I have never expressed the view that Jesus committed any sins. So perhaps we are not really disagreeing here.

In any event, I believe that in this text, Paul is not talking about a "forensice" transaction where Jesus "pays our debt" - I believe he is saying something more concrete - that "sin" is a power or force that was condemned on the cross. I therefore reject the common "legal" interpretation of the atonement - the view that God demands that "somebody pay" for sin to satisfy some sense of "justice".

I think the atonement is better understood within a "defeat of evil powers and the wiping away of contamination" model. But that's a whole huge debate in itself.

 

[Eventide]

Here, again, is the text at issue:

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

Paul means what he says. Paul clearly situates "sin" in Jesus' flesh. Do you deny this? What alternative interpretation do you offer in relation to the claim that sin in the flesh was condemned on the cross. Obviously, the person whose "flesh" is at issue here is Jesus.

It's simple.. The scriptures teach us that He did no sin, that He knew no sin, and that there was NO SIN IN Him.. do you deny that ?

The sin which was condemned in His flesh was the sin that was laid upon HIM.. because the scriptures teach us that He has made Him to be sin for US.. and of course the very well known verses in Isaiah 53 speak of the LORD laying upon HIM the iniquity of us all.. Peter makes it crstal clear in that He bore OUR SINS in His own body on the tree.

You can deny all you want but it's right there in the scriptures.. that He did not have sin and that He bore our sins..

So we have Paul clearly expressing the view that "sin" was "in Jesus' flesh". I have never stated that this sin was Jesus's sin - I have never expressed the view that Jesus committed any sins. So perhaps we are not really disagreeing here.

That I would agree with.. that it was not HIS SIN but rather OUR SINS that HE BORE in His own body.. I will not pretend to understand how that all took place although I accept it in faith.

In any event, I believe that in this text, Paul is not talking about a "forensice" transaction where Jesus "pays our debt" - I believe he is saying something more concrete - that "sin" is a power or force that was condemned on the cross. I therefore reject the common "legal" interpretation of the atonement - the view that God demands that "somebody pay" for sin to satisfy some sense of "justice".

So what you're essentially saying here is that you do not believe the simple truth of the scriptures which states that He bore OUR SINS (and that He died for our sins) in His own body on the tree.. perhaps you'd like to explain what all these verses mean to you which I have referenced..

I think the atonement is better understood within a "defeat of evil powers and the wiping away of contamination" model. But that's a whole huge debate in itself.

So you don't believe that Christ bore YOUR SIN (and the sin of the world) in His own body as the scripture so aptly states ?

 

[Former Christian]

John Zain

The question of the nature of Jesus has produced many opinions. The nature of Jesus Christ is hard to understand because there is no clear teaching on the subject in the Bible. There are only glimpses here and there. And there is what Jesus has said about himself. Interpretations are rampant, especially in Protestantism where the practice of interpretation has more free reign.

Son of God refers to a Divine element, even when it is men who are called sons of God. God breathed and man became. Does not say that about the rest of organic creation. Son of man is a direct reference to identification with humanity. The Father of Jesus is God through the Holy Spirit. Wrap your head around that if you can. It has always been a mystery to me because my experience has been only human fathers can be the father of a human. The mother of Jesus is definitely a human. The Catholic Church presents the idea that Mary had to have been sinlessly (Immaculately) conceived in order for Jesus to have been without sin. But that idea has an infinite regression contained within it. The parents of Mary would also have to be sinlessly conceived in order for Mary to have been sinlessly conceived, ad infinitum. But the Bible portrays Jesus as both created and uncreated, as both human and Divine. Even when he walked on the earth.

The humanity of Jesus can be plainly seen in Scripture. It is so plain that even the Jehovah’s Witnesses can see it. But his Divinity is not so plainly seen. The verses that seem to show the Divinity of Jesus can be interpreted to mean something else. And the practice of Biblical interpretation is acceptable in Christianity. I eventually saw that Jesus is Divine for certain through reading the New World Translation. They have an emphasis on the descriptive name of God, that is, Jehovah, which means self existent. In their translation of the New Testament, they change the word Lord to Jehovah when the Old Testament is being quoted. Read the discourse of Peter in Acts 2 in the New World Translation sometime. You will be surprised how Peter clearly equates Jesus with Jehovah. It is so clear due to the way the chapter is translated that even the Jehovah’s Witnesses should be able to see it. But a prejudice is hard to overcome. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are not only non-Trinitarian, they are anti-Trinitarian.

FC

 

[Bonairos]

I eventually saw that Jesus is Divine for certain through reading the New World Translation . . .

Read the discourse of Peter in Acts 2 in the New World Translation sometime.

Is the Jehovah Witness' "New World Translation" the bible you refer to when you say you only believe the bible?

More importantly, are you promoting the validity of the New World Translation?


Again, for clarity. Yes for me and this on-line community.



Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[John Zain]

The main problem with your argument is how can someone be "not fully God"?
Only God is God, so if someone is said to be God, they must necessarily be fully God.
Put another way, how can someone be only partially God?
How can one be partially infinite or partially omnipotent?

This "fully God" terminology in not mine.

So, because of "... the Word was God ... and the Word became flesh" (John 1:1,14),
we say that since "Jesus is said to be God", He must be "fully God". Okay.

So, all of this "GOD-man" terminolgy is ridiculously impossible.
This would be the "partially God" idea.

But, if the Second Person of the Triune God enters a human body and stays there for 33 years,
surely the folks back then could say "God (is) with us".
Wasn't God with them without Jesus being "fully God"?

 

[John Zain]

Here, again, is the text at issue:
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
Paul means what he says. Paul clearly situates "sin" in Jesus' flesh. Do you deny this?
What alternative interpretation do you offer in relation to the claim that sin in the flesh
was condemned on the cross. Obviously, the person whose "flesh" is at issue here is Jesus.

The NKJV Study Bible says, "in the likeness of sinful flesh" means that Jesus
"took on our human nature, a nature that was susceptible to temptation".
Perhaps this is analagous to our sin nature.

But, could a person without our sin nature actually choose to sin?
This is the great hypothetical question.

 

[John Zain]

Problem solved … thank you, Jesus!

If Jesus was "fully God", WHY does He say in this most famous Scripture:
"The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me because He has anointed Me ..." (Luke 4:18)
WHY does the Holy Spirit have to be "upon" Him?
Does Father God need to have the Holy Spirit "upon" Him too to perform a miracle?

Aaaaah, it just came to me recently ... here it is ...

The function of the Holy Spirit is to be the Work-Horse.
God the Father never performs any miracles.
God the Son never performs any miracles.
God the Holy Spirit is the only One who performs miracles.
The Father and the Son have different functions.

 

[Brother Lawrence]

Is the Jehovah Witness' "New World Translation" the bible you refer to when you say you only believe the bible?

More importantly, are you promoting the validity of the New World Translation?


Again, for clarity. Yes for me and this on-line community.



Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

I would like an answer to this myself...

 

[Former Christian]

Bonairos (Brother Lawrence)

You asked, “are you promoting the validity of the New World Translation?â€

This will probably get me kicked off the forum. But I believe that the New World Translation is no better or worse than any other English translation. All English translations have areas within that are interpretive. And the New World Translation is no exception. It’s a little harder to read than most if one isn’t used to the language it uses. I am not promoting this translation over any other translation. I only used it as a resource to help one see what I was able to see concerning the Deity of Christ. I am not a Jehovah’s Witness, in case that’s what you’re thinking. It’s just another denomination of Christianity, though many in Christianity would dispute that, saying that it isn’t a part of Christianity at all. Where the New World Translation translates accurately without using interpretation, it’s an excellent literal translation. Like all English translations, I would recommend that it be used with discretion, understanding its source, the areas in which it uses interpretive translation, and the language that it uses. I would think that this forum would be more against the Catholic New American Bible that, in my opinion, is a pretty good translation, but also includes notes on Catholic doctrine. The interpretive bias is clearly seen in these notes.

FC

 

[Drew]

It's simple.. The scriptures teach us that He did no sin, that He knew no sin, and that there was NO SIN IN Him.. do you deny that ?

The sin which was condemned in His flesh was the sin that was laid upon HIM.. because the scriptures teach us that He has made Him to be sin for US.. and of course the very well known verses in Isaiah 53 speak of the LORD laying upon HIM the iniquity of us all.. Peter makes it crstal clear in that He bore OUR SINS in His own body on the tree.

You can deny all you want but it's right there in the scriptures.. that He did not have sin and that He bore our sins..

I am not denying anything from the scriptures.

It is not me who is saying that "sin" was "in Jesus' flesh, it is Paul:

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

Whether this fits with our theological schemes or not, we must do business with the clear assertion by Paul that "sin" was, yes, in Jesus' flesh.

Am I therefore saying that Jesus sinned? Of course not! Jesus was the "vessel" or the "container" into which my sin and your sin was "poured".

I think we are in agreement, but, for some reason, you seem to think that in agreeing with Paul that "sin was present in Jesus' flesh" at the cross, I am therefore saying that Jesus was a sinner.

I am saying no such thing.

 

[Drew]

So what you're essentially saying here is that you do not believe the simple truth of the scriptures which states that He bore OUR SINS (and that He died for our sins) in His own body on the tree.. perhaps you'd like to explain what all these verses mean to you which I have referenced..

You think I am denying that He bore our sins, but I am not saying this at all. I am saying that the nature of the atonement was not one of "forensic substitution". Let me try to explain.

One can imagine that God has this "rule" whereby "somebody has to be punished" in order for sin to dealt with, and that Jesus was punished on the cross. This is, I suggest, a very common view, even though I think it is not Biblically correct. It is a way of seeing the cross in terms of categories of punishment and some universal "rule" of justice that requires that some person has to be specifically punished in order to deal with sin.

I think a better model is that of a "cleansing" operation. We humans are "contaminated" by our sins and that contamination needs to be "cleaned" if we are to be "saved". Jesus then serves as the "place" where all our contaminations gets "dumped".

Do you see the difference?

 

[John Zain]

1 revelation, 1 explanation, and 1 question …

Jesus was “fully Godâ€
â€â€¦ the Word (Jesus) was God. … And the Word became flesh …†(John 1:1,14).
â€God was manifested in the flesh …†(1 Timothy 3:16).
But, there are several verses saying Jesus needed the Holy Spirit to be able to succeed
in His ministry (esp. to perform miracles), e.g. Luke 4:18, Luke 5:17, Hebrews 10:38.
These verses certainly seem to stand against Jesus being “fully Godâ€.
However, Jesus had to depend on the Holy Spirit because:
The function of the Holy Spirit is to be the Work-Horse.
God the Father never performs any miracles.
God the Son never performs any miracles.
God the Holy Spirit is the only One who performs miracles.
The Father and the Son have different functions.

Jesus was “fully manâ€
Since Jesus was “fully Godâ€, He could NOT possibly have had a sin nature.
Romans 8:3 indicates that Jesus looked like a normal (sinful) person:
“For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh,
God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin:
He condemned sin in the flesh …†(Romans 8:3).
Many commentaries affirm that this verse is NOT saying that Jesus had a sin nature.
Jesus had NO sin nature because of the Immaculate Conception and the virgin birth.
The Holy Spirit miraculously performed the function of being Jesus’ Father
(Matthew 1:20-25, Luke 1:26-35).

But, one question remains
“How can Jesus be considered “fully manâ€, if He did not have man’s sin nature?

 

[Drew]

The question of the nature of Jesus has produced many opinions. The nature of Jesus Christ is hard to understand because there is no clear teaching on the subject in the Bible.

I would agree that there is no terse, localized, unambiguous "statement" about Jesus' nature. However, I suggest that when looks at the Bible in "right" way - as being a narrative, a story ,and not an abstract set of doctrinal assertions - one can indeed get a clear picture that Jesus believed Himself to the embodiment of Israel's God.

I will not get into the details in this post, but I suggest that Jesus did things and said things which, to the person literate in the Old Testament, would have clearly sent the message "I, Jesus, am doing things that God Himself promised to do"

This effectively makes Him the incarnation of Israel's God. I can expand on this in grisly detail if you (or others) want me to.

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

I agree with your suggestion.

FC

 

[Eventide]

You think I am denying that He bore our sins, but I am not saying this at all. I am saying that the nature of the atonement was not one of "forensic substitution". Let me try to explain.

One can imagine that God has this "rule" whereby "somebody has to be punished" in order for sin to dealt with, and that Jesus was punished on the cross. This is, I suggest, a very common view, even though I think it is not Biblically correct. It is a way of seeing the cross in terms of categories of punishment and some universal "rule" of justice that requires that some person has to be specifically punished in order to deal with sin.

I think a better model is that of a "cleansing" operation. We humans are "contaminated" by our sins and that contamination needs to be "cleaned" if we are to be "saved". Jesus then serves as the "place" where all our contaminations gets "dumped".

Do you see the difference?

Drew,

No, sorry, not following what you're saying here.

Remember the story in the OT book of Lev where there were two goats, one was a scapegoat and the other goat was made a sin offering.. and Aaron confessed all the sins of the people of Israel and it says that they were placed upon the Head of the goat... (Lev 16)

What's that mean to you ? Does it sound like some cleaning was going on or that an innocent animal sacrifice was substituted and bore the sin of the people ? ?

 

[John Zain]

I will not get into the details in this post, but I suggest that Jesus did things and said things which,
to the person literate in the Old Testament, would have clearly sent the message
"I, Jesus, am doing things that God Himself promised to do"
This effectively makes Him the incarnation of Israel's God.
I can expand on this in grisly detail if you (or others) want me to.

How this for a grisly detail?
80+ verses reveal, teach, etc. that Jesus ...
is God, is equal to Father God, is the Creator, is the Sustainer, is the Giver of eternal life.

I can list the references, if anyone would like them.