Posted on 12/23/2015 7:24:38 AM PST by Salvation
Not really. Other than how conception itself occurred, there is nothing other than imaginative speculation that all the rest did not proceed along just as most any other fertilized human embryo --- when after fertilization then implanting upon uterine wall, etc., going on from there as nature generally would have things to be.
In His human, bodily flesh Jesus was fully human, wasn't He?
If Jesus was not born in the usual way (other than the manner of conception itself) then how would he then have been considered fully human?
He also otherwise is regarded as fully God because of who the actual Father of the one we speak of as Jesus Christ was (and is).
Yet in his physical body itself, when that alone is considered he was every bit a man as are generally others. In that He fully qualifies to take our place, the place we all deserve-- which is to pay penalty of death for our own sins, yet Himself as perfect Lamb of the first year without spot or blemish as foreshadowed in Abraham being directed by God to offer his own son Isaac, the ram being provided as substitute, then followed again (in confirmation & preshadowing both) the first Passover in Egypt --- all who had not ate of the sacrifice of lamb (or kid of the goats, look it up!) as directed by Moses having their firstborn slain.
Or else --- Paul was mistaken when he wrote that Christ had condemned sin in the flesh -- which is indeed quite interesting in light of Himself having taken the curse we are all due as just payment for our works --- upon Himself bodily, physically.
He then rose from the grave bodily and physically. It was no mere spectre, no special case in regards to His fleshly being itself, other than that flesh coming back to life, to walk and talk, even eat and drink in the sight of many.
Isn't what I'm saying entirely elementary of the Christian faith? How then must it, even how then could it be considered, that other than the manner of conception, the ensuing pregnancy and then birth were not according to the usual human way?
I know too much of the history of how those things came about, and the subtle things of theology.
It appears to me that Arius was struggling against conflating the persons, but then perhaps went a little too far in his own reasoning. Others later, identified with that man's name, went even further with their own speculations.
That said, as many historians have noted, it can be difficult to determine exactly what he thought about things. Arius's own words -- when those can be isolated-- can be in conflict with themselves. At the same time, much of the record remaining comes from his accusers. I can show you other places where people were falsely accused within the Christian Church (accused falsely by those whom were pressing for some other theological doctrine/dogmatic).
It doesn't provide me all that much assurance that the false accusers (who at times ended up winning the debate, being able to convince whomever was "in authority' at some particular juncture) were so entirely 'led of the spirit' instead of being led just as much (or more) by their own thinking, pride, and prejudices. And so one must continually turn back to the texts rather than rely foremost upon those who claim to be sole interpreters whom all must obey.
The 'sainted' Athanasius also, among other considerations, was not above engaging in a bit of sophistry in the course of his own struggle to make the point of there being one essence to the three 'persons' of the Trinity. Even calling them all 'persons' tends towards introducing difficulty. The Holy Spirit is not a person comparable to human beings for reason of having no "body" to speak of. But what other, better way to explain it all?
It does still, on one hand, leave something to be desired even as the adoption of the language brought about some needed clarification. That word "substance"? Does the Holy Spirit have physical substance? No, not really, yet Jesus Christ did just as we do.
Is God the Father a physical substance? We don't tend towards conceptualizing His Being as physical now do we?
Jesus Himself said that God was a Spirit.
So no, we don't think so. So the word substance was being used somewhat conceptually/philosophically while people could have been struggling with literal meaning of the word and thus arguing the points of difference from that perspective, which is one that should not be lost.
I can see how people struggled with the wording. Also, Athanasius's supporters were persecuting (even unto death) Arius' supporters before the Council proceeding even began. Athanasius wrote in support & justification of such goings on (the first time in the history of the Church there was widespread violence over what was most chiefly theological consideration). When Athanasius later became the hunted --- then he saw that it wasn't such a good thing to do after all.
Yet the concept that all three 'persons', the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are God has plentiful enough scriptural support --- although Jesus Himself is still not accepted by many who otherwise voice no objection to there being (conceptually speaking); God the Father, the Creator of Heaven and earth, and the Holy Spirit which is something of His own voice which He sends unto men upon those occasions when He seeks to speak with and even (as in the instance of King David and others) dwell with man, this understood too to include (along with the Spirit dwelling with the Ark of the Covenant) be within or at least upon a person, such as Elijah -- as it is written.
Now how the Spirit of the Lord brought about the conception with Mary -- I do not know for any certainty, yet what is written concerning Jesus does come across to me as if there was within Mary a normal human ovum which was in some way miraculously fertilized. How else could "seed of the woman" from Genesis 3 make sense? We must carry all the Holy Writ forward, bringing the entirety of it. Traditions can be an aid, but can be misleading also when those traditions are then leaned upon for inception & support for yet more doctrine. When the net results conflict with Scripture AND earlier Church traditions both -- then there are problems. I've pointed out more than just a few of those over the years here.
When elements are introduced which bring slight changes...then grow into yet larger changes, such as praying to directly to departed saints for those saints own personal intercession from heavenly places, rather than pray about them in memorial --- that's one of those slight changes which grew to become quite significant change from Tanakh.
The only places were there is support is from within those writings which more than a few early church fathers viewed not as scripture on par with the remainder of Holy Writ, but more merely "ecclesiastical writings" profitable for reading within churches, but not for basing doctrines upon which otherwise have no textual support to speak of, and on the other hand have thematic rebuttal to an imagined 'doctrine' within the remainder of the texts (the actual Tanakh & New Testament, not that plus what Jerome himself referred to as [O.T.] Apocrypha).
So good try there sweety. Merry Christmas. Thanks. But portions of the rest? I'm still not buying the "other Gospel" portions that RCC theologians have dreamed up over the centuries. I have to add that unhappy note because of the perpetual sales pitches.
Jesus was (and is) as it is written. That's enough, for me. I'll believe on Him, not believe on Him + something(s) else.
So yes, Glorify Him. Not Him + something else...
May God bless you abundantly,my dear delchiante.
God bless you, BlueDragon. Glorify Him!
And may He keep your cup overflowing!
Bless you more!
“In His human, bodily flesh Jesus was fully human, wasn’t He?”
Was Jesus a human person?
Are you?
“Are you?”
You wanted to talk about Mary and Jesus so I am asking a question about Jesus. There’s really no point in asking a question about me if the topic is strictly about Mary and Jesus. So, again, I ask:
Was Jesus a human person?
“I’m not going to play your game, vladi.”
It’s not a game. It’s a serious question. I understand you might not be able to answer it.
“You can go back and deal with what I first wrote to you, or not.”
Not. Because what you wrote is inadequate. My question is in reference to that inadequacy.
“The answer was already provided there.”
No, it isn’t. That’s why I am asking.
“Figure it out.”
No. I ask because the answer determines something.
Thank you and Merry Christmas to you too...
How do you not know???
Act_7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
Rom_3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
We non Catholics have the same OT scriptures that were given to God's chosen people...And Jesus referenced these scriptures in the book of Luke...They are verified by the Bible itself...
But then the Tradition got lost...Your religion has been asked for Centuries to provide just one of Paul's oral Sacred Traditions passed on outside of the scriptures and for 1500 years your religion has failed to come up with even one of them...
And we know the Traditions that your religion came up with are not 'those' traditions since the Catholic traditions contradict the written scriptures in so many places that Paul did pass on to us...
1Jn_5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
There it is right there...
We can know we have eternal life just by the things John has written...Nothing outside the scriptures is required...It's all there in the book...
Merry Christmas Mrs. Don-O and Mr. Don-O as well...
“You answered no questions, yet demand answers.”
Because what I asked was pertinent to what you asked. I understand if you can’t answer my question. There’s no shame in that.
“Go back and deal with your own inadequacies.”
Whatever inadequacies I may have have nothing to do with posting about the topic at hand.
“Was Jesus fully human — Or not. How about you answer the question. I already did.”
Again, I asked my question because of your question. How you answer it would determine something. Hence, it was asked.
“Or take your games and go play them in the middle of a freeway.”
You posted to me first. I responded with a simple question. If you can’t answer it, that’s fine.
“I’m done with you.”
You posted to me first. Why would you post to me in the first place if you were going to take your ball and go home after I asked you one simple question?
“Go ahead, have the last nasty dig (and empty rhetoric, argument by way empty, less than logical assertion.”
You posted to me. I asked a simple question. You now declare, “I’m done with you.”
Have a Merry Christmas. I know I will. :)
"Watch out for those Bereans"Absurd that you got that from my post.Mrs. Don'O is not a theological wackadoodle, if that's what you thought I meant.
You posted:
When was FR overrun by theological wackadoodles?Is that what you think of non Catholics? Is that your way of debating? With foolishness?
You've put up some great posts on this thread, but you might as well have been talking to a heap of bricks for all the effect they seem to have had.
I was trying to show you that studying the Bible to see that posts to you are valid and Biblical, with my post "Watch out for those Bereans..."
Your seemingly hate for non-Catholics and the typical condescending attitude towards "separated brethren" is duly noted.
Happens all the time when Berean/Biblical/Christian principles are offered to Catholics.
Born Again Christians will not capitulate to Rome.
It's your brick wall, own it.
Ask the Holy Spirit to open your eyes to the Truth.
Mrs. Don-o I only pinged you because you were mentioned by dsc and I quoted him.
I think that confuses them.
I don’t think so.
I think it merely renders as unnecessary the vast majority of what they cling to for salvation.
It’s a bitter pill to swallow and a blow to the ego to have to admit that they’ve been wrong all these years about what they’ve been taught and what they believe.
Sadly, some would rather die in their sins than swallow their pride and admit that those despised *heretics* were right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.