If God and Mary somehow "begat" Jesus, then how can Jesus be "fully human"?

[Sola_Fide]

Nobody is suggesting anything about God having to obey laws that he gives to humans. We were talking about the "law" which you invoked as the reason why God can't just forgive people. What is this law? Why does God need to abide by it? Who created the law that God can't just forgive people? If God is omnipotent then you cannot claim that he is unable to forgive people without requiring sacrifices - and specifically, a "sacrifice" of himself that ended up with him not even staying dead.

God created the law that says He doesn't "just forgive" people. There must be an atonement, or a payment, for sin.

Why? Because God is just, and He is the judge of everything.

[Crashland]

God created the law that says He doesn't "just forgive" people. There must be an atonement, or a payment, for sin.

Why? Because God is just, and He is the judge of everything.

Just curious - what was the payment for sin again? God killing himself for a few days and then undoing it so he still lives forever in paradise anyway?

[Sola_Fide]

Just curious - what was the payment for sin again? God killing himself for a few days and then undoing it so he still lives forever in paradise anyway?

The payment for sin was the perfect life of Jesus, which was imputed to believers on their behalf. Sin required a fulfillment of the law, which Jesus did on behalf of the elect.

No offense, but why do you care? You've already lost the race. This stuff shouldn't matter to you.

[heavenlyboy34]

Just curious - what was the payment for sin again? God killing himself for a few days and then undoing it so he still lives forever in paradise anyway?

What you need to understand about this is that Sola is describing "Limited atonement". It's a Reformation doctrine that basically says Christ's sacrifice on the cross was an atonement for The Elect. How do we know who The Elect is? The doctrine of Unconditional Election. I could get tangled up in the legalism of Reformationism all night (and probably accidentally offend people), so I'll stop there. This is it in a nutshell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvini...s_of_Calvinism

[Sola_Fide]

What you need to understand about this is that Sola is describing "Limited atonement". It's a Reformation doctrine that basically says Christ's sacrifice on the cross was an atonement for The Elect. How do we know who The Elect is? The doctrine of Unconditional Election. I could get tangled up in the legalism of Reformationism all night (and probably accidentally offend people), so I'll stop there. This is it in a nutshell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvini...s_of_Calvinism

You don't believe that the Bible teaches substitutionary atonement? Are you kidding me?

[PierzStyx]

Well God begat Adam. Was Adam fully human?

This answer is easy-No. I would not call an immortal, eternal, perfect being human. Adam may not have been a demigod, but he did not become human until after the Fall.

[PierzStyx]

But that's how God's righteousness is satisfied. I didn't make the rules.

Here is a question: Did God?

Follow ups: Did He make rules by which He was bound to sacrifice His Son in such a brutal way? If He didn't make the rules, why would He choose the route He did? If He didn't, then where did the rules comes from and is God omnipotent if bound by them?

[PierzStyx]

Whatcha think?

I think I find no reason to be bound by an extra-scriptural, extra-biblical, Neo-Platonic creed. I do not understand why people hold to creeds that contradict what they believe to be revelation from God. Jesus was the literal Son of God and the literal Son of Man. He was mortality combined with immortal power.

[Ronin Truth]

God created the law that says He doesn't "just forgive" people. There must be an atonement, or a payment, for sin.

Why? Because God is just, and He is the judge of everything.

Does GOD take Mastercard? (Ooops sorry, old RCC pre-reformation flashback.)

[Ronin Truth]

You don't believe that the Bible teaches substitutionary atonement? Are you kidding me?

What Bible books, chapters, and verses, talk about "substitutionary atonement"?

Not kidding you.

[Ronin Truth]

I think I find no reason to be bound by an extra-scriptural, extra-biblical, Neo-Platonic creed. I do not understand why people hold to creeds that contradict what they believe to be revelation from God. Jesus was the literal Son of God and the literal Son of Man. He was mortality combined with immortal power.

I see, just "fully human" like all of the rest of us.

Thanks for playing.

[erowe1]

This is something the Nestorians argued in the fourth and fifth centuries, whereby they refused to proclaim the Virgin Mary to be Theotokos, but simply called her Christotokos, or Birther of Christ. However, the orthodox belief is that she is the Birther of God. Not, of course, that she is the Mother of God the Father or the primal source and cause of Christ's divinity, but rather, that she is the birther and mother of God the Son Who is the Person of Jesus Christ.

The confusion of the Nestorians is because they regarded Christ into essentially two hypostases and indeed two persons, a divine person and a human person. However, the orthodox teaching as proclaimed by the Church is that Christ is one hypostases and one person. The human flesh of Jesus Christ was given by the pure Virgin, (that is, her own flesh is the source of His humanity, which is a belief both of the orthodox and the Nestorians and indeed anyone who claims to be a Christian), but as Christ is One Person, she too is the Mother of the Son of God, whose perfect union of divinity and humanity was manifest by both the flesh of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit which filled her at the Annunciation when she humbly submitted to the will of God, and in effect, reversed the curse of Eve.

Thus, to say that Mary had nothing to do with God the Son being God the Son is inaccurate. Of course, all things originate from God, but to dismiss the fact that it was in her pure and sanctified womb which He received flesh and life and say she had nothing to do with His incarnation as Theanthropos and Son of God, goes against important incarnational truths and apostolic teachings which have been handed down and defended through the ages.

Are you saying that you disagree with what you quoted?

I'm sure that Nestorians did believe that Mary had nothing to do with God the Son being God the Son. Everyone who affirmed the Definition of Chalcedon also believed that Mary had nothing to do with God the Son being God the Son.

[Ronin Truth]

Here is a question: Did God?

Follow ups: Did He make rules by which He was bound to sacrifice His Son in such a brutal way? If He didn't make the rules, why would He choose the route He did? If He didn't, then where did the rules comes from and is God omnipotent if bound by them?

Follow Follow up: How about, came from his choice to give Satan complete authority, power and control over the Earth, only because he really really loves us, of course? (Reference: John 3:16, etc.)

[Ronin Truth]

The Greek text says monogenes huios which means "one and only son" or "unique son". "Begotten" is not in the text. If you were a student of the Bible, you would know this...but you aren't.

I don't do Greek. So, are you saying that all of the Bibles in English are just crap? Any other bum Bible languages?

Satanic plot? Any contradictions?

Nor did I EVER claim to be. Did I just miss the Bible scholar requirements for all of us non-"Christians"?

[pcosmar]

Well God begat Adam. Was Adam fully human?

That was my first thought. without the question.

[Ronin Truth]

That was my first thought. without the question.

Doesn't "begatting" suggest, imply and require at least two parties?

[erowe1]

I don't do Greek. So, are you saying that all of the Bibles in English are just crap?

First of all, not all English Bibles say "begotten" there. Obviously you didn't bother checking before making your declaration. So here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%203:16

Second of all, the ones that do aren't crap, because there is a history behind that translation and the Christian use of the word "begotten" to describe the eternal relationship between God the Son and God the Father.

[erowe1]

Doesn't "begatting" suggest, imply and require at least two parties?

Yes, a father and a son.

[Ronin Truth]

Yes, a father and a son.

Cloning?

I was somehow getting a different mental image of "begatting".

[Sola_Fide]

Doesn't "begatting" suggest, imply and require at least two parties?

Yes, and it is a term of relationship. There was not a point in time when the Second Person came into existence. He has always been God. The terms Father and Son are not temporal terms, as if one came before the other. They are relational terms.

[Ronin Truth]

First of all, not all English Bibles say "begotten" there. Obviously you didn't bother checking before making your declaration. So here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%203:16

Second of all, the ones that do aren't crap, because there is a history behind that translation and the Christian use of the word "begotten" to describe the eternal relationship between God the Son and God the Father.

Of what declaration, do you speak?

All of mine do.

Aside from "I don't do Greek.", I see no declarations, just questions, even in the post parts you chose, for whatever reasons (LOL!), not to even bother to quote.

1:10 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be mighty upon the earth.

1:11 And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, 1:12 And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (of whom came the Philistines,) and Caphthorim.

1:13 And Canaan begat Zidon his firstborn, and Heth, 1:14 The Jebusite also, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite, 1:15 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, 1:16 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite.

1:17 The sons of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech.

1:18 And Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber.

1:19 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name was Joktan.

1:20 And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah, 1:21 Hadoram also, and Uzal, and Diklah, 1:22 And Ebal, and Abimael, and Sheba, 1:23 And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan.

(King James Bible, 1 Chronicles)

[erowe1]

I was somehow getting a different mental image of "begatting".

Yes. That was your problem. You made up some definition on your own, and then imposed it on John 3:16, and then tried to ask Christians to explain your own nonsense back to you.

[erowe1]

Of what declaration, do you speak?

Your declaration about "all [that's your word] the Bibles in English."

[Ronin Truth]

Your declaration about "all [that's your word] the Bibles in English."

Did you see that little '?' mark terminating those sentences? Do you understand what they mean? Declarations usually end with '.'. Comprende?

[Sola_Fide]

Did you see that little '?' mark terminating those sentences? Do you understand what they mean? Declarations usually end with '.'. Comprende?

To say "I don't do Greek" is to admit that you are not a serious student of the Bible.

[erowe1]

Did you see that little '?' mark terminating those sentences? Do you understand what they mean? Declarations usually end with '.'. Comprende?

Yes. Apparently you don't.

You asked if he was saying that all English versions were crap. The premise of the question is that all English versions say "begotten" in John 3:16. That premise is false, which you would have known had you bothered checking.

[Eagles' Wings]

Yes. That was your problem. You made up some definition on your own, and then imposed it on John 3:16, and then tried to ask Christians to explain your own nonsense back to you.

There are at least a couple of fine topics that could be fleshed out from this thread. Perhaps the huge topic of Christology....I know I have much to learn from you and others who have studied Scripture for years.

[Ronin Truth]

To say "I don't do Greek" is to admit that you are not a serious student of the Bible.

So frickin' what?

[erowe1]

For those who do Greek, here is a definition for the word translated "only begotten" in many English versions of John 3:16, from the standard lexicon of ancient Greek.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...3Dmonogenh%2Fs

μονο-γενής , ές, Ep. and Ion. μουνο- , (γένος)
A.the only member of a kin or kind: hence, generally, only, single, “παῖς” Hes.Op.376, Hdt.7.221, cf. Ev.Jo.1.14, Ant.Lib.32.1; of Hecate, Hes. Th.426.
2. unique, of τὸ ὄν, Parm. 8.4; “εἷς ὅδε μ. οὐρανὸς γεγονώς” Pl.Ti.31b, cf. Procl.Inst.22; “θεὸς ὁ μ.” Sammelb.4324.15.
3. μ. αἷμα one and the same blood, dub. l. in E. Hel.1685.
4. Gramm., having one form for all genders, A.D.Adv. 145.18.
5. name of the foot___^, Heph.3.3.
II. Adv. -νῶς, φέρεται μ. ἐν ἑνὶ τόπῳ grows only in one place, Peripl.M.Rubr.56, cf. 11.
2. in a unique manner, Aët. 15.13,14.

[erowe1]

..